https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/03/america_you_dont_understand_academics_at_all_150420.html
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 03, 2024, 08:49:22 AMhttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/03/america_you_dont_understand_academics_at_all_150420.html
This has got to be a troll.
According to this guy, academics are harmless because they are (1) totally out of touch with reality (2) eagerly encouraging your children to spend tuition dollars in preparation for low-paying, useless careers in academia.
Hmm. Well, for what it's worth, I'm not particularly interested in talking shop with anyone. I'd much rather talk about world and life stuff. I do enjoy publishing, and do a lot of it, but I don't want to actually talk about it.
Except with students. I don't want to talk to them about anything at all!
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 03, 2024, 09:15:59 AMQuote from: jimbogumbo on February 03, 2024, 08:49:22 AMhttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/03/america_you_dont_understand_academics_at_all_150420.html
This has got to be a troll.
According to this guy, academics are harmless because they are (1) totally out of touch with reality (2) eagerly encouraging your children to spend tuition dollars in preparation for low-paying, useless careers in academia.
Well, there actually is a Marshall Poe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Poe) with his biography linked to the byline.
Honestly, this is not such an inaccurate editorial. I'm guessing Poe just wanted to counteract the propagandistic stuff on places like Real Clear Politics by exaggerating academic harmlessness just a bit.
It is stunning how little the average person understands what academics do. If they did, they'd realize that most of their concerns are overblown and their missing many of the real problems.
I honestly think it is an accurate description of a large subset of R1 researchers. They are just not into much but the subject.
My colleagues and I were active researchers, but like Para actually talked and socialized about life. What we didn't do was try to make our students into little clones of ourselves. We focused on our subject matter, and ways of thinking about it.
Two things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
I assume the story is accurate as far as it goes. That is, it reflects the experience of one professor, who in turn reflects the experience of a slice of the professoriate. I have met people like the author. I have also met people like "Dr. Trotsky". There are also other types. Russian history contains both types--as well as Dr. Strangelove and Dr. Rasputin. There are quite a few of Marxists in Russian history, who manage to publish and do all the professional stuff a history professor is supposed to do. There are also quite a few (more, probably, in the US) of anti-Marxists.
There are also professors who teach at community colleges, who are adjuncts, and who have completely different experiences than the author and would view the author's experience as completely out of touch.
I agree with the author that most Americans do not really know what being an academic is like. I would say that many academics (like the author?) do not know how many other academics live their lives--at other schools and even other departments.
Finally, for what it is worth, I am a history professor but I have regularly taught in lecture halls with Bunsen burners.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
I remember watching an episode of the TV show Felicity, about a girl at the "University of New York." The professor lectures in a large lecture hall, and then the class files out. Then the professor takes out her lunch and sits down and eats it at the desk in the front of the room, waiting for her next class to file in. Clearly the writer had been to high school, but if they had been to college, they never paid attention. They thought college professors always teach in the same room and have a series of classes coming in throughout the day.
Quote from: Hegemony on February 04, 2024, 03:12:33 PMI remember watching an episode of the TV show Felicity, about a girl at the "University of New York." The professor lectures in a large lecture hall, and then the class files out. Then the professor takes out her lunch and sits down and eats it at the desk in the front of the room, waiting for her next class to file in. Clearly the writer had been to high school, but if they had been to college, they never paid attention. They thought college professors always teach in the same room and have a series of classes coming in throughout the day.
Or a bell rings and the prof yells out "read the Schmidt text for Friday as there WILL be an exam!"
I mostly teach in the same room, and have done so for years. I suppose it depends a lot on discipline, and whether the room is geared for that discipline (such as is common in many STEM fields).
Back to more serious stuff:
Anyway, I did read the editorial. I mostly agree with the spirit of it. Whether or not we research a lot or teach a lot, or do some administrative/intense committee/programmatic work, we really are mostly just concentrated in our area (aside from those doing college-wide admin) and care a lot about how to reach students and how to add to the understanding of subjects in our broad (or maybe narrow) discipline. Its not that I don't care about society or how academic institutions can interact with community, I'm not into that from either a woke or anti-woke perspective--I just want average people to find out about science if they care to engage with it.
Your average person, academic or not, is only tangentially interested in politics and society and probably has the majority of their human extra-family interactions on the job. The difference is that every academic I have ever known works over the weekend on grading, class-prep, some oddball service work, or their own research.
