Best Departments for Area Studies
Include discussions about all area studies here.
posted by comparativist | 12:31 AM
Comparative Departments
Please keep all comments on topic and civil. Any comments judged to be inappropriate will be deleted.
81 Comments:
Do departments still hire on the basis of area studies? The top departments don't seem to fill positions based on need to cover particular regions.
It happens less than it used to, but still happens all the time, whether the department leadership or as a whole wants it or not. Title VI centers are fewer, but still exist and exist on grants. Those grants depend on being able to list a political scientist, and courses, in the given area. Provosts and deans will also see money hiding behind relevant area-expertise trees. The current demand (fad?) is for Islamic societies experts, all the better to shake out homeland security dollars.
Both of these create area-tied lines from deans / provosts. Whether a particular department will actually hire a particular candidate that matches a conventional area studies description, but does not match the departmental vision / culture / standards / whatever, is another matter. There also seem to be gross mismatches in supply and demand. Examples include mid-90s oversupply in post-Soviet, current under-supply in Islamic societies.
It does not seem as though many departments are advertising for Islamic studies political scientists, though. Top departments would rather add a third Latin Americanist than a single Islamic studies professor (Stanford, for instance).
Is that because departments are not looking or because there is a lack of quality Islamic studies scholars?
I really don't know, but if there is an exogenous shock that leads to market demand, you would think that this need would be satisfied with some reasonable lag time.
The most recent search I was on was technically completely open, but we were told that if there was a quality person working on Middle East, that would be a priority. Are other people having similar experiences?
how did that end up?
Without a Middle East hire.
The lag is the key. Universities want scholars in an area the same time new student interest picks up for exogenous reasons (Soviet collapse, 9/11). By the time the post-Soviet scholars came out in the late 90s, the institutional demand had dried up and there were a lot more good candidates than there were open jobs. Not clear if that happens again with the boomlet in Islamic societies -- that looks a safer bet for sustained interest.
And no one was hired because you had no Middle East politics applicants or your department was not satisfied with the quality of those candidates?
Our department also advertised for a Middle East job this year. We got very few applicants and the committee was not happy with the quality of those we did get. We not only did not hire, we didn't even interview. If you do Mid-East poliitcs and have decent training as a political scientist, then you are in a very good position in this market.
Which departments are actively looking for Middle East or Islamic politics?
As someone who was doing Middle East studies long before 9/11 and trained as a political scientist and not getting a lot of interviews brings me back to what counts as “decent training as a political scientist.” I feel that publications in area focused journals are discounted, And since I’m not Rat Choice or even all that quantitative I must not be a “real” scientist.
Well, given the prevailing view of area studies it is not sufficient to be a country specialist unless field work is supplemented by quantitative or formal analysis. The problem is that tooling up is often difficult when trying to also develop language skills and other expertise. This is particularly the case for tough languages like Arabic and Chinese. The people who can do both will probably be strong job candidates.
thoughts on good places for middle east politics?
Michigan, Princeton, Columbia, UCLA, Georgetown, Chicago, UW ... all for different reasons and all very different departments depending on what you want to do.
Do you mean as a graduate student or a faculty member?
I am currently studying in Beirut and will be going on for my phd in the fall to either UCONN or the University of North Texas. I plan on doing research on the Middle East (and have been already) and am wondering what is thought of these two political science programs. UNT's faculty members publish a lot more compared to UCONN but how much does this really matter as a grad student?
I would go to UNT. You will get better methods training there. Solid methods skills will also help you if you want to transfer to a top 10 department.
Of course UConn is probably in a much nicer area.
Yes UNT does indeed seem to be emphasize quantitative skills much more than UCONN. How quantitative does one have to be competitive nowdays. Although I want a good quantitative background, I feel that most of my work will not be so quantitative (perhaps that this idea is mistaken) I plan to teach in a small college so how much quant should I still have to be competitive? Is the methods training at UNT far superior to UCONN? Thanks a lot.
