But she is productive and is making an impact. People like BG and SS are completely irrelevant, both amongst peers and the public.
arguably it's not a great idea to outsource evaluation to the new yorker
Yale PT
-
But she is productive and is making an impact. People like BG and SS are completely irrelevant, both amongst peers and the public.
arguably it's not a great idea to outsource evaluation to the new yorkerThis is true. On all counts.
Landemore would have never gotten tenure if Yale wasn't panicked about Benhabib and Mantena leaving.
-
But she is productive and is making an impact. People like BG and SS are completely irrelevant, both amongst peers and the public.
arguably it's not a great idea to outsource evaluation to the new yorker
This is true. On all counts.Landemore would have never gotten tenure if Yale wasn't panicked about Benhabib and Mantena leaving.
This is clearly false, as anyone who knows how Yale thinks about this kind of thing would know.
-
Um
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XPqD-OMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=aoBut she is productive and is making an impact. People like BG and SS are completely irrelevant, both amongst peers and the public.
arguably it's not a great idea to outsource evaluation to the new yorker
This is true. On all counts.Landemore would have never gotten tenure if Yale wasn't panicked about Benhabib and Mantena leaving.
-
If Oskian, Terry, and Rubinelli are so bad, then who is a good theorist under 40? Are there any or has the field dried up?
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.
-
No doubt Landemore is one of the leading theorists of her generation. Unlike Valentini or Ypi, she also has a distinctive and original research agenda, flawed as it may be. Unlike Markell (who is older anyway) and Mantena she is productive. Landemore is a 2008 PhD. Who else has had as much impact in that cohort?
-
No doubt Landemore is one of the leading theorists of her generation. Unlike Valentini or Ypi, she also has a distinctive and original research agenda, flawed as it may be. Unlike Markell (who is older anyway) and Mantena she is productive. Landemore is a 2008 PhD. Who else has had as much impact in that cohort?
Who else is there really?
-
Interesting factoid: the top theorists in that generation are overwhelmingly women.
Famous and well-connected, yes. Top, no idea. Political theory is a field with a slow impact (which also means that those who follow the dominant trends are rendered irrelevant when those trends are not dominant anymore). We need to wait till they reach at least 50 to know what they are/ have been up to. For now, the situation is bleak - lets hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
-
No doubt Landemore is one of the leading theorists of her generation. Unlike Valentini or Ypi, she also has a distinctive and original research agenda, flawed as it may be. Unlike Markell (who is older anyway) and Mantena she is productive. Landemore is a 2008 PhD. Who else has had as much impact in that cohort?
Landemore's research agenda is reactionary at best and blind to actual politics at worst. On its face, the wisdom of the crowd claim is disproved after a glace at the morning paper. If we follow her in making the crowd big enough and constrain political discourse within the strictest parameters she raises, even these results tell us no more about politics than Habermas' crib notes.
-
No doubt Landemore is one of the leading theorists of her generation. Unlike Valentini or Ypi, she also has a distinctive and original research agenda, flawed as it may be. Unlike Markell (who is older anyway) and Mantena she is productive. Landemore is a 2008 PhD. Who else has had as much impact in that cohort?
Landemore's research agenda is reactionary at best and blind to actual politics at worst. On its face, the wisdom of the crowd claim is disproved after a glace at the morning paper. If we follow her in making the crowd big enough and constrain political discourse within the strictest parameters she raises, even these results tell us no more about politics than Habermas' crib notes.
There’s actually a lot of empirical evidence in support of her claims, but sure, continue to use the morning paper to claim otherwise.
-
The claim here is that Yale theory is lacking but nobody is any good except maybe a Yale theory professor?
That is a pretty reasonable claim though.
Yale theory is lacking? Check? Nobody anywhere else is that great either? Check. The only questionable part is the idea that any Yale theory Professor is top-notch.