The right wingnuts just found an easy target in academics because of perception in the public eye of academics as elitist intellectual liberal snobs. TV and the movies have not helped this.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 04, 2024, 11:43:38 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
Sure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 04:52:57 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 04, 2024, 11:43:38 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
Sure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
In other words, alternatives to the art, literature and history of dead white men?
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 05, 2024, 06:59:12 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 04:52:57 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 04, 2024, 11:43:38 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
Sure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
In other words, alternatives to the art, literature and history of dead white men?
It is as absurd to think that those things should somehow
disqualify someone's contribution as it is to think that they
automatically validate someone's contribution.
I've looked at academia from both sides now, and still, somehow, it's academia's illusions I recall. I really don't know academia at all....
But seriously, I can recall some pretty major geeks from the R1 where I attended grad school. In undergrad I recall mainly people like my mother, who came up to academia from teaching high school, and largely did the same thing she had done before as a college teacher, only with (generally) better-prepared students and on a somewhat higher level. While they probably have more actual, personal interest in their subjects than the average high school teacher seems to have, it's still only one part of their lives among others.
Never knew any Professor Trotskys personally, but recall some fellow grad students with definite ambitions in that direction. And they're definitely out there, and get a massively disproportionate share of attention paid to academics in the media. Not just the right-wing media, either. I understand why the public perceptions of academics in many areas are what they are.
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 05, 2024, 06:59:12 AMSure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
In other words, alternatives to the art, literature and history of dead white men?
[/quote]
See kids, this is how it gets started.
"Oppression studies" vs. "dead white men."
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 07:20:29 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 05, 2024, 06:59:12 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 04:52:57 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 04, 2024, 11:43:38 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
Sure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
In other words, alternatives to the art, literature and history of dead white men?
It is as absurd to think that those things should somehow disqualify someone's contribution as it is to think that they automatically validate someone's contribution.
And you know, Marshy, it is the right wing that is obsessed with "oppression studies" and has popularized the concept in the public sphere. It is true that calls to diversify the canon and the classroom came from the students and faculty----and are these such bad things?----but it is entirely the rightwing media which has turned this movement into a perceived menace with its "CRT" propaganda.
We need to separate that from the limitations of DEI legislation and administration, which does not seem to be working.
The problems with "dead white men" are that, yeah, we repressed women and minorities and ignored their histories and accomplishments for a long time, try to deny if you will (ye who wish to deny), but as unfair as it was, what we have are a lot of accomplishments from dead white men, rightly or wrongly. So what are we supposed to do?
You should be smarter than that, Marshmallow. Beware jargon from people who are irrational.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 05, 2024, 10:55:18 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 07:20:29 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on February 05, 2024, 06:59:12 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2024, 04:52:57 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 04, 2024, 11:43:38 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2024, 04:58:48 AMTwo things are interesting:
- "Russian history" is about as stereotypically "academic" as possible, (unless you're actually in Russia,).
- Despite that, the picture at the top of the article is clearly a chemistry lecture, in a science-equipped lecture hall.
Not everybody differentiates between academics working in different disciplines. I had an English professor in grad school who would go home over the breaks and her family, none of whom went to college, would ask her things about how weather systems worked or politics like she was the professor on Gilligan's Island or something. RCP probably just wanted someone obviously a "professor" doing abstruse things at a blackboard so the scene is easily identifiable.
Sure, but the thing about both of those disciplines, and an important point in this story, is that these would have existed 80 years ago, and would have looked largely the same. The most turmoil in academia is from the "Oppression Studies" disciplines that didn't exist 80 years ago, and many didn't exist even 2 or 3 decades ago in most places. But with all of the DEI initiatives, they have had a huge impression on the impression people have of academia because they get a vastly disproportionate share of the press, and basically suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
In other words, alternatives to the art, literature and history of dead white men?
It is as absurd to think that those things should somehow disqualify someone's contribution as it is to think that they automatically validate someone's contribution.
And you know, Marshy, it is the right wing that is obsessed with "oppression studies" and has popularized the concept in the public sphere. It is true that calls to diversify the canon and the classroom came from the students and faculty----and are these such bad things?----but it is entirely the rightwing media which has turned this movement into a perceived menace with its "CRT" propaganda.
We need to separate that from the limitations of DEI legislation and administration, which does not seem to be working.
The problems with "dead white men" are that, yeah, we repressed women and minorities and ignored their histories and accomplishments for a long time, try to deny if you will (ye who wish to deny), but as unfair as it was, what we have are a lot of accomplishments from dead white men, rightly or wrongly. So what are we supposed to do?
