why is this the more important question
I think the more important question is why didn't they pay MadCow supporters to quit watching MSDNC
Utych personally offended when other people do good research
-
I'm not sure I see what the complaint here is. The author's institutions didn't just give them money, they got grants. Anyone is allowed to apply for those same grants. So I'm not seeing how this isn't a level playing field.
Like it or not, part of being a good scientist is securing funding. People who are good at that part of the job are rewarded by the discipline. I think it's problematic that securing funding is part of being a scientist, but so long as it is I'm not sure I see the problem with the discipline rewarding it.LOL yeah it’s a level playing field securing grant funding. No nepotism/bias involved at all
-
BUT Twitter is not good therapy.
I mean, unless you like getting ruthlessly owned by Rashaan Maxwell in passing. Which, truth be told, I think SU might.
Maxwell is an arrse hool.talk about a guy who punches above his weight. Found a nice racket (immigration, comparative), has the right demo characteristics, and found himself at Duke.
More power to him, he played the game right. But a great intellect this man isn't.
-
BUT Twitter is not good therapy.
I mean, unless you like getting ruthlessly owned by Rashaan Maxwell in passing. Which, truth be told, I think SU might.
Maxwell is an arrse hool.
talk about a guy who punches above his weight. Found a nice racket (immigration, comparative), has the right demo characteristics, and found himself at Duke.
More power to him, he played the game right. But a great intellect this man isn't.I just looked up his CV. Woof.
-
talk about a guy who punches above his weight. Found a nice racket (immigration, comparative), has the right demo characteristics, and found himself at Duke.
More power to him, he played the game right. But a great intellect this man isn't.Dude went to full on the weight of 2 CPS and 1 APSR while associate, and a handful of articles in journals of no repute.
-
talk about a guy who punches above his weight. Found a nice racket (immigration, comparative), has the right demo characteristics, and found himself at Duke.
More power to him, he played the game right. But a great intellect this man isn't.Dude went to full on the weight of 2 CPS and 1 APSR while associate, and a handful of articles in journals of no repute.
Strong mischaracterization of his record. How about two books (1 Cambridge), 2 CPS, a solo APSR, a solo BJPS plus lots of filler.
-
Dude went to full on the weight of 2 CPS and 1 APSR while associate, and a handful of articles in journals of no repute.
Strong mischaracterization of his record. How about two books (1 Cambridge), 2 CPS, a solo APSR, a solo BJPS plus lots of filler.
Thank you for saying I mischaracterized his record by mischaracterizing his post-tenure record.
(Did you see I listed an APSR and two CPS?)
I was speaking (in my sentence-long post, not sure how you missed it) to his post-tenure record. The thing one achieves full on. A pre-tenure book (ditto his BJPS) gets you tenure, not full.
-
Dude went to full on the weight of 2 CPS and 1 APSR while associate, and a handful of articles in journals of no repute.
Strong mischaracterization of his record. How about two books (1 Cambridge), 2 CPS, a solo APSR, a solo BJPS plus lots of filler.Thank you for saying I mischaracterized his record by mischaracterizing his post-tenure record.
(Did you see I listed an APSR and two CPS?)
I was speaking (in my sentence-long post, not sure how you missed it) to his post-tenure record. The thing one achieves full on. A pre-tenure book (ditto his BJPS) gets you tenure, not full.I wrote for him. I was asked to evaluate his entire record. But continue being wrong.
-
Of course, they are politically aligned with the missions of these interest groups. K&B have made their name initially through uncovering fraud, so I doubt they'd ever do something sketchy in the name of results. But if this "funding model" were expanded and became the norm, honestly I don't trust most political scientists to do political research with political groups and come out with non-sketchy results.
This is an important question. Would they be completely free to accept and publish results if the outcomes of the study did not align with the political mission of the interest groups? (and their own political priors)
-
I think this is the big issue. I once saw an APSA presentation using really cool data from international call centers. Someone asked how the guy got access and he said he went to prep school with the company CEO. The inequalities start earlier than grant applications.
I'm still trying to decide whether this is a big deal or not, but it does strike me as strange that K&B's biggest funders are ones that the average political scientist would have no chance at even "applying" for. I'm not even sure these groups do applications. K&B have these industry connections that are basically self-reinforcing, they go from one interest group to the next, running big expensive experiments. Of course, they are politically aligned with the missions of these interest groups. K&B have made their name initially through uncovering fraud, so I doubt they'd ever do something sketchy in the name of results. But if this "funding model" were expanded and became the norm, honestly I don't trust most political scientists to do political research with political groups and come out with non-sketchy results.
-
The misanthropic overachiever archetype: they believe they can publish enough to offset their personal shortcomings, and get frustrated when the discipline doesn’t reward the lines on their CV. They then go off about how the discipline is not a meritocracy, as if people want to spend their work hours with a turd who has several top 3s. Prestigious departments want competent and collegial colleagues. At some point, there is no number of top hits that can override an unpleasant personality.
-
The misanthropic overachiever archetype: they believe they can publish enough to offset their personal shortcomings, and get frustrated when the discipline doesn’t reward the lines on their CV. They then go off about how the discipline is not a meritocracy, as if people want to spend their work hours with a turd who has several top 3s. Prestigious departments want competent and collegial colleagues. At some point, there is no number of top hits that can override an unpleasant personality.
But he is a different sub-type within this category. Because he doesn't really have any top hits. He thinks his dozen or so hits in low quality outlets is equivalent to generalizable and thoroughly vetted papers in quality outlets.
-
The misanthropic overachiever archetype: they believe they can publish enough to offset their personal shortcomings, and get frustrated when the discipline doesn’t reward the lines on their CV. They then go off about how the discipline is not a meritocracy, as if people want to spend their work hours with a turd who has several top 3s. Prestigious departments want competent and collegial colleagues. At some point, there is no number of top hits that can override an unpleasant personality.
But he is a different sub-type within this category. Because he doesn't really have any top hits. He thinks his dozen or so hits in low quality outlets is equivalent to generalizable and thoroughly vetted papers in quality outlets.
He has a bunch of JOPs...