Rumors, discussions, and commentary related to jobs and fellowships in International Relations
First!Good luck all ye job hunters! May the spirit of Clausewitz bless you!
It looks like there are a lot of IR jobs posted on ejobs already. Were there this many jobs posted in mid-July of last year? Or is that normal for this time of year? How many of these searches do you think are serious (as opposed to schools putting out feelers but maybe not really dying to hire someone)?
It started up in July last year as well, maybe not quite this early. I think schools are embracing the same logic as states looking for early primaries and setting of some spiral dynamics.IN any case, yes these are real jobs, not feelers. Ads generally must be approved by hiring committees and those do not convene for "feelers".Of course this folly of having to apply a year in advance for a job mainly affects ABDs. How good did you look a year before your dis was done? This is just enforcing a near mandatory 1-year temporary gig on everyone who is not the hot commodity on the market. Every other discipline seems to have no problem starting their hiring cycle in January, but I guess Political Science is just special.
The political science job cycle starts early because our national meeting is so early. Economics and history, for example, have their national meetings in January and use them to do serious preliminary interviewing. Most departments are not ready to interview by Labor Day Weekend. That would require taking a serious look at the applications and generating a short list. This is very difficult to do in the summer, so the APSA meeting is not useful for much more than informally identifying a few promising candidates. Without any incentive to wait until January, the advantages of moving first to get commitments from the best candidates appears to be the dominant strategy.
MIT put up 2 IR ads today - one methods, one security studies. Princeton, Harvard, Northwestern, Middlebury, Cornell, Notre Dame, and Stanford also advertising; could be a good year to be looking for a job.
1:05- ... if you have an Ivy League pedigree and a big name advisor. The rest of us, pubs or not, would have to pray for a clerical error to get those jobs. Plus, Cornell's two offers were both rejected by the candidates according to this blog- makes it seem like something might be going on there.
We wouldn't read to much into Cornell's failure to hire last year. Two candidates with multiple offers and, our best guess, a preference not to live in Ithaca.
7:10-So, is there no point in going to graduate school if you're not in an Ivy League program?
7:10-I'm not sure your pessimism is entirely warranted. Yes, of course an Ivy League degree and a big name advisor gives you a step ahead. However, look at the market over the past year- one of the most hotly pursued hires was from Emory (with offers from Ivy League schools); Erik Gartzke, certainly no slouch, got his degree from Iowa.
>MIT put up 2 IR ads today - one >methods, one security studies. >Princeton, Harvard, Northwestern, >Middlebury, Cornell, Notre Dame, and >Stanford also advertising; could be >a good year to be looking for a job.Not to mention U Chicago (open to rank) and a policy-oriented job at Michigan's Ford School....
RE: 9:18"one of the most hotly pursued hires was from Emory (with offers from Ivy League schools)"If referring to TC from Emory, I don't think the latter half of the poster is correct. My understanding is a couple of interviews at Ivy schools, but no offers from any of them.
Keep it clean :-).
MIT's offer last year was also rejected in favor of GWU. I wouldn't read too much into rejection of an offer. Lots of factors including partner relocation play a role.
1:01- We'll just have to agree to disagree. I heard TC was made offers from Ivy League schools. In any event, the point is its not impossible to get a decent placement if you're not from an Ivy League school. I agree that it certainly helps, but its not the only factor.
Everyone has heard about Vanderbilt's meltdown over the past five years or so... Now, they seem to be on a major hiring kick to replace lost faculty and/or expand. Does anyone have solid (not friend of a friend) information on the current situation in that department?
Eurasia group is hiring dozens of folks!
Harvard picked up Muhammet Bas from Rochester -- certainly no Ivy League school.
so.... any inside info on any of these jobs?
Re: VanderbiltVanderbilt's troubles have long passed. Neal Nate took over as chair and completely turned the department around. Many of the faculty were hired in the last few years. JOP is edited there and Geer is doing a great job. They have lots of young, energetic faculty. It would be a great place to work, I think.(p.s. I'm not at Vanderbilt, nor do I have any close connections there, I swear)
Can we wrap the V. discussion now? It seems like we have a question, and legitimate answer, and any additional talk might degenerate.... Thanks.
So we can have ten posts on the Ivy League comment, but only one answer about Vanderbilt? It seems like a legitimate question about a job offering currently posted on APSA.How about filtering out unprofessional comments as they come in, rather than trying to end the discussion before it begins?I, for one, have heard things from someone in another department at Vanderbilt that suggest that problems there continue. However, I'm not sure that the information is reliable, and would like to hear from others who have better info.
Isn't this the fourth year in a row Lewis & Clark has posted the same China job, sometimes re-listing it midyear, sending emails to department chairs, etc? I have no stake -- not a China person -- just curious why a decent SLAC can't fill a resonably normal job. Not like they are looking for an expert on 19th century Paraguayan municipal governments.Are they being ridiculously picky? Their offers keep getting turned down by candidates? Anyone know what's up?
I had this in the Pre- and Post- Doctoral Fellowship thread, but I thought it might get more comments here...Questions from a newbie...How important is the ranking of your PhD-granting institution in terms of getting a really good post-doc? How much does it all depend on your connections/ who your supervisor knows?Does a really prestigious post-doc "cancel out" a not-so high-ranking PhD when it comes to the job market?
I've certainly seen people from programs outside of the top-10 and even top-20 at the big postdoc hubs. Needless to say, the large majority come from top programs. Whether this ratio is due to the personal connections of people at top programs or because top programs attract the large majority of top grad students is no doubt open to debate.Postdocs help. They provide research time, connections, and external validation/ credentialing. But they are only a small piece of the overall package. Plenty of people with great postdocs have trouble getting jobs. So control what you can now (publications, methods skills, completing the dissertation, etc), and don't start worrying about postdocs until Dec/Jan.
Post-Doc questions: answersI. importantII. VeryIII. SometimesI would say that who your advisor "knows" is most important (such as Levy at Rutgers: He is the president of ISA and a "top" IR scholar but not at a "top" 25-30 school). You could be Joe Average at Harvard and get a small lib-arts gig because of your Harvard PhD, but it's better to have "well-connected" advisors (this assumes that they like you and think you have the right stuff). All in all, write a kick-ass dis... and try to publish while in grad school. Good luck!
is it my imagination or does it look like the market isn't as wide ranging as last year? the posted jobs largely seem to either be from top universities or low-ranked universities. there are not many middle to upper-middle ranking universities like wisc-madison, BU, tufts, purdue, texas-austin etc hiring. or is it too early to tell?
Penn is going to have another IR search this year. I think they are trying to make a major move.
(1) It's still early. It's not even August yet. Too early to tell what the market is going to look like.(2) I have no dog in the fight, but it seems to me that Penn is treading water. Hire Daryl Press. Lose Daryl Press. Hire Andy Kydd. Lose Andy Kydd. They got Horowitz last year, but the "major move" has been rumored for years.
Previous poster raised a point I've been wondering about (am not trying to diss Penn in any way- I have no affiliation with them one way or the other)- what is going on there? Why did Press and Kydd stay there for only a year or so and then leave?
It sounds like Penn was unwilling to accommodate the spousal issues of their recent hires. I don't want to get into a discussion of the particulars of either case. My question is this: does Penn have a policy preventing this kind of accommodation across the board? Apparently, the people involved received such an accommodation elsewhere. (If not, why leave?)
I happen to know the particulars in both of these cases, but I think the details go beyond the boundaries of what's appropriate on this blog. Suffice it to say:-In one case, Penn eventually did try to accommodate the spouse in question, but they chose to leave anyway.-In the other case, as I understand it, Penn made no effort even though they understood the consequences.So I don't think there's an institutional barrier at Penn to trying to accommodate spousal hires.
I hear that Penn may be trying to upgrade in other fields as well (American, comparative,...). Is that true? Are they trying to pull themselves up?
There are not problems at Vanderbilt currently. The entire department, spare a few exceptions, has been hired in the next few years. That'd be a nice place to work--and one you could potentially be tenured at.
Going through job ads, I had a question: if there is an ad for 'research methods' (without further qualifications) does it mean that the University is looking for formal/quantitative persons or any research method? I think MIT ad just mentions "research methods." The MIT ad (on Research Methods) also tells that applications are to be directed to Political Theory Search Committee. Can anyone tell whether that means anything? (The Security Studies applications are to be sent to Security Studies Search Committee).Thanks.
(1) "Research methods" is usually code for formal and/or quantitative skills, especially if the ad has not specified otherwise.(2) I am guessing that there is a typo in the address in that MIT ad. I just looked and MIT also has a political theory search this year. I suspect somebody at MIT was preparing all of their ads at the same time and simply forgot to change the address for the research methods ad. No bid deal, except for the poor research assistant at MIT who now needs to sort all the applications.
Usually, "research methods" means formal/quant, but I can see how some departments may want other methods as well. I don't think it would hurt to contact the chair of the department to clarify things if you think an ad is ambiguous.
I heard from a grad student that the IR/methods search is different than the security search. they are looking for people who can do stats for the methods search.
I wanted to comment on the way back post regarding whether something is "up" if a job is posted for more than a year. It's been my experience at my own school (I'm currently department chair) that we are be very particular (perhaps idiosyncratic) about who we hire; when we do find someone we like, we often get beaten out by better offers; and we are not under pressure by the administration to fill the slot. So it can take several years to fill a position if you're not at a school with a hire then fire mentality. This applies much more to liberal arts colleges than big state schools, of course. I was on the job market myself for several years (in spite of a PhD from a good school), so don't dispair.
MIT has lost a lot of really good people in the past few years: Cohen, Rodden, Chandra, Canes, Christensen, Sapolsky, Meyers. The last two aged out, but the other four just up and left. Its a small department, so is this a sign of trouble or just bad luck?
"MIT has lost a lot of really good people in the past few years: Cohen, Rodden, Chandra, Canes, Christensen, Sapolsky, Meyers."True. But isn't that the case in pretty much every top 6-15 Department? There are only very few exceptions to that (UCSD has barely left anyone in the past decade, don't know how they have managed to achieve that).
"Aged out" is a pretty awful way to describe how Steve Meyers died. Jesus.I think it's more bad luck than anything - small department without the resources of Stanford, Princeton, or Harvard, with solid taste in hiring people. With one exception, I think (and in several cases know) that all of those faculty who have left would have extremely good things to say about their time at MIT.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of interviewing in APSA- is there anything to loose?
Is there anything to lose? Sure, if you really screw up an interview with a school at which you're hoping to get a job, then there's something to lose. I guess that's kind of obvious, though.I don't think there's any stigma to interviewing at APSA, but don't expect to be interviewing with an really "top tier" schools. Most of the places that interview at APSA are smaller universities and liberal arts colleges.I did the APSA interviews the first year I was on the market. I landed a couple of on-campus interviews out of the process (though not the job I have now). Especially since it was my first year on the market, I did find that the interviews were helpful practice for answering some common interview questions--research program, teaching, etc.
I set up some informal interviews at APSA last year and had generally bad experiences. People are distracted, have little time, and are generally not in the best frame of mind (or moods). I regret doing it.
The APSA interview room, albeit extremely depressing, is quite useful as it is good, relatively risk-free, practice for when you have a real interview and must do things like talk about your work in 5 minutes or less, your next project, etc. Most places are trying to sell themselves to you as much as you to them to maximize their pool. It is possible to rule yourself in or out of the shortlist through your performance, but again, most jobs usually work through the normal process, so this is mostly a good opportunity to practice talking to people who are not from your school.
ditto 4:22 AM. MIT's recent losses aren't reflective of something wrong, except perhaps that they can't match offers at the very top end. Balancing the recent losses, they also have a very good crop of junior people who as far as I'm aware are quite happy there. Not a good time to be a theory/philosophy student at MIT, but IR is solid. The Persian Gulf would freeze solid before Posen or Van Evera would leave.(and to clarify 4:22's comment, Steve Meyer died of cancer at age 54).
The APSA "meat market" is incredibly stressful on the interviewers, and most search committees that I know avoid it if they possibly can. There's plenty else to do at APSA, and I think it is largely used by schools on low budgets who really can't afford to waste an interview. Also with web (paper servers, etc), there's a lot more information available on the sorts of candidates an R1 would hire than there once was. Not that everyone gets -- or wants -- R1 jobs, but I concur that the APSA interview option is increasingly a niche market thing.
I second the recommendation of doing APSA interviews for practice. The larger the set of questions to which you've been exposed, the larger the set of answers in your head. The second time you answer, "describe a bad teaching experience and what you learned from it" will be much better than the first.Also, interviews can give you some ideas about what to ask departments when you're out on interviews, based on good/bad/interesting things you learn from other schools. Finally, I've seen a couple of cases where what the faculty at APSA said they were looking for was *not* the same as what the dept's advertisement said, to the degree that I wrote a somewhat different cover letter than I would have based on the ad alone.
The policy schools at UCSD, Michigan, Chicago, and Georgetown are all hiring. I'd love to hear what people think about policy schools vs. political science departments for your first IR position.Some questions:1) What kind of impact does this have on your career trajectory? Could you move from a policy school to a political science department if it didn't work out?2) Is it true that policy schools pay more?3) Does your work need to be directly "policy-related" to get a job and, ultimately, tenure? 4) Does a job at a policy school mean you won't really work with political science PhD students, since you'll be spending a lot of time teaching Master's students?5) Do the teaching loads differ from regular poli sci jobs? Thanks for your input.
5:21 PM:1) Very little;2) Not the one I'm at;3) Not necessarily, but you need to write a specific letter that makes clear why your work is policy relevant, that you like policy issues, and even that you look forward to teaching policy-oriented students;4) Depends on the school and the position; not a few policy schools are interbred with their respective departments;5) Not to my knowledge or in my experience.
Answers from somebody in a policy school:(1) I don't think being in a policy school has to have an adverse effect on one's career. The key is where you publish. Most major policy schools reward articles with top academic journals and books with top presses just like political science departments do. As long as you publish in these places, many people probably won't even notice that you're in a policy school. The difference is that policy schools might also like to see you publish occasionally in a policy journal.(2) I offer the following generalizations with trepidation because I think things like this are hard to generalize about. I would bet, on average, that policy schools overall might pay a bit higher (due to former practitioners who might get paid a lot to be on faculty), but I would also bet that there isn't a huge difference, on average, in the starting salaries of assistant professors. Again, these things vary widely. I would guess that the average salary at the Kennedy School, for example, is quite high, but I doubt that's representative of all policy schools everywhere.(3) Yes, "policy relevance" is important both to getting a job and getting tenure, though lots of things can be sold as policy relevant. If you apply to a policy school, be explicit about why your work is a good fit for a policy school. (4) Some schools make joint appointments with political science departments possible, so you can still work with Ph.D. students. Even without a joint appointment, Ph.D. students are likely to seek you out if your interests are consonant with theirs, and most departments are fine with having people from outside the department on a committee. To take one example, look at Charlie Glaser who is appointed in the Harris School at Chicago, but who has worked with many Ph.D. students over the years. In general, though, you do teach a lot of MA students if you are in a policy school.(5) In my experience, teaching loads are identical.
Is Jennifer Tobin currently a Postdoc at Brookings? At Nuffield? Or at both? http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/jtobin.htm
is it just my wishful thinking or does the market seem relatively slow this year as compared to last time? universities seem to be taking ages to post--i've heard rumors of texas at austin, upenn, berkeley, nyu all hiring but there's nothing so far.
Googling her suggests she's both at Brookings and at Nuffield (two postdocs in different contintents?!)Then again, maybe one of the places has simply been exceptionally(!) slow at updating its website.
Relax. It's way too early to start worrying about a dearth of openings.
It's not even August yet, people. Can we put a moratorium on the how-slow-the-market-is talk until at least APSA? Until then, it's really premature (and pointless) speculation.
How often you'll get to interact with political science/gov't phd students will depend on how closely tied the two departments are, and whether or not both have phd programs. At Georgetown, Policy (masters only) and Gov't (masters and phd) students and faculty interested in IR-esque topics have very different agendas (namely industry v. academe, and I mean *versus*), making cross-pollination rare, at best.
Actually, seems like heaps of ads by the end of July.
