Assisting Politics

The 2007-2008 hiring season

2009-04-11T00:06:00.000-07:00

I have previously posted summaries of the 2005 and 2006 hiring seasons. This post summarizes the 2007-2008 season.

The usual disclaimers apply – there may be occasional errors; although I have done my usual double-checking. I do not intend to post the full data; there is little use for that at this time.

General summary

There were about 152 assistant professors hired in 2007-2008 season in PhD-granting political science departments. This figure is well below previous year’s number (183), but still above the number two years ago (138). Of primary fields – about 52 (34%) were in American, 45 (29%) in Comparative, 36 (23%) in IR, 3 in Methods (I probably coded several who were "methods" hires as Americanists, though), and 16 (11%) in Theory. The following chart shows that the numbers don’t vary much (and much of the variation may be due to coding errors):

Field 2007 2006 2005
American 34% 38% 43%
Comparative 29% 25% 24%
IR 23% 21% 24%
Theory 11% 14% 6%

Theory does experience noteworthy changes; 2005 was a particularly bad year, and 2006 seems to be an above average year.

Here is a table of schools whose PhDs have been hired most in the three years of 2005-2007. This includes all hires, including those who were re-hired from some other tenure track job. I think comparisons year-by-year basis are not that useful. However, Duke did seem to have an extraordinarily good year in 2007.

1T. Harvard, UC Berkeley (25)
3. Duke (24)
4. Stanford (excl. GSB) (19)
5T. Michigan, UCLA, Yale (16)
8T Columbia, UC San Diego (15)
10. North Carolina (14)
11. WashU (12)
12T. Chicago, Rochester (11)
14. Princeton (10)
15T. Cornell, Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State (9)
20T. Florida State, Texas A&M (8)

Of the 152 new hires, 87 (57%) received their PhDs in 2008 or later. Further 21 received their PhDs in 2007. The year before, only 49% of the hires graduated the same year or later.

Top 30 hiring

I also took a quick look at hiring in “top 30” departments (I used the U.S. News and included Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Yale, UC San Diego, Duke, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, UCLA, Ohio State, UNC, Rochester, Wisconsin, WashU, Cornell, NYU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, Texas A&M, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Texas-Austin, Washington, Emory, Rice, SUNY Stony Brook, UC Davis, Maryland and Pennsylvania).

In those departments, 45 (68 in 2006 and 53 in 2005) assistant professor hires were made. The rankings of schools who placed most graduates in "Top 30" in 2005 and 2006 combined:

1T. Harvard, Stanford (excl. GSB) (16)
3. UC Berkeley (14)
4. Michigan (12)
5. Rochester (8)
6T. Columbia, Princeton, UCLA (7)
9T. Duke, UC San Diego, WashU, Yale (6)
13T. Chicago, North Carolina (5)

Of the 45 hires, 26 received their PhD in 2008 or later, 7 received their PhDs in 2007.

New PhD hiring

Finally, I took a look at “new PhD” hirings. As mentioned above, there were 87 assistant professors hired who received their PhD in 2008 or later (thus, the following information does not take into account those 2007-2008 hires who received their PhD in 2007 but were never on market before – there are a couple of those).

The departmental “rankings” by "new PhDs" placed in 2005-2007 combined (I used previous year’s numbers and added what I found this year).

1T. Harvard, UC Berkeley (13)
3. UC San Diego (12)
4. Duke (11)
5T. Stanford, WashU, Yale (10)
8. Michigan (9)
9T. Columbia, Cornell, Rochester, UCLA (8)

Gender & hiring

In 2008, about 39% of the persons hired were female (among new hires, the number is 38%, in top 30 departments, 36%). Altogether, of all assistant professors, about 38% are now female. This number seems to slowly creep up.

Assistants “gone”

Finally, a quick look at departures and promotions. There were 127 assistant professors in PhD-granting political science departments in early 2008 who are no longer assistant professors in PhD-granting departments in early 2009. Of those, 75 became associate professors in their own department, 11 in some other department (including few in non-PhD granting departments), about 11 became assistants at non-PhD granting departments, with about 15 taking various visiting, administrative, or non-academic positions (I’m missing information on further ten or so – but they almost certainly did not become associate professors).

Update

2008-10-27T17:40:00.001-07:00

I have obviously not updated the site for a while. I have not abandoned the project, and I have continued collecting the data. However, I do not expect to publish anything for a while. Thanks for all the comments; you may still leave them and I appreciate them a lot.

Gender and hiring

2007-12-22T17:17:00.000-08:00

Since I just looked at gender distribution in PhD granting departments, here's a quick summary of gender distribution in recent hires.

A little more women got hired in 2006 than what is usual. Of the 183 hires in 2006-2007, 72 (39%) were female. Of total assistant professors, 37% are now women (297/802). In 2005, the percentage was about 36 (and this was about the percentage of women in assistant professorships then). When looking at 2006-2007 hires where the person did not have a tenure track job, 45% were female (60/132). Maybe men are more aggressive in going on market once they have a tenure track job (one data point is clearly not sufficient to draw any conclusions like that)?

The 2006-2007 hiring season

2007-12-22T16:16:00.000-08:00

I posted a summary on the 2005 hiring season in October 2006. This post summarizes the 2006-2007 season.

I can't post the full data at the moment - it's not very clean and might contain inaccuracies. I just wish the departmental websites were updated more often. It is really annoying that you cannot get a list of current faculty from the departmental website as late as late December (yes, this is the case in a few departments). However, I did my best (when I noticed that the website is probably out of date, I checked some other source, e.g. general university directory or a news item on "new faculty," the political theory newsletter, wiki, blogs, PS: Political Science & Politics). I am not sure when I will get around to posting full data (I think I will do a "usual" update in the winter). In any case, the exact numbers may not be fully accurate, and should be taken as an approximation only.

General summary

There were about 183 assistant professors hired in 2006-2007 season in PhD-granting political science departments; this seems to be quite a significant increase from the year before (I got 138 then). Of primary fields – about 70 (38%) were in American, 46 (25%) in Comparative, 38 (21%) in IR, 4 in Methods (I probably coded several who were "methods" hires as Americanists, though), and 25 (14%) in Theory. There was a significant increase in theory hires compared to 2005 (when less than ten theorists were hired in total). About twenty of the 2006 hires will officially start in 2008.

Here is a table of schools whose PhDs have been hired most in 2005 and 2006 together. This includes all hires, including those who were re-hired from some other tenure track job. I think comparisons year-by-year basis are not that useful; and my 2005 numbers turned out to be a little inaccurate anyway.

1. UC Berkeley (20)
2. Harvard (17)
3. Stanford (15)
4. UCLA (13)
5T. Duke, UC San Diego (12)
7. Michigan (11)
8T. Columbia, Yale (10)
10. Chicago (9)
11T. Indiana, North Carolina, WashU (8)
14T. Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Princeton, Texas A&M (7)
19. Rochester (6)
20T. Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Minnesota, Wisconsin (5).

Of the 183 new hires, 89 received their PhDs in 2007 or are still ABDs as of late 2007. Further 26 received their PhDs in 2006. About 50 had a tenure-track job before.

Top 30 hiring

I also took a quick look at hiring in “top 30” departments (I used the U.S. News and included Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Yale, UC San Diego, Duke, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, UCLA, Ohio State, UNC, Rochester, Wisconsin, WashU, Cornell, NYU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, Texas A&M, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Texas-Austin, Washington, Emory, Rice, SUNY Stony Brook, UC Davis, Maryland and Pennsylvania).

In those departments, 68 (53 in 2005) assistant professor hires were made. Of those, 23 were in American, 22 in Comparative, 11 in IR, 2 in Methods, 10 in Theory. The rankings of schools who placed most graduates in "Top 30" in 2005 and 2006 combined:

1. UC Berkeley (13)
2. Stanford (12)
3. Harvard (10)
4. Michigan (8)
5. UCLA (7)
6. Rochester (6)
7T. Chicago, Princeton, UC San Diego (5)
10T. North Carolina, WashU, Yale (4)
13T. CalTech, Columbia, Duke, Oxford (3)
17T. Johns Hopkins, NYU, Stanford GSB (2)

One each: Arizona, Carnegie Mellon, Chicago (Psychology), Emory, Indiana, Maryland, MIT, MIT (Economics), Northwestern, Ohio State, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Rice, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley (Economics), UC Berkeley (History), UC Davis, Vanderbilt, Washington, Wisconsin

Of the 68 hires, 37 received their PhD in 2007 or are still ABDs, 10 received their PhDs in 2006. About 19 had tenure-track jobs before.

New PhD hiring

Finally, I took a look at “new PhD” hirings. As mentioned above, there were 89assistant professors hired who received their PhD in 2007 or are still ABDs (thus, the following information does not take into account those 2006-2007 hires who received their PhD in 2006 but were never on market before – there are a couple of those).

The departmental “rankings” by "new PhDs" placed in 2005 and 2006 combined (for 2005 hires, I simply used PhDs obtained in 2006 or later).

1T. Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego (10)
4. Harvard (8)
5T. UCLA, WashU, Yale (7)
8. Michigan (6)
9T. Columbia, Cornell, Duke (5)

Assistants “gone”

Finally, a quick look at departures and promotions. There were 96 assistant professors in PhD-granting political science departments in early 2007 who are no longer assistant professors in PhD-granting departments in late 2007. Of those, 58 became associate professors in their own department, 8 in some other department (including few in non-PhD granting departments), about 15 became assistants at non-PhD granting departments, with about 5 taking various visiting, administrative, or non-academic positions (I’m missing information on further five – but they almost certainly did not become associate professors).

Women in political science

2007-10-19T17:49:00.001-07:00

Update: My coding was often based on names. Even though I took extra care when there was any doubt, I have still made at least one mistake. I have moved Alabama up the rankings (instead of 2/15, the number should be 3/15).

I figured I'd do a ranking on PhD granting political science departments based on the share of women among faculty. I calculated the data from departmental websites, including full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty (excluding visiting professors, adjuncts, emeriti, associated faculty and lecturers/instructors). The total # of political scientists I came up with is 3037, of those 795 women (26%). Top 20 departments based on U.S. News have 24% of women (191/793). My assistant professor database shows about 35% (263/742) of women among assistant professors, thus faring slightly better.

Here are the results, grouped by percentage of women in department (with the number of women/total faculty size in parentheses). There are 115 departments. I've marked in bold the top 20 departments based on U.S. News.

40% or above (the top 9)

New School for Social Research (5/9), American University (11/21), Massachusetts (11/23), UC Santa Barbara (9/21), Claremont Graduate University (3/7), Arizona (8/19), Western Michigan (7/17), Boston University (9/22), Kansas (10/25)

35%-40% (places 10-20)

Connecticut (11/28), Northern Arizona (7/18), Minnesota (14/38), Hawaii (8/22), Arizona State (10/28), New Mexico (5/14), Southern California (5/14), UC Santa Cruz (5/14), UC Irvine (11/31), Colorado State (6/17), Oregon (6/17)

30-35% (places 21-38)

Penn State (9/26), Idaho (3/9), Delaware (8/24), Georgia State (8/24), Cornell (10/30), Colorado (9/27), Vanderbilt (8/24), Michigan (15/46), Rutgers (13/40), Penn (11/34), Purdue (8/25), Johns Hopkins (6/19), Michigan State (10/32), SUNY Albany (8/26), Brown (7/23), Missouri-St. Louis (6/20), Kent State (9/30), Case Western (3/10)

25-30% (places 39-68)

Notre Dame (13/44), Texas-Dallas (5/17), Illinois-Chicago (5/17), UC Riverside (4/14), South Carolina (10/35), Northwestern (8/28), MIT (6/21), Wayne State (7/25), Northern Illinois (7/25), Wisconsin-Milwaukee (5/18), Miami(Ohio) (8/29), Indiana (14/51), Temple (6/22), Oklahoma (9/33), Wisconsin (10/37), Florida (10/37), Princeton (14/52), Yale (14/52), UC Davis (7/26), Illinois (11/41), Texas A&M (11/41), Harvard (13/49), George Washington (11/42), Columbia (14/54), Iowa (7/27), Utah (8/31), SUNY Buffalo (4/16), Howard (5/20), North Carolina (10/40), Rice (5/20)

