• 1 year - 186 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 2 Goods vs 1 No Goods
• Thread: 741 Goods vs 397 No Goods

1. Harriett
   

   what about JLW?

   I think he would ordinarily have been scheduled to go up at the same time as ML, but he got a special deal to retain him against UCLA a while back that may have affected his clock

   1 month ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 0 NAY!

2. Sibyl
   

   He won't leave UC because his wife is a biologist at Chicago, and from what I understand, she's comfortable and happy at Chicago (which is to say, nobody from UCLA is biting).

   1 month ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 0 NAY!

3. Caryl
   

   He won't leave UC because his wife is a biologist at Chicago, and from what I understand, she's comfortable and happy at Chicago (which is to say, nobody from UCLA is biting).

   She got early tenure out of the UCLA interest, it wanted both of them

   1 month ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 1 NAY!

4. Colette
   

   He won't leave UC because his wife is a biologist at Chicago, and from what I understand, she's comfortable and happy at Chicago (which is to say, nobody from UCLA is biting).

   She got early tenure out of the UCLA interest, it wanted both of them

   As someone with insider information, I can tell you straight up this is untrue. And in any case, JLW will not be getting tenure.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 5 NAY!

5. Marly
   

   He won't leave UC because his wife is a biologist at Chicago, and from what I understand, she's comfortable and happy at Chicago (which is to say, nobody from UCLA is biting).
   She got early tenure out of the UCLA interest, it wanted both of them

   As someone with insider information, I can tell you straight up this is untrue. And in any case, JLW will not be getting tenure.

   He will be tenured, no question. The id-iot jackals here notwithstanding.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 0 NAY!

6. Anatole
   

   Proof or fake news.

   ML was denied.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 1 NAY!

Reply

Post <blockquote>1. The original couple of posts included the claim that SM wouldn’t look out of place in a philosophy department. That claim is obviously absurd and Sigmund is correct to say so. 2. Analytic philosophy is normally understood as arising with the work of people like Russell, Moore, and Frege, so most philosophers would not think SM does the history of analytic philosophy. 3. Most historians in philosophy departments work unsurprisingly on the history of philosophy, not the history of ideas of imperialism and international order, and they would not think SM does the history of philosophy. 4. If those points aren’t obvious to you, you know nothing about philosophy departments. They do HPT but primarily of analytic philosophers, esp SM, who primarily teaches like Kant, Hume, Rousseau, etc. and wouldn’t look out of place in a phil dept. Sub disciplinary boundaries aren’t that hard. This is some real galaxy brain stuff. Kant and Rousseau are analytic philosophers? SM could teach in a philosophy department? Neither of these statements is true. Not even close.</blockquote>

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.