Sunday, October 19, 2014

Placement Incentives and All That

A twitter conversation about the job market took an unexpected turn where someone argued that there were few incentives for professors and departments to care about the placement of their graduate students.  I was flummoxed.  It didn't make sense to me, either as a supervisor of grad students or as a member of various departments  So, let me explain this at both levels--the department and the supervisor.

But before I start, two caveats: 
  • the outcome of a job candidate is not determined entirely by the placement efforts of individuals and departments--there are both the individual candidate's qualities and performance in play and the politics of the hiring department.
  • there are departments and individual advisers who suck at this.  
OK, the department logic is pretty simple: the reputation of a department hangs on a few things, with the placement of their grad students being a key ingredient.  If departments do not place their students, the word does get out to a degree, making it harder (although not impossible) to attract good graduate students.  It might also make it harder to hire faculty since people tend to prefer to be at places with upward trajectories.  It is also something that Deans care about, as they prefer to have departments that do well in the rankings than departments that do poorly.  They can direct resources to and away from departments, so their concern about rankings is important. 

Sunday Silliness: Robo-Surgeon General

If only we had such a robot, everything would be swell-ish

by Brian McFadden of the NYT

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Helpful Review Vs. Not

The boon and bane of our academic enterprise is that we get feedback all the time on our work.  Our work is better for it--that the hack-iest stuff I read is always stuff that is not submitted to any kind of refereeing process and relies instead on editors who seem to be blind to the hack-ness.

The bane is that, well, rejection and criticism can not only delay publication but also hurt feelings.  Today's particular focus is on reviews that focus on stuff that one "should have cited."

I am thinking of this because I got teased today after I griped:

What is the Saideman Helpfulness Standard©?  Well, this specific discussion was about the citations a reviewer asked me to include in my work.  I was highly annoyed because I had to spend time reading a bunch of stuff that did not change my outlook or add new information.  I did find thus far one citation that was useful, but the rest were not. 

So, the SHS is this:
  • does the recommended citation compel the author to better defend the originality of the argument?  That is, if this argument has been made before, the author should justify why it is worth making again.
  • does the citation provide an argument that must be addressed?
  • does the citation provide information that the piece (article/book) could use to strengthen the argument?
  • does the citation provide information that challenges the arguments of the article/book?
What is the SUS (Saideman Unhelpfulness Standard©)?
  • a citation that provides information or arguments that the author has already addressed,
  • a citation that is a slightly different version of a piece that is already cited.  For instance, saying that one should cite Saideman and Auerswald 2012 even though the work cites Auerswald and Saideman 2014 (the latter is more comprehensive than the former).  This would make sense if one wants more citations--the former is an article which citation indexes capture well, and the latter is a book.  Why add more cites if the basic argument/info is already included in stuff that is already cited?
What is the SSUS (Saideman Super Unhelpful Standard©)?
  • Citations of unpublished works. Yes, the internet is a miracle, but there are limits to one what can do when writing an article.
  • Citations of works that come out after the work under review has been submitted for review.  Until we perfect time travel, this is what we call a party foul.  It is perfectly fine for a reviewer to suggest how new work could improve the piece under review, but cannot expect that omitting this newest stuff should be grounds for rejecting the manuscript.
  • Citations of the reviewer's work.  Yes, I have sometimes criticized a piece I was reviewing for not citing me, but I always feel awkward about it and only do it when the author(s) are ignoring not just me but a key argument that they should be addressing. 

I am sure I am forgetting stuff that fits into these three categories (is there a fourth category?), so let me know what I am missing, including stuff I should have cited.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Realism Has Many Flavors

A friend posted on facebook a partial answer from a student: "Realism has many flavors."  And my response was: of course, it does.
  • Classic Realism tastes like sherry because ye olde Realists reclined in ye olde academe, chock full of tweed and sherry hours.
  • Structural Realism tastes like beer (note: this is a change from my original fb post) as it takes a bit of getting used to.  Which kind of beer?  A stout, most assuredly because it is has a bitter taste, just like the security dilemma.
  • Offensive Realism tastes like stale cigarettes.  Why?  Because it is offensive.
  • Defensive Realism tastes like structural realism but perhaps a sweeter beer like a trappist beer. 
  • Neoclassical Realism tastes like sherry but has a strong vinegar taste.  Why?  Because it is actually aged classic realism.
The good news is there are plenty of new flavors as people come up with new variants of realism or resurrect old ones.

