Top theorist ditches Stanford to work at Berkeley
Levi
“I am absolutely delighted to
announce that Joshua Cohen will be joining Berkeley as a Distinguished Senior
Fellow at the School of Law, the Department of Philosophy, and the Department
of Political Science in the College of Letters and Science, commencing on July
1, 2015. Cohen is on the faculty at Apple University. He was previously Marta
Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society and Professor of Philosophy and of
Law at Stanford University, and Leon and Anne Goldberg Professor of the
Humanities and Professor of Philosophy and Political Science at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cohen will spend one day a week
at Berkeley.”
Paise
He left
Sanford for Apple a few years ago.
This
just sounds like a retirement gig.
Hortense
Center for Judaic Studies
Stanis
Top theorist gets a state school to pay his
salary while he’s really working at Apple University. Nice gig if you can get
it.
Racheal
He actually ditched Stanford to
work at Apple.
Madge
There is nothing more
attractive than the extreme leftist who carves out the cushiest possible deal
at public expense, cf. Brown and Butler.
Lowell
“Champagne socialist and loving every
minute of it!” - J. Cohen
Lowell
I don’t blame him for milking the system
for every unearned dollar that he can squeeze out of it, mind you. Just wish he’d
shut his cakehole about all that egalitarian, progressive gasbaggery.
Madge
One thing I’ll say; the guy has
done pretty well for someone whose most cited work is in edited volumes.
Hedley
he left Stanford for
Apple==> did not like it, but can no longer return to Stanford ==>
settles for Berkeley now as a fellow?
Barnabe
The fieck is Apple University?!
Racheal
Google is your friend:
Madge
Can a theorist explain what
exactly is the blinding insight that we owe this very well-compensated man?
Marsha
He is very ill. ‘Retirement’
isn’t the right word here.
Angele
One day a week nice
Khloe
250k for 8hrs per week not a bad gig if u
can get it
Sharyl
He only resigned from Stanford
about two months ago-- he’s been on leave for a couple years, but still on the
faculty.
So what this now looks like
is-- spent a couple years at Apple U, decided it was where he wanted to spend
most of his time, tried to work out an arrangement for a very-part-time
relationship to Stanford, they said no, probably then started talking to
Berkeley but the deal wasn’t finished and signed by the time he had to formally
decide whether he was coming back to Stanford, so he announced he was leaving
Stanford for Apple. A deal like the one Berkeley is describing doesn’t get put
together in six weeks over Christmas, so it was already in the works and when
he left Stanford he knew he was going to sign with Berkeley soon.
Julienne
In what bizarre world does
Joshua Cohen qualify as an “extreme leftist”?
That’s just poor trolling, son.
There is nothing more attractive than the
extreme leftist who carves out the cushiest possible deal at public expense,
cf. Brown and Butler.
Khloe
JC is
known in part for his rawlsian defense of limited inequality; funny thing is
that he works for Apple, which is part of the Silicon Valley hi-tech inequality
machine (SF is one of the most unequal cities in the world due to Silicon biz).
There
was a great article in the New Yorker about this and he was interviewed there.
Julienne
Do you have to have blinding
insights to be well-compensated? Some executives and fund managers must be
getting nervous, now that you’ve clarified that particular economic law for us.
Look, no one’s claiming political philosophy is curing cancer, or
ending poverty, or solving the mysteries of dark matter. But as political
philosophers go, Cohen’s one of the good guys, in stark contrast to the Wendy
Browns and Davide Panagias of the academic freakshow that is political theory.
Can a theorist explain what
exactly is the blinding insight that we owe this very well-compensated man?
Julienne
Huh?
JC is known in part for his rawlsian defense
of limited inequality
Khloe
Niles
“There was a great
article in the New Yorker about this and he was interviewed there.”
Was he one of those
who wanted city buses to go from SF to SV?
Khloe
importantly,
Stanford now loses its only major political theorist.
Ober is great but mainly in Classics; and AmcQ is great too but very junior.
Basically PT is dead at SU.
Ober is great but mainly in Classics; and AmcQ is great too but very junior.
Basically PT is dead at SU.
Khloe
if you do a search
for “Political Theory Faculty” at SU, you get this: (12 people):
totally misleading
Julienne
This paper says
nothing like what you describe, Khloe.
Khloe
who gives a s**t
lolz
lolz
Michelle
How do you know the
salary?
250k for 8hrs per week not a bad gig if u can
get it
Essie
if you do a search
for “Political Theory Faculty” at SU, you get this: (12 people):
https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/people/faculty?title=&field_s_person_faculty_type_tid_1=All&field_s_person_interests_tid_1=44
totally misleading
https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/people/faculty?title=&field_s_person_faculty_type_tid_1=All&field_s_person_interests_tid_1=44
totally misleading
None of those people
are theorists.