20-25% (places 69-90)

UC San Diego (10/41), Syracuse (7/29), UCLA (12/50), Texas Tech (5/21), Ohio State (9/38), Brandeis (4/17), Florida International (4/17), U. of Washington (8/34), Cincinnati (3/13), Maryland (9/39), Florida State (6/27), Boston College (5/23), Georgia (5/23), Pittsburgh (5/23), Washington State (3/14), SUNY Binghamton (4/19), Houston (5/24), North Texas (5/25), Alabama (3/15), Nevada-Reno (3/15), Louisiana State (5/25), Chicago (6/30)

15-20% (places 91-107)

Stanford (7/36), Emory (6/31), Nebraska (3/16), West Virginia (3/16), Tulane (2/11), Fordham (3/17), Missouri (3/18), Rochester (4/25), Virginia (6/38), Catholic (2/13), Mississippi (2/13), New Mexico (2/13), North Carolina State (2/13), UC Berkeley (8/52), Washington U. (4/26), Duke (5/33), SUNY Stony Brook (3/20)

Below 15% (the bottom 8, places 108-115)

Kentucky (3/21), NYU (6/43), Texas (8/59), Georgetown (7/56), CalTech (1/8) [I only counted political science faculty], Loyola-Chicago (2/19), Southern Illinois (2/19), Tennessee (2/21)

New host for data

2007-10-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

Politicaldata.org has graciously agreed to host the spreadsheet on their very informative and useful website. The February 2007 update of assistant professors data is here.

Most cited work

2007-02-23T21:32:00.000-08:00

Here's the list for 20 most-cited publications. The name of the assistant professor is in bold; the last number in parentheses is the citation count. One caveat - for articles, I took into account only the number of cites as reported by ISI Web of Science when looking at the article page ("times cited" field). Most of the papers actually have a few extra cites in the database, but WoS has not recorded them in the right format.

1. John Bound, David A. Jaeger and Regina M. Baker. 1995. "On Potential Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation Between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak." Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 443-450 (448).

2. Gary King, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. "Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation." American Journal of Political Science 44: 341-355 (160; there are 190 further cites to Clarify software which I won't list separately).

3. Gary King, James Honaker, Anne Joseph and Kenneth Scheve. 2001. "Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation." American Political Science Review 95: 49-69 (144; there are 89 further cites to Amelia software which I won't list separately).

4. Herbert Kitschelt, in collaboration with Anthony J. McGann. 1995. The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (128).

5. Hein Goemans. 2000. War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press (76).

6. Peter C. Ordeshook and Olga Shvetsova. 1994. "Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties." American Journal of Political Science 38: 100–23 (66).

7. Clark Gibson, Elinor Ostrom, and T.K. Ahn. 2000. "The Concept of Scale and the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change." Ecological Economics 32: 217-239 (62).

8. Jenna Bednar and William N. Eskridge, Jr. 1995. "Steadying the Court's 'Unsteady Path': A Theory of Judicial Enforcement of Federalism." Southern California Law Review 68: 1447-1491 (54).

9. Torben Iversen and Anne Wren. 1998. "Equality, Employment, and Budgetary Restraint: The Trilemma of the Service Economy." World Politics 50: 507-46 (50).

10. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. "Ideological Realignment in the US Electorate." Journal of Politics 60: 634-652 (48).

11. Steven C. Poe, C. Neal Tate and Linda Camp Keith. 1999. "Repression of the Human Right to Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Crossnational Study Covering the Years 1976-1993." International Studies Quarterly 43: 291-313 (46).

12. Ian Hurd. 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics." International Organization 53: 379-408 (45).

13. Paul G. Lewis. 1996. Shaping Suburbia: How Political Institutions Organize Urban Development. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

14. Mark Hallerberg and Scott Basinger. 1998. "Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries. The Importance of Domestic Veto Players." Comparative Political Studies 31: 321-352 (43).

15. Robert C. Lowry, James E. Alt and Karen E. Ferree. 1998. "Fiscal Policy Outcomes and Electoral Accountability in American States." American Political Science Review 92: 759-774 (42).

16. James L. Gibson, Gregory A. Caldeira, and Vanessa Baird. 1998. "On the Legitimacy of National High Courts." American Political Science Review 92: 343-358 (41).

16. Paul K. Huth and Todd Allee. 2003. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (41).

18. Geoffrey Garrett, R. Daniel Keleman, and Heiner Schulz. 1998. "The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union." International Organization 52: 149-76 (40).

19. Colin Elman. 1996. "Horses for Courses: Why Not Neo-Realist Theories of Foreign Policy?" Security Studies 6: 7-53 (38).

20. Beth Simmons and Zachary Elkins. 2004. "The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy." American Political Science Review 98: 171-190 (37).

(Assisting) Political Science 40

2007-02-23T20:38:00.000-08:00

I did not collect citations information for the February 2007 update. I just did not have the time. However, I decided to to something close to that - figure out who are the 40 most cited assistant professors of political science (in PhD granting departments, as of February 23, 2007).

Unfortunately, the Web of Science information is sometimes quite inaccurate, so I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the following lists. See January 2007 PS: Political Science & Politics article on PS400 for various problems with coding citations data. A few remarks - every citation counts fully, even if the piece is co-authored (or in one case - "in collaboration with"); in case of co-authored books (and in one case - software), I manually counted cites to the book (software) so that co-authors don't lose out (Web of Science does not list co-authors...).

I collected two pieces of information - first, a ranking by name and then the most cited articles/books/software where a current assistant professor is a (co-)author. The top publication list is in the next post. Please let me know of any problems (you may leave an anonymous comment; I will not publish it if you don't want me to).

One strong caveat - ranking assistant professors based on the citation information is not a very valid "ranking," unfortunately. Two main reasons: 1. The most cited people have usually stayed on the assistant level for longer than usual (they should actually be compared with people of their "age"); 2. Disregarding co-authorship distorts the results quite strongly (very often, a paper published when the current assistant professor was still in graduate school). Nevertheless, I think more information is always better.

