Canada does not have an Ivy League. There is no rule or requirement to prefer CDN-trained PhDs either. Being the best will do.
Only rule is to give preference to Canadian citizens and permanent residents (regardless of their place of training). Simple as that.

Posted by SC, Aug 15, 2012 12:26 PM

I think our anthropologist friend is right that these issues should be discussed first with data, not stories and claims.
Data never speaks for itself, of course, and narratives and claims and counterclaims will come into things. But let's first start with data...

But I would want to add two more issues to the discussion: disciplinary hiring and irrational anti-Americanianism.

The disciplinary hiring question can be discussed with data. I published articles in both the Canadian Journal of Sociology and the Canadian Review of Sociology (one with Kyle Siler, a Canadian sociologist with a Cornell PhD) that showed that Canadian sociologists were more likely to hire people without PhDs in our discipline than other similar disciplines like history, economics, political science. I won't bore people with the details, and it can be looked up.. But that is part of the issue - if we want our Canadian trained PhDs in sociology to be hired, we need to value our own disciplinary training as much as other major liberal arts disciplines... This is not policing or narrowness. It is basic academic common sense.

The second issue I would raise is irrational anti-Americanianism. It is not unreasonable, as Jeff Cormier's excellent book on the Canadianization movement reminded us some years ago, to want to have Canadian material in textbooks, scholars in the universities linked to and contributing to the society they are rooted in, and opportunities for young Canadian scholars. Amen.

But I think we want to watch for irrational Anti-Americanism. When official ceremonial events at the Canadian Sociological Association meetings see jokes that refer to the UBC sociology department as "the best American sociology department in Canada", we should watch what we are doing. There are many terrific American and American trained sociologists in Canada, and I want them AT the meetings, contributing and building our discipline and association.
We need to think about ways to make our talented young American scholars feel welcome, and working with us.

In my department at McMaster we have mostly been hiring terrific Canadian trained Canadians, and quality American trained Canadians, but we also have hired excellent American trained Americans, who added enormously to our program. Two terrific Americans in the 16 years I have been at McMaster.
They have added quality to the training our Canadian graduate students are getting.
It is about balance, and quality..

But sure. Let's have the debate with data. And civility and no smug jokes please.

Neil McLaughlin

Posted by Neil McLaughlin, Jul 3, 2012 11:05 AM

Well, it's nice to see that at least the sociologists haven't gone completely gung-ho over the hiring of American PhDs. Someone should take a look at Anthropology departments in this country. The number of Canadian PhDs hired in tenure track positions in Canadian Anthropology departments over the last five years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Yes, one hand.

The US PhDs mostly come from the "ivy leagues" and the larger city and state universities. Their presence has not made Canadian Anthro departments somehow more cosmopolitan. Rather, these Americans are completely oblivious to their local communities, are highly US-centric in their interests, ignorant of the broader Canadian social and political landscape and completely happy to remain so.

And yet, my department has admitted several new PhD students for the coming academic year. I know that they will be joining an already large cohort of grad students who, one or two years into their program, have already become disillusioned about their prospects a few years down the road, and questioning their decision to do a PhD in a Canadian department. What's more, in September they will all meet our latest hire: a US-trained US citizen.

Posted by Friendly Neighbourhood Anthropologist, Jun 30, 2012 10:42 PM

Thank you, Leo Groarke, for pointing out the error in the article. It has been corrected.

Posted by Editor, University Affairs, Jun 28, 2012 9:59 AM

I do not mean to detract from the discussion of serious matters and should probably just bask in the glow of fame (or infamy, depending on which side of the fence one is on), but think I should point out that there are two L. Groarkes in the world of Canadian academe and that the article with Fenske referred to was written by the other one (Louis Groarke, not Leo Groarke as suggested above). I promise not to list the article on my c.v. provided that he promises not to list any of my articles on his.

