• 2 years - 362 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 3 Goods vs 14 No Goods
• Thread: 1582 Goods vs 1344 No Goods

1. Snape
   

   Cute how many people on this website still expect the academic market to be organized according to some kind of meritocracy. I guess sometimes the brightest scholars are at the top places. But much more often it's about pedigree. It's very often about the Q Skinners of the world saying this and that person should control this department.
   It's like half the people on this website never studied politics before. As if academic job markets are some kind of perfect system for organizing talent

   Yah but we’re the ones that yammer about justice privilege etc

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY!

2. Katherine
   

   I’m sure both BG and KH have benefited from inegalitarian and aristocratic hierarchies. My last post suggests KH may also have benefited from his misleading people.
   -
   “BG and KH publish little but that doesn’t make them frauds. KH may however have misled people about the status of his book. His cv on his web page has used various phrases to suggest that his book has been accepted by OUP and is in press. He has been saying that for at least 5 years, but the book still hasn’t come out. If he misled Berkeley like that, it’d make him a fraud.”

   5 months ago # QUOTE 2 YEA 6 NAY!

3. Rosalyn
   

   Um, sorry - the fact that something has not come out is simply not evidence of fraud, whether or not it's a good thing. You do realize that several committees will have seen drafts of work in progress. That he has held back publishing is his issue but don't think committees can't do their job and read drafts, which they do.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 3 YEA 1 NAY!

4. Katherine
   

   Surely it’s odd he says on his cv the book is accepted and forthcoming if he intends to hold it back. He could remove it until he is ready to let it come out. Of course he may have told the relevant committees he was holding it back or it may have been withdrawn for reasons beyond his control, but it doesn’t look good. For 5 years or more he’s continued to imply that the book is accepted and forthcoming even though that’s obviously not literally true. His cv is misleading and if that’s intentional, it’s a kind of fraud..

   5 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 3 NAY!

5. Lysette
   

   Is SB really retiring?

   5 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY!

6. Debra
   

   Benhabib out.

   5 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 0 NAY!

7. Emeline
   

   Yale----> toilet

   5 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY!

8. Aurelien
   

   Surely it’s odd he says on his cv the book is accepted and forthcoming if he intends to hold it back. He could remove it until he is ready to let it come out. Of course he may have told the relevant committees he was holding it back or it may have been withdrawn for reasons beyond his control, but it doesn’t look good. For 5 years or more he’s continued to imply that the book is accepted and forthcoming even though that’s obviously not literally true. His cv is misleading and if that’s intentional, it’s a kind of fraud..

   This is ridiculous. Have you ever published a book? Once it clears peer review it is both "accepted" and "forthcoming." (The two are equivalent.) But at that point an author can insist on revising it. No, revision doesn't usually go on for years--but it can. So there is nothing misleading about saying it's forthcoming (and accepted). It is. It's just a question of when, and the answer is, when he's satisfied with it. To say that the guy's a perfectionist isn't to say that he's some "kind of fraud."

   5 months ago # QUOTE 5 YEA 2 NAY!

9. Lindsey
   

   Yes, Aurelien is right. And, no, the complainer has probably not published a book. But as with an article, forthcoming means it's been accepted. There is then a process of revision. KH may be a perfectionist but nothing on the CV is 'fraudulent.'

   5 months ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 1 NAY!

10. Isidora
    

    Where is she going?

    Benhabib out.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 0 NAY!

11. Lynton
    

    I've published 4 books and served on many promotion committees. accepted does not mean forthcoming.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 4 YEA 1 NAY!

12. Lindsey
    

    Sorry, it means accepted in the form that the publisher is willing to publish it (e.g, after reader reports). You can then delay if you want. This is common enough.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 5 YEA 1 NAY!

13. Katherine
    

    Katherine here. You’re right I haven’t published a book. I have a question. Roughly when would the acceptance of his book cease to apply? I have published articles and if I took five years to perfect an article I think the journal would send it out to be refereed again because for example it might be out of date on the secondary literature. Are books different?

    5 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY!

14. Aurelien
    

    Katherine here. You’re right I haven’t published a book. I have a question. Roughly when would the acceptance of his book cease to apply? I have published articles and if I took five years to perfect an article I think the journal would send it out to be refereed again because for example it might be out of date on the secondary literature. Are books different?

    Yes, they're different. Not sure I've ever heard of anyone having a book publisher withdraw because revisions took too long. Has anyone else?

    5 months ago # QUOTE 0 YEA 1 NAY!

15. Jade
    

    SB to Columbia.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 4 NAY!

16. Rosalyn
    

    It is pretty routine to hear stories of senior faculty with books 5-10 years past due date.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 1 YEA 2 NAY!

17. Larry
    

    Shapiro's and Smith's best work are far behind them.
    Garsten checked out of scholarship post-tenure.
    Landemore was a very weak tenure promotion.
    Oskian and Terry are distinctly underproductive.
    Rubinelli is productive but substantively un-interesting.

    Yale is not that good. It just isn't.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 13 YEA 4 NAY!

18. Letha
    

    Shapiro's and Smith's best work are far behind them.
    Garsten checked out of scholarship post-tenure.
    Landemore was a very weak tenure promotion.
    Oskian and Terry are distinctly underproductive.
    Rubinelli is productive but substantively un-interesting.

    A succinct and accurate external review of Yale's theory program.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 9 YEA 4 NAY!

19. Caitlyn
    

    Landemore was a very strong case.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-future-of-democracy/politics-without-politicians

    Shapiro's and Smith's best work are far behind them.
    Garsten checked out of scholarship post-tenure.
    Landemore was a very weak tenure promotion.
    Oskian and Terry are distinctly underproductive.
    Rubinelli is productive but substantively un-interesting.
    Yale is not that good. It just isn't.

    5 months ago # QUOTE 9 YEA 5 NAY!

20. Dolly
    

    arguably it's not a great idea to outsource evaluation to the new yorker

    5 months ago # QUOTE 8 YEA 1 NAY!

Reply »