Assisting Professors 40:
(in parentheses, current school is given first, followed by PhD school and graduation year, then followed by the number of cites in the second parenthesis)

1. Regina M. Baker (Oregon, Michigan 2002) (448)
2. Michael Tomz (Stanford, Harvard 2001) (419)
3. Jason Wittenberg (Berkeley, MIT 1999) (334)
4. James Honaker (UCLA, Harvard 2001) (235)
5. Anthony McGann (UC Irvine, Duke 1999) (165)
6. Olga Shvetsova (SUNY Binghamton, CalTech 1995) (156)
7. Jenna Bednar (Michigan, Stanford 1998) (151)
8. Colin Elman (Arizona State, Columbia 1999) (138)
9. Hein Goemans (Rochester, Chicago 1995) (135)
10. Doug Gibler (Alabama, Vanderbilt 1997) (129)
11. Christopher Federico (Minnesota, UCLA Psychology 1001) (119)
12. T.K. Ahn (Florida State, Indiana 2001) (94)
13. Linda Camp Keith (Texas-Dallas, North Texas 1999) (89)
14. Zachary Elkins (Illinois, Berkeley 2002) (88)
15. Joanne Miller (Minnesota, Ohio State psychology 2000) (83)
16. Janelle Wong (USC, Yale 2001) (81)
17. Ian Hurd (Northwestern, Yale 2000) (79)
18. Kevin M. Quinn (Harvard, WashU 1999) (78)
19. Carole J. Wilson (Texas-Dallas, UNC 2001) (77)
20. Michele L. Swers (Georgetown, Harvard 2000) (75)
21. Zoltan L. Hajnal (UCSD, Chicago 1998) (74)
21. Paul Lewis (Arizona State, Princeton 1994) (74)
21. Monika L. McDermott (Connecticut, UCLA 1999) (74)
21. Layna Mosley (UNC, Duke 1999) (74)
25. Michael D. Cobb (North Carolina State, Illinois 2001) (72)
25. John Transue (Duke, Minnesota 2001) (72)
27. David E. Campbell (Notre Dame, Harvard 2002) (69)
27. Henry E. Hale (George Washington, Harvard 1998) (69)
29. Henry Farrell (George Washington, Georgetown 2000) (68)
30. Brian Sala (UC Davis, UCSD 1994) (67)
30. Mark J.C. Crescenzi (UNC, Illinois 2000) (67)
30. Milana A. Vachudova (UNC, Oxford 1997) (67)
33. Jeffery A. Jenkins (Northwestern, Illinois 1999) (66)
34. Gretchen Helmke (Rochester, Chicago 2000) (65)
35. Mala Htun (New School for Social Research, Harvard 2000) (64)
36. Eva Bertram (UC Santa Cruz, Yale 2004) (61)
37. Jan-Werner Müller (Princeton, Oxford 1999) (59)
37. Soo Yeon Kim (Maryland, Yale 1998) (59)
37. Emilie Hafner-Burton (Princeton, Wisconsin 2003) (59)
40. Miki C. Kittilson (Arizona State, UC Irvine 2001) (58)

There are obviously several people right behind the cutoff, so I just mention everyone else as well for whom I counted 50 cites or more (in alphabetical order): Scott Allard, Todd Allee, Scott Basinger, Rachel Cichowski, Scott Desposato, Karen Ferree, Mikhail Filippov, Venelin Ganev, Virginia Hettinger, Joseph Jupille, Andrew G. Long, Brian Moraski, Sebastian Saiegh, Kyle L. Saunders, Heiner Schulz, Pete Wielhouwer, Anne Wren.

Guest blogging at MoneyLaw

2007-02-20T17:54:00.000-08:00

Starting this week, I will be guest blogging at the excellent MoneyLaw, a blog devoted to "the art of winning an unfair academic game" (focusing on legal academia). Please drop by.

Canadian departments

2007-02-20T17:51:00.000-08:00

I have been asked whether I could include Canadian political science departments. I'm afraid I will not be able to do so, at least at the moment (time is a scarce commodity, after all).

Corrections

2007-02-12T10:16:00.000-08:00

[Update: February 20] I have now posted an updated spreadsheet. Just follow the old link for February data below. There were just a few mistakes that were pointed out to me.

None of the mistakes involved a "missing publication." As I have explained before, for the sake of consistency, I follow the Web of Science database (both SSCI and A&HI). If the publication is not in there, it's not on this spreadsheet. Until I come up with a better policy (in terms of both helpfulness as well as feasibility) to distinguish between what is "in" and what is "out", I will follow the current one.

February update

2007-02-08T19:27:00.000-08:00

Here is a spreadsheet with information on assistant professors as of February 2007. Please read the notes on the first worksheet. Most disclaimers that I posted in July 2006 apply. As you will notice, there is no citations information (I did not have the time, and the numbers are not very reliable anyway; see the excellent appendix to the PS400 article in the last PS:Political Science & Politics). I did use the traditional 5 subfield designations for everybody, and there must be several mistakes/borderline cases there (when is an IPE person "comparativist" and when is she an IR person; when is one methodologist v. americanist etc?).

[Edit: February 9] To make it clear: the spreadsheet includes only those journal publications that were in the Web of Science database in early February 2007. Forthcoming publications, and even those that have appeared but have not yet made it to Web of Science have not been taken into account. This bright line rule ensures at least some consistency. I have included forthcoming books if they were on the person's website.

Any comments and corrections are welcome, you can leave an anonymous comment if you wish to do so (they will not appear on the website unless I want them to).

General comments on 2007 data

2007-02-08T17:30:00.000-08:00

[A small change made on February 20, 2007]

In February 2007, there were 731 assistant professors in PhD-granting political science departments (the spreadsheet has 742 names but 11 of them will start in their new institution later in 2007). I will operate with the number 742 from now on.

Of those, 479 were male and 263 (35.4%) female. There are 139 "new" assistant professors (not necessarily hired the last year; and some of them had a tenure-track position before). Of those, 90 are male and 49 (35.3%) female. Field-wise, 294 do American, 191 Comparative, 169 IR, 77 Theory, and 11 do purely Methods (I classified methods people usually as Americanists if they had at least some publications in American politics - which means most of them).

