^Or a Cornell Book? What are you talking about? It's a top 10 press. And probably top 3 in IR/Security. But that's already been discussed here. http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=47391
TAMU IR
(116 posts) (2 voices)-
Posted 2 months ago #
-
I dont know either person, but I heard that TAMU is a dept where you are told that you MUST have "top 3 Journals" (ie APSR, AJPS, JOP) and/or top 5 Univ Press book/s (CUP, PUP, OUP, Chicago, YUP) to get tenure.
The UCLA PhD guy does have 1 APSR (and single authored); the Georgia PhD guy does not have either top J or top UP; and mostly has co-authored stuff.Double standards.
Posted 2 months ago # -
^^again: Cornell and Stanford are not consensus TOP 5 UP according to TAMU criteria.
(ie across all subfields).
TAMU poli sci top UP are CUP, OUP, PUP, Chicago, YUP.Posted 2 months ago # -
Put another way: imagine a Comparative Politics person working on say Japanese politics that had a Cornell book. No way she'd be tenured at A&M. Not top 5 UP.
Posted 2 months ago # -
And Stanford is even more low-ranked as a UP than Cornell, overall across all subfields.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Simple question: does A&M send a clear signal that Assistant profs must have Big 3 articles and/or Big 5 UP books?
Posted 2 months ago # -
It's so clear we are talking about it here. It's very clear. Very well known. TAMU led this debate many many moons ago.
Posted 2 months ago # -
But if TAMU faculty are publishing there it kind of devalues the quality of those publications. We need a new ranking system for the big journals: pre-TAMU and post-TAMU
Posted 2 months ago # -
Who are the top IR senior scholars at TAMU? Does the Bush School count?
Posted 2 months ago # -
He's not a top IR scholar, but Geva is a great guy. Awesome stories about being an Israeli commando. Michale Koch is also a really nice guy and gave me some mentorship at ISA before. Can't speak to the rest of the IR faculty.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Koch just got tenure. So use that as your metric for what it takes to get tenure there.
Posted 2 months ago # -
I've talked to a lot of TAMU people and former people; their message is clear: "No big 3 Journals and/or big 5 UP, no tenure."
ie, you're told 10000 times to publish in "APSR, AJPS, JOP" and/or book/s from "CUP, OUP, PUP, YUP, Chicago."Of course, whenever they feel like it, they ignore those hard and fast criteria and tenure some dude they like.
Posted 2 months ago # -
By the above criteria ("top 3 J/ top 5 UP"), the UCLA guy should not have received such a bad treatment vis a vis the Georgia guy from what I hear. Ahhhh the pleasures of white maleness!
Posted 2 months ago # -
^^^Whats that supposed to mean? re Koch
Posted 2 months ago # -
^^ You mean, ahh...the pleasures of publishing in AJPS and IO, publishing a book and a dozen other articles? Yeah, I'd say that's better than one APSR and nothing else. Has nothing to do with race.
Posted 2 months ago # -
He's also in an entirely different field of public administration.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Is this rocket science?
Where is "IO" in "APSR, AJPS, JOP"?
Where is "Cornell" or "Stanford" in "CUP, OUP, PUP, YUP, Chi.UP"?
the co-authored AJPS piece is great though.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Newbie here...is it true A&M has a strict expectation of "top 3 J/ top 5 UP"? yes or no
Posted 2 months ago # -
Surprised no one is mentioning Whitten and his babe.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Those publishing outlets seem unduly restrictive, but I guess that's what happens when a narrow view of research drives an academic institution. First, research drives out teaching. Then certain styles of research drive out other (arguably better) approaches. Then restrictions on certain acceptable publishing venues drive out other (arguably better) venues. Then you are left with a few narrow research drones. But a top ranked department. The world is upside down
Posted 2 months ago # -
yes...but TAMU does have a nearly formal expectation of "top 3 J, top 5 UP" for tenure.
Either be consistent, or change the rules of the game.Posted 2 months ago # -
the funny thing is that by acting all 'tough', the TAMU senior faculty are actually hurting the dept. They are tenuring sub-par people that they have somehow convinced themselves are brilliant, and they are driving good people away.
They'll be ranked 30 in 2-3 yrs.Posted 2 months ago # -
TAMU top ranked?
think again. it is ranked 24th now, and probably 30 in a few yrs.
it is not even top 20.Posted 2 months ago # -
What does Whitten and CL have to do? solid records.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Isn't Whitten all co-authored?
Posted 2 months ago # -
I am not sure; the question is does he have "Big 3/Big 5"?
Posted 2 months ago # -
They are following the norms set by other institutions. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Posted 2 months ago # -
Wait wait wait....who the hell cares about TAMU? Seriously, who the hell cares about TAMU? Probably someone that didn't get a job at TAMU and is all bitter about it. Sorry, they didn't hire you Mr. or Mr.s Bitter. Better luck next time. Now lets get back to discussing Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia. Departments that matter.
Posted 2 months ago # -
The rules they put in place are stupid and will drive faculty away. If you say "publish in JoP, AJPS, or APSR, or you are out," you are massively harming the prospects for faculty who don't make that grade and have to leave. They will end up with weak CVs because they've focused only on this, to the detriment of producing other good work. And remember that publishing is such a crap-shoot that you could produce great work that doesn't land just because of the luck of the draw.
In short, a disgusting policy.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Well that's true, except that they bend the rules when they want to tenure someone, and they dont bend them when they want to kick someone out.
At least be consistent.
Either use "Big 3/5" rule, or DONT, for ALL cases.
Posted 2 months ago #