political science job rumors

Things may get weird. Trying to fix the problems.

1. anon
   Unregistered

   dear "senior theorist",

   u r not so smart.
   general claim: political theorists today mostly rehash (extend existing frameworks)
   evidence: Pettit took republicanism idea from Skinner
   your counter evidence: Skinner said that Pettit was a good dude in 1998**

   point still stands that Pettit is mostly an extension of Skinner's ORIGINAL ideas

   **obvious caveat to this statement of support is that Skinner has every self-interested reason to have a famous colleague join the house that *he* built. Academic thank yous are also not that sincere. I know of a dozen times whne people have thanked colleagues whose guts they hate and whose scholarship then think even less of.

   Posted 3 months ago #

2. anon
   Unregistered

   SKinner's republicanism thesis is different from PEttit's

   Posted 3 months ago #

3. anon
   Unregistered

   This thread needs to end.

   A week ago.

   Posted 3 months ago #

4. anon
   Unregistered

   ^^ I don't know why I'm engaging on this -- end of a long day so what else am I good for? -- but you have no idea what you're talking about. Read Skinner's early stuff on republicanism and the stuff after he starts collaborating with Pettit. It's not an extension, it's completely different, and Skinner says so himself. The passages that I quoted aren't from an acknowledgements section, they're in the body of the work where he's acknowledging a deep scholarly debt in the notes. As far as who built the house, analytical political philosophers basically had no interest in republicanism until Pettit came along and made something, well, analytical out of it. I have a lot of admiration for Skinner, but he can't take credit for that.

   I don't have anything to say about the general claim that "theorists rehash the ideas of others," since it's too vague to make any sense out of.

   Posted 3 months ago #

5. anon
   Unregistered

   "Bottom line is Mantena's record is very strong and is boosted by the IAS as a confirmation of her good work. That's all. There is no conspiracy or hidden agenda."

   My view: her record is strong compared to the average theorist but weak for someone coming up for tenure at HYP. She's 10 years out with 1 good book but very few articles and with a low citation count suggesting little impact.

   Posted 3 months ago #

6. anonymous
   Unregistered

   "her record is strong compared to the average theorist but weak for someone coming up for tenure at HYP. She's 10 years out with 1 good book but very few articles and with a low citation count."

   This was true of Garsten too. She'll get through.

   Posted 3 months ago #

7. anonymous
   Unregistered

   You can still read people's views of Honig and Schwartzberg on the closed link:

   http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=67447

   Posted 3 months ago #

8. anon
   Unregistered

   Going back to the original question of Mantena's chances of Yale tenure: As a recent PhD, what baffles me is that anyone would try to put down Mantena's IAS Fellowship. The question isn't who might be 'boosting' the IAS (as if it needed any boosting), but rather who are the possible people trying to dis it.

   Most likely advanced Assistants/new Associates at good places who applied and didn't get it.

   Ask anyone in History, Anthro, Econ, Sociology, etc. whether getting an IAS Fellowship has value. For most fields, it is huge. Try telling them it is unimportant and they'll laugh in your face.

   Mantena's work is not high in quantity but it is excellent and deserves the IAS, just as Markell's does. Not sure there is any higher honor for a PT person.

   Posted 3 months ago #

9. anon
   Unregistered

   Shut up, Diego. No one has "dissed" IAS. But no one's buying "highest honor" or "makes you tenurable.". You've been at this for weeks now. Just stop.

   Posted 3 months ago #

10. anon
    Unregistered

    Huh? I'm no Diego

    Posted 3 months ago #

11. anon
    Unregistered

    The test of this will be if Mantena gets tenure. She has a high quality, low quantity publication record. If she gets it, we know the tipping point was reached due to IAS. There would be no other explanation, buster. It's all good and logical.

    Posted 3 months ago #

12. anon
    Unregistered

    Anyway who cares!
    we're all good

    Posted 3 months ago #

13. anon
    Unregistered

    Looks like we need to go back to square one: Is Yale's PT program in good shape?

    Posted 3 months ago #

14. anonymous
    Unregistered

    "If [Mantena] gets it, we know the tipping point was reached due to IAS. There would be no other explanation, buster."

    Unfortunately, you IAS stint is never going to get you a job at a top 5 program. So suck it.

    Posted 3 months ago #

15. anon
    Unregistered

    "There would be no other explanation"

    And we wonder why the social scientists think we're morons.

    Posted 3 months ago #

16. anon
    Unregistered

    "but very few articles and with a low citation count suggesting little impact."

    good thing then that theorists don't just bean count. number of articles and citation count? That's R1-bean counting-positivism. We're better than that.

    Posted 3 months ago #

17. anon
    Unregistered

    Lolz jl

    Posted 3 months ago #

18. anonymous
    Unregistered

    >Looks like we need to go back to square one: Is Yale's PT program in good shape?

    Well, let's put it this way: tenuring Mantena is not going to make it Harvard, Chicago or Princeton.

    Posted 3 months ago #

19. anon
    Unregistered

    They look in good shape if they tenure Mantena, March, Ochoa, Landemore, no?

    Posted 3 months ago #

20. anon
    Unregistered

    The IAS v many-articles debate ignores what is often the most important independent variable in tenure decision: the existence of outside offers.

    Posted 3 months ago #

21. anonymous
    Unregistered

    >if they tenure Mantena, March, Ochoa, Landemore, no?

    Er, no.

    Mantena: yes, given Garsten's record.

    March: not yet, based on quality (though not quantity) of work

    Ochoa: no, based on quality and quantity

    Landemore: much too soon to say anything about quality or quantity.

    Posted 3 months ago #

22. anon
    Unregistered

    ^^Did Mantena have external offers?

    it is true that offers often decide tenure cases (eg Schwartzberg)

    Posted 2 months ago #

23. anonymous
    Unregistered

    >It is true that offers often decide tenure cases (eg Schwartzberg)

    no doubt.

    Posted 2 months ago #

24. anon
    Unregistered

    Of course external offers matter.

    Posted 2 months ago #

25. anon
    Unregistered

    Columbia looks bad in having granted MS tenure only after the external offers came. It means that their internal standards can be swayed by external opinions.

    Posted 2 months ago #

26. anon
    Unregistered

    bump

    Posted 2 months ago #

27. anonymous
    Unregistered

    The senior theorists do not get along at Columbia and so they needed an external signal to decide on MS.

    But now they're screwed because they'll never agree on a senior appointment.

    Posted 2 months ago #

28. anon
    Unregistered

    It's worse than that: they look like shite from outside.
    They look weak, effete and inconsequential.

    and old

    Posted 2 months ago #

29. anon
    Unregistered

    Is CASBS really good for PT? Macedo and Pettit were there last year.

    Posted 2 months ago #

30. anon
    Unregistered

    Phillip and Stephen say yes:
    http://casbs2011.bandcamp.com/track/bye-bye-casbs

    Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »