Put you cards on the table: who in her cohort do you think is BETTER than Mantena?
If Garsten got tenure at Yale having produced less than her, then why all these questions about her productivity?
Yale Theory
(680 posts) (2 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
The brown-woman factor is certainly tilting things in Mantena's favor.
But the fact is that Yale relaxed their tenure standards in promoting Garsten, and by the new standards, Mantena is certainly passable.
Still, Ochoa is probably not, and the jury is still out on Landemore and March. They have some years to go.
Who is in Mantena's "cohort" anyway? Frazier? Her work is way better than his.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I can't say whose work is better because I haven't read hers. From a bean-counting perspective, however, her record is not better than that of many theorists at 2nd and 3rd tier institutions.
Posted 5 months ago # -
^^^^
By discounting the IAS, you show that you really don't understand its prestige among Theorists.
Getting a top 4 press book, a top article, IAS, a top PhD, and a few other articles is as good as it gets.
What more do you want?!
The only person who has more is Danielle Allen, and she is already at IAS.
MacArthur Grant is probably the only additional thing you can do beyond those four things.
(whether you think Mantena's work is good or bad is irrelevant; being at Yale and IAS demonstrates that most of her peers do think so).Posted 5 months ago # -
^^ thats the problem: in Theory, we don't really bean-count.
2 books (1 from the dissertation and 1 more from a top press) plus 2-3 good articles is enough for tenure almost anywhere.
Throw in IAS, Radcliffe or CASBS and it is hard to deny tenure.Posted 5 months ago # -
To me, March's record is probably more impressive than Mantena's. I am sure he can get IAS soon if he wants since he is THE go-to guy for Islamic PT now. He has tons of stuff and is more original.
Frazer is sort of Mantena's cohort in a sense, but the scathing review of his book that just came out in Perspectives was right on the money. Never met either.Posted 5 months ago # -
When did March get to Yale?
1 OUP book, 2 APSR's, 1 PT, 1 ROP, etc....top record.(why don't they post cv's lol)
Posted 5 months ago # -
IAS is a non-factor in tenure decision at CHYMPS departments. ZERO. That's true for any fellowship, actually (except maybe a MacArthur).
Quality and quantity of books and articles is all that matter. And whether or not you're a major a**hole, of course.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Yale cares about productivity and the opinion of top people in the field. If the outside letters are strong, quantity need not be the main factor. Thus, outside fellowships can matter too if it shows that a person is well respected and sought after by others in the field. Mantena obviously fits that bill and that is why she is considered to be easily deserving of tenure.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I'm sure that the fellowship was nice, but the idea that it is a major reason for tenure is weird. If you wrote a good book while on the fellowship, that would be a reason. Let's not confuse ends and means.
I'm not saying this to criticize Mantena, whose work I have not read. But, just to point out that someone's obsession with this fellowship is not at all something that is shared in the discipline. I've never once heard anybody talk about it and I'm a theorist at a top 25 department.
In the end, we are hopefully judged on our work.
Posted 5 months ago # -
March will be an interesting case. His book is OK, but his best work is in journals, and he's very productive and getting placed in the best journals (not just APSRx2 but PPA,which, to be frank, considerably harder to publish in than APSR, especially for those trained in PS and and not philosophy). I think he deserves tenure, but he works on a pretty non-mainstream topic and he's article-oriented. Very interesting case.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Jesus, this is not a football game broadcasted for you to be entertained by seeing who will win or lose. Get a life of your own.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Are those mediocre theorists at second tier programs pumping up their IAS fellowships again? Pathetic.
Posted 5 months ago # -
hahaa jealous? :)
Posted 5 months ago # -
6^ up is right
IAS etc matter because they signal value.
No one said they make or break tenure at CHYMPS. It's a cherry on top.
It also gives of course time to work on a book, free of teaching, in a great location with great food and great intellectual environment free from aholes like ^^ :)Posted 5 months ago # -
Precisely because he is non-mainstream he should get tenure.
We've got too many little clones running around. His work is great and it is enough now for tenure. More impressive than Mantena, who rode the 'liberal imperialism' wave like Muthu, Pitts, etc for a while. More original.
What more than OUP, APSR's, JOPP, ROP, etc do you want????Posted 5 months ago # -
The only people who would knock down IAS are those who didn't get it and won't get it :)
they have no idea how great it is.Posted 5 months ago # -
By defintion, getting IAS makes you not mediocre. Everyone who got it then published a great book out of their year there. No need to 'pump it up'; either you got it or you don't. Make a list of the PT people who've gotten it in the last ten years. The top people in PT. Good luck on your Notre Dame Erasmus application next year though.(Yeah, I know, now youre gonna say how Walzer and Allen are mediocre and pathetic lol)
Posted 5 months ago # -
Both Mantena and March have superb records. Both ought to get tenure.
Yale and HU and Princeton should just ditch their old system and act normal and tenure excellent people.
Eric Nelson, Garsten, Macedo, etc are not breaking old paradigms but they do good work.
HYP should stop pretending they are way better than other top 10 programs in PT.Posted 5 months ago # -
Yale *has* ditched its old tenure system. This is why good people are getting tenure internally without the old requirement of a new outside search.
Posted 5 months ago # -
IAS is a terrific fellowship, sure, though like most Ivy and quasi-Ivy institutions its selection process is strongly biased by (or toward) pedigree. So the signal is a little hard to interpret. Then again as someone pointed out that's also true to some extent (though much less so) of the "top" presses. Anyway, it's hard to imagine a tenure case resting an an IAS fellowship, or such a thing being discussed at all except in passing -- as opposed to the quantity and quality of the published work, which would be discussed (one hopes) at length. I don't know or have an opinion about the work or prospects of the person under discussion -- or even think it's appropriate to be discussing her at all -- but thought I'd chime in on that substantive point.
Posted 5 months ago # -
17^ "Frazer is sort of Mantena's cohort in a sense, but the scathing review of his book that just came out in Perspectives was right on the money."
Wow, people really do just make stuff up out of thin air here. If one reads the review, it concludes, "The Enlightenment of Sympathy lays a promising foundation--and, we can hope, provides a catalyst--for more work in this area, perhaps by the author himself, perhaps by his readers." That's consistent with the overall tone of the review. Like most all book reviews, it points to small matters near the end that he might have done differently. But it is far from "scathing."
That people would make up negative things especially about untenured faculty members is cruel beyond belief. Seriously, what is wrong with you??? Look, I didn't get the Harvard job either, but that's no reason to spread lies about vulnerable people. Come on.
Posted 5 months ago # -
yea? read the rest of the review
lolPosted 5 months ago # -
cruel? anyone with a HU job is impervious to cruelty.
vulnerable ? lolPosted 5 months ago # -
I read the review too; while it ends with a charitable bit, it is littered with very negative comments.
Someone else can type them here im busy.Posted 5 months ago # -
One bit: it says it reads like a "survey." Nothing could be more damning.
Posted 5 months ago # -
More lies. The review notes, "the treatments of the various thinkers are all well done and well written," and concludes that it is a "much-welcomed contribution." Construct that as "scathing," if you can. I don't even know Frazer, but seriously, leave the guy alone. Write your own book and see if you can do better.
Posted 5 months ago # -
It's a very balanced, moderately positive review. Much closer to positive than scathing. It probably suggests that this book alone will not be enough to get tenure on, but that such a positive result for MF is not foreclosed.
Posted 5 months ago # -
March's record looks very strong. It has not only a top press book but a lot of articles many of which are in leading journals.
Mantena's looks much less strong. Despite IAS boosters, it is a signal not an output. Her outpust include the one books, very few journal articles, and only one of those in a top outlet.
Google scholar suggests neither has had much impact. Of course they are both still juniors so we might not expect many citations but there's still seem low for a tenure case at CHYMPS.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Mantena is also a 2004 Ph.D. A book and 2 or 3 refereed articles in 8 to 9 years is not especially productive.
Posted 5 months ago #