Year: 2006

Top party school. Of course, I was always working and studying too much to take much notice as an undergrad.

Analysis from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs regarding the electoral situation in Mexico.

According to news sources, the national police force sought to remove PRD supporters from their encampment outside the national legislature. The reports of what happened are often contradictory or confused, such as this report from Milenio:

A las cuatro y media de la tarde, los legisladores agredidos se presentaron en la 50 Agencia de la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Distrito Federal, para denunciar a Vicente Fox, al diputado panista Alvaro Elías Loredo, la Federal Preventiva y Estado Mayor Presidencial por las agresiones cometidas en su contra.

A este respecto, Elías Loredo se deslindó de las acusaciones perredistas y dijo que se presentará un informe para aclarar que sucedió en este operativo.

Pero estas declaraciones no fueron tomadas con satisfacción por la bancada del PRD, e incluso Inti Muñoz, vocero de los diputados federales, dijo que se presentará una denuncia contra el panista Elías Loredo por ser responsable de esta actitud represiva, lo cual fue rechazado por éste.

Se dio a conocer que García Ochoa además de presentar una herida en el ojo izquierdo, y posiblemente la fractura de una costilla.

Clara Brugada, dijo que Elías Loredo ordenó la represión en contra de sus pares, por lo que lo responsabilizó de las agresiones en contra de doce legisladores y simpatizantes del PRD.

Dolores Padierna, dijo a Formato 21, que los federales preventivos los agredieron sin mediar conversación “fue un acto de represión”, acotó.

El panista Alvaro Elías Loredo, dialogó con los responsables de la PFP para que cese esta situación, además de que se evalúa que se pronuncie al respecto, se desconoce si lo hará mediante una conferencia de prensa o un comunicado.

Al cuarto para las tres de la tarde, inició el desalojo de cientos de manifestantes que desde temprano intentaron irrumpir en el recinto.

He said. She said.

Since I was on leave in 04-05, last year (05-06) was my first year at Tech where laptops and wireless access were ubiquitous on campus and in the classroom. I can tell which students are using laptops for notes and which are using them to IM or browse the web (i.e., those with blank stares, very little typing or eye movement to the front of the classroom, etc.).

Usually, I would ask those students questions when they appeared distracted, and often that would get them back on task. Sometimes, I would joke with them about what they might be looking at to get their attention. (Humor is my preferred way to deal with such classroom issues.) I used to think those students are just hurting themselves, not unlike sleepy students, so I’d tend to ignore them. (My classroom is pretty animated and interactive, and if they’re tuned out, there’s not much more I could do to engage them.)

However, last spring, I had some students specifically complain that the web habits of other students were distracting during class. This realization has led to the following addition to my fall syllabi (new material in italics):

Course attendance and participation, 20%
Your success in the seminar will require regular attendance and active participation in class discussions. To be able to participate actively in the discussion, you must have done the reading prior to class and you must attend class regularly. The quality, not quantity, of your participation is the key to a superior class participation grade. Asking thoughtful or insightful questions is just as important as answering questions posed by others in the class. Absences, tardiness, cell phone disruptions and abuse of internet technologies (e.g., web browsing/IMing during class) will adversely affect your participation grade.

Looks like voting boxes will only be recounted in less than 10% of the precincts. The precincts are distributed in about half of the voting districts of the country.

See also.

This time from Dean Dad.

At last week’s rally in Mexico City, AMLO called for more demonstrations and permanent installations of protestors around the country. I refer you all to two posts by Greg Weeks, with commentary and links to several articles.

… though regular readers (assuming these exist…) may cry foul.

Wal-Mart is the biggest private employer in Mexico and has many different store chains and restaurants.

Now, the corporation plans to open banks in its stores. Though critics of Wal-Mart may be skeptical of such a move, I think competition from Wal-Mart may be just what the Mexican banking system needs. Mexican banks provide poor service, charge ridiculous fees, and lack transparency. Many banking fees/policies disproportionately hurt the lower and middle classes and increased competition should help reduce fees and increase access to affordable credit.

From Bloomberg.

I’m no fan of Wal-Mart (and when in the U.S., I do not shop there), but I do think WalMex banks would be good for working Mexicans.

Gage and I sign it like this.

At the coffeeshop:

“I was stoned as shit.” (coming from a table of 30 and 40-somethings)

“I only ever passed out at Willie’s Picnic. I think I was allergic to something, and I smoked way too much pot.”

And this conversation is classic:

Slacker1: Like take Moby. His shit isn’t THAT good; it’s just ok.

S2: Yeah, it’s not original or anything.

S1: But’s he’s probably like a nice guy, so people just help him out.

