given how much theory-bashing there is on this board...
also-- does anyone know the inside story on her rise to provost & president?
Amy Gutmann, the theorist who disproves the rule?
(27 posts) (1 voice)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
what?
Posted 10 months ago # -
The university felt bad that she only has four toes
Posted 10 months ago # -
I heard she is not so knowledgeable about the works of Wittgenstein. So she must be a crook.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Good scholar in her field; was a great manager/fundraiser at PU.
Simple. No secret formula.But I dont understand the OP question: what 'rule' did she break?
Theorists do and ought to do THEORY....its in the word itself lol
Posted 10 months ago # -
I hear she loves terrorists though.
Posted 10 months ago # -
the rule(s) i was referring to was the idea that political theorists are (in different ways of saying the same thing) outside the mainstream, that the field is quant-dominated, that stats and regressions are the only way to get recognition for your work and move up the foodchain, etc.
Fanon, I guess I'm curious to hear more about how a pol theorist got in the position to be managing/asking for money in the first place...
--(op)
Posted 10 months ago # -
^ she is Jewish.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The traits that make for a good administrator in an academic setting have very little to do with the traits that make for a political scientist who is successful in the quantitative mainstream of the discipline. I'm unsure why you'd think those things would be particularly related. The "rule" of which you speak is incoherent and non-existent.
I've known of a few departments--at least one quite prominent one--where a theorist becomes chair largely because the quants and quals don't want one of the other in the position.
Posted 10 months ago # -
^ fair point to your first two sentences.
However, I disagree that the rule is 'incoherent and non-existent'. At least in the beliefs of many, as espoused on this very board, there are deservedly fewer jobs for political theorists, supposed lack of rigor in the subfield, and so on.
I don't want to debate that here but it seems reasonable to think that this would play out on an administrative level, i.e. mainstream STATA monkeys running depts and some even running divisions or universities.
(op)
Posted 10 months ago # -
When you are a full professor at Princeton, have good networks through Harvard, Columbia and NYC, and you are good at organizing/managing/networking, it isn't that hard to start fundraising. She built the Center for Human Values and went on from there. She did a great job. Not sure how she's doing at Penn but Im sure its going well.
The point is that being a theorist makes no difference at all to anything. The anti-theory stupid rants on here are just by teen-headed grad students who have too much time on their hands. Fonna Forman and Gerry Mackie are doing great practical global justice stuff at UCSD, Josh Cohen is based at Apple this year, Sandel is on Charlie Rose all the time, Honig does practical legal work, etc etc. I don't see how theory is 'irrelevant' or marginal or useless.
Just let theorists do their thing, you focus on yours, and we just get along better. Stop silly rants.
Posted 10 months ago # -
^ Right. There are some anti-theory cranks in the discipline, but there's nowhere near as well represented as this board would make you think if you didn't know any better.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Also, I dont' do work along the lines of Gutmann, but her work is very good and she was also very supportive of grad students. Very nice and friendly.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Why do people write "STATA" rather than "Stata"?
Posted 10 months ago # -
OP's rule assumes the stereotype that theorists are all poor, underemployed, and generally less successful than quants, and then asking him/herself how this particular theorist gets to live in a kick **** mansion at an ivy league university.
Posted 10 months ago # -
It's an acronym
Schrodum
Testicle
And
Testicle
AgainPosted 10 months ago # -
^^lol
yea
look at theorists at UT for example...associates make 100k plus
silly grad students lolzPosted 10 months ago # -
It is mostly true though -- theorist do far worse than quants.
Posted 10 months ago # -
no evidence
whats the evidence for that
show me quant evidence at least lolPosted 10 months ago # -
I wrote both of those things, so I am right x2.
Posted 10 months ago # -
...and I wrote the childish stata acronym. That's winning^3.
Posted 10 months ago # -
huh
Posted 10 months ago # -
She got anal beads for Mother's Day.
Posted 10 months ago # -
it's definitely more lucrative to be a quant than to be someone who reads books and writes about them once every few years. That's why quants make more money.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Amy Gutmann is an outlier, but she doesn't disprove any rule. The theory market is always bad (what others have experienced the last few years is normal for theory), b/c many theory students are ridiculous romantics who don't get a clue early on and b/c theory profs, who are so moralistic and self-righteous, selfishly admit too many grad students. Yet a small number make it big. And theory is bigger at really elite depts where Amy G. has spent her career than at the numbers factories whose grad students populate this board. Not sure why she in particular is so successful. Being very smooth helps. There are a handful of very successful political theorists at leading schools. No reason to be surprised that they can become administrators either. This has nothing to do with academic specialization (the President of Harvard is a historian of the Civil War) and a lot to do with people skills and willingness to devote your career to a LOT of ****.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Maybe Amy Gutmann shouldn't get her picture taken with suicide bombers.
Posted 10 months ago # -
there are no rules, no broken rules, nada...shes just a poli sci person....you grad students can keep making up imaginary 'rules' about theorists and non-theorists.
Posted 10 months ago #