Most people come from Harvard (45), followed by UC Berkeley (43), Michigan (37), Stanford (36), Columbia (31), Princeton (27), Chicago (26), UC San Diego (25), UCLA (22) and Yale (22).

The sum of "number of publications" variable provides a total of 1867 articles. Probably around half of the articles (914) are single-authored (there are double counts for non-single-authored articles, and I don't know how many). The median number of ISI Web of Science-mentioned publications is 2 (0.5 per year; if discounted by authorship, then 0.33 per year). 216 have a book (usually published, but some forthcoming; I even included some "under contract"). Almost as many (207) have at least one "top-3" publication.

How many political theory hires in 2005?

2006-11-03T16:42:00.000-08:00

Update: see comment. I will update the numbers in the previous post in mid-January [was: in a few days].

I received the following comment:

"7 in theory/ 5 in theory in top 30"

This can't be right. Off the top of my head:

Harvard hired two junior theorists.
Columbia, 2
Yale, 1
Minnesota, 1
OSU, 1.
UC-Riverside, 1
Virginia Tech, 1

That's 7 top 30/ 9 PhD-granting, and I'm sure there are other PhD-granting that I'm forgetting.

First, thanks for the comment. Since I was wondering anyway whether the numbers can really be that low, I re-checked. And added one (Minnesota - Nancy Luxon, starting in 2007; the name did not figure on the website yet since she starts a year later).

The full list that I came up with includes:
Anna Stiltz (Columbia); Eric Beerbohm (Harvard); Nancy Luxon (Minnesota); Eric MacGilvray and S.M. Amadae (Ohio State); Farah Godrey (UC Riverside); Daniel Brunstetter (UC Irvine); Paulina Ochoa (Yale).

From the comment's list - Columbia had one junior hire on associate level (I know that this can be misleading, but I have consistently not included them in any of my data). Virginia Tech does not grant PhDs in political science. I don't know who the second Harvard person is and the Harvard website does not help me. Still, I only have 8/6.

Who else am I missing?

The 2005-2006 hiring season

2006-10-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

Update (11/03/2006): Nancy Luxon's information taken into account; a couple of minor mistakes

I took a quick look at the 2005-2006 hiring season, with a view of a possible update of my data in 2007. I have put together a very preliminay summary. I can't post the full data at the moment - it's not very clean and might contain inaccuracies. I just wish the departmental websites were updated more often. It is really annoying that you cannot get a list of current faculty from the departmental website as late as late October (yes, this is the case in a few departments). However, I did my best (when I noticed that the website is probably out of date, I checked some other source, e.g. general university directory or a news item on "new faculty"). I also cross-validated from blogs that provided a list of accepted offers from the previous hiring season. I am not sure when I will get around to posting full data; hopefully in a few weeks (but maybe much later). In any case: the exact numbers may not be fully accurate, and should be taken as an approximation only.

General summary

There were about 136 assistant professors hired in 2005-2006 season in PhD-granting political science departments (of primary fields – about 59 in American, 33 in Comparative, 33 in IR, 3 in Methods, and 8 in Theory). Of those, about 9 will officially start in 2007.

Schools whose PhDs were hired most:

1. Stanford (9)
2T. Columbia, Harvard, UC Berkeley (7)
5T. Chicago, Ohio State, Texas A&M, UC San Diego (5)
9. Duke (4)
10T. Indiana, Michigan State, Princeton, Rochester, UCLA, WashU (3)

Of the 136 new hires, 67 received their PhDs in 2006 or are still ABDs as of late 2006 (there are about 12 of those). Further 22 received their PhDs in 2005. About 25 had a tenure-track job at a PhD-granting department.

Top 30 hiring

I also took a quick look at hiring in “top 30” departments (I used the U.S. News and included Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Yale, UC San Diego, Duke, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, UCLA, Ohio State, UNC, Rochester, Wisconsin, WashU, Cornell, NYU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, Texas A&M, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Texas-Austin, Washington, Emory, Rice, SUNY Stony Brook, UC Davis, Maryland and Pennsylvania).

In those departments, 48 assistant professor hires were made (17 American, 13 Comparative, 11 IR, 1 Methods, 6 Theory). The rankings of schools who placed most graduates in Top30 don't show much (too few cases), but anyway:

1. Stanford (7)
2T. Harvard, UC Berkeley (6)
4T. Princeton, Rochester, UC San Diego(3)
7T. Chicago, Columbia, NYU, Yale (2).
11T. Carnegie Mellon (economics), Duke, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Texas A&M, UC Berekeley (history), Vanderbilt, Washington, WashU, Wisconsin (1).

Of the 48 hires, 27 received their PhD in 2006 or are still ABDs, 7 received their PhDs in 2005. About 13 had tenure-track jobs at PhD-granting departments (and only one in non-PhD granting department; the rest were post-docs).

New PhD hiring

Finally, I took a look at “new PhD” hirings. As mentioned above, there were 68 assistant professors hired who received their PhD in 2006 or are still ABDs (thus, the following information does not take into account those new hires who received their PhD in 2005 but were never on market before – there are a couple of those). The primary fields: American (29), IR (18), Comparative (15), Methods (2), and Theory (3).

The departmental “rankings:”

1. Stanford (5)
2T. Columbia, UC San Diego (4)
4T. Duke, Princeton, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley, WashU (3)
9T. Chicago, Harvard, Ohio State, Penn State, Rice, Washington (2)

Assistants “gone”

Finally, a quick look at departures and promotions. There were 113 assistant professors in PhD-granting political science departments in early 2006 who are no longer assistant professors in PhD-granting departments in late 2006. Of those, 54 became associate professors in their own department, 17 in some other department (including a few in non-PhD granting departments), 9 became assistants at non-PhD granting departments, with others taking various visiting, administrative, or non-academic positions (I’m missing information on further 17 – but they almost certainly did not become associate professors). Not all of the new associates were probably tenured, but this should approximately give an indication of tenure rates and the number of moves between departments right before tenure decision is made.

July update

2006-07-23T08:53:00.000-07:00

Again, I'd like to thank everybody who sent comments and corrections. Fortunately, there were not many of them. However, some of them prompted me to update the journal publications information for everybody on the spreadsheet. Here is the updated spreadsheet (download button on the bottom of the page).