12:34 pm's characterization of Georgetown is incorrect. Of the permanent IR faculty in the SFS, almost every--if not every--individual has a joint-appointment in the Government Department. Teaching responsibilities involve a memorandum-of-understanding that usually mandates a 1-3 or 2-2 split between the two entities.Outside of a few program specific classes--such as the MA gateway IR class or courses in specific MA programs like Security Studies--one basically teaches the same kinds of classes one would teach at the undergraduate level. Many SFS appointments teach PhD courses in the Government Department as well. It is true, however, that MA from SFS students only sporadically show up in PhD classes--and GPPI students almost never appear. But these divisions are really secondary to the faculty experience of doing IR/Comparative at Georgetown. In IR in particular, the units matter mainly in terms of a few classes, some service obligations, and where your salary comes from. Even at tenure time, the core people reviewing a candidate for promotion are likely to be many of the same people reviewing the candidate in the Government Department.Most of the "policy faculty" associated with SFS are, in fact, in non-tenure-track or adjunct slots. SFS gives basically zero credit for policy publications and views the hierarchy of IR journals and presses in the same way as most Political Science Departments.To put this in crystal clear terms, when I started at Georgetown I didn't even understand the intricacies of the system; the only downside of being in both units is that I have to attend more meetings. A few people in SFS wait to go joint on Government after they're tenured, on the theory that tenure in SFS is a bit easier (an interdisciplinary program has to be a bit looser in terms of evaluating scholarship than a Political Science program). But it isn't even clear any more that this is the case.So no one should expect that he or she can go to SFS, publish in policy journals, and receive tenure. Life as an SFS IR junior-level professor looks pretty much like life as a Political Science professor, with the caveat that non-joint faculty in SFS don't teach PhD courses.
The post about Georgetown could not be more wrong. Almost all of the political scientists in Georgetown's School of Foreign Service have joint appointments in Georgetown's government department (and, conversely, almost all of the people doing IR in Georgetown's government department have joint appointments in the School of Foreign Service). How can they have "very different agendas" when they are virtually the same faculty?
I was making a distinction between the Policy School (GPPI) and the Government Department -- which, you're right, is much more closely tied to the SFS (which I suppose does policy, but in a much different way from GPPI). I guess it depends on what you mean by "policy". Didn't mean to offend...
I'm not sure there are *any* IR people in GPPI (Graduate Public Policy Institute) precisely because SFS is the IR policy school at Georgetown. It would be a bit odd for GPPI to spend a line hiring in IR with SFS across campus.
funny how two threads come together. Jen Tobin will be at GPPI starting this fall.
With respect to the policy school thread, building upon 7/30 @ 6:22pm's response to #4- not only do govt. depts allow you to place faculty from a public policy school on your committee, sometimes (at least in the case of my school, and, specifically my advisor) its encouraged; also, some public policy programs (e.g. Kennedy, Maryland, LBJ, etc.) offer doctoral programs themselves.
OK, this one is definitely a rumor: Georgia Tech's Sam Nunn School of IR supposedly got some major funding. They may have as many as 4-5 new faculty searches initiated soon. They are big on security & IPE/CPE. Based on their last few hires & searches, they seem to favor candidates with a science, technology, innovation bent to their research.
UT Austin has posted a general IR job, but is "particularly interested" in IPE. Does anyone know how firm their IPE wishes are? Is it really a broad search, as posted, or is the committee searching hard for IPE?
The GT rumor would be pretty fantastic if true - can anyone in that department back it up or scoff?
If Kydd is leaving Penn, where is he going?
Kydd has already left Penn. He's now at Wisconsin.
Georgia Tech has had some great political economy scholars cycle through in the past decade or so (Clark and Hallerberg both come to mind, off the top of my head). But they've had trouble retaining faculty. A big increase in funding, if true, might help with that problem.
Georgia Tech is supposedly trying to make a run at being a top 10 IR program. They've got increased funding, support of the university, started hiring more research faculty (as opposed to policy or teaching), and even their theorists are now publishing in the top journals (see this spring's IO).I think 1:53pm is correct. Retention is key. If they can keep the people they are hiring, then this could be the next UCSD. I hear rumor that the last few years hires have been given $13K in equipment & research budgets...so maybe they are putting their money where their mouths are.Again, can anyone confirm any of this...or am I just passing on incomplete information?
Can we go easy on the GA Tech promotion machine?
13K is not impressive. Unless it's the first year of a 5 year package. then its okay.
On all the GT rumors listed above. Yes--there will be multiple jobs (3 < n < 5).Yes--the first year packages generally include @ least 10K equipment/supplies (non-fungible as salary), 1 mo summer, and full moving expenses. Beyond that, conference and research (e.g., software) support is not infinite but available and more generous than many state schools.Yes--the department must do a better job at retention.
Hey wait a minute, everyone feel free to promote away! The whole purpose of this site is to find information you wouldn't normally find on the formal job adverts. I'm bummed that the previous posting by a GTech prof was removed. That's exactly the sort of info people come here for! Who cares if its promotional just as long as it is true (or reported in good faith as honestly believed to be true).So I strongly disagree with against 7:56am's complaint.
Any information on what UCLA is looking for? They advertised an IR position not long ago.
Question about GA Tech-are they going to create a doctoral program? I am looking at the website and it only talks about the MA program.
Yes, GT is awaiting BOR approval for its new PhD program, with a focus on S&T. Proposal documents are here.As said before, some lines will be new, some replacements, and one that has been unfilled. S&T-related research is always a plus, but may not be essential for all lines. Job listings will be posted on APSA (and elsewhere) after the faculty meets to determine current needs.
Can you create a GA Tech thread? If there's demand for it, fine, but I don't see why all sorts of specific details/speculation should clutter the more general thread here.
Umm... if this isn't the place to post speculation/details, then what should be posted? Given that this thread will probably have 200+ posts by the end of Sept, what's wrong with ~3% of them being about one school? Besides, I doubt there's much more to say about GA Tech anyway.
UCLA had an IR search last year and extended an offer to a top scholar who went elsewhere. Given the background of their top choice last year, excellent formal skills and the ability to talk to a wide range of methodological orientations would be a plus.
Who was said top IR scholar who turned down UCLA?
UCLA virtually always adopts a best athlete approach, so I doubt sub-field will play a large role in their IR search.
UCLA went after EBdM, but he ended up taking a job at Chicago-Harris.
UCLA => a best athlete w/ formal skills. Now how about Berkeley? Any information on what Berkeley is looking for?
UCLA would likely be fine with someone well trained on the stats front. Recall that at some point they made an offer to Reiter.
Where is Alex Mintz now? Apparently he's leaving Texas A&M?http://www-polisci.tamu.edu/faculty/mintz/
Mintz took a job as Dean of the Lauder School of Government at the Interdisciplinary in Herzliya, Israel.
Anyone have any information about the IR department and the search at American?
Question - What do posters mean by "best athelete" approach? And what does 11:04 mean by subfield won't matter? Does this mean that they want the best hire possible, i.e. they pick among the best IR, American, Comparative candidates, or does it mean it doesn't matter what you do in IR (i.e. you can be IPE, security, IO)? I'm not being critical, I'm just looking for clarification.
Mintz is taking a job in Israel
It's still an IR search, so they probably wouldn't hire an Americanist or a comparativist. Within the context of an IR search, "best athlete" refers to hiring the best applicant regardless of what subfield within IR they study.For those who are not sports fans, the term "best athlete" comes from professional sports drafts in which teams often say that they are not looking to draft any particular position, but rather will draft the "best athlete" available.
The fact that last year's IR search at UCLA ended with an offer to EdBM should hint at what best athlete means. EdMB is as much as IR as CP (and mostly Formal in fact). More often than not, top Departments that have their act together will go after the best person they can snatch - as opposed to the person that best fits a very particular niche.
During my time there, MIT generally had a "best athlete" approach to hiring. This meant that the candidates' quality of research (weighted by quantity) mattered most. Everything else was secondary, including subfield, type of method, theoretical preference, teaching ability (chuckle), personality...everything.
correction: "best athlete" subfields matter to the extent that a dept. might not hire an Americanist specializing in congressional elections for an IR slot. But if s/he were the "best athlete" in research, they might just hire an Americanist studying Presidential foreign policy or say the relationship between security issues and elections.
American separates its "poli sci" into [comparative politics and justice/law] and [international studies/relations]. It's closer to international studies, even in the "international politics" field of this search, than international relations. Most of the faculty are very applied researchers. To my knowledge, most faculty used qualitative or interpretive methods; only one or two are quant users. Definitely a school with a particular personality - spend time on the web pages for that one. (This is meant positively.)
I don't understand 12:58. Is this a comment about a specific institution (UCLA? MIT?), or does the poster have something more general in mind.
Practical implication of the "best athlete" approach: cast a wide net with your applications. Don't decide to *not* apply somewhere just because they express a "preference" for a specialty other than your own. Clearly, some places mean it when they say they are looking for very specific skills. Sometimes it only means a soft interest in X, one they'd drop for a stronger candidate, when they realize that topic Y is even more exciting, when candidate Z's advisor was the dept chair's best friend in grad school, etc.This cuts both ways: you'll no doubt be outraged when you learn some job went to a person not at all like the ad requested, other times you might be that person.
12:58 is referring to American University, I believe.5:45 offers sage advice. Each and every year, some top department(s) comes along and hires somebody who looks nothing like the position for which they advertised. I've seen top ten departments advertise that they have a "strong preference" for IPE and then hire in security. Top departments, in particular, tend to think in terms of hiring the best scholar they can find regardless of specialty and regardless of what they might have advertised.
8:45 - it's referring to the job posted by American University a couple days ago.
5:45 could you clarify a bit?Does that mean that the job at say Northwestern which says IR/Middle east shouldn't stop general IR people with no Middle east focus from applying?
to 4:47If it's clearly listed as a regionally-focussed job and you have no background in that region, that's probably too big a stretch. I think even a "best athlete" dept is unlikely to hire a China expert for a Middle East search -- but who knows, someone here probably has seen that happen.If it's a general IR position and they say a given focus or skill is a "plus", "preferred", etc., I'd apply anyway. Another packet is relatively low cost, and it's not like the debt will remember you and hold it against you if it turns out they're serious about the requirement and your file is tossed on the first cut.
In general, I would not expect a security person, even with strong formal and statistical skills, to fare as well at UCLA as would an IPE or other institutions person. They have Zegart in Public Policy and no listed (or cataloged) classes in anything remotely security-related (less Rapoport, semi-retired, on terrorism).
Doesn't EBdM work on terrorism?Ah, the irony.
Re:7:50 PMIs this just speculation, or based on some real information? Perhaps UCLA is trying to improve it's IR/Security credentials. What about Berkeley? What might they be looking for in IR? It seems like IR at Berkeley has been slipping.
This is all speculation.
What about Berkeley? What might they be looking for in IR? It seems like IR at Berkeley has been slipping.*****************Berkeley went through a dry period in the late '90s and early 00's when, for whatever reason, they basically couldn't agree to hire anybody in IR. They've done better in recent years. Hassner and Chiozza are both good hires. As for what they might be looking for now, I suspect (without any insider knowledge) this is the perfect example of a "best athlete" approach. Berkeley could use everything, so they'll probably go after whatever impresses them the most.
Regarding the American U job(s)-- they will be running a number of searches (I've heard the number could top 10) this fall. It is an interdisciplinary IR school that grants degrees in International Studies with several subfields, and the jobs go by subfield. The subfields are subfields of IR-- the one posted as International Politics is for that field within the school, and is more of an IR generalist, potentially with some security type specialty.However, there is also a foreign policy subfield within the school that does traditional FPA as well as security.RE the above policy - academic thread above on Georgetown, AU doesn't have the same policy-academic split. There is no 'policy school' though the school does have a large professional master's program as well as a small, academic Ph.D. program. Like one of the previous posters said about GU, evaluations follow the normal rankings of Poli Sci / IR journals.And, as the previous poster said, the dept is friendly to number people as well as qualitative and critical scholars.
We've been a bit loose about allowing discussion of departments, but we just deleted a comment that did nothing other than disparage a particular institution. Please keep it clean, and refrain from discussion merits/demerits of institutions when not directly connected to speculation about advertised jobs; and even then, we may tighten things up.A quick word of advice from "the management." While interesting, speculation about what a department is looking for can get counterproductive. Just apply to jobs that look like a possible fit, and let them sort it out :-).
Moderated:"Anonymous said... I sincerely hope that Berkeley is getting serious again about their great IR legacy. I agree with a former poster that both Chiozza and Hassner are very good hires."
To: 6:15 Aug 13 -- based upon personal and recent experience in that department. My impression is that being a "security studies" person wouldn't doom a candidate, assuming absolutely solid methodological sophistication, but being an institutions/trade/IPE person would be better. That being said, there is a desire for more faculty who can teach security-related stuff, but I am told there is a reluctance to commit to a "security-only" person (again and in part because there is Zegart in Public Policy, and her courses are cross-listed in Pol Sci).So how would I look at this listing?If I could talk security and blur the IR-Comparative line empirically, that could conceivably be a winner and make it worth applying.If I were a "methods" person who had examples from security issues, or who tested models in the security domain, so much the better.If I were a formal (a la Eli Berman and David Laitin) terror person (see EBdm), I would apply.If I were a Georgetown/GWU, school of foreign service, security policy studies type, I would look elsewhere, no matter how sound my statistical chops.
About potential searches, since they did not hire last year, is Rochester going to hire this year?
Griffith University is looking to fill one or more three-year researchpost-doctoral fellowships in International Relations/Comparative Politics.The fellowship positions are research-only with no teachingresponsibilities. The salary range is Australian $61,978 to $70,136(US$52,000-59,000). Successful candidates will be expected both to publishwith the leading journals and presses in the field, as well as conductpolicy-relevant research with a focus on any of the following: weakstates, failed states, institutional strengthening and/or transnationalsecurity threats. The empirical focus of this policy-oriented researchwill be the Asia-Pacific region. The selection committee is open to thosewith expertise in other regions as long as these candidates are willing toacquire expertise on the Asia-Pacific.Successful candidates must have a doctorate in Political Science orrelated field, a track record of publication with leading presses and/orjournals, and potential for continuing to publish at this level. It isdesirable though not essential that candidates have some policyexperience. The committee is open to all methodological backgrounds, butin all cases candidates much be able to communicate relevant findings topolicy-makers as well as academic audiences.Although the positions are fixed-term, post-doctoral fellows shouldsubsequently be in a strong position to apply for permanent positions atGriffith University.Fellows will be housed jointly at the Griffith Asia Institute and theCentre for Governance and Public Policy.For further information applicants should contact Jason Sharman,Centre for Governance and Public Policy & Griffith Asia InstituteGriffith University170 Kessels RdNathan, QLD 4111AustraliaTel: +61 7 3735 6756Fax: +61 7 3735 7737Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
1:00 pm: Rochester will have two searches.
Do interviewers at APSA ever ask interviewees if they have brought writing samples (or other relevant material) with them? Do interviewees ever mention that they have such material with them? Or is it understood that all that stuff is to be handled in the formal application process?
I've never seen or heard of anyone asking for a writing sample on the spot at an APSA interview. After all, it's APSA, so who will have the time or inclination to read it then? Bring a c.v., but send the writing sample with the application.
On the subject of APSA interviews, is it a strike against a formal application later if I don't interview (or even request an interview) at the conference? I have six scheduled right now with two pending and was told by my advisor, in no uncertain terms, not to schedule more than 5-7. As more openings show up on ejobs in the next ten days or so, there are bound to be other departments that I'd like to apply to this fall. I can't imagine the APSA screening is completely divorced from the formal applications, so what signal (if any) does not requesting have? Are my chances of getting a campus interview hurt by not having any more APSA interview opening?
Not requesting an APSA interview should not affect your chances of getting an on-campus interview. Many job candidates do not even attend the APSA meeting, and most hiring departments do not take it all that seriously. On the other hand, if you are asked to meet at APSA and you decline to do so even though you are at the meeting, the person making the request may infer that you are not that interested in their position. This is definitely not a helpful impression to leave unless it is correct.
No it isn't.
