tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post2015764554254942241..comments2024-02-20T17:40:21.618-05:00Comments on jeremy freese's weblog: with or without youjeremyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12755662766163119607noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-9784578579618192292007-02-03T22:26:00.000-05:002007-02-03T22:26:00.000-05:00One could probably go on for some time about the w...One could probably go on for some time about the weirdnesses of this list, but for my part, the least explicable is "Family, Life Course, and Society." I guess society isn't relevant to the 15 areas. I'm sure glad the family folks are taking care of that and the rest of us don't have to wrorry about it!Bad Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487294423544434727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-56021083437027393122007-02-02T16:51:00.000-05:002007-02-02T16:51:00.000-05:00I agree with anon 9:40. That list is ridiculous. I...I agree with anon 9:40. That list is ridiculous. Its contours seem to reflect what people outside of sociology consider to be "hot areas" like legal studies/crim/etc. And why is sexuality always stuck onto gender?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-83782063737972168182007-02-02T09:47:00.000-05:002007-02-02T09:47:00.000-05:00The list itself (thanks for providing it Dan) is p...The list itself (thanks for providing it Dan) is pretty moronic. Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance gets a separate category from Criminology, and yet Inequality and Stratification is one omnibus category(which presumably includes things like sociology of education, which is one of the largest ASA sections). Why are knowledge and science stuck in there with theory? Why is comparative historical stuck under methodologies, when it is a well recognized substantive field as well? And where is astrosociology?!?<br /><br />I suppose when a field is as disorganized as ours, this type of confusion emerges when anyone tries to develop a reasonable categorization. It is really quite sad for the field that we can't just settle on five or so categories and organize ourselves under them.<br /><br />Jeremy: leads us, please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-9132421821447561422007-02-01T23:55:00.000-05:002007-02-01T23:55:00.000-05:00Of course now we can get into a debate about what ...Of course now we can get into a debate about what are the major areas of the discipline. That's a fun one that is also relevant to the NRC study. Here's their sociology list, which is pretty long relative to some other disciplines (Political Science for example, only has 5: American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Models and Methods, and Political Theory). Originally, it was much shorter, and there was a lot of griping about it (including by me). And somehow, through what process it is unclear, it became this. At any rate, it hard to imagine too many departments that could actually be large enough to be good/serious in all of these areas or even have a critical mass (meaning, perhaps, enough to populate a qualifying exam committee on a regular basis). <br /><br />-Demography, Population, and Ecology<br />-Family, Life Course, and Society<br />-Gender and Sexuality<br />-Inequality and Stratification<br />-Medicine and Health <br />-Methodologies : Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical<br />-Place and Environment<br />-Politics and Social Change<br />-Race and Ethnicity<br />-Regional Sociology<br />-Rural sociology<br />-Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance<br />-Social Psychology and Interaction<br />-Sociology of Culture<br />-Theory, Knowledge and Science<br />-Work, Economy and Organizations<br />-CriminologyBad Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487294423544434727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-65678841562956459932007-02-01T23:33:00.000-05:002007-02-01T23:33:00.000-05:00Response to Anon 9:40 right above me:
Well, sure....Response to Anon 9:40 right above me:<br /><br />Well, sure. It seems completely reasonable to me that if a department isn't attempting to excel at sociology as a broadly defined discipline - as opposed to a specific corner of the field - then (to the extent we care about rankings at all) they should be "ranked" lower on a general measure of quality in sociology. As you say: it may not even be what they're trying to do.<br /><br />Of course, all that means is that there may be a divergence between the "best" departments in sociology as a whole, and those that are the best in particular areas. And different people may care more or less about quality in sociology as a whole as opposed to in a particular area. I myself am not much invested in fine-grained distinctions between departments. But I think it's a peculiar idea that some sort of equity or fairness demands that rankings be structured such that departments that *don't* have quality faculty and students in all the major areas of the discipline will still be "ranked" as high as those that do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-43390097586281171882007-02-01T21:40:00.000-05:002007-02-01T21:40:00.000-05:00On the boutique department issue: Perhaps a missin...On the boutique department issue: Perhaps a missing factor is "Does the department do what it claims it does?" Of course small departments do not produce a large number and wide variety of sociologists, and of course such departments might be seen as better if they maintained faculty quality while growing, but what if they don't want to grow? Should they be ranked lower because they don't want to become like Madison?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-32982786520382725582007-02-01T18:00:00.000-05:002007-02-01T18:00:00.000-05:00My last comment was in response to Steve M's comme...My last comment was in response to Steve M's comment. In response to Dan's comment that "I'm also willing to bet most departments could name a few people they'd be happy to get rid of too, even if they couldn't replace them": certainly this is so for individuals, as I've received a couple private e-mails today to this effect. A whole different level, of course, would be unanimity among the rest of the faculty that their program would be better off without a particular person.jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12755662766163119607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-62018376792997606482007-02-01T17:58:00.000-05:002007-02-01T17:58:00.000-05:00I am interested in the issue of the effect of depa...I am interested in the issue of the effect of department size on its members, especially in terms of their appearance on the quality measures that are used to rate them. I can see it either way, and indeed, maybe it is both, with larger departments being better at one part of the career and smaller departments being better at another.jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12755662766163119607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-75722103500704255912007-02-01T17:05:00.000-05:002007-02-01T17:05:00.000-05:00I agree completely with Jeremy's basic point: all...I agree completely with Jeremy's basic point: all else being equal, larger departments are better, especially at training graduate students. <br /><br />The only remaining issue in my mind is whether there are other things positively related to size but detrimental to a department and its members. For example, very large departments often have a much larger total undergraduate teaching burden. It is possible that the average faculty member has to teach more in a large department (this is obviously true for a comparison of Princeton to Wisconsin, but I do not know how true it is on average across all departments). If this is true, and if undergraduate teaching is a soul-crushing burden for large departments, it is likely that faculty in small departments have more time to spend with their graduate students and are generally happier and more productive.