You should be smarter than that, Marshmallow. Beware jargon from people who are irrational.
I'll leave it to someone who stated it very well in a (very) slightly different context.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 18, 2024, 04:58:11 PMPeggy McIntosh makes a very good case and she writes beautifully. I would find it hard to argue against her commonsense observations. Then it is kind of clear, in a general sort of way, about how she would resolve this big conundrum.
QuoteThey may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's.
<snip>
As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power...
This is where I dig in my heels, and I find the attitude saturating DEI. We've seen it on these boards. If it were 1865 and we were in Mississippi, particularly on one of the big plantations, I could understand. But we are not. There are big white male pigs----and then there are the rest of us.
Don't turn awkward allies into targets, hence awkward adversaries.
Marshbeast, my friend, are you implying that you are an "awkward ally?"
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 05, 2024, 04:01:14 PMMarshbeast, my friend, are you implying that you are an "awkward ally?"
I'm implying
most people are, including me. All kinds of horrible discrimination happened in the past. Some still happens, and sadly, some will always happen. But continually wagging the finger at people now and disparaging them and/or their motives because of the actions of people in the past who shared some of the same identity categories is unfair, and counterproductive.
As part of that, the idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 05, 2024, 04:01:14 PMMarshbeast, my friend, are you implying that you are an "awkward ally?"
I'm implying most people are, including me. All kinds of horrible discrimination happened in the past. Some still happens, and sadly, some will always happen. But continually wagging the finger at people now and disparaging them and/or their motives because of the actions of people in the past who shared some of the same identity categories is unfair, and counterproductive.
As part of that, the idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 07:29:20 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 05, 2024, 04:01:14 PMMarshbeast, my friend, are you implying that you are an "awkward ally?"
I'm implying most people are, including me. All kinds of horrible discrimination happened in the past. Some still happens, and sadly, some will always happen. But continually wagging the finger at people now and disparaging them and/or their motives because of the actions of people in the past who shared some of the same identity categories is unfair, and counterproductive.
As part of that, the idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Such as?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 07:52:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 07:29:20 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 05, 2024, 04:01:14 PMMarshbeast, my friend, are you implying that you are an "awkward ally?"
I'm implying most people are, including me. All kinds of horrible discrimination happened in the past. Some still happens, and sadly, some will always happen. But continually wagging the finger at people now and disparaging them and/or their motives because of the actions of people in the past who shared some of the same identity categories is unfair, and counterproductive.
As part of that, the idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Such as?
Oh Marshy...
Okay. Fine.
My favorite was your rhetorical question about 'why was it okay to be afraid or a clown but not a man in a dress?'
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 01:52:56 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 07:52:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 07:29:20 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AM[T]he idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Such as?
Oh Marshy...
Okay. Fine.
My favorite was your rhetorical question about 'why was it okay to be afraid or a clown but not a man in a dress?'
OK, if that's the most terrible thing I've said, I can live with it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2024, 05:24:07 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 01:52:56 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 07:52:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 07:29:20 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AM[T]he idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Such as?
Oh Marshy...
Okay. Fine.
My favorite was your rhetorical question about 'why was it okay to be afraid or a clown but not a man in a dress?'
OK, if that's the most terrible thing I've said, I can live with it.
Yes, I know. And that's why it is terrible.
I also liked this one:
QuoteAs had been speculated earlier, all of the progressive emphasis on "self-identification" alone (and accepting whatever bizarre accommodations it implies) is just begging for all kinds of abuse.
All that victim-precipitated abuse! Serves them right!
What's funny is how often you seem to feel victimized.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 07, 2024, 06:44:03 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2024, 05:24:07 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 01:52:56 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 07:52:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 06, 2024, 07:29:20 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2024, 05:27:58 AM[T]he idea that there isn't a standard for human behaviour that everyone can subscribe to that isn't rooted in "identity" is also counterproductive, and something which most decent people reject. If they can't say it publicly, they'll still say it with their decisions, including at the polls.
My friend, though I love you dearly and think you are a fine person, and though I agree about the impossibility of changing the past----you have said some very terrible things on this very Fora. You are very rooted into an identity which makes you say some terrible things.
Such as?
Oh Marshy...
Okay. Fine.
My favorite was your rhetorical question about 'why was it okay to be afraid or a clown but not a man in a dress?'
