Faster than any other social science. Sociology departments are losing majors faster than any other discipline. We are dying.
Sociology losing scholars
-
Nah. Could be better, but this is overstating it.
It's literally true, though.
Sociology deliberately allowed itself to become laughingstock of American academia in the past 5 years. Or it almost seems like this was the goal.
The ASA_News twitter account during conferences has broadcast sociology as a discipline for s/tupid people. People like Kolysh were literally being promoted as serious scholars and leading figures in the discipline. -
That twitter account, at that time or any other time, isn't a record of the discipline.
Nah. Could be better, but this is overstating it.
It's literally true, though.
Sociology deliberately allowed itself to become laughingstock of American academia in the past 5 years. Or it almost seems like this was the goal.
The ASA_News twitter account during conferences has broadcast sociology as a discipline for s/tupid people. People like Kolysh were literally being promoted as serious scholars and leading figures in the discipline. -
Nah. Could be better, but this is overstating it.
It's literally true, though.
Sociology deliberately allowed itself to become laughingstock of American academia in the past 5 years. Or it almost seems like this was the goal.
The ASA_News twitter account during conferences has broadcast sociology as a discipline for s/tupid people. People like Kolysh were literally being promoted as serious scholars and leading figures in the discipline.Nah, this is something non-academics make up after too much time on Twitter. You're never going to convince us that we're not published and cited in science journals, that I don't have an NSF that I competed against engineers for, that our students aren't going to the NIH and prestigious university health labs, etc. Sure, we have some goofs. And if you even get within earshot of a science department (I was in a chem lab this afternoon) you'll learn about their high profile goofs spreading fringe theories to the public too.
I get that this is all foreign to you as a non-academic, but you should know that trying to make this catch on among sociologists is futile.
Bu..bu..bu...TWITTER!!
-
It's a real problem actually. Sure there are individual sociologists doing well, getting cited, grants, etc, but overall the discipline is in trouble. Students are looking for applied degrees. At least CJ majors can go after a job in the criminal justice system. Who advertises looking for a sociologist?
-
It's a real problem actually. Sure there are individual sociologists doing well, getting cited, grants, etc, but overall the discipline is in trouble. Students are looking for applied degrees. At least CJ majors can go after a job in the criminal justice system. Who advertises looking for a sociologist?
This is a bait and switch, and it’s not a very good one. You start off addressing an argument about our academics and for some reason support it with the (supposedly) poor state of undergraduate outcomes. But there’s no necessary relationship between those two things. A history undergraduate can teach history or pump gas. It doesn’t reflect on the state of historic scholarship at all.
However, there is published research on undergraduate occupational outcomes. It’s fine. Not the best for sociologists, but not nearly as bad as you’re making it seem. One non-academic resource showed high rates of a sample saying they wish they could’ve majored in something else. But peer reviewed research finds that most sociology majors are employed happily, and cite their major as relevant to their jobs.
In short, even if you were right, it wouldn’t support your argument. But also, you’re wrong.
-
At most public schools sociology remains one of leading majors in letters and sciences� nearly always psych, econ, poli sci, soc in top 5
At graduate school (private R1), sociology was the top performing major. We did very well with undergraduates, but we were outdone by some niche majors that were particular to our school.
At my first employer, sociology was performing strong and growing. The Dean and President were happy, we got a lot a money, our department was growing, and we were approved a second graduate program.
I’m now FINALLY in a university with a dying Soc department after reading about this for so many years on EM…SJMR.
But the whole school is in a state of crisis. Sociology isn’t dying as bad as lots of other programs!
-
What other programs?
At most public schools sociology remains one of leading majors in letters and sciences? nearly always psych, econ, poli sci, soc in top 5
At graduate school (private R1), sociology was the top performing major. We did very well with undergraduates, but we were outdone by some niche majors that were particular to our school.
At my first employer, sociology was performing strong and growing. The Dean and President were happy, we got a lot a money, our department was growing, and we were approved a second graduate program.
I�m now FINALLY in a university with a dying Soc department after reading about this for so many years on EM�SJMR.
But the whole school is in a state of crisis. Sociology isn�t dying as bad as lots of other programs! -
The question is this. Are there other majors that provide better paths to employment and grad school? The answer is yes, and Sociology is losing relevance because other majors (criminology, public health, etc) are crowding them out.
No, “the question” was on the state of sociological scholarship.
“This” is classic moving the goalpost.
-
My dept spent last semester strategizing about how to increase the number of majors. The upshot is that I’m supposed to groom and recruit them in my intro sections.
I didn’t say what I really thought, because I like teaching intro and don’t want to lose those sections. But no way I’m encouraging anyone to major. My first responsibility is to my students, not the dept.
-
Quality seems to be on the decline, and a lot of our more useful/productive research areas have migrated to other disciplines over the last two decades. Objectively speaking, the decline in ASA numbers is a pretty immediate sign of a field that is in retrenchment. Could turn around, but not if we keep deskilling our training programs.
-
Nah, this is something non-academics make up after too much time on Twitter.
