Of course, there are other good reasons not to be a member of APSA: I have yet to meet a political scientist who thinks the journals have recovered from the Finifiter era; professional membership and conference fees are massively overpriced; and regional and subfield organizations are more relevant to most scholars. If I weren't on the market, the only good reason I'd have to be an APSA member would be so I could subscribe to Political Analysis (via the Methods section).

I'd like to hear Mary Robinson talk about her achievement at Durban, or George "However Many Millions it Takes" Soros hold forth on campaign finance reform. Perhaps Stiglitz can tell us how he would have "saved" Russia from both Zyuganov and the oligarchs.

This is one of the reasons I am still struggling with whether or not to join APSA. In all liklihood I will go to the think tanks after my dissertation is done, and quite frankly the profession is too full of people who think political science really is a science (Statistics have their place, but it seems the theoretical/normative side is completely lost). That said, it seems self-defeating to completely give up the fight and cede academia to the left. Not sure what to do.

“Most of the presentations and papers given at APSA do not address normative debates about the way politics should be. Instead, they are more detached analyses of why things are the way they are.”

Political science? Me thinks that these academics, like the economists, are subtly trying to con themselves that they are practitioners of a hard science. They often possess an inferiority complex. The hard scientists apparently are a few pegs up on the university pecking order. Soft scientists seem to be treated as second class citizens.

There is admittedly a valid role for such a profession. Nonetheless, these folks are easily tempted to focus on a number of smaller aspects while missing the big picture. It’s akin to a blindfolded fellow grabbing the legs of an elephant and not seeing the whole body.

David, Paul: I think the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science is almost completely an issue of measurement. Social phenomena, alas, aren't always as easy to measure as quantities of a substance, velocity, and other physical phenomena.

As to the neglect of normative theory, considering the existence of at least one regional association (the Northeastern) whose primary focus is normative theory, and considering the relative prevalence of normative theory articles in the APSR, I find it hard to believe there is neglect of the subfield.

Besides, there's plenty of empirical theory in political science (although, alas, sometimes researchers fail to ground their work in it), not to mention formal theory.

Chris, don't get me wrong, it's not 100% all quantitative nowadays. In fact it's funny that you should mentioned NEPSA as I will be presenting a paper there in November. But it seems to me to be the opposite case with APSR as few of the articles contained therein are normative works, though perhaps it changes from issue to issue.

It's hard to find too many traditional departments - luckily I happened to have found one such for my graduate stduies. The discipline does tend to telf fairly heavily to the left politically, and to the statistical/empirical side methodologically.

Ideaology is religion. If you want to study religion go to the religious studies department.

“Ideaology is religion. If you want to study religion go to the religious studies department.”

Ideology is not merely religious in nature. It can also include the political and the philosophical realms. What is ideology? It is the adherence to a procrustean bed of inflexible beliefs which one will not allow to be challenged.

Kerry's Lie is the sand that Political Correctness is built on top of, and the Leftist Press has been enabling it.

Leftists claim "moral superiority" based on Kerry Lies. This is the unspoken heart of the issue. See
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796

Here's one tip I saw that was missing from the helpful list that Dan reposted:

Be prepared for the promised LCD projector / overhead / microphone / whiteboard to be missing or broken. This happens, even at APSA. Last year, I ended up trying to give a graphics-heavy quantitative presentation in a room with no projector, no blackboard, no nothing.

If you are expecting to project straight from a computer, bring transparancies too. And in addition to transparencies, bring handouts with the critical charts or tables, and distribute them if necessary. Having paper copies handy also makes you look good if someone asks for copies of your charts at the end.

Now, one vital question for Dan or others in the Chicago know: Any good bars you'd suggest near the Palmer House? "Good" being defined mostly by excellent beer selection, and / or attractiveness of clientele?