Though I had vowed not to visit Austin until my book was in the mail, my craving for Texas brisket overcame me. It’s always nice being back in Austin, though. I never really feel at home in Atlanta. And, there’s something nice about being able to walk into the Riverside Thundercloud to a reception not unlike Norm’s at Cheers. I can pretend to be a cool hipster rather than nerdy professor for a bit.

I’ve been getting some work done, but not enough. (I never seem to get enough work done… I could work 26 hours a day and it wouldn’t be enough.)

Anyway…some tidbits overheard at the coffee shop today:

Barista: You gonna do the crossword?

Random Austin guy: Naw…there’s a lot of government encoding and innuendo….

There was also this exchange, with same barista

Random Austin guy 2: Yeah, it’s like a sleeper film….

B: I’ll have to check it out.

RAG2: Yeah. Jennifer Tilly…She’s more like a campy actress.

B: Yeah.

I love Austin.

In today’s mass demonstration, Lopez Obrador has called for permanent installations of protestors until the election dispute is resolved.

Here’s the AP version.

Copies of my article are now online.

Read this article about ISSSTE reforms later.

10 pages of typed notes. And a bad headache because some of the library and second-hand books bought in the D.F. on unions and employer organizations in the 50-70s in Mexico are filled with DUST.

On the other hand, I’ve managed to gather much of the data that I needed to finish this chapter–enough anyway to write it up while I wait for remaining ILL items.

Oh…and I came across two other paper ideas…one entirely new and another one that occurred to me while writing my dissertation, but which I had forgotten about in the interim. How is it that some people run out of research ideas, when I seem to have more than I know what to do with? (Granted, not all of my ideas are APSR-like ideas, but at least they are ideas.)

No writing, but over the last two days I have waded through a foot high stack of photocopies and thin paperbacks gathering additional data/evidence regarding labor union/state relations at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s in Mexico.

Now, if only the library would send me e-copies of the articles that I requested over the weekend, I could put this Chapter to rest.

As it stands, I’ll do what I can with what I have now, and add additional data/evidence as it trickles in.

Earlier posts covered reasons for getting a Ph.D. and why it matters where you get your Ph.D.

How to figure out which program may be right for you.

Come up with a list of the types of research questions that interest you most. Is your interest in American government? European politics? International relations? List your favorite undergraduate classes and topics. What about them interested you? What would you like to learn more about?

Armed with this list of your interests, do some research on the top programs (use any of the ranking tools, though none are perfect and some are outdated). Look at the department websites. See if you recognize faculty names from things you’ve read in your upper-level classes. Poke around. Find the names of faculty working on the area(s) that you are interested in. Look at the description of the graduate program.

Put together a list of 10 programs that you think might be good for you. List the names of the people working in ‘your’ area of interest at each school. List what you like/don’t like about the Ph.D. program description (too many/few fields required, funding?, placement).

Then, talk to as many faculty members in your current institution as will give you time [during office hours] to get feedback on your first list. Show them your list of schools and list of names. Ask if they would add any schools to your list. Double check with more than one faculty member to make sure they are not biased. There should be good overlap between professors in the same area in the same department.

They know more than you do and may be willing to share. For instance, I was trying to decide between a particular top 10 program with no funding and a top 20 program with full funding. I talked to one of my undergrad advisors who told me that the primary Latin Americanist at the top 10 place had a reputation for being strange, arbitrary, and a bit uneven. They may also know about people who have recently moved or who are about to retire.

Your advisors may also be able to point out differences between two places that might not otherwise be apparent. For instance, both UC-Berkeley and UC-San Diego have excellent Ph.D. programs and a number of people studying Latin America. They are, however, worlds apart in certain respects. Depending on a student’s interests, quantitative inclinations, etc. one might be better than the other.

That’s why it’s important, once you’ve narrowed your selection to five/six schools that you do a little research on the types of research being done by the faculty in the area you wish to study. [If you can’t be bothered to do that much research, then how would you ever hope to finish a Ph.D.?]

Get the faculty names from the department webpage and use Google Scholar to look up their work. Usually, you can read the abstracts of the articles for free (if you’re not currently in school), and that will at least give you an idea of the types of things they study and how often they seem to publish.

After you’ve narrowed it down, go back to your undergraduate faculty advisor (during office hours) and show them your new list.

Questions I think all students should be able to answer about the programs to which they are submitting applications:
Are all students admitted funded, or do students have to scramble/compete for funding once they arrive?

How competitive is admission?

Where have recent Ph.D.s been placed, particularly in your field of interest?

What are the degree requirements? Do students seem to finish in a timely fashion?

Are there enough faculty in your field and other secondary fields of interest?

Do those faculty train graduate students? [You can look up Ph.D. dissertations online by advisor through Dissertation Abstracts.]

