Hi there! Search Committee member of one of the jobs listed here. I’m not going to out myself by saying which job.
The person who is listed as accepted our offer was not even interviewed. PSR has become a joke.
Just correct it. "Not looking good so I better discredit it all!" So Trumpy
Princeton (3): TP (U Arizona, PL), MK (Houston, AP), LR (Houston, AP)*
Duke (2): AC (UW, CP/PE)*, ER (LSU, CP)*
Harvard (2): SK (Yale, AP), NGR (Princeton, IR)***
MIT (2): RT (Naval War College, IR)*, ES (Naval War College, IR)
UC Berkeley (2) LJ (HBS BGIE)*,: TK (CGU, CP)*
UC L@ (2): CS (Boston U, AP)***, TR (CGU, AP)
WUSTL (2): ER (Notre Dame, AP)*, JJ (Houston, CP)***
Brown(1): JL (Amherst, REP)**
American U (1): JD (UNC Charlotte, PA)***
Columbia (1): RC (Cornell, IR)
Cornell (1): GC (Drake, AP)?
Michigan (1): AM (Carleton, CP/IR)
Purdue (1): GC (Salisbury, AP)**
Stony Brook (1): BM (Kennesaw St, AP)
Toronto (1): AL (Naval Academy, CP)*
U Chicago (1): GB (LSU, CP)***
UC D@vis (1): AK (UWEC, PT/PL)
USC (1): JB (Colorado College, IR)*
UT-Austin(1): DEK '17 (Richmond, CP)***
* F
** M (URM)
*** F (URM)
Princeton (3): TP (U Arizona, PL), MK (Houston, AP), TR (Houston, AP)*
Duke (2): AC (UW, CP/PE)*, ER (LSU, CP)*
Harvard (2): SK (Yale, AP), NGR (Princeton, IR)***
MIT (2): RT (Naval War College, IR)*, ES (Naval War College, IR)
UC Berkeley (2) LJ (HBS BGIE)*,: TK (CGU, CP)*
UC L@ (2): CS (Boston U, AP)***, TR (CGU, AP)
WUSTL (2): ER (Notre Dame, AP)*, JJ (Houston, CP)***
Brown(1): JL (Amherst, REP)**
American U (1): JD (UNC Charlotte, PA)***
Columbia (1): RC (Cornell, IR)
Cornell (1): GC (Drake, AP)?
Michigan (1): AM (Carleton, CP/IR)
Purdue (1): GC (Salisbury, AP)**
Stony Brook (1): BM (Kennesaw St, AP)
Toronto (1): AL (Naval Academy, CP)*
U Chicago (1): GB (LSU, CP)***
UC D@vis (1): AK (UWEC, PT/PL)
USC (1): JB (Colorado College, IR)*
UT-Austin(1): DEK '17 (Richmond, CP)***
* F
** M (URM)
*** F (URM)
--
Princeton placement is TR, who graduated last year, not LR.
I don't mind posting the initials of people who signed contracts and posted about their new jobs on Twitter. If people want to look through those CVs and critique the candidates, so be it. The people under examination have jobs and therefore the last laugh.
A group of people who haven't been lucky enough to land jobs do not, on the other hand, deserve to suffer the same type of public scrutiny. We shouldn't kick people while they are down, even if those of you who celebrate diversity hiring might enjoy doing that.
No one is kicking anyone down. At the end of the day, it's the generations before who are to blame for only hiring white men in past. I feel bad for white men today honestly. At the same time, as someone who just wants placement info, the constant *** qualifiers and commentary for every new placement added is just too much. We all know already: it s*cks to be a white guy right now. It really really does.
Can we stick to placements though? and start a separate thread where we can thoroughly discuss these other problems
First it’s not just white men...Asians also exist. Second the asterisks are part and parcel of the package. See the explanation below. You are sick of it? Who cares?
why do we list placements and the alma mater for new hires?
if we do it to congratulate ppl who got jobs then we should applaud people who needed more qualifications than others. i fixed the list and added demo variables to recognize people who achieved success without the massive gender and race boost. why not recognize everyone? for the same reason that we do not list people who only made it to the final round.
if we list placements to get a finger on how successful programs are at placing applicants then we also need race and gender. a program that consistently places asian men at ucb graduates better researchers on average than one that places black women at bu.
if we list placements to welcome new scholars to the discipline of political science then we should also list postdocs and graduate students. they also show up at major conferences and are 'part of the discipline' as much as anybody else setting aside prestige. if we are making a list of who is most engaged with the discipline and these ppl tend to be professors then we still need demo vars since white and azn men must do more to get jobs. whatever the point of this list race and gender are relevant