Hey David! When will you new website be up?
LOL political scientist with no publications hired by Columbia removes CV
-
Political scientist here:
1. Yes, letters matter a lot.
2. Pre-hiring publication, even multiple articles, is now the norm. But that was not always true. It used to be more true in the middle of the market. The bottom was just about teaching and yes, at the top of the market being the protege of a big shot and having buzz as a result was all that was necessary. Even if someone like this had maybe one or two publications (possibly co-authored) the buzz was the big factor. These days buzz still matters a lot, but it's more that X with "pedigree" and buzz gets interest while Y with equal publications does not.3. Everything above applies to white and (the not so numerous) Asian candidates more than African-American or Latino candidates. Because there is a premium on hiring them, they are treated like white stars were 20 years ago, when early publication was less important.
-
Political scientist here:
1. Yes, letters matter a lot.
2. Pre-hiring publication, even multiple articles, is now the norm. But that was not always true. It used to be more true in the middle of the market. The bottom was just about teaching and yes, at the top of the market being the protege of a big shot and having buzz as a result was all that was necessary. Even if someone like this had maybe one or two publications (possibly co-authored) the buzz was the big factor. These days buzz still matters a lot, but it's more that X with "pedigree" and buzz gets interest while Y with equal publications does not.
3. Everything above applies to white and (the not so numerous) Asian candidates more than African-American or Latino candidates. Because there is a premium on hiring them, they are treated like white stars were 20 years ago, when early publication was less important.Sociologist here.
1. Letters matter none.
2. Pre-hiring publication, multiple articles, is a must for everyone but blks at places like Columbia.
This person has zero publications. There's no buzz around this person. This person is not a star.
3. There are two markets, one for blks and one for everyone else. The standards are very different. White stars 20 years ago had solid publication record while in grad school. -
I am familiar with the polisci market, but I really don't believe you on #1. Disciplinary norms differ, and they could matter less than in polisci or esp. Econ -which is more hierarchical- departments literally rank the grad students they are sending out "this is our best student this year, this is our 2nd best!"- but that they don't matter at all in soc seems very doubtful.
I also don't think "everyone else" includes Latinos in your field. A lot of this is driven by administrators and they do not consider Latino and white hires to be equivalent.
-
Fair points here. This guy is a total unknown in soc. Did he ever
get other offers in soc? Talks? But don't act like there haven't been blk or brown market stars because there have been.Political scientist here:
1. Yes, letters matter a lot.
2. Pre-hiring publication, even multiple articles, is now the norm. But that was not always true. It used to be more true in the middle of the market. The bottom was just about teaching and yes, at the top of the market being the protege of a big shot and having buzz as a result was all that was necessary. Even if someone like this had maybe one or two publications (possibly co-authored) the buzz was the big factor. These days buzz still matters a lot, but it's more that X with "pedigree" and buzz gets interest while Y with equal publications does not.
3. Everything above applies to white and (the not so numerous) Asian candidates more than African-American or Latino candidates. Because there is a premium on hiring them, they are treated like white stars were 20 years ago, when early publication was less important.
Sociologist here.
1. Letters matter none.
2. Pre-hiring publication, multiple articles, is a must for everyone but blks at places like Columbia.
This person has zero publications. There's no buzz around this person. This person is not a star.
3. There are two markets, one for blks and one for everyone else. The standards are very different. White stars 20 years ago had solid publication record while in grad school. -
I am familiar with the polisci market, but I really don't believe you on #1. Disciplinary norms differ, and they could matter less than in polisci or esp. Econ -which is more hierarchical- departments literally rank the grad students they are sending out "this is our best student this year, this is our 2nd best!"- but that they don't matter at all in soc seems very doubtful.
I also don't think "everyone else" includes Latinos in your field. A lot of this is driven by administrators and they do not consider Latino and white hires to be equivalent.Letters are so unimportant in sociology as to effectively not matter at all. There are no overall departmental comparisons of JMCs. And I have never seen a letter comparing a JMC to other JMCs from the same department. It's not unusual for faculty to not know what other students are on the market except their advisees and the students on whose dissertation committees they serve. What matters in sociology are informal recommendation systems.
