This is a memory from my undergrad days at U of C, but my impression is that it was notorious for not giving anyone tenure, regardless of how impressive. Junior faculty were treated poorly and rejected for tenure, and then went off to be distinguished elsewhere, while the tenured faculty had overwhelmingly been hired from other schools where they already had tenure.
If my impression is right, this doesn't say anything bad about Drezner, nor is it a data point saying that blogging is risky -- just evidence that the U of C is a mean nasty organization.
I think that we might be dealing with a version of the basketball mom problem. When my son was in sports we had trouble telling some of the moms that no, everyone can't be a winner, and that sports are, in fact, specifically designed for the purpose of producing equal numbers of winners and losers, and that their sons were losers at the bottom of the competitive heierarchy.
Getting tenure at Chicago, Stanford, or Harvard is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and the reason why it's a goal is that most people aren't able to do it. Denying people tenure is one of the things Chicago is about -- high selectivity. If even U. Alabama didn't deny tenure occasionally, U. Alabama wouldn't be taken as seriously as it is.
The big problems I see with the present competitive heierarchy (in the humanities above all) is that the bottom is so low. The humanities PhD, at worst, leads to a series of low-paid part-time one-year JC appointments. PhD's can't even teach high school without further training.
Drezner's qualifications aside, and the blogging question aside, there's an issue here only if it can be shown that Drezner is obviously superior to all likely competition and thus deserving of tenure. If it can only be shown that there was no overpowering reason to reject him, there's no issue, since arbitrary decisions are intrinsic to competitive heierarchies. There are more people capable of filling a given slot than there are slots, and the selected individual adds the positional status to whatever merit he independently had. IE, of two identical individuals, one teaching at Chicago and the other at Ohio State, the Chicago guy will always have higher status.
I don't know how Chicago counts its faculty, but at AnotherSchoolCalaKnows, one senior position is worth two junior positions, so it's the rare superstar who is granted tenure; it's almost always easier to steal another star from somewhere else to fill that senior slot.
I confess to being completely weirded out by tenure politics and the like. But then again, I don't know anything about the culture of academia other than what Edward Albee has taught me, so my perspective is somewhat lopsided.
thanks very much for this thread, Ogged, as it gives me a chance to use the words "think" and "tank" and "inevitable", which I think my CT mates might have considered a little too cruel (though I haven't asked them).
My take is that the ensuing discussion of the tenure denial on the internet by people who overwhelmingly lack relevant information should provide worthwhile fodder for future academic research into blogging.
The comments at Drezner's were interesting in terms of the biases revealed, and that either a far higher percentage of his readers were I.R. scholars than I had surmised, or they feel that reading someone's blog is truly enough to know if they should be tenured.
washerdreyer, I'm not competent to judge (I don't even read Drezner's blog regularly); but Scott Lemieux (not an IR scholar, but a political scientist) and Robert Farley, who does seem to include international relations among his specialities, were both sort of upset. But I'm guessing that they haven't done an exhaustive and thorough review.
Here's Abu Aardvark's take; he doesn't seem to express an opinion on whether this was appropriate, although he is an IR scholar and probably knows Dan's work pretty well.
The vague impression I've picked up from US academic blogs over the past few years is that in some of the 'top' schools it's standard practice to deny tenure to their junior staff.
Much easier to make them do the daily teaching grind then hire someone in with an established reputation for the tenured jobs. Even makes rational sense if you are engaged in risk-averse hiring practices.
Just to clarify, I don't go to Chicago, so I don't even know if it's actually true there. It's just the sort of thing you hear about (and it fits the reputation of the school). Kind of like all that Harvard stuff.
It's difficult to get tenure at Chicago, but--unlike Yale and Harvard, which actually have quotas in place--not impossible. IIRC, of the junior faculty kicking around the dept. of English when I was there (mid-90s), 5 eventually received tenure, 2 were rejected at the contract renewal phase, and 1 lost a tenure bid.
Seems like there ought to be a place for all you academicians to fret and discuss the fact that Dan Drezner was denied tenure.
Drezner's blog? I noticed that Kieran had a similarly-purposed thread a CT, but closed the comments and directed people to that particular elsewhere.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 9:56 AM
Drezner's blog?
Yeah, but I thought people could speak more personally and freely here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 9:58 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:13 AM
This is a memory from my undergrad days at U of C, but my impression is that it was notorious for not giving anyone tenure, regardless of how impressive. Junior faculty were treated poorly and rejected for tenure, and then went off to be distinguished elsewhere, while the tenured faculty had overwhelmingly been hired from other schools where they already had tenure.
If my impression is right, this doesn't say anything bad about Drezner, nor is it a data point saying that blogging is risky -- just evidence that the U of C is a mean nasty organization.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:18 AM
no one will here what I say.
If they do, there likely to respond.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:25 AM
(I should say that this was undergraduate gossip -- it may not have been true even when I was there, and may not be true now.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:39 AM
I feel guilty for picking on Labs over a measly typo, and so would like to congratulate him for representing our country with grace and dignity.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:40 AM
I think that we might be dealing with a version of the basketball mom problem. When my son was in sports we had trouble telling some of the moms that no, everyone can't be a winner, and that sports are, in fact, specifically designed for the purpose of producing equal numbers of winners and losers, and that their sons were losers at the bottom of the competitive heierarchy.