Even though your goal may be to teach at a liberal arts college, it's still a good idea to acquire strong methods and research skills. My impression is that the top liberal arts colleges have high research expectations, and a lot are looking to implement research methods requirements for undergraduate majors. So having good methods skills and a good research profile will help you be competitive at top liberal arts schools (which I'm assuming is probably your ideal job).
to 12:31pm: as a graduate student, more on the qualitative and theoretical side of the spectrum
To 10:25PM: Maybe I am in the minority here, but my view (as a grad student currently finishing up) is that you should be making your choice based on the department as a whole and not if they have Middle East people or how many they have. An advisor who knows the region, has the contacts, etc. is helpful, but you can find that in history departments, sociology or anthropology departments, etc. The important thing is to get some political scientists who think about politics in a way that you find interesting, and can train and guide you in your research - if you know your world area well you can carry some of taht load yourself.
Thoughts on the best departments for doing Europe?
Depends on what you want to do... institutional stuff?
I'd say UConn easy, because if you really are serious about teaching at a small college, then either of those places put you at a big disadvantage. You need teaching experience at the small college level ideally, and at least at UConn, there are small colleges around where you can do some adjunct / visiting work to buff up that part of your resume.
Don't idealize small colleges. They have the same top 10 PhD envy as other places, sometimes much worse, since "crank it out" type schools and scholars receive virtually zero chance at such places.
i's say havard or oxford.
For Europe, UNC is pretty good.
Questions for the masses: What is the current status of PhDs in International Studies? Are there any? Many? What do they "look like"? Most important, do their graduates get jobs? If so, where?
RE: Best departments for Europe
There is a lot of debate here. Some are running on fumes from the past such as Harvard and Berkeley, others have a lot of resources, but internal departmental issues and potential future senior losses make them a poor choice for someone just starting out (UCLA comes to mind), and others are highly specialized, and as a result limited (Pitt for EU or even UNC, although they are expanding their faculty resources somewhat lately). A good rule of thumb, as was implied above, is to look for a university with a Title VI center in your area/geographical region, that usually suggests some resources, language training and support for the region at the administrative level.
University of Washington still has a decent Europe crowd, also with a bit of young blood, and the resources (Title VI and EU Center) are there.
I thought the senior people who do Europe were unlikely to leave UCLA... Am I wrong? (Hope not, since I am sending an undergraduate there).
I would think any department would be lucky to be "running on fumes" like Harvard and Berkeley.
Regarding UCLA -- Tsebelis, Golden, and Rogowski are all there to stay. For Germany, Bawn and Lohmann don't seem to be going anywhere either. Not sure who 4:48 pm is referring to...
Thoughts on some good places for Europe (in very rough order):
1) Harvard
2) Berkeley
3) UNC
4) UCLA
5) Northwestern
6) Pitt
7) Princeton
Others?
For studying the EU, Emory would be a good place. They have a couple of solid EU specialists, loads of money, and very good all-around methods training.
Yep, Carrubba and Hallerberg are a pretty good pair of Europeanists.
As are Tom Lancaster, Holli Semetko, and (I'd say) Eric Reinhardt too. Tom Remington as well, depending on whether Russia counts as part of Europe now or not.
How many Ph.D.'s do Europe at Emory, and how have they placed?
Tom Lancaster has moved into administration. Holli Semetko seems to do her own thing away from the department, so I wouldn't count on working with her.
But Carrubba and Hallerberg are great, as is Tom Remington (his knowledge of institutions makes him a valuable potential committee member). Hubert Tworzecki (Eastern Europe) and Eric Reinhardt (IPE, but his work has relevance to Europe) are there too. So there's a good group of faculty for a potential Europeanist to work with.
As far as Europeanist PhD students, it's in transition right now. Lancaster used to recruit a fairly good number of students and placed them pretty well. His last advisee just placed at Nebraska this year. Carrubba just got tenure, and Hallerberg is new to Emory--so neither has really recruited students yet. I expect that to change soon, though.
Assuming that your undergrads can get into any of these 7 places and Emory(except perhaps Harvard- see list above), where would you send them if they want to study Europe (but are not sure if they want to focus on the EU?)
What about Japan politics or asian regional in general (not China though)? Someone adviced wherever TJ Pempel is, how about other schools?
Another question (and I hope for more response than the Japan question)-- where would you go if you wanted to study South Asia?
South Asia? Texas might be a good place
I'm also very interested in response to the Japan question.
By the way, TJ Pempel is at Berkeley.
As a Japanese graduate studying at Tokyo, I can say TJ Pempel has strong connections with people (both academics and practitioners) in Japan. He and Steve Vogel make Berkeley an obvious place for someone interested in Japan, unless you do formal stuff. Harvard would be another good choice.