Latinos are generally much more on par with whites than blacks. Black does not mean African American, but of course include black Latinos. There are not much informal advantage or diversity hires for non-black Latinos.
-
NYU soc made an offer. There was concern about lack of pubs but we actually read and folks were very impressed by papers and saw him as brilliant and creative
LOL This is always the lame justification for hiring unqualified blacks. "he's may not have published anything and has nothing forthcoming but he is oh so brilliant and creative." That would never ever fly when hiring non-blacks.
-
NYU soc made an offer. There was concern about lack of pubs but we actually read and folks were very impressed by papers and saw him as brilliant and creative
Everybody's non published work is brilliant and creative!
That's what S h e d d
defenders here were saying for years. That work remains non published -
Do you think David J Knight would have been hired by Columbia sociology if he was a white person? Or do you think his dark black skin mattered more to them than the publication section of his vitae? Gee, I wonder..
Yes sir, very much so, clearly Knight would have been hired if he were wht.
-
Do you think David J Knight would have been hired by Columbia sociology if he was a white person? Or do you think his dark black skin mattered more to them than the publication section of his vitae? Gee, I wonder..
If David were white and did research about blacks, with the same record he is having now, they would have still hired him. It's not about his skin it is about the his research.
-
Do you think David J Knight would have been hired by Columbia sociology if he was a white person? Or do you think his dark black skin mattered more to them than the publication section of his vitae? Gee, I wonder..
If David were white and did research about blacks, with the same record he is having now, they would have still hired him. It's not about his skin it is about the his research.What is exceptional about it? And why hadn’t he published?
-
Jeez. Don't be so literal-minded and pedantic. "Letters" mattering in polisci includes informal recommendations. If you write a rave and you are a big shot, you also contact your friend at at dept, in case he is not on the committee and wouldn't see the letter. Where the letters per se matter is at the departments (often one rung down) where the big shot is known but doesn't have a friend he will contact.
I am familiar with the polisci market, but I really don't believe you on #1. Disciplinary norms differ, and they could matter less than in polisci or esp. Econ -which is more hierarchical- departments literally rank the grad students they are sending out "this is our best student this year, this is our 2nd best!"- but that they don't matter at all in soc seems very doubtful.
I also don't think "everyone else" includes Latinos in your field. A lot of this is driven by administrators and they do not consider Latino and white hires to be equivalent.
Letters are so unimportant in sociology as to effectively not matter at all. There are no overall departmental comparisons of JMCs. And I have never seen a letter comparing a JMC to other JMCs from the same department. It's not unusual for faculty to not know what other students are on the market except their advisees and the students on whose dissertation committees they serve. What matters in sociology are informal recommendation systems.
Latinos are generally much more on par with whites than blacks. Black does not mean African American, but of course include black Latinos. There are not much informal advantage or diversity hires for non-black Latinos. -
If letters are so important, why are we doing the f%%King research and writing the f%%King papers?
Jeez. Don't be so literal-minded and pedantic. "Letters" mattering in polisci includes informal recommendations. If you write a rave and you are a big shot, you also contact your friend at at dept, in case he is not on the committee and wouldn't see the letter. Where the letters per se matter is at the departments (often one rung down) where the big shot is known but doesn't have a friend he will contact.
I am familiar with the polisci market, but I really don't believe you on #1. Disciplinary norms differ, and they could matter less than in polisci or esp. Econ -which is more hierarchical- departments literally rank the grad students they are sending out "this is our best student this year, this is our 2nd best!"- but that they don't matter at all in soc seems very doubtful.
I also don't think "everyone else" includes Latinos in your field. A lot of this is driven by administrators and they do not consider Latino and white hires to be equivalent.
Letters are so unimportant in sociology as to effectively not matter at all. There are no overall departmental comparisons of JMCs. And I have never seen a letter comparing a JMC to other JMCs from the same department. It's not unusual for faculty to not know what other students are on the market except their advisees and the students on whose dissertation committees they serve. What matters in sociology are informal recommendation systems.
Latinos are generally much more on par with whites than blacks. Black does not mean African American, but of course include black Latinos. There are not much informal advantage or diversity hires for non-black Latinos.