If sociology is a "respected discipline," why exactly does its professional representation body present non-academics like Kolysh and Buggs as its leading representatives? Does the ASA represent the state of the discipline or not?
The ASA is indisputably the public face of sociology. You apparently dislike twitter, but most prominent sociologists spend a majority of their free time on twitter.
When someone in hard sciences contemplates "sociology" they're working from how it's been publicly represented -- that means they think of adults permanently stuck at child-level literacy, such as Kolysh and Buggs, who are publicly presented by the ASA as the leading scholars of the discipline.
Are you saying the ASA does not represent sociology?You're never going to convince us that we're not published and cited in science journals, that I don't have an NSF that I competed against engineers for, that our students aren't going to the NIH and prestigious university health labs, etc.
You could cher/ry-pick to find examples of some people who are technically sociology professors being respected in such ways, but this obviously isn't the norm. Also, you're very obviously inventing things about yourself as resume-padding, just like you pretend anyone who mocks your laughingstock discipline is a "non-academic."
Sure, we have some goofs. And if you even get within earshot of a science department (I was in a chem lab this afternoon) you'll learn about their high profile goofs spreading fringe theories to the public too.
Who exactly are those "high profile goofs spreading fringe theories"?
Hanging out with your cousin who cooks crack in the kitchen is not the same as being in a "chem lab," lol.And what serious science discipline has a professional representation
...See full post -
And what serious science discipline has a professional representation
body that presents people like Kolysh and Buggs as its leading figures? You're saying that "all disciplines have their goofs," but ASA has constantly presented its subliterate "scholars" as highest representatives of the discipline. This is inexplicable if sociology is actually a respected field as you assert."All disciplines have their clowns" is obviously true, but sociology is the only discipline where the clowns are front-and-center at the annual conferences, and treated by the discipline's professional representation body as its leading scholars in national terms.
Name one serious discipline where anyone like Kolysh or Buggs has ever been depicted as a leading scholar in their field. -
Sounds very neo-liberal.
Nah, this is something non-academics make up after too much time on Twitter.
If sociology is a "respected discipline," why exactly does its professional representation body present non-academics like Kolysh and Buggs as its leading representatives? Does the ASA represent the state of the discipline or not?
The ASA is indisputably the public face of sociology. You apparently dislike twitter, but most prominent sociologists spend a majority of their free time on twitter.
When someone in hard sciences contemplates "sociology" they're working from how it's been publicly represented -- that means they think of adults permanently stuck at child-level literacy, such as Kolysh and Buggs, who are publicly presented by the ASA as the leading scholars of the discipline.
Are you saying the ASA does not represent sociology?You're never going to convince us that we're not published and cited in science journals, that I don't have an NSF that I competed against engineers for, that our students aren't going to the NIH and prestigious university health labs, etc.
...See full post
You could cher/ry-pick to find examples of some people who are technically sociology professors being respected in such ways, but this obviously isn't the norm. Also, you're very obviously inventing things about yourself as resume-padding, just like you pretend anyone who mocks your laughingstock discipline is a "non-academic."
Sure, we have some goofs. And if you even get within earshot of a science department (I was in a chem lab this afternoon) you'll learn about their high profile goofs spreading fringe theories to the public too.
Who exactly are those "high profile goofs spreading fringe theories"?
Hanging out with your cousin who cooks crack in the kitchen is not the same as being in a "chem lab," lol.
And what serious science discipline has a professional representation body that presents people like Kolysh a -
Nah, this is something non-academics make up after too much time on Twitter.
If sociology is a "respected discipline," why exactly does its professional representation body present non-academics like Kolysh and Buggs as its leading representatives? Does the ASA represent the state of the discipline or not?
The ASA is indisputably the public face of sociology. You apparently dislike twitter, but most prominent sociologists spend a majority of their free time on twitter.
When someone in hard sciences contemplates "sociology" they're working from how it's been publicly represented -- that means they think of adults permanently stuck at child-level literacy, such as Kolysh and Buggs, who are publicly presented by the ASA as the leading scholars of the discipline.
Are you saying the ASA does not represent sociology?You're never going to convince us that we're not published and cited in science journals, that I don't have an NSF that I competed against engineers for, that our students aren't going to the NIH and prestigious university health labs, etc.
...See full post
You could cher/ry-pick to find examples of some people who are technically sociology professors being respected in such ways, but this obviously isn't the norm. Also, you're very obviously inventing things about yourself as resume-padding, just like you pretend anyone who mocks your laughingstock discipline is a "non-academic."
Sure, we have some goofs. And if you even get within earshot of a science department (I was in a chem lab this afternoon) you'll learn about their high profile goofs spreading fringe theories to the public too.
Who exactly are those "high profile goofs spreading fringe theories"?
Hanging out with your cousin who cooks crack in the kitchen is not the same as being in a "chem lab," lol.
And what serious science discipline has a professional representation body that presents people like Kolysh and Buggs as its leading figures?Excerpted from Stephen Michael Clark’s asa presidential plenary speech (2023)