You are missing the point here. It's not that YG's record is impressive by any measure. It's that even that unimpressive record is superior to SP's record of 0 publications from her dissertation work.
Should we really be amused by a World Politics pub of a Princeton phd?
They all blur together
You are missing the point here. It's not that YG's record is impressive by any measure. It's that even that unimpressive record is superior to SP's record of 0 publications from her dissertation work.
Should we really be amused by a World Politics pub of a Princeton phd?
The problems with SP, some of which were pointed out by other posters, are:
1. The data is not that original or groundbreaking, and the data collection logistics are managed by a senior HKS scholar. She just tagged along an NGO in India, and is using their data.
2. The analyses in her JMP had to be conducted by a research assistant (which she does credit in that paper), as her quantitative skills are very poor.
3. Many ideas in her working papers are stolen from fellow grad students and other people, and poorly adapted to her work.
4. Her writing skills aren't good either.
5. Her teaching materials are also stolen from fellow grad students, with no credit given for the most part. She has the mentality of a cheater, as she can't trust her own abilities. Not a good sign.
6. The only peer-reviewed publication is with advisor, on advisor's research agenda, not her own, and it happened in 2014. She has yet to show that she can navigate the peer-review process on her own.
In conclusion, her research potential is zero, and her publication trajectory was entirely predictable. There is no excuse for Stanford wasting resources in the name of diversity, and going with a candidate way below the bar who will not be able to make tenure.
Ha! In 1-2 years, you will be eating crow.
You've just admitted that they implement illegal quotas. Which is far worse than making a mistake in predicting an applicant's research potential.
None of you understand. SP is a success.
Departments that hire SPs do not expect them to publish anything like traditional applicants. Departments can generally tell what they are getting from AP job applications and publication records.
SPs are figureheads to welcome, inspire and support students and other faculty with appropriate physical features. Same old story by now it should be obvious.
If one looks at the differences in qualifications, they clearly use soft quotas. People with the desired features go on Twitter all the time and bean count the number of white male faces.
You've just admitted that they implement illegal quotas. Which is far worse than making a mistake in predicting an applicant's research potential.
None of you understand. SP is a success.
Departments that hire SPs do not expect them to publish anything like traditional applicants. Departments can generally tell what they are getting from AP job applications and publication records.
SPs are figureheads to welcome, inspire and support students and other faculty with appropriate physical features. Same old story by now it should be obvious.
Stanford is quite impressive in its number of old, white and especially male faces. It has a diversity problem at the senior level of its own making and they could certainly fix it if they wanted to.
They will fix it by giving SP and HJ tenure to atone for their sins. They will have a special kind of tenure because of who they are and what they represent, not because of what they do. Didn't you see that HJ organized an **amazing** webinar? Stanford is on notice that they BETTER count this in his tenure file.
Stanford is quite impressive in its number of old, white and especially male faces. It has a diversity problem at the senior level of its own making and they could certainly fix it if they wanted to.
You sound like MS on Twitter.
Of the 43 faculty members listed at their site, 15 (AA, LB, EC, LD, SG, DH, SI, HJ, ML, BM, AQ, JO, SP, CR, YX) are clearly NOT white males. That's 35%. Most of these aren't even white. So URM are already overrepresented at Stanford, and the senior ones were promoted to full with questionable records.
So you just told us that 65% are white guys. Even more skewed at the senior level. That's a diversity problem. They created the problem over decades of narrow within group hiring. How they choose to deal with it is another issue.
Stanford is quite impressive in its number of old, white and especially male faces. It has a diversity problem at the senior level of its own making and they could certainly fix it if they wanted to.
You sound like MS on Twitter.
Of the 43 faculty members listed at their site, 15 (AA, LB, EC, LD, SG, DH, SI, HJ, ML, BM, AQ, JO, SP, CR, YX) are clearly NOT white males. That's 35%. Most of these aren't even white. So URM are already overrepresented at Stanford, and the senior ones were promoted to full with questionable records.
Stanford is quite impressive in its number of old, white and especially male faces. It has a diversity problem at the senior level of its own making and they could certainly fix it if they wanted to.
You sound like MS on Twitter.
Of the 43 faculty members listed at their site, 15 (AA, LB, EC, LD, SG, DH, SI, HJ, ML, BM, AQ, JO, SP, CR, YX) are clearly NOT white males. That's 35%. Most of these aren't even white. So URM are already overrepresented at Stanford, and the senior ones were promoted to full with questionable records.
tbf they do have a lot of old, white, male bloat at the senior (literally senior men) level. Half the American Politics budget is going towards guys who don't publish, mentor, or show up.
There is nothing wrong with SP. She is a perfectly smart, nice woman, and a good colleague, for sure. I don't think the rage here is about her being a woman or a Latina, either. The problem is there are many other non-white and non-male political scientists that are way better published than her who can't get jobs at all. The only difference is they are not Harvard/Stanford/Princeton grads. I think nobody in this thread is particularly upset about SP. They are angry about Stanford measuring "promise" with grad school affiliation and networks rather than transparent guidelines - like publications. There are so many more smart WOC that already have shown they have what it takes. Why her? The same thing with Harvard's new junior hire this year. Would these people be employed by these institutions had they been UNC, Syracuse, Maryland grads? No way.
There are so many more smart WOC that already have shown they have what it takes.
No, there aren’t. Name five young ones whose publication record is similar to those of new hires at top
15 departments (Asians don’t “count” as POC according to the university). People are annoyed because women and POC are hired at top schools with grossly few publications compared to their white and Asian male counterparts and then departments engage in the farce that they’re as qualified as other faculty.
So you just told us that 65% are white guys. Even more skewed at the senior level. That's a diversity problem.
Sure. Just like the greater diversity problem in political views, state of origin, height, weight etc. Also to make the department more representative of the entire world, there need to be way more Chinese and Indians. We also cannot forget to diversify other institutions like prisons, the nfl and the nba while we are at it.
I’m at another elite dept and this doesn’t surprise me at all. Lots of focus on the likelihood that the work will change the field than on number of pubs.
what field changing promise was there for her. I looked at her cv and research agenda and don't get it. Seems like stuff at least a dozen others (on India) are doing.
I am not trying to pile up on SP. I don't have a dog in this fight. But if you had 6 years in Harvard with unlimited resources, no teaching, 2 years at Oxford, then you should have something more to show than a JOP with your undergrad advisor that came out 6 years ago. As others have pointed out in this thread, her work on gender in India is ambitious but it's not novel and there's not much out there. And the little data she has shown in the conference circuit (yes, I have been in the room) is similar to what other scholars have done, or doing with fewer resources.
You all need to take a chill pill. SP had a two year post doc. She’s literally finishing her first year. Lots of folks struggle to publish their first year on the clock.