OK, if that's the most terrible thing I've said, I can live with it.
Yes, I know. And that's why it is terrible.
I also liked this one:
QuoteAs had been speculated earlier, all of the progressive emphasis on "self-identification" alone (and accepting whatever bizarre accommodations it implies) is just begging for all kinds of abuse.
All that victim-precipitated abuse! Serves them right!
What's funny is how often you seem to feel victimized.
When have
I actually claimed to feel victimized?
(And who said anything about "
victim-precipitated abuse"? If people
claim to be victims, but are
lying, then they're abusing the system precisely because they are
not victims.)
Interestingly, legislators here in North Carolina, many of whom had only ever achieved the academic heights of being undergraduates in a higher education environment, revealed their utter lack of knowledge of What Professors Really Do (tm) by asking why X professor was paid a seemingly astronomical salary for only teaching a single MWF course a week (characterized by those same legislators as "being paid $X salary for 3 hours of work per week").
As though standing up in front of a group of students and teaching classes was the only thing that professors did.
These same legislators have, for the past 3-4 decades, expressed disbelief, quite publicly and bluntly, when informed of the tripartite responsibilities associated with teaching, research, and service; because they'd never seen the research or service activities when they were undergraduates, those activities didn't exist. Couldn't exist. Even those activities that set up each course--writing the syllabus, choosing the textbooks or course topics/materials, or creating the lesson plans--were somehow not legitimate, because when those legislators were undergraduates, those activities were veiled from their sight. As a result, the only "work" that they would accept that professors actually performed was during scheduled instruction periods ("class meetings").
They didn't understand that a superstar researcher in a hot field might be extraordinarily important to an institution because of the grant funding or revenue (Gatorade, anyone?) they brought in. They didn't understand that the business of the internal workings of a higher education institution, at least on the faculty side, was done in committees. And they certainly didn't understand that as they voted to provide less and less funding to purportedly "state-supported" institutions, those same institutions had to make up the difference somehow.
But hey, they did understand quite clearly that higher education institutions have a strong economic impact on their surrounding communities, because spokespeople said so. Which is why all UNC system institutions have an explicitly stated economic development function/responsibility/obligation.
The common thread through all of this is that higher education has not communicated to external stakeholders sufficient details of what it's really like in the Ivory Tower, or why higher education is indeed valuable, useful, or otherwise beneficial to society. To me, that's our fault; we need to share this information so that nonacademics understand who we are, what we do, how we do it, and most importantly, why we do it.
Quote from: paultuttle on February 07, 2024, 08:22:10 AMInterestingly, legislators here in North Carolina, many of whom had only ever achieved the academic heights of being undergraduates in a higher education environment, revealed their utter lack of knowledge of What Professors Really Do (tm) by asking why X professor was paid a seemingly astronomical salary for only teaching a single MWF course a week (characterized by those same legislators as "being paid $X salary for 3 hours of work per week").
To be fair, even the university
itself often bases pay on "
contact hours", with *no explicitly stated
ratio of assumed prep, grading, etc. time
to said contact hours.
So some of that wound is at least partially self-inflicted.
(*No doubt because the
institution itself doesn't want to acknowledge how high that ratio could be because it would make workload less apparently mungable.)
Quote from: paultuttle on February 07, 2024, 08:22:10 AMThe common thread through all of this is that higher education has not communicated to external stakeholders sufficient details of what it's really like in the Ivory Tower, or why higher education is indeed valuable, useful, or otherwise beneficial to society. To me, that's our fault; we need to share this information so that nonacademics understand who we are, what we do, how we do it, and most importantly, why we do it.
I believe there's a lot of truth to that. Libraries have the same problem. There's so much more that goes into running a library than the interactions with patrons that the patrons themselves witness. For example, I was here for a couple of hours a day when we were closed to the public for four days due to snow last month, because there were things for me to do. And I didn't miss a single day of work during the two months we were completely locked down in 2020 due to COVID. I wasn't the only staff member here working during the shutdown, either. Even with no patrons at all, there were things that had to be done just to keep the motor idling.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2024, 06:51:22 AMWhen have I actually claimed to feel victimized?
(And who said anything about "victim-precipitated abuse"? If people claim to be victims, but are lying, then they're abusing the system precisely because they are not victims.)
You claim victimhood frequently.
You are missing your own point about what you posted.
Quote from: paultuttle on February 07, 2024, 08:22:10 AMAs though standing up in front of a group of students and teaching classes was the only thing that professors did.
