SP (Harvard -> Oxford -> Stanford) still hasn't published a paper

7 months - 109 posts - Latest - RSS
OP: 24 Goods vs 6 No Goods
Thread: 702 Goods vs 665 No Goods

Political Science Rumors » Political Science » Political Science Discussion

SP (Harvard -> Oxford -> Stanford) still hasn't published a paper

« Previous 1…456 Next »

Sarina

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post

It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.

maybe you should go into day trading...

7 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 6 NAY !
Sarina

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post

It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.

and again ex post != ex ante, but great use of fallacious logic, i.e.,

conditional on outcomes ex post, we conclude stanford can't make predictions ex ante. i mean you're failing simple logic at this point.

7 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 9 NAY !
Melitta

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post
It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.
and again ex post != ex ante, but great use of fallacious logic, i.e.,
conditional on outcomes ex post, we conclude stanford can't make predictions ex ante. i mean you're failing simple logic at this point.

No. The point is that hiring people without strong publication records only makes sense if you can predict who is going to be productive.

7 months ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 2 NAY !
Sarina

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post
It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.
and again ex post != ex ante, but great use of fallacious logic, i.e.,
conditional on outcomes ex post, we conclude stanford can't make predictions ex ante. i mean you're failing simple logic at this point.

No. The point is that hiring people without strong publication records only makes sense if you can predict who is going to be productive.

1) you're 100% ignoring the prior post about different incentives
2) hitting at APSR is like a lottery, this point is about predicting hits/impact over the long-run, not how smart the megaball winner was for picking the right numbers
3) you're conditioning on one case ex post, not every hire will hit big immediately, but guarantee stanford is much, much, much better at picks than you....
4) JFC no wonder econ thinks PS is full of such dullards

7 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 8 NAY !
Rhetta

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post
It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.
and again ex post != ex ante, but great use of fallacious logic, i.e.,
conditional on outcomes ex post, we conclude stanford can't make predictions ex ante. i mean you're failing simple logic at this point.
No. The point is that hiring people without strong publication records only makes sense if you can predict who is going to be productive.

1) you're 100% ignoring the prior post about different incentives
2) hitting at APSR is like a lottery, this point is about predicting hits/impact over the long-run, not how smart the megaball winner was for picking the right numbers
3) you're conditioning on one case ex post, not every hire will hit big immediately, but guarantee stanford is much, much, much better at picks than you....
4) JFC no wonder econ thinks PS is full of such dullards

Stanford has made multiple hires over the last decade who have published no more than a book and an article over the entire tenure clock. I can easily beat that record.

7 months ago # QUOTE 8 YEA 2 NAY !
Sarina

VC (MIT) graduated from Harvard at the same time and she has already produced a solo APSR and a co-authored APSR. Also she had a solo CPS and a multiple co-authored CPSs when she hit the market. Hard to say why SP would be a better hire than VC. Same pedigree, same promise/potential, one already has multiple top pubs and more under review.
ex ante != ex post
It is relevant though, because VC also had a Stanford talk. Maybe Stanford isn't so good at predicting outcomes after all, if their ability to discern "promise" is this bad.
and again ex post != ex ante, but great use of fallacious logic, i.e.,
conditional on outcomes ex post, we conclude stanford can't make predictions ex ante. i mean you're failing simple logic at this point.
No. The point is that hiring people without strong publication records only makes sense if you can predict who is going to be productive.
1) you're 100% ignoring the prior post about different incentives
2) hitting at APSR is like a lottery, this point is about predicting hits/impact over the long-run, not how smart the megaball winner was for picking the right numbers
3) you're conditioning on one case ex post, not every hire will hit big immediately, but guarantee stanford is much, much, much better at picks than you....
4) JFC no wonder econ thinks PS is full of such dullards

Stanford has made multiple hires over the last decade who have published no more than a book and an article over the entire tenure clock. I can easily beat that record.

maybe you should get hired first, and then get on a search committee, and tell me how that works out

7 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 5 NAY !
Zilla

Exactly!