The main changes from the previous spreadsheet:

- The political science departments at Alabama and New Orleans are now added.
- I removed three persons who either were associate professors in February 2006, or had not yet started as assistant professors at that time.
- I removed the School and PhDSchool worksheets, they are just too problematic (outliers, selection bias etc).
- I had significantly misrepresented the publication record for Jacob T. Levy, and this is now corrected.
- I cleaned the subfield designations up just a little, but still, they are rather inconsistent and thus don't rely on them.

There are other minor corrections, too insignificant to point out.

I might update my previous posts with "rankings" later.

Comments

2006-07-08T19:30:00.000-07:00

Thank you for all the comments. Instead of publishing and answering them individually, I have decided to prepare a Q & A post, where I will address questions and comments as they come up. I will try to update the post as often as necessary. However, I will most probably post updates on weekends only (and certainly not every weekend).

Mistakes and updates

Please let me know of any possible mistakes. Entering a lot of data into a spreadsheet quickly (no, I did not spend months on this...) produces mistakes. I have received some comments about possible mistakes, but after verifying I have only found one clear mistake: Jeff Yates was an associate professor in early 2006 and he should not be included. I will update the spreadsheet in the future, when more mistakes are brought to my attention.

I do repeat a warning on subfield designations: don’t rely on them, they are inaccurate (see also below why)! I don’t have the time and competence to change them, though.

Q & A on possible mistakes (based on actual comments)

Dr. [A] at [University B] should be included

Associate professors, tenured on untenured, are not included here. The CV on the particular person’s webpage says that the person has been an associate professor for a couple of years

Dr. [A] at [University B] has tenure [and should not be included]

If I could, I would certainly include tenure information (there are tenured assistants and non-tenured associates), but I just don’t have information on this. The CV on the particular person’s webpage, updated even after the data collection was completed, indicates that the person is still an assistant professor.

The database includes people who have tenure

See previous question. Also, the database is current as of early 2006, and surely a lot of tenure decisions have been made since then. Similarly, people might have moved since early 2006 (and certainly, many will have moved by September).

I did not receive my PhD from where the database indicates, and I have more publications

This is a tough one. These kinds of mistakes are the most embarrassing, and may hurt the particular person. However, there is nothing I can do until I receive more specific information. As regards the publications, the errors are most likely when the person did not have an updated CV on internet in early 2006. Also, please bear in mind that Web of Science is not perfect (in fact, in one case I noticed that Web of Science did not list a person as an author when that person clearly co-authored the piece - the database corresponds to the real authorship). Also, publication information is based on information as of early 2006, thus all later publications are omitted. If I end up updating the data in early 2007 (or early summer of 2007 when it makes more sense), they will be included then.

The reliability and validity of the data?

This is a good comment. I should have given a general indication of the safeguards undertaken.

Validity should not be a huge problem for this dataset. There are no measures of particularly indefinite concepts. Reliability is a problem, of course. And my safeguards were probably not sufficient for clearing publication standards in, let’s say, top political science journals. I did take a second look at several randomly chosen assistant professors, but that was all. Confidence in the reliability of the data should increase over time, though (especially the more downloads there are, the more people look at it, and the more comments I get).

Publications data

Are forthcoming publications taken into account?

No. This information is simply not available.

People usually count forthcoming publications when calculating their average yearly output, thus Pub/YearwPhD is inaccurate

True to some extent. Will this problem hurt anyone? Hardly, as long as hiring committees look at least briefly at individual CVs.

Also, having individuals’ Pub/YearwPhD right does not seem very important. A more interesting question seems to be the average output of a median assistant professor, especially of a median assistant professor about to go up for tenure. Considering that these assistants are out of graduate school for several years, the forthcoming publications should not increase their average output too much (one "fortchoming" for a person out for five years increases the average by only 0.2). And of course, if we wanted to know the average output of someone out for even a longer time, the forthcoming articles will not matter much at all.

Top 10 rankings

I am not a big fan of individual rankings; I hesitated to put them up. I repeat: please don’t take them too seriously. I believed they would spark some discussion (which they did on some other blogs). And they do provide some interesting information. Also, such rankings are very easy to construct for any other data items (“data” -> “sort” etc…).

Publications (especially when ranking individuals) should not have equal weight

This is a very good comment, and I completely agree with it. The million dollar question is, of course, what the appropriate weights should be.

There are several options. The first is the Hix system (using journal impact factor, see his department rankings. I decided against using this approach (but anyone could try, it just requires extra coding!). First, relying on journal impact factor to rank individuals can be very misleading (I don't have a good link right now, but just enter "journal impact factor" in some search engine, e.g. Web of Science itself, and there are several articles that point out the problems). And I did not want to drop publications in other fields such as economics or psychology, but including them creates problems as impact factors may not be comparable between different fields.

Second option is just giving more weight to some very selected publications, especially the “top 3.” How much then? Triple for APSR and double for AJPS and JOP? Based on what? And, is an IR article in JOP really “worth” twice as much as an IR article in IO?

I just decided to have one raw “top” ranking; anyone could play around with the data and create their own top rankings. The easiest “custom” ranking is “data” -> “sort” -> “NoTop3/*”; I have done the calculations for this.

Break the rankings up by subfield

Again, an excellent comment. However, I don’t feel competent enough to judge everyone’s subfield.

I also want to give yet another very strong warning (repeated from above, and the notes on the data): if you want to get a list of scholars in a particular subfield, don’t rely on the subfield designations. They are unfortunately inaccurate and inconsistent. For example, americanists may be identified as “Behavior,” “Formal,” “Judicial,” “Law,” “Methods,” “PA,” “Policy,” “Positive Political Theory,” “Political Economy” or even something else. The departmental webpages and individual CVs do not give clear-cut designations. I did not want to leave subfield designation completely out, because it may be helpful when looking at a particular person. But again, don’t rely on them!!

Again, thank you for all the comments, and hopefully you find the data interesting.

