by David A. Bell

To continue the Moneyball/Moneyscholarship discussion: I think there's one big difference between the dynamics of baseball hiring and university hiring that hasn't been mentioned yet. Baseball players generally care much less than academics about whom they work with. When Johnny Damon moved from the Red Sox to the Yankees, one reason was certainly the crumbling of Boston's championship starting lineup, but the Yankees' $13 million offer mattered a lot more. Academics, who almost by definition are not in it for the money (only the best or luckiest earn even 1 percent of Damon's salary) tend to care a lot more about who is in the next office. The result is that it is often possible to build a powerful department or program around just a few stars, who then attract other stars. Duke's hire of Stanley Fish, who in turn brought a gaggle of prominent critics to join him in Durham, is the most famous example of this, but it goes on all the time (think also of Harvard's Afro-American Studies and Henry Louis Gates). But this is the exact opposite of the Moneyball strategy of looking for undervalued players. In the Duke case one could even argue, a little maliciously, that the university succeeded precisely because it hired overvalued players. But succeed it did, at least in terms of rankings, prestige and visibility.

New hope forthe civically exhausted

Subscribe to The New Republic

Must-reads.5 days a week.

New hope for
the civically exhausted

Must-reads.
5 days a week.