Unintentional Comedy: Message Management Edition

I wrote a piece for CIC today on how the Harper government's efforts to create fear in Ottawa--do not talk to the media or else--leads to perhaps more messes than otherwise.  Yep, media is scary: boo!

Check it out and comment there or here.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The Upside of Malware

I somehow found a link that took me to a site that promised free e-versions of one of my books.  I alerted Columbia U Press, and the folks there told me not to worry.  The place was actually a phishing/malware trap--no actual book to be stolen. 

So, woot?  Folks seeking to get my publications without paying will end up falling into a trap.  Hmmmm. 

As it turns out, Columbia UP has been using a relatively new system and found 32 instances of actual infringements.  Of these, 25 for my first book were removed once Columbia UP contacted the sites.  The "non-responsive" sites for my first book were in Switzerland, Russia and Panama.  The four infringements of For Kin or Country were from one site in China, and they were all removed. 

What to read in these patterns?  That Swiss, Russian, and Panamanian thieves like to peddle books on the IR of secession and don't quit when caught?  That Chinese folks are interested in infringing on irredentism stuff, but are more responsive when caught? 

I don't know how to make sense of this, but found it interesting. 

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Pacifist Paradox? Nay. Just Turkey Being Turkey

One of the striking discoveries while researching the NATO book was the case of Turkey.  Turkey had very restrictive rules of engagement--it was unwilling to engage in offensive operations.  It only lost soldiers due to a helicopter crash.  They did let their soldiers engage in offensive operations if they were embedded in an Afghan army unit, but that was the extent of it.  The basic claim was that they didn't kill Muslims.

Why is this surprising?  Well, unlike Germany, where pacifism is a key domestic political challenge, Turkey is not that reluctant to use force.... against Kurds (many of whom are Muslim).   As the world puts increased pressure on Turkey to help the Kurds of Syria, Turkey responds by dropping bombs on its own Kurds.  This nicely illustrates the priorities Prime Minister Erdogan has, but this is not that new either. 

On the other hand, this is not a very nice reality.  It should not be that surprising either.  Galling perhaps, but not surprising.  Turkey has felt under-supported by NATO as the frontline state facing Syrian (Assad, that is) attacks across the border, the brunt of the refugees and all that.  Turkey's priority is Assad and the Kurds with ISIS in third place... maybe. 

While I have argued elsewhere we should not overly bash Turkey, and that we need to take seriously the context, this bombing of Kurd positions in Turkey while it refuses to do much to help out in Syria is a bit of a finger in the face of the international community.  So, yeah, we can direct some umbrage at Turkey, not that it will matter much. 

As I have said before, alliances are hard... as countries have their own interests. 

Monday, October 13, 2014

Tournament of War: The Original

A few years ago, I wrote this post, where I pondered about a lost graphic--a tourney bracket of countries as they warred over the centuries.  That is, in a tournament like the NCAA playoffs, or TwitterFightClub, pairs of actors confront each other until there is only one left (if only Highlander had a tourney bracket!). 

I had seen the graphic long ago, but could not remember where I had seen it.  I did remember the final outcome, which was quite brilliant.  Vietnam, having defeated the US, was to face Afghanistan, having defeated the Soviet Union.  That was the punchline. 

The good news is that I was contacted yesterday by a scholar who was looking for the original ... and then contacted again when he found it.  It was in Spy magazine and then re-posted at the Atlantic!

My memory was not all that far off:

Given how history really played out--that Nazi Germany was defeated by the USSR, I think I prefer US vs Japan and USSR vs. Germany.  Otherwise, still quite good.

Anyhow, big H/T to AM for letting know where we can find this wonderful graphic!