Getting tenure at Chicago, Stanford, or Harvard is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and the reason why it's a goal is that most people aren't able to do it. Denying people tenure is one of the things Chicago is about -- high selectivity. If even U. Alabama didn't deny tenure occasionally, U. Alabama wouldn't be taken as seriously as it is.
The big problems I see with the present competitive heierarchy (in the humanities above all) is that the bottom is so low. The humanities PhD, at worst, leads to a series of low-paid part-time one-year JC appointments. PhD's can't even teach high school without further training.
Drezner's qualifications aside, and the blogging question aside, there's an issue here only if it can be shown that Drezner is obviously superior to all likely competition and thus deserving of tenure. If it can only be shown that there was no overpowering reason to reject him, there's no issue, since arbitrary decisions are intrinsic to competitive heierarchies. There are more people capable of filling a given slot than there are slots, and the selected individual adds the positional status to whatever merit he independently had. IE, of two identical individuals, one teaching at Chicago and the other at Ohio State, the Chicago guy will always have higher status.
But let's go back to talking about underage sex.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:44 AM
I don't know how Chicago counts its faculty, but at AnotherSchoolCalaKnows, one senior position is worth two junior positions, so it's the rare superstar who is granted tenure; it's almost always easier to steal another star from somewhere else to fill that senior slot.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:48 AM
"Even as seriously as the U. of Alabama is".
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:52 AM
I confess to being completely weirded out by tenure politics and the like. But then again, I don't know anything about the culture of academia other than what Edward Albee has taught me, so my perspective is somewhat lopsided.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:53 AM
what Edward Albee has taught me
That the new professor on campus gets Sandy Dennis and Liz Taylor?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 10:56 AM
See, it's no good though, because the men are all impotent.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 11:02 AM
Y'know, I never understood why Taylor was a star until I saw that movie.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 11:11 AM
She's pretty good in Father of the Bride, too. And by "good" I mean "homina".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 11:16 AM
I'm so, so ashamed.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 11:20 AM
thanks very much for this thread, Ogged, as it gives me a chance to use the words "think" and "tank" and "inevitable", which I think my CT mates might have considered a little too cruel (though I haven't asked them).
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 11:39 AM
South Side
What happens to a Drezner denied?
Does he drift away
like an adjunct unjustly spurned?
Or keep blogging up a storm--
And then run the store?
Does he stop to smell the roses?
Or become ensconced in a sweet sinecure--
like that place on Mass Ave?
Or does he go on to better things in milder climes?
+++
Apologies all around, with sympathy and encouragement for Dan, who has always been a mensch whenever I've encountered him.
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 12:25 PM
My take is that the ensuing discussion of the tenure denial on the internet by people who overwhelmingly lack relevant information should provide worthwhile fodder for future academic research into blogging.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 2:16 PM
The comments at Drezner's were interesting in terms of the biases revealed, and that either a far higher percentage of his readers were I.R. scholars than I had surmised, or they feel that reading someone's blog is truly enough to know if they should be tenured.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 2:18 PM
washerdreyer, I'm not competent to judge (I don't even read Drezner's blog regularly); but Scott Lemieux (not an IR scholar, but a political scientist) and Robert Farley, who does seem to include international relations among his specialities, were both sort of upset. But I'm guessing that they haven't done an exhaustive and thorough review.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 2:25 PM
Here's Abu Aardvark's take; he doesn't seem to express an opinion on whether this was appropriate, although he is an IR scholar and probably knows Dan's work pretty well.
Daniel Nexon has some informed comments.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 3:17 PM
Precisely when the stakes are lowest, I believe the saying goes.....
Posted by diddy | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 3:24 PM
The vague impression I've picked up from US academic blogs over the past few years is that in some of the 'top' schools it's standard practice to deny tenure to their junior staff.
Much easier to make them do the daily teaching grind then hire someone in with an established reputation for the tenured jobs. Even makes rational sense if you are engaged in risk-averse hiring practices.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 5:21 PM
This is certainly said to be true at Chicago, although I doubt it's very widespread.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 5:54 PM
Just to clarify, I don't go to Chicago, so I don't even know if it's actually true there. It's just the sort of thing you hear about (and it fits the reputation of the school). Kind of like all that Harvard stuff.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 10-10-05 6:00 PM
It is quite true with a lot of departments at Yale too.
Posted by The Blue Flautist | Link to this comment | 10-11-05 3:22 AM
It's difficult to get tenure at Chicago, but--unlike Yale and Harvard, which actually have quotas in place--not impossible. IIRC, of the junior faculty kicking around the dept. of English when I was there (mid-90s), 5 eventually received tenure, 2 were rejected at the contract renewal phase, and 1 lost a tenure bid.
Posted by Miriam | Link to this comment | 10-13-05 10:24 AM