Re: Middle East searches, this may be an obvious quesitons but why does the market (more in IR than CP) tend to consider someone that works on Terrorism to be a Middle East expert? Does the IR field not reward much more in depth knowledge even in a 'hot' area?It seems to me that someone who has made the effort to learn MEast languages should have a 'leg-up' on plain terrorism studies people who happen to publish on Al-Qaeda or arab-israeli issues. I am curious what others think-
Re: terrorism/Middle East. Is there some particular posted position you have in mind here? Seems most likely that a department is trying -- rather naively -- to double-dip with a single hire for two trendy topics. But in fact if all someone knows about the Middle East is terrorism, and/or the only terrorism one has studied is in the Middle East, that's not very good coverage on either topic. Knowing both in depth would require mastery of two quite distinct literatures, though there are a few people out there who have done this.
I wonder what the study of the Cold War would have looked like if we required each of the IR scholars of that time to be fluent in Russian. Some were, and it helped in certain respects, some weren't and advanced the field regardless. Being fluent in Arabic may add a dimension to the research, but if it becomes a shibboleth then that's bad news. Much of what's out there--if we are talking Al Qaeda, ideology, etc.--is translated due to the efforts of places like the Combating Terrorism Center, and a number of other outlets. Other stuff out there isn't in translation--but the added benefit of having the language has to be demonstrated, not a ticket for entry. For field work on public opinion, etc., there may be an advantage, but overall the work done on terrorism should be judged based on quality--particularly since much of it out there isn't as theoretically sophisticated as we would like at this stage.
I agree fluent Arabic shouldn't become a pre-req for terrorism/insurgency studies; wouldn't get you very far in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Africa, or any vast number of other places (Islamic terror hotbeds Pakistan and Afghanistan among them).That said, I think it's common sense that having some expertise in a particular region/conflict(s) tends to be very helpful, and being able to do even fairly basic research in Arabic, Urdu, Russian, etc. is certainly a plus, and generally regarded as such by search committees.
The current US policy in the Middle East has been set by people who only read works in translation, have no field experience, no historical knowledge, and interpret everything using European analogies (Saddam Hussein = Hitler; Kuwait = Munich, etc). And that's been a real success, right?You'll get the same quality of results on the academic side.
plus, it's a competitive marketplace.you can argue all day about what should and shouldn't be requirements, but if there is someone else interviewing that has more skills than you, well, who would *you* choose?
The battle over language requirements in ads is a way of dividing ad respondents between formal/quant and area studies/qual. Personally, I prefer the former because it's much more theoretical. Area studies, by definition, tend to focus on a particular area and then search for interesting questions within that area. I think that's backwards. You shouldn't let your data control your theory generation. Seems like basic science to me.Instead, we should develop the theory and then go out and test it. IF langauge skills are necessary to collect data THEN learn the language or ask for someone's help. Most of the time translations are available to secure data for testing.I think someone a few posts above have the right example with the Soviet Union, but I think the conclusions are wrong. After all, how many "Soviet" specialists became "post-Soviet" specialists and then "Russian" specialists? Not too many of them had enough knowledge to predict the big event even though there were countless dissertations on Soviet navel-gazing.
We've let the last posts go through, but we see a lot of opportunity for nastiness -- indeed, we debated abotu whether or not the last post was over the line. Please, folks, if you want to debate the merits of methods, do so elsewhere. Keep in mind though, that the area studies/data set debate has been going on for well over a decade and that no one here is likely to contribute a new or irrefutable argument to it :-).
Re: 10:02, with all due respect:1. It isn't easy to quickly learn a language like Pashto or Mandarin. Asking someone for help is fine, but good researchers should be able to generate their own original empirical knowledge, not just hope that they can find a historian who knows something about a relevant topic.2. This varies across individuals, but most of the influential scholars in IR and comparative I know tend to move back and forth iteratively between theory and evidence. It's hard to know what the important, interesting theoretical puzzles are unless you have a lot of substantive knowledge. It's often, though not always, only possible to acquire detailed knowledge through a regional focus.
Like 1:23, I am concerned about 10:02's remarks. I mean no disrespect to 10:02. I do the same kind of research. However, the questions in which I'm interested were not generated by an abstract theory. They come from my own personal (and perhaps idiosyncratic) normative concerns about the state of the world, many of which date from long before I decided to go to graduate school. If the issues that got me into political science had concerned China or Russia, I would have started learning Chinese or Russian right away, not after some theory guided me there. My view is that you learn about the theory later because it helps you answer questions in which you are already interested. Those of us who do quantitative research on data other people--some of whom must have understood the local language--generated for us should be grateful that such people exist. We should not belittle their work by suggesting that it is somehow merely preliminary to the work of people like us. If enough people adopt this attitude, then no one will generate data and we'll all be out of business.
To my mind -- and I've done both quantitative work and field work, including a Fulbright -- the field experience is probably more important than language. Language is useful, without question, but fluency in non-IndoEuropean languages really takes a lot of time. Given the choice in a job search between someone who had, say, three years of classroom Arabic and no field experience, and someone with one year of classroom Arabic (which gets you to about "courtesy level" in Arabic) and a year living in the region, I think virtually any search committee will take the second. [The ideal, of course, would be both.]If one is dealing with elites, you can go a long way with English, and if you are living in an area for an extended period of time (at the local level, not a hotel), people with reasonable English will find you. Not a random sample, to be sure, but enough to give you a much closer view of the situation than one gets from documents and (perish the thought...) Western media.Again, this is not to disparage multiple language acquisition, but in the contemporary environment, where you can get almost anywhere in the world in 36 hours and for less than $2000, significant field experience is more important if you want to assert expertise in a region.
Does anyone know whether Columbia will be searching in IR? I had heard rumors to that effect a while ago, but haven't seen a posting yet... Info, anyone?
I had a question on job offers. Once you have an offer, usually how much time one has to decide on it, particularly if you are on the market for the first time. Probably, this varies by the university, or is there any uniformly accepted deadline for accepting/rejecting all offers (like the April 15 deadline for students getting into Ph.D. programs)? Thanks.
I believe AAUP guidelines call for at least two weeks to be given to a candidate to make up his/her mind from the date on which the candidate receives the complete and official offer. My impression has been that that's about what most places give--two weeks. This is only a "guideline," though, and there certainly are stories of departments playing real hardball with a candidate and insisting on a decision within days, let alone weeks.As for the second question, no, there are no standard deadlines for anything in this job market. There are schools that will have offers out in October. There are other schools that won't even interview until January. And there's no general date on which the market is "closed."
Two weeks is the rule, and any place trying to make you make a faster decision is a place to be avoided. If they try to screw you the first chance they get, then it would probably not be the last time they pressure you.Clearly, places want a quick decision so that they can move on if they have to do so, but 2 weeks is the mostly well-respected norm. And if they really want you, they are likely to give you a bit more time, particularly if you already have an offer from someplace else.Again, this first few steps should send you signals about the quality of the administration.Good luck
Just one footnote on this discussion: the two-week norm generally applies to hires at the assistant professor level where departments often have a second candidate who they want to offer the job to if the first candidate says no. For more senior hires where there may very well be no second candidate, departments are often willing to wait much, much longer, as in months.
I'd like to start a new thread, with a deliberately and explicitly positive slant:Which professor outside of your department, not on your Ph.D. committee, not a former mentor at the undergraduate level has been most helpful in your research? How?Remember: ONLY positive things.
On typical timing of interviews/offers, based on what I've seen for myself and friends:Time from ad closing date to call inviting for interview: 2 days to 3 months; median 2-3 weeks.Time from interview until offer/rejection: 1 to 6 weeks; median 1-2 weeks. One school never called me and wouldn't return my calls; I assume I was rejected.Time from ad closing date to rejection letter if not interviewed: few weeks to never; median never.Most schools have given candidates only the two weeks; may vary if you have unusual leverage.
The Chronicle had a job at Lewis and Clark a few weeks back that was different than the China listing at their website. Now it's gone. Any info? Mistake?
Re: the question about how long you have to decide once an offer is extended. Many universities give 2 weeks, but sometimes extend a bit (don't hesitate to ask for an extension, or for a return visit with your spouse/partner -- once you have the offer). Unfortunately, some schools are pretty strict on the deadline. However, even at the Assistant level, top schools (say, top 10 or so) won't put a very tight deadline on you. (That's based on an N of 3, depending on how you define "top 10"). Hope this is of use.
further clarification on the "2 week" norm. is this after receiving a *written* offer, or merely the verbal? in some cases, it seeems like the former would have plenty of stall time built in ...and is it typical that the department will pay for return flight with spouse, in addition to the flight down for the interview?
A written offer is essential! -- an offer isn't an offer until it is in writing. Academic institutions, particularly large public schools, are sufficiently complex that there are ample opportunities for innocent misunderstandings, to say nothing of the less-innocent ones (these are rare, but exist). In most public institutions, numerous independent offices need to sign off on an offer, and until that is done, things could screw up.[This from someone who once, many years ago, had a verbal offer that, due to budget problems the chair hadn't heard about, never resulted in a written offer. Got a nice counter-offer out of it nonetheless, but the whole experience was disconcerting, and could have really problematic had I not already had a job. And this was from a large private university.]The return visits with spouse are more common for tenured appointments than untenured, though obviously this is also a function of the wealth of the institution and how much they want you.
Georgia Tech follow-up. In addition to the S&T position currently in EJobs, International Affairs will also be recruiting for 2 additional lines: 1. IR Security with a preference for regional focus on Europe or E. Asia or substantive focus on S&T2. IR with a preference for those studying IR Theory, International Organizations, or International Law 2 additional (replacement) lines are likely to become available in January but it's unclear whether the searches would occur this year or be postponed until next.
2 weeks is a norm. But different schools take different approaches, even when they are in the same ballpark with regards to quality. Some will ask for a decision within a few weeks and mean it. Others will give you a lot of time. There is no real way to predict in advance, unless you have inside information on the way departmental offers generally occur.
Does anyone know what the market is going to look like for qualitative security studies people this year?
Re the comment above on "time from ad to rejection letter if not interviewed: few weeks to never; median never." Isn't it just basic courtesy to send a letter to someone who bothered to apply? Since most rejection letters are boilerplate anyway ("outstanding qualifications but other candidates better matched our needs [etc.]"), you just have it in the computer and hit the button once. If you have to send out more than 100, tough. If you don't want to send rejection letters or any boilerplate letters, say in the ad that "only shortlisted candidates will be acknowledged (or contacted) (or whatever)". Or better yet, say in the ad "to conserve time and resources, we do not send rejection letters."(In my own quite limited experience, most places, though not all, do send them. However, a few schools apparently send neither acknowledgments of receipt nor rejections -- in other words, nothing -- which I guess at least has the virtue of consistency.)
I once got a rejection letter more than a year after the fact, which, believe it or not, somehow made it to the much higher-ranked institution that had hired me for a tenure-track job. The courtesy rejection letter is actually not a norm in the business world. The fact that we even expect one is a rather big deal, and I wouldn't complain too much about the ones that never come. Now, it would be nice if schools would simply report outcomes to a central clearing house and thus eliminated the reason-to-be for rumor mills...
Letters are increasingly irrelevant in these days of the gossip blogs. However, I'll share that I once had an on-campus interview with a school and didn't hear from them for four months. I didn't follow up in that time because I wasn't interested after my visit and thought they would at least email me.
The Georgetown posting with the September 1st deadline has mysteriously disappeared from ejobs. Does anyone know what has happened? And could someone repost the listing?
The search is still on. The job listing disappeared for as yet unknown reasons. It should be back up soon. I will post a copy if I can get one. -- anonymous GU person
International Relations PositionThe Department of Government at Georgetown University invites applications for a tenure-track position in International Relations at the Assistant Professor level that is expected to begin in the fall term of 2008. Scholars from all subfields of international relations are invited to apply; applications from scholars whose work straddles international relations and comparative politics, particularly with a focus on Asia, are especially welcome. Strong methodological skills and teaching experience are assets; a Ph.D. prior to August 2008 is strongly preferred. Each application should include a curriculum vitae, a brief statement of research and teaching interests, at least three letters of recommendation, samples of scholarly writing, and copies of teaching evaluations, if available. The search will begin on September 1 and will continue until the position is filled. Georgetown University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Send all materials to the International Relations Search Committee, Department of Government, 681 ICC, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 20057-1034.Note that the 9/1 date is the "start" of the search, so people interested shouldn't be too worried if their files don't arrive until 9/15 or so, particularly given the problem with the e-job database listing. It is also possible that the official start will be moved to 9/15 because of this problem. But still, get those files in ASAP.The search will also remain for some time.
this one *not* a rumor...got it confirmed from two faculty:Georgia Tech's Sam Nunn School of Intxl Affairs will soon be announcing a search for an open-rank position in IR with a specialty in international organizations or international law. They want a productive researcher and someone who can teach core courses. They'll have Adam Stulberg at APSA this week to meet and answer questions. The "rumor" part is that the search committee is reportedly being chaired by Ed Keene (see last spring's edition of IO), and that the Sam Nunn School is now an APSIA member.
RE: GTIn addition to the IR theory/organizations/law position (just mentioned), there is another position for IR security with (a) regional focus on Asia or Europe OR (b) science and technology. Then, there's the S&T position already on EJobs. That's a total of 3 positions this year. Yes, the Nunn School is now a member of APSIA. Yes, our PhD proposal is waiting for BOR approval. (You didn't ask...but it was asked before.)Yes, we're looking for the types of candidates everyone else is looking for (i.e., promising research...). I can add that these positions will be advertised at the Assistant (new or advanced) or Associate levels.Yes, committees were formed for all three positions. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on who chairs a committee beyond what it tells you about to whom you address your cover letter. (Yes, Keene is on the IR theory/orgs/law committee. The committees will choose their own chairs.)Yes, Stulberg will be in Chicago, interviewing/collecting names & files for all three positions. Formal eJobs ads will probably not be up until mid-September....--GT faculty member who posted the jobs on 8-25.
Assistant / Associate Professor in Political Science, University of CalgaryThe Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary invites applications for a tenure track position in Strategic Studies with a specialization in American Security Policy, broadly defined. The position will be at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor and commence July 1, 2008. The successful applicant is expected to teach introductory, upper-level undergraduate courses and graduate courses in this area as well as a general course on American politics and government. Candidates are also expected to contribute to the graduate program in the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies and be eligible for affiliation with that unit. Applicants must have a PhD or be near completion and have demonstrated promise in research and teaching. Position Requirements Consideration of applications will commence on October 31, 2007. Applications will be considered until the position is filled. Applicants should ask three referees to send a letter of recommendation under separate cover to the address below. Applicants should also send a curriculum vitae, writing sample, postgraduate transcripts, information on teaching experience, and statement of research interest. You may apply to:Professor David StewartHead, Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NWCalgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4FAX: 403 282-4773Phone: 403 220-6727Email: email@example.comThe University of Calgary has over 30,000 full-time and part-time students, 17,000 continuing education students, and 5,000 faculty and staff, in a comprehensive set of undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate and continuing education programs. The U of C is located in the fastest growing city in Canada and is nestled in the foothills of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Alberta government has made a multi-year commitment to significant increases in operating, endowment and research funds to support its universities.Further information about the Department of Political Science, the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, and the University is available at http://www.poli.ucalgary.ca, http://www.cmss.ucalgary.ca, and http://www.ucalgary.ca.All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. The University of Calgary respects, appreciates, and encourages diversity.
RE: GA Tech, do you want individual applications for each position or will you consider one general application if we ask to be considered for all of them?
The Women’s Studies Program at the University of Kansas invites applications for a tenure-track, Assistant Professor position in Global Feminism expected to begin August 18, 2008. Within the field of global feminism, fields of interest include but are not limited to global feminist theories, international relations, international trade and economic development, feminist visions of development, human trafficking, ethnic cleansing, immigration, terrorism, transnational feminism, the feminization of poverty, health and justice, political and ethnic conflict, human rights, comparative sexualities, comparative legal systems, peace processes, and democracy. Salary is competitive with those at other research universities. Required: Ph.D. or terminal degree in Women’s or Gender Studies or a related discipline, including formal graduate training in women’s, gender, or GLBTI studies, expected by start date of appointment. For full position description, see: http://www2.ku.edu/~clas/employment/. A letter of application, curriculum vitae, statement of research and teaching interests, a sample of writing, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and three letters of reference to: Professor Ann Cudd, Women’s Studies Program, University of Kansas, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Room #213, Lawrence, KS 66045. firstname.lastname@example.org; 785/864-2311. Initial review of applications begins November 1, 2007 and will continue until the position is filled. EO/AA Employer.