<br /> <br />I don't know if this particular detriment of largeness exist. And, I don't know how much it counterbalances the ceteris paribus positive effect of largeness. But, the general point deserves some consideration by those who have spent more time in a large department than I have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-63647770223356194152007-02-01T16:59:00.000-05:002007-02-01T16:59:00.000-05:00I agree with anon. 4:03's decision making. It mak...I agree with anon. 4:03's decision making. It makes sense for him/her to go to a large program, because of personal factors. But, personal factors of students aren't (by design or necessity) included in departmental rankings. The top department isn't necessarily right for the top student; other factors come into play here, like personality, temperament, interests, personal needs.<br /><br />And, this still does not translate into a universal "bigger is better," which I'm still not convinced by. Up to a point, maybe, but nowhere near your (jeremy) conviction. And I agree with dan's point.<br /><br />-andreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-31172832454299556672007-02-01T16:37:00.000-05:002007-02-01T16:37:00.000-05:00On balance, I agree with your points about size, b...On balance, I agree with your points about size, but I'll add one potential wrinkle: Too many cooks can spoil the broth. I've had a lot of experiences with this in the academic system where everything is run by committee.... <br /><br />In response to Anon 4:18: Well, the department's assumption is that it is going to add someone good when it grows, rather than someone crappy. Sometimes department do have the opportunity to grow and they don't take it (a key example is when a spouse of a candidate in another department is presented) so it's not "growth is good no matter what." I'm also willing to bet most departments could name a few people they'd be happy to get rid of too, even if they couldn't replace them.Bad Runnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487294423544434727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-28111029743670649572007-02-01T16:18:00.000-05:002007-02-01T16:18:00.000-05:00If number of faculty isn't important how come near...If number of faculty isn't important how come nearly every department in the country would like to add faculty while almost none are hoping to reduce their numbers? It must be good for something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-29927709023537972342007-02-01T16:03:00.000-05:002007-02-01T16:03:00.000-05:00I agree with this. I'm a grad student and program ...I agree with this. I'm a grad student and program size was one of a few decisive factors for me in picking a school. I came in with broad interests and very little idea what kind of research would actually emerge from them, and I wanted to feel that whatever I wound up wanting to do, I would be able to find people who could really help me (if not because someone did something similar, then at least because a number of people did somewhat related things). <br /><br />It's worked out well for me, and I think I've also benefitted from having access to people (not only faculty, but lots of fellow students) doing a very wide range of things even if I haven't wanted to do them myself. <br /><br />I'm not saying that would be the right choice for everyone, but it does seem to me that larger department size should be considered a good in and of itself. However, I think that the attention that faculty and departments give to students should also be considered a positive good in and of itself, and I imagine a measure of this would tend to work against large departments (especially if the measure weren't just whether *some* students had access to plenty of faculty time and attention, but whether *all* did).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-35427304799630251092007-02-01T15:53:00.000-05:002007-02-01T15:53:00.000-05:00My assertion is that overall "faculty quality" for...My assertion is that overall "faculty quality" for the purposes of rating graduate programs is not well-represented by the quality of the average faculty member. My belief is that, ceteris paribus, if two departments have the same quality of average faculty member, the larger department should be ranked higher. I'm not arguing that bigger is always better, by any means, but I'm arguing something close to that all else being equal. There are numerous very good smaller departments in sociology in the US, but I would argue that if they could retain the same average-member-quality and increase in size, they would be better departments.jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12755662766163119607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-90913482552252854152007-02-01T15:25:00.000-05:002007-02-01T15:25:00.000-05:00Your first point takes issue with using averages. ...Your first point takes issue with using averages. But isn't this a measurement issue, not a departmental quality issue -- How good departments look by questionable rating systems, rather than how good they are (if we could better quantify it)?<br /><br />To some degree I agree with you about the critical mass issue. But, it may be just that -- some minimum number is beneficial, rather than "bigger is better." Are four people better than two? I can see how four people probably aren't *worse* than two, but they're not necessarily better. Do you actually have contact with them? Are they helping you? Are they good quality? Are two excellent people in your area better than four mediocre people? Or two excellent and two weak?<br /><br />Also, some smaller departments specialize. They don't claim to be all things to all people, but they do what they do very well. This would seem to compensate for the "if one person leaves you're screwed" problem. And yes, people change their minds once they're in graduate school, but this doesn't occur in a vacuum -- it's most likely to be strongly influenced by the people they're exposed to in graduate school. You could use this as an argument to advocate for "bigger is better," but bigger also doesn't necessarily translate into having any actual contact with those faculty that might change your perspective/focus. <br /><br />So, I'd agree that tiny probably could lead to all sorts of problems. Beyond that, I'm still not convinced by a "bigger is better" argument (which I think, but am not entirely sure, is the argument you are making. Maybe I'm just responding to a straw man argument. . .)<br />-andreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-49246904156068862232007-02-01T13:58:00.000-05:002007-02-01T13:58:00.000-05:00I don't follow. The point of the "average" is to ...I don't follow. The point of the "average" is to identify the central tendency. You are not trimming the lower tail alone. You are trimming both tails. Am I missing something? Explain to me again the "trouble with averages"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5558726.post-70551809120392626662007-02-01T13:41:00.000-05:002007-02-01T13:41:00.000-05:00Groundhog requests no early posting: needs another...Groundhog requests no early posting: needs another day's sleep, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com