Khloe
That’s my point
Stanford now almost
no theory
Abel
Actually, 4 of them
are (Ober, McQueen, Rakove, Reich) and Weingast is being his typical polymath self and
writing a book on Adam Smith.
Kitty
what is a Rakove?
Garrett
how the hell did RR
get tenure?
Fina
I don’t remember the
timing but it was around the time Hardin left and Okin died, leaving Stanford
with basically nobody. I think denying him could have been the death of theory
there.
Khloe
RR lucked out
bigtime lolz
hes a nice guy but really hardly contributes to PT there.
but seriously, how can SU really be “CHYMPS” when its so weak in PT overall?
theres absolutely no comparison with Cal, H,Y,P or Chicago.
IT may be strong in other fields, but it’s way to weak in PT to be a superb dept overall. They would need now 2 Full profs, and 1 asssoc, and 1 AP to even compare.
hes a nice guy but really hardly contributes to PT there.
but seriously, how can SU really be “CHYMPS” when its so weak in PT overall?
theres absolutely no comparison with Cal, H,Y,P or Chicago.
IT may be strong in other fields, but it’s way to weak in PT to be a superb dept overall. They would need now 2 Full profs, and 1 asssoc, and 1 AP to even compare.
Khloe
ps rakove and
weingast are not really PT
Lavern
Doesn’t Stanford
have a theory search happening this year?
Khloe
not sure but 1 more
assistant prof doesnt change anything for a big dept like stanford
Niles
“IT may be strong in
other fields, but it’s way to weak in PT to be a superb dept overall. They
would need now 2 Full profs, and 1 asssoc, and 1 AP to even compare”
Proves what we’ve known all along, i.e., PT is irrelevant
for TOPness!!
Khloe
yes, stanford is
sending a big signal that PT is not needed.
Melitta
Well, we actually went a while
before the f***king stupid TOPness trope came up. So ... go us?
But all this hand-wringing (or gloating) about the crisis of PT at Stanford is a bit overblown. Not unfounded, but overblown. JC hadn’t been around much (both because he was at Apple, and because of his health) for a while, and had announced his departure last year -- so the fact that he’s been hired to a fellowship at Cal doesn’t represent any sort of sudden shift. Stanford’s been underperforming in PT for a while now -- underperforming for a top-tier department at least. Can they change that? Sure: hire one really good junior person this year, do a (successful) senior search next year, draw on people from other departments and the law school -- and they’ll have a pretty strong program again (not on a par with Harvard/Princeton/Chicago/Yale, but then they’ve never really been on a par with those places in PT).
Will they make a good junior hire this year and a senior hire next? Well, maybe not. It’s now up to Stanford to decide whether they care about being a contender in PT -- whether they want to go the route of H/P/UofC/Y, or of Michigan, Rochester, NYU, and other strong programs that are weaker in PT.
But all this hand-wringing (or gloating) about the crisis of PT at Stanford is a bit overblown. Not unfounded, but overblown. JC hadn’t been around much (both because he was at Apple, and because of his health) for a while, and had announced his departure last year -- so the fact that he’s been hired to a fellowship at Cal doesn’t represent any sort of sudden shift. Stanford’s been underperforming in PT for a while now -- underperforming for a top-tier department at least. Can they change that? Sure: hire one really good junior person this year, do a (successful) senior search next year, draw on people from other departments and the law school -- and they’ll have a pretty strong program again (not on a par with Harvard/Princeton/Chicago/Yale, but then they’ve never really been on a par with those places in PT).
Will they make a good junior hire this year and a senior hire next? Well, maybe not. It’s now up to Stanford to decide whether they care about being a contender in PT -- whether they want to go the route of H/P/UofC/Y, or of Michigan, Rochester, NYU, and other strong programs that are weaker in PT.
Khloe
lol
your conclusion (the last
sentence) basically undermines your first sentence.
you initially try to minimize
the JC loss, but then you basically conclude that Stanford could be the next
Rochester lol
that’s in fact a HUGE shift:
from the CHYP model to a quant based Mich/Rochester/NYU model...
And the fact that Stanford hasn’t
really cared about strengthening PT even before JC went to Apple (at least as
far back as 2008) then DOES indeed SIGNAL a major shift, away from the CHYP
model where Theory is integral to the Dept, to the M/R/NYU model, where it is
marginal to it.
so yeah, it’s a big
issue...which an additional junior hire cannot fix.
Melitta
Khloe, you sound charming.