RE: GATechI'd recommend indicating which position(s) you best fit in your cover letter. The committees plan on sharing files of those candidates that one committee may feel fit better with another search. Luckily this is a department where folks do work well together.You should know, however, that the S&T position already listed on EJobs is the most narrow/limited of the searches (due to its source of funding). Candidates for those jobs should have a strong S&T component to their research (and a hard science background of some sort is desirable). For the other 2 positions (security and IOs/theory/law), S&T would be a bonus, but is not necessary.So, if your S&T fit is a stretch, then target one of the other 2 positions.Also, the committees are eager to get started, so send in apps ASAP.
As long as we're talking Atlanta, anybody know if Emory or Georgia State are looking in IR this year?
Is it now too late for more job postings to come in? I had heard Columbia was hiring this year but I haven't seen an ad yet. Any ideas people?
Did anyone learn anything interesting while at APSA?
re: Did anyone learn anything interesting while at APSA? I learned that democracies rarely, if ever, fight each other. I learned that democracy is good for development. I learned that drinking too much the night before your presentation is not a good idea. I learned that the Sheraton is better than the Hyatt. I learned that O'Hare is a horrible airport. I learned that Chicago is better in the summer than in the winter. What else?
I learned that constructivists are incredibly thin-skinned and their Q&A responses always begin with "I reject your suggestion that...". I also learned that all their presentations begin with a defense of constructivism and with a justification for their panels/papers. One constructivist, who shall remain nameless, but whose panel was entitled "When Talk Matters," rejected the very premise of the panel name because talk "always" matters, so there.I learned that Mearsheimer tells good jokes.I learned that the Hyatt is a Soviet-style monstrosity and that no one at APSA thought to actually see whether or not two hotels situated across a river from each other were readily accessible to each other before booking them.I learned that one much-vaunted candidate from last year's market has a quantitative analysis of terrorism that, in fact, is nothing more than a jumped-up version of a spatial model of how parties compete for uncommitted voters, and that s/he actually knows something less than zero about actual terrorism or terrorists.
Ooh-ooh (hand up) ...I learned that you can fade into the crowd if you take off your name tag.I learned that all professors dress the same.I learned that at least one beggars with an "I'm hungry" sign doesn't like receiving food.I learned that an angry man comes in every day to the Subway restaurant near the Marriott to yell at the workers and tell them to go home to Mexico.This is fun!
We opted against censorship on 3:25. But let's keep it clean, ok?
I learned that you need at least one degree, and preferably two, to navigate those @%!&@ly-designed conference areas of the hotels.Re: jobs, I learned that:a) Grinnell is pretty strict on the IPE angle of their IR search.b) Middlebury is also strongly preferring IPE even though the search is worded a bit more broadly.c) Colgate is not looking for someone doing European security, but is pretty open otherwise.
I learned that the Hyatt/Sheraton location is far superior to old Hilton-A or Hilton-B. Much closer to many more restaurants.I learned that the Corner Baker has the best cinnamon buns.I learned that the job placement room remains depressing even if one holds a good job.I enjoyed APSA. Good to see old and new friends, although good comments on papers were scarce. And the weather was the best for any APSA in recent memory.
I learned that, for males, the navy blazer/tan Dockers combination has attained hegemonic status. My question is, how did that pairing achieve sartorial systemic dominance? Did 3-piece suits, tweed jackets-and-turtlenecks, and/or seersucker balance or bandwagon?And, less tongue-in-cheekly, if one wants to be more fashion-forward (i.e., dress as if one lives in the current epoch), would that be a risky signal of unconventionality or a lack of commitment to the norms of the field in job talks and interviews?
I learned that Qualitative Methods panels that are actually about Qualitative Methods are bad and poorly attended, whereas Qualitative Methods panels that are submitted in order to avoid the crush of Security, IPE, or Comparative Politics paper submissions are pretty good and very well attended.I learned I that a handy tip to anyone starting grad school in 2001 would be to learn Arabic and study "conflict."I learned that too many of us still haven't read Beck, Katz, and Tucker 1998. Or are ignoring it.I learned that it would be very nice if panel attendees wrote down their questions before asking them instead of droning on for 90 seconds about nothing at all.I learned that quantitative IR is still a replete with people who know nothing about any actual wars or any other countries.
re: 4:53. Curious what constitutes "fashion foward". Do you just mean casual like jeans and a polo shirt, or something more edgy and well, fashionable? Personally, despite being under 40 I can't imagine doing a job interview or panel presentation without an actual suit, tie, and fresh shave. Reverse of the question: are there depts who you think hold it against candidates who show up looking too "professional"?
I learned that scheduling panels at 8am on Sat and Sun constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."I learned that agent-based modellers give the worst presentations, hands down. I learned that being a good discussant is a lost art (though I did see one great discussant at a "Understanding types of violence" panel. Maybe there's hope still.). I learned that all of the papers/scholars I wanted to see will have results "next year."I learned that everyone wants feedback on papers but that no one posts them anymore.
I learned people still use overhead projectors!! The morning of my presentation fifteen people were in the business center trying to change their powerpoint presentations to overhead slides. APSA should join the 1990s and have projectors available.
I gather 3:25 didn't find the bridge across the river connecting the Hyatt and Sheraton? 5 minute walk at worst, and hugely nicer than going between the Hilton International and the Palmer House (or Woodley Park to the Washington Hilton). Only downside was the risk of getting killed by a taxi crossing Upper Wacker Drive, but this is Chicago.There was also a Floo Network connecting the fireplaces in the Hyatt and Sheraton, but not everyone could use it.The level of formality in male dress at the APSA has dropped dramatically in the past five years. As one who could never quite figure out the logic of wearing a noose and a jacket at the end of August in a temperate (Chicago, Boston) to sub-tropical (Atlanta, Washington) climate, I believe this to be a good thing.
I learned that people have gotten really fancy with their posters. My printed out PowerPoint slides looked sad next to the slick posters of some of the other people there.
Somewhat OT, but powerpoint projectors are actually INSANELY expensive to rent from conference hotels. ISA doesn't provide them for free, either. Participants who want them must contract for them individually, and when they find out how much it costs they go to the business center to print their slides as transparencies.
I learned that:-Iowa football fans travel in large numbers to see their team play (and that those fans are generally much more polite than my fellow political scientists).-Corner Bakery is doing its part to contribute to the national obesity epidemic. -Very few people who talk about the "Israel lobby" argument have actually read what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote (NOT trying to start a debate here; just an observation).-That APSA seriously needs to think about changing the format of this conference (as, for that matter, does ISA). The model of four people talking about their papers for ten minutes followed by a meandering discussant who often has barely skimmed the papers followed by questions from an audience that has not seen the papers and just wants to plug their own work simply doesn't work. Fewer and fewer people seem to be going to any panels other than their own, and I don't think it was just the beautiful weather in Chicago. There has to be a better way.
To all those moaning about projectors (maybe rightly so): I learned that APSA will be providing projectors for all presentations next year, but at the added cost of $10 per registration fee. There is still some discussion as to whether to adjust that cost based on status (full profs pay more, grad students pay zilch). Standby for more details on cost. I also learned that female fashion leaves much to be desired. Some interviewees were actually wearing outfits I would usually wear to a BBQ. Doesn't really bother me, though, just makes me look better :)
I'm not sure why people are so eager to have LCD projectors at APSA (or ISA). The panel time will have to be extended to provide ten minutes for each presenter to get their laptop to interface with the projector. Overhead slides may not be glamorous, but they move things along.
On a different note, I was wondering if anybody has an idea of how reliable interfolio is for sending job applications. Also, do the universities accept copies of transcripts sent through interfolio? Thanks.
Middlebury is in part looking to replace Phelan who taught IPE and International Law for them.