Introduction

2006-07-03T18:49:00.000-07:00

I have published here a database on assistant professors of political science in American PhD-granting departments. The link to data is in the next post. Comments are strictly moderated, and they will not appear promptly after you leave them (in fact, they may not appear at all). This is not a discussion forum, I enabled the comments so that I could get feedback if anyone wishes to provide me some. If you want to spread rumors and speculations about the job market, go to blogs such as americanandcomparativejobs.blogspot.com, irrumormill.blogspot.com or politicaltheoryrumormill.blogspot.com. For gossip on other things, go to irdepartments.blogspot.com, american-departments.blogspot.com, or comparativedepartments.blogspot.com.

I am not sure if and when I will update the data; I will almost certainly not do so before early 2007. When you notice any inaccuracies (there surely are some), or have any suggestions, leave a comment. I will gladly take care of them if I can.

Data

2006-07-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

Here is the excel file (click the download button on the bottom of the page). Blogger unfortunately does not support file uploading/downloading. Variable names are explained below.

Basic information on the data

2006-07-03T18:10:00.000-07:00

There were altogether 740 assistant professors in my sample. I am missing some (e.g. the whole department of University of New Orleans as their website was down when I compiled this). In some instances, I had to make judgment calls (when to include people who are affiliated with the political science department but not really there - I am not sure I was quite consistent in doing this; mostly these people were not included, but with some double appointments I just did not know). Only assistant professors are included, thus associates without tenure are "out." I hope I got all of the PhD-granting political science departments besides New Orleans. This excludes some excellent departments like Dartmouth; and it also excludes Public Affairs or International Affairs schools (except Maxwell School at Syracuse - I included their department of political science).

For the rest of the description, viewing the excel table alongside this post is probably helpful.

The work was done from late January until mid-February within approximately one month. The dataset indicates when the information was updated for each person. I don't think there are any major biases from the one-month time lag, the period is short enough. I made sure that no information on major journals was added to the ISI database during that time.

The information on the departmental affiliation, PhD schools, and graduation year is collected from various sources. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, it was really difficult to get this information for some people (there was a useful website/online cv for just over 500 people). When calculating the variable "years with PhD" (YearswPhD), I simply subtracted graduation date from 2006. For ABDs and those who got their PhD in 2006, "YearswPhD" field is arbitrarily "1."

Subfield designation is very arbitrary and inconsistent. I mostly relied on the departmental website, if such existed, and then my (mostly incorrect) assessment of what the person was doing. Please, do not rely on those designations. For example, you won't get a listing of people doing comparative politics by selecting fields where subfield designation is "comparative."

Publication data is gathered from ISI Social Sciences Citation index and ISI Arts & Humanities Citation Index (all searches were done in both of the two databases). Only those journal articles that were included in those two databases are counted. This creates serious problems, as anyone well knows. Some good publications are excluded, e.g. Presidential Studies Quarterly, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, and the early volumes of Political Analysis. Some non-peer-reviewed are included (some foreign policy journals come to my mind). Chapters in edited volumes are excluded.

Book reviews, editorial matters etc were not included in the database. Also, articles in the PS: Political Science and Politics were left out (this was a judgment call in the beginning to avoid counting "teaching" and "to the profession" type articles, and I decided to exclude all articles even though I discovered later that I have left out some substantive pieces).

Citation count is based on ISI Web of Science Cited Reference search. Everything was done manually person-by person, checking that the particular cited reference belonged to the person. There are certainly errors in this (there are just too many people called "Johnson" or "Kim" or "Lewis" to guarantee complete accuracy), but I believe I did the best I could. The citations are not discounted by the number of authors per reference. And of course, citations to everything (including books and edited volumes) are counted, if the cites appear in ISI articles. Sure, citation rankings are not too useful for very young assistant professors - there has been no time to gather the cites - but it does show something.

Book info is collected from persons' websites, when available. When not available, then I ran a search in the Library of Congress online catalogue.

Many people are obsessed with "top 3" publications (i.e. APSR, AJPS and JOP). I acknowledge that "top 3" is not particularly useful, but I still added the number of publications in "top 3" together for each individual. I did not add a Hix-style impact factor for each journal in order to get "Hix rankings for assistant professors."

The other basic calcuations I already did was discounting each publication by number of authors (and then summing these numbers together - "NoPub/Auth" variable); further dividing this by the number of years with PhD ("NoPub/Auth/YearswPhD"); and similar calculations with "top 3" articles.

For getting the school- and PhDSchool-level calculations, I summed up the YearswPhD variable for each school ("YearswPhD"); summed up the NoPub variable for each school ("NoPub"; note that this will create double entries for a school when two people from one school contribute to the same article); summed up the "discounted by number of authors" number of publications ("NoPub/Auth"); and did similar things to citations and "top 3" articles (everything should be self-explanatory).

Where do assistant professors come from?

2006-07-03T18:05:00.000-07:00

The 740 assistant professors in the database come from 108 different PhD programs. The raw ranking is given below. Of course, this does not take into account the size of the program or where the graduates were placed.

1. Harvard (50)
2. UCBerkeley (46)
3. Michigan (36)
4. Princeton (33)
5. Columbia (32)
6. Stanford (29)
7. Yale (27)
8. Chicago (26)
9. UCLA (22)
10. Rochester (20)
11. Duke (19)
12. UC San Diego (18)
13. Cornell (16)
13. Ohio State (16)
15. Michigan State (15)
16. UNC (14)
17. Minnesota (13)
18. NYU (12)
19. MIT (11)
19. U. of Washington (11)
21. Washington U. (10)
22. Emory (9)
22. Indiana (9)
22. Texas A&M (9)
25. Arizona (8)
25. CalTech (8)
25. Georgetown (8)
25. Wisconsin (8)
29. Florida State (7)
29. Illinois (7)
29. Northwestern (7)
29. Rutgers (7)
29. UCDavis (7)
34.-38. George Washington, Iowa, SUNY Stony Brook, Texas-Austin, Virginia (6 each)
39.-44. Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Oxford, Pittsburgh, Rice, UC Irvine (5 each)
45.-51. Colorado, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pennsylvania, SUNY Binghamton, Toronto (4 each)
52.-57. Claremont, Florida, Houston, Stanford (Business), UC Santa Barbara, Vanderbilt (3 each)
58.-70. Arizona State, Boston College, Cambridge, Missouri, MIT (Economics), New Mexico, New Orleans, New School for Social Research, North Texas, SUNY Buffalo, Syracuse, Syracuse (PA), Wisconsin-Milwaukee (2 each)
71.-108. Akron, American, Brandeis, Brown, Cambridge (History), Colorado-Denver (GSPA), Connecticut, EUI, Fordham, Georgia State, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Lund, Massachusetts, Melbourne, Michigan (Communication), Michigan (Philosophy), Missouri-St. Louis, Nebraska, North Carolina State, Ohio State (Psychology), Oregon, Pittsburgh (GSPIA), Purdue, Rutgers (PA), South Carolina, Stanford (Communication), Stanford (Education), Texas-Dallas, Toulouse (Economics), UC Riverside, UCBerkeley (Rhetoric), UCDavis (Ecology), UCLA (Economics), UCLA (Policy), UCLA (Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth (1 each)