No contradiction between conclusion and first sentence: it’s up to Stanford whether this spells the death of PT at Stanford. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. If they hire aggressively in theory, then that’ll be a big shift; otherwise, it’ll just confirm PT’s eclipse at Stanford, which has been going on for a while now.
Indeed, you yourself seem to be unclear about what you’re arguing -- you suggest that abandoning the CHYP model would be a HUGE (HUGE!) shift, but also acknowledge that it’s been happening for a while, and JC’s departure isn’t really much of a game-changer in that regard. It’s fine to predict the further decline of PT at Stanford, and lament it; but to both note that Stanford’s been weak in theory for a while, and to treat this latest development as a huge deal ... well, who’s contradicting themselves?
No contradiction between conclusion and first sentence: it’s up to Stanford whether this spells the death of PT at Stanford. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. If they hire aggressively in theory, then that’ll be a big shift; otherwise, it’ll just confirm PT’s eclipse at Stanford, which has been going on for a while now.
Indeed, you yourself seem to be unclear about what you’re arguing -- you suggest that abandoning the CHYP model would be a HUGE (HUGE!) shift, but also acknowledge that it’s been happening for a while, and JC’s departure isn’t really much of a game-changer in that regard. It’s fine to predict the further decline of PT at Stanford, and lament it; but to both note that Stanford’s been weak in theory for a while, and to treat this latest development as a huge deal ... well, who’s contradicting themselves?
Khloe
thanks Melitta
,...hmm yea...it is up to stanford.
isnt it?
,...hmm yea...it is up to stanford.
isnt it?
but anyway, the reason why
Stanford was ‘credible’ in PT was that JC was there. SO yes, his leaving makes
a huge difference; and it IS a qualitative change from pre-JC leaving days.
I’ll restate the obvious: a
CHYMPS dept basically deciding not to care about PT is a big deal. They really
haven’t cared for a while, esp. since JC went to Apple, but now there is an
explicit signal. Maybe they’ll reverse course, maybe not. But a major
department allowing the decline of PT is a big deal in the whole discussion of
what counts as good poli sci, and as a good poli sci dept.
Milo
It’s now up to Stanford to
decide whether they care about being a contender in PT -- whether they want to
go the route of H/P/UofC/Y, or of Michigan, Rochester, NYU, and other strong
programs that are weaker in PT.
NYU is STRONG in PT
Brant
No, NYU is weak in PT
Khloe
the anti-PT people are winning;
NYU, stanford, columbia, all weak in pt
Charity
Though these represent
different series of events: Columbia’s grown weak because the theorists there
are dysfunctional -- there are too many already to justify another senior line,
but they can’t work together and make life unpleasant for juniors. NYU has
decided that it wants theory to be a small and narrow part of the dept, which
isn’t surprising. Stanford ... it’s unclear how much it’s a matter of false
complacency (implausible, but you never know), how much it’s indifference about
theory, how much it’s been a matter of having difficulty getting another line
for a senior theorist (maybe also unlikely given SU’s wealth, but one never
knows).
But yes, this does reflect a
worrying trend (for us theorists) of top-tier programs letting theory languish.
Doran
Goddammit,Charity, stop being
so sensible. Do’t you know where we are?
Though these represent different
series of events: Columbia’s grown weak because the theorists there are
dysfunctional -- there are too many already to justify another senior line, but
they can’t work together and make life unpleasant for juniors. NYU has decided
that it wants theory to be a small and narrow part of the dept, which isn’t
surprising. Stanford ... it’s unclear how much it’s a matter of false
complacency (implausible, but you never know), how much it’s indifference about
theory, how much it’s been a matter of having difficulty getting another line
for a senior theorist (maybe also unlikely given SU’s wealth, but one never
knows).
But yes, this does reflect a worrying trend (for us theorists) of top-tier programs letting theory languish.
But yes, this does reflect a worrying trend (for us theorists) of top-tier programs letting theory languish.
Khloe
reasons and causes may differ,
but the end result is the same.
weakening of pt in some top depts
like nyu, columbia, now stanford...sad
weakening of pt in some top depts
like nyu, columbia, now stanford...sad
Donnie
Getting JO and JC at once
represented a major push by Stanford, and there have been new centers and
postdocs etc created since then. Until JC formally said he wasn’t coming back,
there probably couldn’t be any real way to start trying to replace him, but I
don’t see any reason to think that the impetus for the big push a few years ago
has gone away. There hasn’t yet been even one hiring season since JC’s official
departure, so there’s no reason yet to think that SU isn’t going to try to hire
senior and keep up its recent commitment to the program.
Aerith
David Estlund would be great
there.
No comments:
Post a Comment