These same legislators have, for the past 3-4 decades, expressed disbelief, quite publicly and bluntly, when informed of the tripartite responsibilities associated with teaching, research, and service; because they'd never seen the research or service activities when they were undergraduates, those activities didn't exist. Couldn't exist. Even those activities that set up each course--writing the syllabus, choosing the textbooks or course topics/materials, or creating the lesson plans--were somehow not legitimate, because when those legislators were undergraduates, those activities were veiled from their sight. As a result, the only "work" that they would accept that professors actually performed was during scheduled instruction periods ("class meetings").
To be fair, this is most people outside of academia.
My own mother, may she rest in peace, grew up with a number of academics in her family, including a favorite aunt and a brother, and who was very excited when I went to grad school, lectured me about 'teaching is the important thing professors do' and had no idea about the rest of it, even after my father got cancer treatment developed by one of the famous R-1s. Even though she had been an English major in her day, writing a book or an article just didn't seem very important to her.
Other folks simply lacked the concept that prepping to teach a single class might be hours of work for a 45 minute class or that grading may take entire weeks, include the weekends, just to stay on top of it.
Part of this, I suspect, is the view of the high school teacher we carry with us into college.
The only trouble with service work, I predict, would be the questions like, "So you only meet once a month to discuss the basket-weaving curriculum!?" from folks who are mandated to be in their cubicles and dedicated to a specific series of tasks for 40 hours a week year round.
These attitudes about professors are held by some staff members as well. Because they have to be in a certain place for a set number of hours five days a week, some assume they work harder than professors.
We got people lining up to become academics! Even in STEM fields. Thousands of post-docs, all waiting to get in. Those waiting even take ill paid adjuncting jobs.
Why might that be? 'Cause we got it good, very, very good.
Quote from: apl68 on February 07, 2024, 10:21:37 AMQuote from: paultuttle on February 07, 2024, 08:22:10 AMThe common thread through all of this is that higher education has not communicated to external stakeholders sufficient details of what it's really like in the Ivory Tower, or why higher education is indeed valuable, useful, or otherwise beneficial to society. To me, that's our fault; we need to share this information so that nonacademics understand who we are, what we do, how we do it, and most importantly, why we do it.
I believe there's a lot of truth to that. Libraries have the same problem. There's so much more that goes into running a library than the interactions with patrons that the patrons themselves witness. For example, I was here for a couple of hours a day when we were closed to the public for four days due to snow last month, because there were things for me to do. And I didn't miss a single day of work during the two months we were completely locked down in 2020 due to COVID. I wasn't the only staff member here working during the shutdown, either. Even with no patrons at all, there were things that had to be done just to keep the motor idling.
It is important to note to these fine upstanding public servants that only time farmers work is when they have their butt in a tractor seat. And the only time the clergy work is for an hour every Sunday.
Quote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:14:26 PMWe got people lining up to become academics! Even in STEM fields. Thousands of post-docs, all waiting to get in. Those waiting even take ill paid adjuncting jobs.
Why might that be? 'Cause we got it good, very, very good.
Agreed.
Searching for non-academic work really illustrates how sucky most of the rest of the world is.
But academia ain't easy. I've done the cube farm. Academia is far harder and takes much bigger parts of your brain.
Not everything is a liberal conspiracy, Big-D.
Quote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:14:26 PMWe got people lining up to become academics! Even in STEM fields. Thousands of post-docs, all waiting to get in. Those waiting even take ill paid adjuncting jobs.
Why might that be? 'Cause we got it good, very, very good.
Well, it's probably because they have spent years preparing themselves for what they see as a rewarding career, and now they want the job they've been aiming for. When you get the well-funded R1 tenure-track job, it's certainly not a bad life. The problem is that there are far fewer of those jobs than there are contenders. It's like supporting yourself as an actor or musician or novelist — success is sweet, but there's not enough success to go around.
Quote from: Hegemony on February 07, 2024, 05:53:34 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:14:26 PMWe got people lining up to become academics! Even in STEM fields. Thousands of post-docs, all waiting to get in. Those waiting even take ill paid adjuncting jobs.
Why might that be? 'Cause we got it good, very, very good.
Well, it's probably because they have spent years preparing themselves for what they see as a rewarding career, and now they want the job they've been aiming for. When you get the well-funded R1 tenure-track job, it's certainly not a bad life. The problem is that there are far fewer of those jobs than there are contenders. It's like supporting yourself as an actor or musician or novelist — success is sweet, but there's not enough success to go around.
