How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment

How Professors Think Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment Illuminating the confidential process of academic evaluation this text reveals the inner workings of this secretive powerful and peculiar world

  • Title: How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment
  • Author: Michèle Lamont
  • ISBN: 9780674032668
  • Page: 241
  • Format: Hardcover
  • Illuminating the confidential process of academic evaluation, this text reveals the inner workings of this secretive, powerful and peculiar world.

    • [PDF] Download æ How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment | by ✓ Michèle Lamont
      241 Michèle Lamont
    • thumbnail Title: [PDF] Download æ How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment | by ✓ Michèle Lamont
      Posted by:Michèle Lamont
      Published :2019-01-24T14:23:23+00:00

    1 thought on “How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment”

    1. It is fun to read social scientists studying your little subculture. In this case, the author did a bunch of interviews with academics serving on interdisciplinary fellowship committees (ACLS, some Ivy League Society of Fellows, Woodrow Wilson, etc.). She got them to try to explain how they go about deciding what proposals get funding. It turns out that history cleans up in these competitions, in contrast with other disciplines like philosophy and English. That's because (according to the interv [...]

    2. Inaptly named. This book is about how humanities and social science professors make judgments about the relative merits of grant applications in a context of disciplinary heterogeneity and a lack of agreed standards for worthwhile scholarship. Quite interesting. Perhaps also useful if you have wistful dreams of ever being awarded funding for academic research.

    3. A better title (though less catchy) would be How Academics Think. That's really what this book is about--unless you're a PhD candidate, it's not about your professors. Though they're often the same people, the hat you wear deep in academia and the hat you wear dealing with underclassmen is very different. The book is rather dry and academic, but I probably would have read it anyway if it had been about professors interacting with undergrads. A better source of insight on that is Rebekah Nathan's [...]

    4. This book is smart and thorough but written in a very accessible style. My recent experience with non-fiction books is that they are either dumbed down for a general audience or written in an obtuse style and so filled with jargon and citations to other works that they are nearly unreadable. This book manages to avoid both problems. Perhaps because she is conscious of her subject matter, the author manages to embody in her own work many of the qualities of academic excellence that she discusses [...]

    5. Don't read this if you are thinking you will learn something about how professors think. Title is a misnomer. This is a very specific book about a study of peer-review in terms of how faculty look at grant proposals and the like to fund, publish, etc. within the structure of academic excellence as percieved by disciplines. I am always leery when terms can't be defined and yet each quote in the book about academic excellence is of the 'I know it when I sees it" variety. Odd also that it didn't in [...]

    6. This book highlights the evaluative culture that enables people to succeed in academia. Lamont states that the object of the book is to understand the norms used to evaluate quality, excellence and significance. She emphasizes that “evaluation is a process that is deeply emotional and interactional.” P.8 For instance, she mentions the effects of customary rules informing interpersonal relationships, especially involving clientalism, and certain extra-cognitive elements such as “gut feeling [...]

    7. overgeneralized title. More like "a sociologist's observations [and decoding of self-serving interview responses from panelists] re how things work in social sciences fellowship/grant panels for mostly early career awards in interdisciplinary subareas of the social sciences and humanities". Even as a study of "peer review", it's quite limited -- no coverage of the extensive literature on interrater reliability, no consideration of the effects of innovations such as double-blind procedure, no men [...]

    8. I look forward to reading this because of the Savage Minds review. Here's a chunk: "It is the best description yet of what we are looking for in proposals for funding dissertation research. For those of us who went to elite school, we have heard this sort of talk about what good proposals look like—it is part of the oral lore that is passed down from one old boy to the next. There are even a few pieces floating out there—Sydel Silverman’s and Adam Przeworski’s—on what funders look for. [...]

    9. This will be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about the peer review process, particularly regarding funding. The author observed a number of social science/humanities panels, but her findings should be equally relevant to grad students/postdocs/junior faculty in other disciplines too, since even in the "hard sciences" the people evaluating your proposal are human beings using similar criteria.As others have commented, the title doesn't fit (at least the part before the colon). Studen [...]

    10. This book was a bit more "how professors make decisions in the peer review by committee system" and not so much "how professors think." In that, I was disappointed. I would have preferred a more in depth look at the different disciplines in their own environments and what the professors view as valuable work when they don't have to compromise in a committee. However, it was an interesting look at the peer review/grant funding process.

    11. A really outstanding read (at least for someone who works in academics). Really accessible sociological research; sheds light on the politics and decision-making habits of faculty in a number of different humanities and social science disciplines.

    12. A look at peer review and how professors judge each other in terms of academia. Not so much a look at the culture of professors as a look at how they are forced to act in small groups determining the fate of other professors.

    13. Fascinating book about the process of peer review, the formation and evolution of academic disciplines in the social sciences, and the evolving notion of excellence in academia.

    14. Shows how different various disciplines define "excellence." Any academic who says "I know excellence when I see it" should be embarrassed.

    15. Interesting for comparing how people in different disciplines view quality. Author interviewed panelists from multidisciplinary grant-making panels in humanities and social sciences.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *