Political Science Job Rumors

TT or not TT, VAP is the question.

Political Science Job Rumors » General Job Market Discussion

1. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   One of the benefits of working as an academic is that we work in a profession that is considered to be a meritocracy. That is, advancement (tenure) is based on merit and not other considerations. In your opinion how much of advancement to tenure is based less on merit than on knowing the correct people and being seen as friendly to their work? How much do you think it varies by sub-field?

   To put it a little differently: if tenure decisions are based on publishing decisions, then to what extent are "blind" publishing decisions really judgments on the merit of the work?

   I know this has been discussed before on PJSR, but I wanted to ask the questions in terms not of a narrow decision on a particular article but in terms of advancement to tenure in general (decisions on the body of a young scholar's work).

   Posted 1 month ago #

2. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   There's a lot of merit in publishing shit that no one reads in shitty journals no one reads.

   Posted 1 month ago #

3. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   You're kidding, right?

   The review and publication process is a joke. If you really think any of it is "blind" I have some magic beans to sell you.

   Posted 1 month ago #

4. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Of course it is not a Meritocracy. Social networks, hot topics or theories, name schools, physical attractiveness, race and gender considerations (which can work for and against) make for systematic bias. Then add a very large element of chance (too many ways to name).

   Meritocracy 33%
   Bias 33%
   Chance 33%

   Posted 1 month ago #

5. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   ^This. But the world is not meritocratic, the only problem is people with ridiculous expectations that academia would be so.

   Posted 1 month ago #

6. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   academia is probably no more and no less meritocratic than most other professions

   Posted 1 month ago #

7. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   academia is probably no more and no less meritocratic than most other professions

   what about olympic sprinting?

   Posted 1 month ago #

8. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   One of the benefits of living in the US is that we live in a country that is considered to be just. That is, life is based on justice and not other considerations. In your opinion how much of life is based less on justice rather than injustice? How much do you think it varies by region?

   Posted 1 month ago #

9. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Meritocracy died due to the tyranny of majority who are incompetent and jealous. If you publish more than most of your idiot co-workers, don't think about getting tenure in your place. Your idiot co-workers would assert your APSR articles don't make sense because they're way over their head. Meritocracy died a long time ago, man.

   Posted 1 month ago #

10. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Let's be honest here. Maybe I've missed the many threads on this, but there's a massive path dependency function as well. Who here grew up in poverty? Who's at a top 5 program and had abusive parents? As many (or a repetivie few?) posters here note, "the cream" deserve their top spots because of their prior record on GREs and in undergrad. We all know standardized test scores and college placement have everything to do with socio-economic status. Not too many of us had to struggle to get here.

    And if you don't believe that you were admitted to your elite school at least in part on the basis of expected return on alumni contributions or parental donations, well, neither did my spouse until s/he started working development (the kind that matters in the real world) for one of the most expensive private universities out there. Stats and SPSS aren't the most important reason you are where you are - another program called WealthEngine is. (or something similar)

    Most of the self-congratulatory folks here ought to realize that they are bound by the same delusion that Governor Ann Richards ascribed to George HW Bush: "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple."

    Posted 1 month ago #

11. Otis Reem
    Member

    ^ Maybe you missed the threads, eh?

    THIS SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR.....!

    http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=19922

    Posted 1 month ago #

12. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    I can't wait for the flood of whiny privileged people posting stories about how hard they work and how THEY actually deserve their good fortune. The tsunami is gathering; once they shake off their hangovers the posts will start to flow.

    Posted 1 month ago #

13. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Of course academia is a meritocracy. Of course, denying it makes it easier to explain personal failures on the job market, etc.

    Posted 1 month ago #

14. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Generally underappreciated: how much aristocracy there is in our little meritocracy. By which I mean, there are a *lot* of children of academics around, and they have a leg up in all kinds of important and unacknowledged ways.

    Posted 1 month ago #

15. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    What is with the misanthropy on this blog (yes, colloquially it is called a jobs blog). There is a lot of research that shows those who think others are untrustworthy, and themselves untrustworthy. I have seen very closely over a dozen tenure decisions. Every one was decided strictly on merits. And maybe you work at some crazy department, but I can't believe that the dean would allow you to tenure people who are not at the level they are supposed to be at. Or, am wasting my time posting in reply to the rantings of frustrated nervous abs?

    Put another way, list the universities that regularly tenure people without having published at a decent level, respective of there ranking? I know of none...

    Posted 1 month ago #

16. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    It's kind of embarrassing that people who fancy themselves social scientists manage to remain naive and clueless enough to maintain a faith in a concept as silly and transparently ideological as 'meritocracy'. Sheesh.

    Posted 1 month ago #

17. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    After watching classmates and colleagues for 25 years, it seems that most people end up about where they belong. Some are certainly over-placed and others are certainly under-placed, but people who work well and hard for a long time tend to be rewarded. This is especially true for hard workers out 15+ years, who keep at it after most others have started to slack off. Of course 15-20 years is a long time to wait for meritocracy to be more important than other factors.

    Posted 1 month ago #

18. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^^^^ So? A lot of farmers are children of farmers. Or lawyers children of lawyers. Etc. Seems only natural to follow in the footsteps of your parents, and it gives you a comparative advantage. What's the problem?

    Posted 1 month ago #

19. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    And most of the people I know who grew up in academic families had parents in other disciplines. There are a few children of political scientists out there, but more children of humanities or hard sciences profs, I think.

    Posted 1 month ago #

20. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^noticed that same thing.

    Posted 1 month ago #

21. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Who are all of these highly favored children of political scientists? I know of only a handful of legacies. If they have had advantages, it's been in understanding earlier how to work hard and play the game.

    Posted 1 month ago #

22. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    what is a meritocracy?

    Posted 1 month ago #

23. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    "Who are all of these highly favored children of political scientists? I know of only a handful of legacies. If they have had advantages, it's been in understanding earlier how to work hard and play the game."

    I don't think "understanding earlier how to work hard" is a legacy, but understanding how to "play the game" definitely is and it's why even people whose parents are in other disciplines and are not benefiting from some old-boy polisci network still have a leg up. There are definitely things I wish I knew much earlier and many of these people did.

    I don't know that there is anything that can be done about it and its hardly unique to academia, but it exists.

    Posted 1 month ago #

24. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    These days if your parents were academics and you are an academic, you're experiencing downward mobility. Not sure what advantages you are talking about.

    Posted 1 month ago #

25. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    ^
    Wow what a non-sequiter! Whether being a prof is as good a job as it was 30 years ago is another question and has no bearing on whether being the child of an academic gives you an advantage in academia.

    Posted 1 month ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

BBPress Search