Congratulations to Rory McVeigh, Omar Lizardo, and Sarah Mustillo on being named the incoming editors of the American Sociological Review. I wish them all the best and I look forward to being rejected by them!
A few interesting notes: First, if you ever wondered whether blogging damages your career chances, this should put your fears to rest. Second, on Twitter, I asked Omar about the problem of endless R&R’s, rotating reviewers, and other problems that have plagued the current incarnation of the journal. Omar directed me to the proposal that he submitted with Rory and Sarah. A few choice quotes:
- “We aim to maintain that standard, while also seeking out new ways to improve on past performance. We will address the issue of efficiency by strategically using members of the editorial board during the review process and by making a judicious use of the initial R & R decision. Our aim is to use the R & R decision exclusively on papers for which there is strong consensus on the part of the entire editorial team (inclusive of the deputy editors and members of the editorial board assigned to each paper) with regards to potential for publication and the feasibility of the revisions required by the reviewers. We believe that an astute use of the R & R decision will do a lot to improve the efficiency of the review process at ASR.”
- “Our plan is to address this issue by limiting the number of R & R decisions to a maximum of two and by being exceedingly sparing with the practice of granting second R & R decisions. There may be cases where a second R & R decision will be needed, particularly in cases where authors may be somewhat inexperienced and need an additional opportunity to improve the paper or address a critical point. Early editorial intervention, however, should reduce the need for second R & R decisions. However, in no case will we issue a third R & R decision. The decision after a second R & R will be rejection, acceptance, or conditional acceptance. “
Thank flippin’ gawd. The only down side is that I will no longer be banned from the reviewer pool. C’est la vie.
My friend and co-author Michael Heaney will be speaking about Party in the Street this week. Here is the info:
- On Monday, Michael will be in Washington, will be at Busboys and Poets in Washington, DC. 6:30 pm, catch it if you can.
- On Tuesday, Michael will be in Chicago at the Seminary Coop bookstore. They will be starting a series called “Fresh Ayers” where Chicago activist Bill Ayers will host a series of book talks. Michael will be is the first guest.
- On Wednesday, Michael will be in New York (yes, I know, he’s a busy guy) at Books and Culture. He will be hosted by Dan Wang of the Columbia Business School.
Come out and support the book. We’d love to see you there!
This guest post is by Raj Ghoshal, an assistant professor of sociology at Goucher College. Previously we discussed presidents and collective memory in these two posts: Warren G. Harding is awesome & popular presidents kill people.
Presidents’ Day had me thinking about presidential rankings and collective memory. We commonly learn that a certain set of our presidents were great, while others were not – and for presidencies we (or our parents) didn’t personally live through, history textbooks and teachers are often the messengers. But how do presidential historians determine greatness? Are there sociological patterns worth noticing?
I looked at Wikipedia’s aggregation of U.S. presidential rankings by historians. A few patterns jumped out:
- Era matters greatly. Presidents who held office during broad periods of prosperity or national success are more likely to be considered great. Of course, presidents influence a country’s well-being, but the size of the era effects suggests historians are like the rest of us: they give individual presidents more credit or blame than they deserve. The first seven presidents, associated with the country’s birth and rise, are all ranked positively—this should be only 0.8% probable, if ratings are independent of era effects. The twelfth through twenty-first are all rated negatively, with the striking exception of Lincoln. (Perhaps Lincoln was genuinely greater, perhaps others could have been equally successful in leading through the Civil War, and/or perhaps his star dims the lights for those who came around him.) Presidents leading up to the Great Depression are rated poorly (#s 29-31), those in the era coming out of the Depression are rated positively (#s 32 to 36), and the mixed economic and social trends of the last five decades have yielded mainly average presidential ratings. Across these periods, the clustering is clear enough that individual differences between presidents are unlikely to be the sole cause.
- Presidential historians’ collective memory is stable, as the surveys show great consensus over time (this doesn’t mean that individual historians agree, since each data point is a survey). The only two cases out of all 43 where there’s even moderate evidence of changes in historians’ opinions after a president leaving office are Reagan and perhaps Nixon, and those changes are small, even though their supposed rehabilitations were widely discussed in the press (G.W. Bush’s standing among historians fell, but the drop came while he was still in office). While memory projects or changing norms can alter historical figures’ standing, this doesn’t seem to be very common with American presidents. More broadly, studying change is often interesting and revealing, but we should remember that change is usually the exception rather than the rule.
- For the five presidents where there’s data, future ratings closely follow the ratings a president had while in office. These five cases also suggest that historians tend to evaluate currently-in-office presidents fairly positively, at least at first. It’s impossible to disentangle this from era effects without more data, though.
- I didn’t look at how closely historians’ opinion follows public opinion, economic news, wars, or success in getting one’s agenda enacted, but those all probably matter too.
Feel free to use the comments.
I have often been a critic of the higher education system. My critique, roughly, is that the costs of college are often disconnected from the market value of the degree. Students are often left with substantial debt that may take a decade or more to pay off. Some, without proper counseling, take on the debt normally associated with buying a home. It is no longer the case that college finances are a matter of saving up some money for a few years or working it off over a few summers. Now, students can carry debt into their forties, or later, if they aren’t careful. This debt can displace other, possibly more important, forms of wealth building such as purchasing a home, financing a business, or simply saving the money.
Today, there is an effort to organize college loan debtors in an attempt to roll back this trend. The Debt Collective, an activist group, announced today that a group of fifteen volunteers will go on a debt strike. These former students all have debt acquired from their time in various for-profit colleges. I applaud this movement. But I think it needs to go farther. Why stop at for-profit colleges? It is the case that some for-profits have acted dishonestly in promising much higher wages and encouraging students to maximize loans. But many students from more traditional colleges leave with very debt loads as well and often with degrees that don’t correspond to better jobs. An excellent start and I hope to see more.
Hyperallergic reports that a very valuable Mexican manuscript, the Codex Mendoza, is now available free online. In addition to using the Codex Mendoza’s website, you can download the iPhone app for viewing. Recommended for pre-Columbian culture junkies.