Posted by Leo Groarke, Jun 28, 2012 9:45 AM

The key issue here, for me, is scholarly quality and balance. We need young scholars who can publish quality sociology in both top Canadian journals of sociology as well as international outlets, including the American. Public engagements and policy work is relevant and important too, but I would not want policy sociologists who have left the core of the field and are largely producing reports and getting grants to dominate totally, even though they have much to contribute. HIgh quality American scholars can contribute to building strong sociology departments in Canada, but the UBC, McGill and Toronto model goes too far. I don't see how one can legally give preference to Canadians trained here versus Canadians trained elsewhere? That sounds parochial to me, and I would watch for cronynism. But I do think that contributing to sociological knowledge and being rooted in Canada, with an interest in this country is certainly a reasonable criteria to consider. Although again I would watch parochialism, and would want to think about being internationally oriented as well as Canadian. Different disciplines have different challenges, and ours in sociology is to produce as many high quality sociologists in as many departments across the country as possible, scholars who connect to the empirical research and theoretical insights of the discipline as a whole. Sociology as space in between other disciplines is not, in my view, a solid enough space to build what we can and must build. So that issue must be put in the table, as well. Our issues are quite different from say Philosophy, History, Political Science or Economics.

Posted by Neil McLaughlin, Jun 28, 2012 7:11 AM

Dr.Doinglittle ---> This panel was organized by the CSA Student Concerns Subcommittee along with several others related to professional development, including one on finding jobs outside of academia. We hope to organize more of these in the future. You can follow the CSA on Twitter @csa_sociology; Facebook, or LinkedIn for updates on sessions like this in the future.

At the panel it was raised that this is legally required for departments to examine Canadian applicants first, that is Canadian citizens, I don't believe it requires they have been trained in Canada but I might be mistaken. Certain departments might be able to find ways around this, but for the panelists at this talk and at other talks I have attended the speakers' experience was that Canadians were considered first and others were only considered if a qualified Canadian candidate could not be found.

Posted by Gary, Jun 27, 2012 7:05 PM

I recommend colleagues look at Groarke and Fenske, in UA, on this same issue: http://www.universityaffairs.ca/phd-to-what-end.aspx . Their finding run counter to the assertions of the panelists.

As my colleagues above say, anyone who claims that Cnd-trained Cnds are 'favoured' has to contend with actual hiring practices. Nice talk, but so very little action. Utterly unbelievable.

Incidentally, where will you find the most 'Cnd-trained Cds'? At local universities, like Laurentian and Brandon. As for the 'first-tier' universities, the vast number of hires are non-Cnd-trained. No secret. Everyone knows this.

Posted by Todd Dufresne, Jun 27, 2012 6:08 PM

What this article leaves out is that the federal government thankfully requires Canadian candidates to be considered first. If there were an unregulated continental market in academics, given that the U.S. is nearly ten times bigger than we are, we might expect that only one out of every ten hires in Canada would be Canadian. The situation would be compounded in an unregulated global market. This would bring us back to the situation of the early seventies in which large numbers of sociologists in many Canadian departments were oblivious to their Canadian surroundings. Unfortunately, despite what people referenced in the article say, as recent events in my department show, not all sociologists would agree with the priorities articulated.

Posted by J. Paul Grayson, Jun 27, 2012 4:18 PM

Well shoot - I wish I was there this year as I would have loved to ask a few questions of this panel. In all of my years of attending Congress, not once have I seen an association sponsor a session on the topic of employment, even if was only with respect for academic positions.

That said, it doesn't sounds like the panel got into the ugly truth of how hiring decisions are made in most depts. Anyone can go to a dept website and see the CVs of faculty to see where they hail from. My personal favourite is to visit depts that specialize in Canadian studies and see the high number of faculty from US schools. Put these people on a hiring committee and the results are predictable.

Posted by Dr.Doinglittle, Jun 27, 2012 12:19 PM

Sorry to say it out loud, but there is a BIG difference between the concrete and the ivy leagues in this regard. I want to be a good sociologist here, so don't take my word for it - just go look at the c.v.s of the people hired over the past 10 years at UBC, McGill, U of T. You will see something quite interesting - though I'm sure if any of those folks had been on this panel, they would have put forth the same narrative, as that narrative is legally sanctioned.

Posted by Richard Day, Jun 27, 2012 11:24 AM