Stanley A. Kochanek, professor emeritus of political science at the Pennsylvania State University (University Park), died May 2 of complications following heart surgery.
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 13, Issue 2, p. 396-406
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 13, Issue 2, p. 396-406
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 13, Issue 2, p. 396-406
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 13, Issue 2, p. 396-406
Political scientists have often referred to core decision-making groups in American politics as "policy communities" or, more popularly, as "the iron triangle." Invariably, they are describing the interaction patterns of specialists in the executive and legislative branches of government and in the private sector who devote primary attention to the initiation and implementation of public policy in a particular issue area. In large measure the groups are depicted as having close-knit working relationships that result from frequent interaction, similarity in information sources and commonality in ideological predisposition. Perceptive observers such as Hedrick Smith, however, have pointed out that in some policy arenas there are critics who are not part of what is usually regarded as the cozy establishment network. These he has referred to as "dissident triangles" or rival networks that compete with varying degrees of success in the process.
We are hearing a great deal these days about a declining marketplace for our Ph.D.s. The evidence collected by the American Political Science Association and many of its sister disciplines is clear: The number of academic jobs is declining. Yet, despite reductions in graduate enrollments, the more than 110 departments of political science which grant doctorates produced over 765 Ph.D.s in 1974.What might be done to solve the problem of this imbalance? One proposal recommends dismantling many of our doctoral programs. I have mixed feelings about this. The argument that only the most distinguished departments should continue to grant Ph.D.s, because only they produce a marketable product, is fallacious. In my experience, the most distinguished departments have no better record in placing their doctorates than those which are less distinguished. I have been involved personally in program reviews at a number of institutions of various prestige levels, and I have found that some of the "so-called" marginal programs do extremely well in placement.
We are hearing a great deal these days about a declining marketplace for our Ph.D.s. The evidence collected by the American Political Science Association and many of its sister disciplines is clear: The number of academic jobs is declining. Yet, despite reductions in graduate enrollments, the more than 110 departments of political science which grant doctorates produced over 765 Ph.D.s in 1974.What might be done to solve the problem of this imbalance? One proposal recommends dismantling many of our doctoral programs. I have mixed feelings about this. The argument that only the most distinguished departments should continue to grant Ph.D.s, because only they produce a marketable product, is fallacious. In my experience, the most distinguished departments have no better record in placing their doctorates than those which are less distinguished. I have been involved personally in program reviews at a number of institutions of various prestige levels, and I have found that some of the "so-called" marginal programs do extremely well in placement.
We are hearing a great deal these days about a declining marketplace for our Ph.D.s. The evidence collected by the American Political Science Association and many of its sister disciplines is clear: The number of academic jobs is declining. Yet, despite reductions in graduate enrollments, the more than 110 departments of political science which grant doctorates produced over 765 Ph.D.s in 1974.What might be done to solve the problem of this imbalance? One proposal recommends dismantling many of our doctoral programs. I have mixed feelings about this. The argument that only the most distinguished departments should continue to grant Ph.D.s, because only they produce a marketable product, is fallacious. In my experience, the most distinguished departments have no better record in placing their doctorates than those which are less distinguished. I have been involved personally in program reviews at a number of institutions of various prestige levels, and I have found that some of the "so-called" marginal programs do extremely well in placement.