Naturally, I didn’t have the answers to all of these questions when I applied for a Ph.D. and most of them I didn’t even think to ask. But, they are things I wish I had known. I’m not sure I would have made any different choices, but I got lucky.

Maybe later in the fall I’ll post about application essays and funding.

Reviewed and reorganized Chapter 4. I realized that I have some research work to do on part of that chapter and that the other parts are better than I remember.

Today’s goal, writing some of the bridges for the revised parts and taking notes for the parts to be cleaned up.

Subtitle: (Advice for those thinking about Ph.D.s in Political Science)

I imagine the process is similar in other social sciences, but there may be important differences.

Since a Ph.D. is a means to an end, you should begin by identifying what ‘end’ you are seeking. I ask students what type of academic position they would like. Do they want to primarily teach? Do they want to primarily do research? Do they want to keep their options open?

Many students think they want to primarily teach, but then I explain the different types of teaching options. There is community college, small state university, liberal arts college or university, a range of research state universities, and then flagship state universities and/or private top-flight universities. All positions will include some teaching, but some more than others. And, as another undergrad advisor once pointed out to me, you can still be a good teacher at a research university–it just won’t be valued as much as your research. Pay will also vary, and often inversely with the emphasis on teaching.

If students don’t really know what type of professor they’d like to be or whether they’d really like to be in a research-driven position, I suggest that they work on the assumption that they might prefer more money and more research. If you come from a strong Ph.D. program and begin with a strong research record, you will have more options on the job market.

The job market, or how markets work with little information.

I explain that when most Ph.D. students go on the job market, their research record will be bare or minimal. Hiring departments must then weed through 100+ applications for their one position quickly. Since newbie Ph.D.s won’t have extensive publication records, hiring committees seek to narrow the field quickly using the paucity of information available: Ph.D. granting department, principal Ph.D. advisor, dissertation topic (for fit), and grants or publications (if any).

Unfortunately, to make that first cut is a lot easier if you are an average Harvard Ph.D. than the best student ever from North Texas (and that’s a growing/improving program….there are a lot less productive departments out there handing out Ph.D.s), for example. It pays to go to the best department possible to maximize your options on the job market.

You can think of it as an informal tier system among Ph.D. granting departments, where the top 5-10 are Tier I, through top 20-25 Tier II, and the rest in Tier III. [Also, the categorization into a particular Tier for each department or even subfield within a department may be debatable.] But Tier I schools usually only hire from other Tier I. Tier II would hire from Tier I and top students from Tier II programs. Tier III would hire from Tier II and top students from Tier III.

Non-Ph.D. departments are a little more tricky since there are a wide variety of these, e.g., state schools, liberal arts colleges, and even some flagship universities without Ph.D.s (like my Georgia Tech).

Of course, there are caveats or qualifications for “best” departments for a Ph.D. Remember that “best” refers to the department, not university. There are a handful of top universities with less than top departments of political science, and vice versa.

Also, if you’re interested in African politics, only sometimes (i.e., a top 5 department) would it make sense to go to a top department that had no Africanist.

Usually, I recommend that students seek departments that are highly ranked and that have well-known faculty in their specific area of interest. Also, students should seek “well-known” faculty who are still publishing and working with graduate students–often this means highly productive Associate Professors or recently promoted to full Professor, or at least not someone in semi-retirement.

Like with undergrad, it’s a good idea to apply to a couple of hard, medium, and easy programs each, with the understanding that if you only get into an “easy” program, you might consider moving after your M.A.

Next installment…. How to research Departments, what to look for in a Ph.D. program (or what questions to ask), and why I think you should never have to pay for your own Ph.D. training.

I managed to finish and submit the corrected proofs for this paper, which has been haunting me since APSA 2001, where it was first presented.

It spent over two years total at this journal. In the first round of reviews, the paper received a very positive review with minor revisions and a one sentence review that said the paper was “wonky and descriptive.” The former editor recommended revising on the basis of the first reviewer’s suggestions, which I did. I sent it back, and the paper sat for about 10 months before the editorial assistant emailed me to say that they could not find a suitable second reviewer. At that time the editor was changing, and the assistant asked if I would like to give the new editor a chance to find a second reviewer or have the manuscript back. I asked for it back.

I then sent it to this journal in May 2003. When I received the reviews that Fall, one of the reviewers faulted me for not citing an article in this journal that appeared in July of 2003. (Yes, I should have cited an article before it had appeared in a highly specialized journal!) Of course, the article I did not cite (because I had not seen it yet) is an exemplar of the type of work I critique in my article, so it’s no surprise the author of the July article reviewer did not like my theoretical approach.

Following that rejection, I sent the article to its proper home at Social Politics in October 2004. I received the conditional acceptance in September 2005. It will appear this fall, 2006.