I'm looking for departments that have good people working on Southeast Asia (and preferably someone with expertise on insurgencies). Any ideas?
Michael Ross, at UCLA, does work on both Southeast Asia and insurgencies, although he has lately begun to focus somewhat more on resource curse issues.
UT Austin is now very strong in Latin America.
If I wanted to do a Ph.D. in Latin American politics working on historical stuff (maybe some stats but not formal) where would I be best off going? Is UT-Austin a good place for that? Where else?
Berkeley.
For institutions, UCLA (with Barbara Geddes) is strong. There is also Ken Sokoloff in econ that does economic/institutional history of latin america.
For Latin American politics with a historical and institutional bent, you should also consider Stanford with people like Haber, Diaz-Cayeros, Magaloni, and Tomz, among others outside of the department.
Duke seems to consistently train top latin americanists.
I second Berkeley & Stanford. Not Duke though - they have produced some of the best Latin Americanists, just not with a historical bent I think.
I asked the original LA question. How do Harvard, Yale, and Princeton compare to the schools that people mentioned? Any thoughts will be appreciated - it is still summer, but I am thinking about where to apply this winter...
Princeton and Latin America? Just doesn't sound right - unless you want to work with Yashar. Don't think Londregan is particulary active or has ever chaired a diss.
Stokes is now at Yale.
Agree that UCLA is strong in Latin American Politics - not sure at historical stuff though. And yes, Sokoloff is huge, but he's in the Econ Dept.
How is UCLA strong in Latin American politics? Their whole Latin America program revolves around Geddes, who while solid, looks like she's going to leave any day now. There is really nobody beyond Geddes at this point.
Geddes is a powerhouse. And didn't they just hire someone from Duke?
Also, for those interested in race and ethnicity, there's Mark Sawyer.
I believe UCLA has extended an offer to Jorge Bravo (Duke).
Do anyone know if UT Austin is going to be hiring?
I think Austin will hire, but it's not clear which subfield.
Best Poli Sci Dept if one wants to study the Middle East?
Best PS Dept if one wants to study Africa?
Best PS Dept if one wants to study Russia and Eastern Europe?
Best PS Dept if one wants to study Europe?
Europe ... Princeton is obvious. Harvard still good. UNC (Marks, Hooghe, Steenbergen, etc.). Emory has some very good people (Carrubba, etc.). Tsebelis seems to mentor lots of excellent people at UCLA. University of Washington is less obvious but has some good faculty to work with.
Tsebelis seems to mentor lots of excellent people at UCLA.
Like who? I had heard it was Geddes who did the bulk of the mentoring at UCLA.
Amie Kreppel is probably his greatest success story. Tassos Kalandrakis. They have some good-seeming grad students now. (No, I have no connection whatsoever to UCLA.)
Should have mentioned Cornell for non-EU "old school" comparative European too, I suppose.
And Geddes is not relevant because the response was to a questino about Europe, not mentoring at UCLA.
Thanks for the info about UCLA. I had a student thinking about going there - though in the end she went to Columbia.
MIT has Berger, Rodden, Locke, and now Orit Kedar for Europe.
So, any further thoughts on south asia/
Ganguly's good on South Asia. Not sure what department he's with these days.
As a Europeanist from and in Europe, I would second that UNC is a good place. In a sense, it is the only department (I can think of) that really excels in Europe, compared to other regions. Overall, it is remarkable how Europe has become marginalized in US political science; even in the comparative sections, despite the regions importance for the subdiscipline.
How does the Latin American comparative team at Notre Dame stack up? And does any one know how well their recent phd's have done?
How does the Latin American comparative team at Notre Dame stack up? And does any one know how well their recent phd's have done?
-------------------------------
They have a lot of good people in the field. I have heard that Coppedge and Mainwaring are both helpful mentors. Tim Scully is at the very least a really nice guy, but I don't know how involved he is in graduate training. I don't think O'Donnell is very active at this point, but I could be wrong.
In terms of placements, I think they have done fairly well, but are not comparable to the very top schools. On placement record, Berkeley is a clear number one choice for Latin America.
Thoughts on the qual/quant balance in the following universities?
Berkeley
Princeton
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
Yale
Stanford
Which of these would be the best place to study ethnic conflict in democracies, providing that the conflict in question is one that is poorly documented in terms of quant data?
Is there anyplace I'm missing?
Post a Comment
<< Home