The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Academic Marketplace
Abstract
"This volume is a must for anyone interested in academic problems and will produce the emotion of recognition in those concerned, and the emotion of surprise in those outside the field."-Los Angeles Times "Professors Caplow and McGee have given scholarly respectability to what many a professor has long suspected: Competition in the academic marketplace is as severe as in the business world. [Their book] might come to have the same function for the professor as Machiavelli's work had for ambitious princes."-Midwest Journal of Political Science The Academic Marketplace is a straightforward, hard-hitting exposu of the American university. Caplow and McGee consider all the working parts of the system and assess their suitability to the professed purpose. Their report on the actualities, myths, and consequences of routines thus amounts to an anatomy of an institution-an anatomy that does not present a pretty picture. We learn, for example, that the chief criteria used in making appointments are prestige and compatibility, not teaching ability. The authors describe the precipitous decline in teaching loads and then explain how this tendency is related to the new seller's market, on the one hand, and to the extravagantly indeterminate structure of the university as an institution, on the other. Not only is the temper judicious, the facts well gathered and competently marshaled, but the expression of results is invariably lucid. In a new introduction, the authors sort out fact from legend and discern trends, they address the validity of their own research methods and the applicability of their original findings to today's academic marketplace. They observe that the essential commodity offered in the academic marketplace is still the same-the mysterious intangible called prestige, by which universities, colleges, departments, disciplines, fields of inquiry, journals, and ultimately faculty candidates are ranked from high to low, and raised up and cast down accordingly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00011183 · Cited by 1,079
Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
Mahoney, M. J. (1977) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173636 · Cited by 1,013
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.7.677 · Cited by 874
Pressure points: a review of research on stressors and strains in UK academics
Kinman, G. (2001) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410120090849 · Cited by 237
Baruch, Y., & Jenkins, S. (2007) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/01437730710780958 · Cited by 43
Anderson, D. M., & Slade, C. P. (2016) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9376-9 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Caplow, T., McGee, R. J., & Barzun, J.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-12-01
- OpenAlex
- W2091835108
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.