Who has published the most articles?

2006-07-03T18:00:00.000-07:00

The following only covers journal articles appearing in the Web of Science database, book publications and chapters in edited volumes are not taken into account (what can one do?).

The sum of “number of publications” variable provides a total of 1907 articles, which is 2.58 items per assistant professor. When using this method of calculation, any article for which more than one assistant professor has contributed is counted twice (or three times etc, depending on the number of assistants involved). When discounting the number of articles by co-authorship (e.g. when there are two authors, each get 0.5 “points”), then the total is 1343.7. This indicates that single authorship is still quite common. In fact, there are 916 single-authored publications in the database. I cannot tell exactly how many co-authored publications there are because of the double counting. The main conclusion – that the single-authored article publication is “alive” – does not change.

There are 165 assistant professors who don’t have a single entry in the Web of Science database, and 195 who have more than 3. The “median” assistant professor has two entries and 1.33 “co-authorship discounted” publications. The “median” assistant professor also has 0.45 publications per year with PhD (notwithstanding co-authorship), and 0.33 “co-authorship discounted” publications per year with PhD.

The “rankings” or “top lists” have huge problems, so please don’t take them seriously. The “top 10” of each category is given below (for “years with PhD” lists, the assistant professor must have a value of “years with PhD” of at least three; you can construct the lists for one- or two-years from the data yourself very easily). The employer (as of January-February 2006) is given first, then the PhD school and year in parentheses.

Most publications

1T. Jeffery A. Jenkins (18), Northwestern (Illinois 1999)
1T. Jeffrey A. Karp (18), Texas Tech (UC Santa Barbara 1995)
3. David Tewksbury (14), Illinois (Michigan (Communication) 1996)
4T. Kristian S. Gleditsch (13) UC San Diego (Colorado 1999)
4T. Susan A. Banducci (13), Texas Tech (UC Santa Barbara 1995)
6T. Sean Nicholson-Crotty (12), Missouri (Texas A&M 2003)
6T. Lucan Way (12), Temple (UCBerkeley 2001)
6T. Peter Andreas (12), Brown (Cornell 1999)
6T. J. Tobin Grant (12), Southern Illinois (Ohio State 2001)
10T. Scott W. Desposato (11), UCSan Diego (UCLA 2001)
10T. Daniel Drezner (11), Chicago (Stanford 1996)
10T. John Bohte (11), Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Texas A&M 1997)

Most publications discounted by co-authorship
When two authors, a person gets 0.5 “points”, when three authors, a person gets 0.33 “points” etc.

1. Jeffery A. Jenkins (12.67), Northwestern (Illinois 1999)
2. Daniel Drezner (11), Chicago (Stanford 1996)
3. Peter Andreas (10.75), Brown (Cornell 1999)
4. Lucan Way (10), Temple (UCBerkeley 2001)
5. Donna Lee Van Cott (9), Tulane (Georgetown 1998)
6. Paul Goren (8.5), Arizona State (Pittsburgh 1998)
7. Jeffrey A. Karp (8.42), Texas Tech (UC Santa Barbara 1995)
8. Venelin Ganev (8), Miami (Ohio) (Chicago 2000)
9. David Tewksbury (7.87), Illinois (Michigan (Communication) 1996)
10. Scott W. Desposato (7.83), UC San Diego (UCLA 2001)

Most publications per year with PhD
Only those assistant professors who received their PhD in 2003 or before are included

1. Sean Nicholson-Crotty (4), Missouri (Texas A&M 2003)
2. Jamie Carson (3.33), Georgia (Michigan State 2003)
3. Jennifer Lawless (2.67), Brown (Stanford 2003)
4. Jeffery A. Jenkins (2.57), Northwestern (Illinois 1999)
5. Adam H. Meirowitz (2.5), Princeton (Stanford GSB 2002)
6T. Lucan Way (2.4), Temple (UCBerkeley 2001)
6T. J. Tobin Grant (2.4), Southern Illinois (Ohio State 2001)
8T. Ronald R. Krebs (2.33), Minnesota (Columbia 2003)
8T. Ethan Bueno de Mesquita (2.33), WashU (Harvard 2003)
8T. Kevin Arceneaux (2.33), Temple (Rice 2003)

Most publications per year with PhD discounted by co-authorship
Only those assistant professors who received their PhD in 2003 or before are included. When two authors, a person gets 0.5 “points”, when three authors, a person gets 0.33 “points” etc.

1. Sean Nicholson-Crotty (2.5), Missouri (Texas A&M 2003)
2T. Lucan Way (2), Temple (UCBerkeley 2001)
2T. Ronald R. Krebs (2), Minnesota (Columbia 2003)
4. Ethan Bueno de Mesquita (1.83), WashU (Harvard 2003)
5. Jeffery A. Jenkins (1.81), Northwestern (Illinois 1999)
6. Adam H. Meirowitz (1.71), Princeton (Stanford GSB 2002)
7T. Andrew L. Roberts (1.67), Northwestern (Princeton 2003)
7T. Jamie Carson (1.67), Georgia (Michigan State 2003)
9. Branislav Slantchev (1.58), UC San Diego (Rochester 2002)10. Scott W. Desposato (1.57), UC San Diego (UCLA 2001)