Absolutely correct.
But everybody knew the gamble when they chose the path. Everybody did it voluntarily.
Absolutely correct.
But everybody knew the gamble when they chose the path. Everybody did it voluntarily.
[/quote]
Everyone thinks they will be an exception to warnings and market conditions. I am always reminded of the saying "Many people fail because they conclude that fundamentals simply do not apply in their case." That doesn't mean they're not in a pickle when the outcome, which they have spent years and much debt pursuing, does not come as hoped.
Quote from: Hegemony on February 07, 2024, 06:40:28 PMAbsolutely correct.
But everybody knew the gamble when they chose the path. Everybody did it voluntarily.
Everyone thinks they will be an exception to warnings and market conditions. I am always reminded of the saying "Many people fail because they conclude that fundamentals simply do not apply in their case." That doesn't mean they're not in a pickle when the outcome, which they have spent years and much debt pursuing, does not come as hoped.
[/quote]
Mercy, mercy. We are uninformed and irrational. The end is nigh. :-)
Quote from: Hegemony on February 07, 2024, 06:40:28 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 06:12:59 PMQuote from: Hegemony on February 07, 2024, 05:53:34 PMQuote from: dismalist on February 07, 2024, 02:14:26 PMWe got people lining up to become academics! Even in STEM fields. Thousands of post-docs, all waiting to get in. Those waiting even take ill paid adjuncting jobs.
Why might that be? 'Cause we got it good, very, very good.
Well, it's probably because they have spent years preparing themselves for what they see as a rewarding career, and now they want the job they've been aiming for. When you get the well-funded R1 tenure-track job, it's certainly not a bad life. The problem is that there are far fewer of those jobs than there are contenders. It's like supporting yourself as an actor or musician or novelist — success is sweet, but there's not enough success to go around.
Absolutely correct.
But everybody knew the gamble when they chose the path. Everybody did it voluntarily.
Everyone thinks they will be an exception to warnings and market conditions. I am always reminded of the saying "Many people fail because they conclude that fundamentals simply do not apply in their case." That doesn't mean they're not in a pickle when the outcome, which they have spent years and much debt pursuing, does not come as hoped.
But since
everyone else was not looking through rose-coloured glasses, they're not sympathetic to the people who wilfuly ignored reality and took the gamble. That goes for athletes, actors, and academics.
Ok, but....
1) It is certainly true, like it or not, that we all know that at least some (though probably appreciably less than in the 20th c) of middle aged, tenured-up academics more or less do very very little, as soon as they get tenure.
2) Those of us Gen Xers, let alone our seniors, went to grad school in and then attempted to seek an academic career under circumstances vastly different from what grad school for the under-40 set today has become. We never had to think of publishing whilst in grad school, esp in humanities, and most of us did not. And it was still possible to entertain the possibility of an old-style liberal arts prof career where teaching was priority #1. And, like it or not, most of us believed the lies told to us then wrt the looming explosion of academic job availability. And, for the most part, these were indeed lies.
3) To compare academics to athletes and actors is a strawman. One need not spend years and big dollars acquiring a PhD in football, in order to seek a career trying to sack Pat Mahomes. And look at the resumes of tv stars from the golden age of the box in the 1950s-80s era-- many of these folks have no formal training in acting, and many never went to college for anything, or quit soon after entering to try their luck in Hollywood. Nowadays, it is otoh true that many young thespians have MFAs, largely because the market requires the skills acquired in such programs. Academics have always had to get doctorates, more or less, and the very need for acquiring such a rarified credential at least in theory should have been expected to weed out subqualified individuals, and make it easier for those actually completing the degree to actually get a ft academic post, something that was, at least for a period of time as baby boomers grew into college-aged kids, a reasonable expectation.
4) The average middle-aged state senator from Mayberry, whether or not he has a college degree, or perhaps even a JD, recalls, (at least to the extent that he was even aware of things then) academic conditions for professors when he himself was an undergrad at Compass Pt. St. U., and has little knowledge of the changes in academia, little incentive to try to acquaint himself with such changes, and is also faced increasingly with a constituency, esp in Red St America, which for a variety of reasons has come to hate higher ed. This provides little logical reason for academics to expect much different from what we are now seeing, and a correspondingly large associated challenge in trying to ascertain what to do about these problems.