Essex « Political Science Rumors

1 year - 76 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 2 Goods vs 5 No Goods
Thread: 219 Goods vs 148 No Goods

Political Science Rumors » Job Market » Comparative Job Rumors

Essex

« Previous 1…34

Sequoia

'...which enables them to keep their REF positions'. This erroneously connects REF performance to the presence or prominence of quantitative work. Essex did very well last time, but Strathclyde did not. Sheffield ranked either the same or better than Essex last time, with no discernible quant presence. Quant work does not necessarily do better in the REF, an exercise which does not reflect the preferences or fashions of American political science.

If only there were systematic methods to test this. Oh wait, not in your version of reality. Essex did very well, Sheffield gamed the rankings, and Strathclyde started hiring more quant folks only after the last REF (though I seem to recall they were already in the top 10 last time). The next REF will tell if that leads to an improved position. I predict yes. Their chair is a former Essex dude.

I'm pretty sure Strathclyde were not in the top ten last time. The top ten departments were all pretty mixed in terms of their profile, which was the main point I was trying to make. There is no evidence to suggest that departments that lean more towards quant methods perform better in the REF and, if anything, Essex looks likely to slip in 2021 for various reasons that have been rehearsed here already.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 2 NAY !
Deon

You know you can just look this stuff up, right. Quant-leaning departments did well in the REF, despite it being a peer review driven project. Look at Essex (1), UCL (5), Strathclyde (11)

REF 2014 ranking:

1. Essex
2. LSE
3. Sheffield
4. Oxford
5. UCL
6. Warwick
7. Aberystwyth
8. York
9. Exeter
10. Edinburgh
11. Strathclyde
12.Sussex
13. Cardiff
14. Cambridge
15. KCL / Southampton

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/2014/12/17/g/o/l/sub-14-01.pdf

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 2 NAY !
Marylyn

Guys, the REF panel in Politics and International Relations takes the diversity in the discipline into account. There are two sub-panels: one "political science" (=quant) and one "political studies" (=qual and theory). So, quant work is evaluated by quant scholars, qual work is evaluated by qual scholars.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 1 NAY !
Regine

You know you can just look this stuff up, right. Quant-leaning departments did well in the REF, despite it being a peer review driven project.

If you were quant, you would know that correlation does not imply causation

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 3 NAY !
Eve

Eve's logic is... interesting: "Essex maintains its REF ranking [which is determined by overwhelmingly non-quantitative, non-Essex UK political scientists] by being atheoretical reg monkeys."

That's not what I wrote. Try again.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Luanne

I still don't understand how critics want rating to look like or what they think matters. The dominant complaint seems to be "I don't like quant work and so I disagree with the REF research rating." That's a lame critique. So the department is focused on quant work. Why would that bias the rankings? I understand complaints about bean counting, but I thought the REF also tried to evaluate impact.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 0 NAY !
Carreen

I still don't understand how critics want rating to look like or what they think matters. The dominant complaint seems to be "I don't like quant work and so I disagree with the REF research rating." That's a lame critique. So the department is focused on quant work. Why would that bias the rankings? I understand complaints about bean counting, but I thought the REF also tried to evaluate impact.

Nope. essex is like merced at best, but boosters keep saying it's harvard.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 4 NAY !
Molly

Still no answer to the question. Cool. Seems like typical quant bashing. "I disagree with your metric and method, and I refuse to offer any alternative save my own perception."

I still don't understand how critics want rating to look like or what they think matters. The dominant complaint seems to be "I don't like quant work and so I disagree with the REF research rating." That's a lame critique. So the department is focused on quant work. Why would that bias the rankings? I understand complaints about bean counting, but I thought the REF also tried to evaluate impact.

Nope. essex is like merced at best, but boosters keep saying it's harvard.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 1 NAY !
Carreen

Still no answer to the question. Cool. Seems like typical quant bashing. "I disagree with your metric and method, and I refuse to offer any alternative save my own perception."
I still don't understand how critics want rating to look like or what they think matters. The dominant complaint seems to be "I don't like quant work and so I disagree with the REF research rating." That's a lame critique. So the department is focused on quant work. Why would that bias the rankings? I understand complaints about bean counting, but I thought the REF also tried to evaluate impact.
Nope. essex is like merced at best, but boosters keep saying it's harvard.

that's the answer. merced claims that it's on par with harvard bc they publish in top journals.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY !
Sequoia

Still no answer to the question. Cool. Seems like typical quant bashing. "I disagree with your metric and method, and I refuse to offer any alternative save my own perception."
I still don't understand how critics want rating to look like or what they think matters. The dominant complaint seems to be "I don't like quant work and so I disagree with the REF research rating." That's a lame critique. So the department is focused on quant work. Why would that bias the rankings? I understand complaints about bean counting, but I thought the REF also tried to evaluate impact.
Nope. essex is like merced at best, but boosters keep saying it's harvard.

Which question? 'Why would that bias the rankings?' - is that the question? I don't think anyone suggested that it would bias the rankings. The REF rankings cited do not suggest that having a significant quantitative presence is either a necessary or sufficient condition for excellence. Yes, Essex did well, but so did Sheffield, and Strathclyde, which has geared towards quant for the last 7-8 years, did worse than Sheffield as well as other, more mixed departments.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY !
Molly

My question is why people disagree with the REF rankings and what would be a preferable alternative. I don't think I was replying to you.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY !
Imogene

Essex > Merced

8 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY !
Roger

Essex > Merced

essex == merced.

but, i would prefer merced to essex.
much better pay.

8 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 4 NAY !
Urbain

My question is why people disagree with the REF rankings and what would be a preferable alternative. I don't think I was replying to you.

Many people complain about the REF because it's weird bean counting. They don't realize it was way worse before the REF because nobody had any incentive to publish good stuff in journals with high impact in the first place. The REF, despite all its shortcomings, has turned the UK into a place where publications at least somewhat matter now.

8 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY !
Reannon

My question is why people disagree with the REF rankings and what would be a preferable alternative. I don't think I was replying to you.

Many people complain about the REF because it's weird bean counting. They don't realize it was way worse before the REF because nobody had any incentive to publish good stuff in journals with high impact in the first place. The REF, despite all its shortcomings, has turned the UK into a place where publications at least somewhat matter now.

Yep. Compare this to what's happening in Germany or France (outside of a few good places). Deadwood is the rule, not the exception. At least, in the UK, putting stuff out increases the odds of being hired. Elsewhere, it's only about your network.

8 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY !
Bear

The sad thing is Essex is not sustainable--they have loads of European students that will disappear post Brexit. The University VC, instead of trying to make it into a niche elite social science institute tried to make it into a megauniversity that does all things for all constituencies.

8 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY !

« Previous 1…34

Essex

Reply