Funny how people say "only two years" as if Harvard grads didn't have damn near a decade of resources and funding to get publications out without ever having to do much in return.
What you meant to say was, "only 8 years" to get something decent out.

7 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 2 NAY !
Zilla

YES!!!!

two years? That's too short to produce a great work, unless you free ride.

Seriously? Someone who spent 6 years in grad school and 2 years in a postdoc hasn't "had time" to produce anything in the past 8 years?
Despite having no teaching obligations?
Despite having virtually unlimited resources relative to their peers in programs ranked below the top 10?
Despite having summers free to pursue their research instead of having to teach summer school or find outside employment to make ends meet?
Despite the major advantage of having Harvard/Oxford as their institutional affiliations during the review process, had they chosen to submit any work?
Despite being among the best-connected network of renowned scholars for 8 years?
Why are so many CHYMPS people are so f***ing lazy? Everyone else is expected to publish several pieces as an ABD as a minimum requirement for the long list at a bottom-feeder R1, and yet many of those who meet that requirement will apply everywhere and still be unemployed.
So I guess the question is this: What do you people even do all day?

7 months ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 2 NAY !
Zilla

who the hell is SP at stanford?

7 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY !
Kaylyn

She is a completely unqualified Latina who had the gall to go to Harvard for grad school, do a PhD at Oxford, and then take a TT job at Stanford, even though many white males were far more qualified than she is.

who the hell is SP at stanford?

7 months ago # QUOTE 6 YEA 6 NAY !
Zilla

@stanford political science department? I don't see her on their page?

She is a completely unqualified Latina who had the gall to go to Harvard for grad school, do a PhD at Oxford, and then take a TT job at Stanford, even though many white males were far more qualified than she is.
who the hell is SP at stanford?

7 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 2 NAY !
Zilla

I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!

7 months ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 4 NAY !
Avila

I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!

Has a solo AJPS...

7 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 2 NAY !
Zilla

And another assistant prof. with zero publications 4 years out of PhD. Cool!

I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!

7 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 2 NAY !
Avila

And another assistant prof. with zero publications 4 years out of PhD. Cool!
I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!

So you're lying and quoting yourself. Nice.

7 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 2 NAY !
Emma

look at her CV, b i t c h
And another assistant prof. with zero publications 4 years out of PhD. Cool!
I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!
So you're lying and quoting yourself. Nice.

The one on her website from 2015 or on the faculty page from 2016.

Ok, people should update their CVs....

Ta da: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12393

7 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 4 NAY !
Zilla

good job writing a paper that no one will absolutely ever read. you should put it on your cv

look at her CV, b i t c h
And another assistant prof. with zero publications 4 years out of PhD. Cool!
I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!
So you're lying and quoting yourself. Nice.

The one on her website from 2015 or on the faculty page from 2016.
Ok, people should update their CVs....
Ta da: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12393

7 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 7 NAY !
Meg

hi emilee
look at her CV, b i t c h
And another assistant prof. with zero publications 4 years out of PhD. Cool!
I see an EBC who has zero publications 3 years out of PhD from Princeton. Wtf?!
So you're lying and quoting yourself. Nice.
The one on her website from 2015 or on the faculty page from 2016.
Ok, people should update their CVs....
Ta da: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12393

Nope. Just someone who knows how to use Google Scholar.

7 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY !
Cyrus

Don't let this thread get sidetracked regarding EBC. Political theory is a book driven subfield. Tenure will depend on the quality of her book(s) published before review. A couple journal articles are expected too, but are not central.

Let's get back to SP.

7 months ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 2 NAY !
Mathilde

could anyone share the link to her bio?? I don't friggin see her

Don't let this thread get sidetracked regarding EBC. Political theory is a book driven subfield. Tenure will depend on the quality of her book(s) published before review. A couple journal articles are expected too, but are not central.
Let's get back to SP.

7 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY !

« Previous 1…456 Next »

SP (Harvard -> Oxford -> Stanford) still hasn't published a paper

Reply »