The initial comment on sartorial style at APSA is just wrong. The blue blazer/khaki pants combination, while certainly in evidence, was not 'hegemonic.' Plenty of people were wearing suits, and at the other extreme at one panel I saw a presenter give a talk in casual shirt and jeans. I had one job interview where the interviewer was dressed much more casually than I was (i.e., he had no jacket or tie, and short-sleeved shirt). I think people should wear whatever they like (within some extremely broad and obvious common-sense limits) and not have to be subjected to snide blog comments about their lack of fashion sense. Not everyone is or needs to be as young, hip, and self-consciously a-la-mode as the person who wrote the initial complaint.
At APSA I learned that:Nobody posts their papers on PROL.At the University of Chicago "Theory is God."All you can eat ribs sound better at 7pm when you are eating them than at 2am when you are feeling them.Alex Wendt is "no longer in the constructivism business."The theme of interdisciplinarity was mostly a bust. On every panel with an economist, psychologist, or law professor, the audience was rustling around impatiently waiting for them to stop talking.The book room was not very convenient and smelled like old cheese.
I learned many of the same lessons. 8 a.m. panels are really just not on. Have fewer panels and give everyone a break fer cryin' out loud.I'm sure 8:25 found the bridge, but I concur with the point -- the hotels were (as the crow flies) 2 blocks apart. Then there were the 2-3 vertical blocks you had to travel in the bloody Hyatt. But also agree much better than Palmer.I learned that I was out of touch in my business suit, though I noticed a lot of job market interviewees wearing them. Good question, though, re: appearing "too" formal.I learned that constructivists aren't sure what constructivism is -- either anymore or may never have (grammatically challenged as that is).I learned that too many people (w/ tenure and w/o) don't understand that you can't "present" the whole paper in 10-15 minutes. If you have 3 case studies, give us one. If you have 6 tables of findings, create a summary slide. And PLEASE don't try to impress with the formulas -- we're sure you have one, just give us the bottom line. But it's not as if we're in a position to check the math.I learned that Ann Sather's on Belmont has infinitely better sticky buns than Corner Bakery.Most importantly, at the Whither IR? roundtable, I learned nobody knows. As usual.
I learned that Cambridge Press doesn't understand the difference between a PA system that covers the entire exhibition room and just speaking loudly enough to reach the small gathering at your table.I also learned that the other vendors -do not- like the people from Cambridge Press.
The Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, York University invites applications for a tenure-track position at the Assistant Professor level in Latin American Politics/Politics of the Americas. We seek a specialist in Latin American Politics who can also address its relation to either US or Canadian Politics. Required qualifications include a completed PhD in Political Science, or equivalent, and an ongoing program of research in this area. Candidates are expected to demonstrate promise of excellence in teaching at all levels as well as in scholarly research and publication. The successful candidate must be suitable for prompt appointment to the Graduate Program in Political Science. The position, to commence July 1, 2008, is subject to budgetary approval. Applicants should submit a letter of application, including a curriculum vitae, teaching dossier and sample publication, and arrange to have three confidential letters of reference sent to: Professor David McNally, Chair, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, S669 Ross Building, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3. Tel: 416.736.2100, x20266. Fax: 416.736.5686.Deadline: October 15, 2007
Anyone knows what Duke is looking for? Senior again? Or open to junior?
USC put an ad up for a junior position. Is there (relatively) affordable housing around USC that is not in a horrible neighborhood? Close to campus, within an assistant prof's range, and not crime-ridden?
On sartorial style:As an upcoming PhD student in political science and fellow GQ subscriber, I find nothing wrong with dressing for success. Personal style may not be bestowed upon many in poli sci (and that is being generous), but please do not discourage those of us for whom looking properly attired is a must. I for one have and always will approach any job interview with a professional look in addition to a stellar CV. Dressing well indicates that you take what you are doing seriously and perhaps have a flair for fashion. I won't hold it against anyone for wearing a blue blazer and Dockers (I got chills just typing that) but let's not get on the case of people who take pride in their appearance and don't find denim shorts or a funny tie to be the keys requisite to nailing an interview at APSA. "To each his own...bespoke suit."
Well, even if the answer to 6:49 was no, should that discourage me from applying? (I don't know though whether that's the case.)
6:49 -- no. Median home in the immediate area is around $650,000 depending upon which part of the MLS you use. But there are lots of apartments.
Re; USC. There are places Asst Profs can afford to live, but you need to adjust your expectations (I live and teach in LA). The immediate area around SC can be dicey, but other parts are o.k. You can get apartments as far away as Beverly Hills, West LA, Hollywood, etc., but you'll have to commute -- and that can be tough on the freeways for sure -- and that will set you back a fair bit as well both in terms of housing cost and transportation cost. A studio apartment in Beverly Hills can range from $1000 to $1600 per month -- now that's B.H., of course, but the point is to show that prices get way up there. In the area within 5 miles of SC, prices are up around the $900 to $1400 mark.Mid-Wilshire (which is near the old downtown and isn't terribly far from SC by car), the prices start around $700 for a studio. In terms of quality of life, Mid-Wilshire is "coming back," but at the moment there's not a lot to do there, so you'd plan on using your car all the time for dining out, movies, etc.In terms of buying a house, on the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that anyone can afford to do that, unless they're married to a doctor or lawyer or something. A lot of the senior faculty I know were able to buy the homes they have by capitalizing upon the crash in the LA housing market in the late-1980s, early 1990s. Maybe that'll happen again, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on it.The real message for anyone contemplating a hire at an LA-area university is: have a good car -- you'll use it. A lot. And you'll want to check the impact of LA life on your car insurance -- mine quadrupled when I moved from an Atlantic seaboard grad school to the area.
Re: USC housing. Does the University have a housing subsidization program for young faculty, to ease the prohibitive costs of buying a home?
Doesn't USC offer housing assistance to new hires?As a private school that's fairly wealthy and located in a rather expensive area, I would have thought so.If they don't, no wonder they are a relatively weak place academics-wise.
Ah, yes, what I always dreamed of. To be a 35 year old with an Ivy League PhD, a tenure track professor at a famous university, cooking my ramen in a studio apartment in a dull neighborhood. But I love what I do, really... really....Seriously, I hear about housing assistance in some of the expensive markets but I've never been in a situation to learn details. What are typical programs like? How common is it -- do even public insitutions like UC schools offer it? Cal State? I know Harvard B-School gave a friend an amazing subsized mortage deal. Common for other Boston area profs?
There are some schools (like Harvard) that have been known to offer genuine housing assistance in the form of subsidized mortgages. Worth noting that some of these arrangements are not necessarily as attractive as they may seem. In return for the subsidized mortgage, the university will take some of your equity. But you do have a place to live.There are others that offer "mortgage assistance programs," which often don't really amount to much. Essentially, the university negotiates a deal with a preferred lender to get a quarter point or so knocked off your mortgage rate. Many of my friends have done better finding a mortgage on their own than using their university's "assistance" program.Then there are some schools in obscenely expensive areas that apparently do zippo for junior faculty. Yes, I'm talking about you, Stanford. (I've heard that second-hand about Stanford and would be happy to be proven wrong.)
You can check out USC's own housing report online at:www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/issues/senatehousing.041303.pdfYes, they have a program to subsidize mortgages, but from the comments in the report it doesn't sound all that competitive.The key piece (for me, as an LA resident) is the fact that local (to USC) elementary/middle/high schools are, to put it delicately, not good. And, for that 35-yr-old Ivy League Ph.D., that's going to be a consideration (as it was even for me, a 35-yr-old Crabgrass League Ph.D.....).
Further to my post above, in checking out USC's housing survey, the following language is pretty damning (if all too familiar to me):"Several faculty were interviewed during the summer of 2002. They were selected because they were faculty members who had recent experience in the housing market. Most of them expressed frustration with USC programs not meeting their needs, with difficulties finding housing that was affordable in neighborhoods with good schools, or just finding affordable housing. These problems are not unique to USC as an employer in the Los Angeles region. However, because academic salaries tend to fall below industry salaries, it is difficult for faculty to find affordable housing in acceptable neighborhoods. Having said that, the Los Angeles region offers a rich set of housing options provided that potential buyers are willing to trade off housing, neighborhood and locational attributes."Having done that nut-roll, all I can say is Ayyyyyyy-men!
The Loyola University-Chicago job looks pretty good, but I don't have the methodological chops for it. Spent a week in the city before APSA -- nice place to live!
Post a Comment