Either way, there's no way Way's job will go your way.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Political Science Job Rumors » General Job Market Discussion
[closed]
Canadian Politics Job Rumours
(831 posts)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
Internal hires are funny. Wish my alma mater would fire up an assist-your-own program.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Clearly, someone is still pissed about not making the U of T shortlist. Get over it. Cochrane wasn't just an internal hire, he was easily the best of the shortlist.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Agreed - and, he wasn't quite an internal candidate since he was doing a post-doc at Laurier
Posted 6 months ago # -
I have no clue who else was on the shortlist. But I know that the advertised area was broad and that there are a number of excellent candidates on the market. Given this, what people inevitably wonder is whether the department's familiarity with Cochrane helped them to make choices out of an enormous (and talented) number of applicants. It's why serious departments don't hire their own PhDs.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^Care to tell us what "serious" department you are in?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Someone clearly hasn't seen the cvs of all those short-listed for the job Cochrane got...
Posted 6 months ago # -
"I don't know anything about the wiki, but Saint Mary's DOES NOT have a shortlist finalized."
Maybe you haven't received your rejection letter yet, but I know someone on the short-list. All that said, I suppose they might conceivable add another name, but INTERVIEWS ARE BEING SCHEDULED.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Cochrane was the best of the three candidates interviewed. You can debate the shortlist, but that much is true.
Posted 6 months ago # -
It's hard to contest that. I was dumbfounded by the shortlist.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^Agreed.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Based on what? Of the other two candidates, one got a job at a solid department, and the other has sole-authored articles at three different quality journals, after completing their PhD in 4 years. You judge Cochrane as the "best" based on the one publication he has without his supervisor?
Posted 6 months ago # -
"Maybe you haven't received your rejection letter yet, but I know someone on the short-list. All that said, I suppose they might conceivable add another name, but INTERVIEWS ARE BEING SCHEDULED."
One of the faculty told me two days ago that they have a long list but that they are still finalizing the shortlist. They had to collect letters for all seven candidates, and the turnaround (1.5 weeks) would have been amazing. Still, your friend might have been fast-tracked onto the shortlist. But from what I know, that list is not yet complete.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^^ and ^^^ - regardless, U of T looks bad here. Sorry.
Posted 6 months ago # -
The UofT shortlist was weak all around.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Who would you put on it that is markedly better?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Many, many names.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Good answer.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Apparently the quality of the job talks differed greatly. Still, I'm in agreement with the poster who thought that the shortlist was very curious. Many excellent candidates out there now, and to hire their own PhD within such a context is scandalous.
Posted 6 months ago # -
UQAM is not a solid department.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^^ Put your money where your mouth is. Who was better?
Posted 6 months ago # -
^I am not ^^^ but I do think there were better candidates out there, including many who were on the longlist.
Posted 6 months ago # -
There is also the possibility that the strongest candidates were filtered out, and that Cochrane was intentionally put up against two weak competitors in order to deliver him the job. You will find examples of this mentioned all over the American board.
Yet another good reason not to hire your own PhDs.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Again, someone explain in precise terms how the other two short-listed are "weak."
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Agreed. I always love the bold declaratory statements by the brave anonymous posters on this site. Especially given the likelihood that most of the losers posting here couldn't even get short-listed, and thus resort to attacking those that do (and ESPECIALLY those that actually get hired) as weak or undeserving. And to top it all off, they can't even justify their statements.
Posted 6 months ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.