Jacob Levy senses a disturbing trend in the job market force for political theorists, based on the APSA’s (in my opinion, decidedly rose-colored) statistics on political science hiring in recent years. I can’t say I’m very surprised by those findings. My sense from four years on the market is that new hiring, particularly outside the research universities, is trending in a very pragmatic direction, with more emphasis on applied and borderline vocational subfields such as policy and public administration (and, to a lesser extent, quantitative political analysis as applied to those fields) and rather less on the theoretical study of politics, normative or otherwise.
On the other hand, I’m not sure many R1s are planning to follow the lead(?) of my graduate alma mater and Florida State by completely eliminating the subfield… which means that the supply of theory PhDs will probably decline slower than collegiate demand for such jobs. Good news for penny-pinching chairs and deans, perhaps, but alas not-so-good news for good folks like Nick.
Update: Mr. Troester posts his thoughts on the matter.
4 comments:
To the best of my knowledge, my grad institution (Mizzou) has eliminated theory as a graduate subfield. Since theory was my second field, this makes me pretty sad, though it does vindicate the choice of theory as a second, not first, field. I had the idea that it might be marketable to be an Americanist who’s comfortable (and enjoys!) teaching the occasional theory class.
I could be wrong, and I have no reason to chime in as I’m long out of the program, but I think Rhodes has a theory position open.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Rhodes did have a theory job open this year. I would guess that theory classes are much more important in the LAC world than the R1 world.
Re Rhodes: Yes, and I’d say that is particularly true of Rhodes, which seems averse to hiring “big n” people generally. A pretty good small department, but very quant-lite (even by LAC standards).