So adjuncts have zero right?

[jimbogumbo]

I will respectfully disagree about statisticians. What many folks think are esoteric details are in fact needed discussions related to crucial assumptions. I know we don't live in anywhere close to an ideal woRld, but if we did there would be more people with deep field knowledge who also have a critical understanding of statistics as a statistician knows the field. There are very few of them. Where the statisticians are most needed is when the data collection and decisions of how to analyze the data are in the design process. Once that is done, of course rely on a nuts and bolts person.

This is an area where the misuses of statistics (which are rampant) can far too often be traced back to people who know the mechanics of a test without needed background as to why NOT to use it.

That, and journalists and administrators of course.

[Stockmann]

The point I was trying to make, clearly badly, was not that statisticians' expertise was unnecessary to folks in other fields, but that what folks in other fields probably need is something like "the tools you need to make the most of your data are X, Y and Z and this is how you use them" or stuff like how to address objections that your data isn't sufficiently abundant or too noisy or whatever, or how to spot bad analyses by others. Not the gory details of the nuts and bolts behind tests and models - not that they're not important, but they're not immediately important to most people who aren't statisticians.

[Anon1787]

So adjuncts have zero right?

Yes. It is clear that administrators at your institution regard adjuncts as being more dispensable than fast-food workers. You should proceed accordingly. No amount of caterwauling will change things.

[mahagonny]

So adjuncts have zero right?

Yes. It is clear that administrators at your institution regard adjuncts as being more dispensable than fast-food workers. You should proceed accordingly. No amount of caterwauling will change things.

Not merely dispensable, but an enemy to be pressured into undermining his own legitimate rights to solidarity or compensation. And while that's nothing new, it should be documented here from time to time for those who haven't seen it.

[dismalist]

So adjuncts have zero right?

Yes. It is clear that administrators at your institution regard adjuncts as being more dispensable than fast-food workers. You should proceed accordingly. No amount of caterwauling will change things.

Not merely dispensable, but an enemy to be pressured into undermining his own legitimate rights to solidarity or compensation. And while that's nothing new, it should be documented here from time to time for those who haven't seen it.

Vinceremos! Just like '68.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then every coupl'a generations as farce.

[Caracal]

[quote author=hamburger link=topic=1772.msg45823#msg45823 date=1601070429

I might be better at developing fundamentally new approaches and algorithms if the existing methods are lacking, but for most applications, the existing methods are perfectly adequate to the task, and all one needs is a person who can program well and use the existing computational tools, and many of the undergraduate students I teach would be far more adept at those things than I would be.

mleok's comments (a snippet above) with an appropriate substitution for "program" and striking  "computational" are true in so many areas of applied knowledge in STEM and business that they should be hammered into every graduate student's brain. I'd recommend it being played on a loop while one sleeps.

It is true in humanities too, just usually more obvious. Outside of academia, nobody is ever going to hire me because I wrote a dissertation and read a lot of books. That doesn't necessarily mean that the degree is worthless. I know quite a few history phds working for corporate or non-profit companies as researchers. I don't think, however, they got those jobs by just having the degree. Presumably they were able to persuade employers that in the process of obtaining the degree they had obtained valuable skills.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, and that's more or less the point Polly and others have been making over quite a few recent threads. Apparently some academics feel that they have to live and breathe (and die) an academic even if academia provides them no sustenance at all (not necessarily out of disloyalty or evil, perhaps just honest lack of sufficient good jobs for highly qualified people).

[mahagonny]

Yes, and that's more or less the point Polly and others have been making over quite a few recent threads. Apparently some academics feel that they have to live and breathe (and die) an academic even if academia provides them no sustenance at all (not necessarily out of disloyalty or evil, perhaps just honest lack of sufficient good jobs for highly qualified people).

In my estimation very few people feel that way. What's really going on with people like Polly is they need to see themselves and be seen as useful by giving out advice. Obviously if someone is 'caterwauling' about their life in academia, they've already been thinking about leaving. Obviously.

[Ruralguy]

I hope its very few. There's no point to suffering like that if its getting you nowhere.

I am basically a career academic (with a little meandering early on). But I don't encourage anyone to try to become or remain  a "mini-me" if it isn't getting them a living wage or even a job at all. Its their choice, but I encourage people to try other options. Professoring can be a good life if you kind of filter out the bs and are willing to work hard at various different jobs within the job. But for the skill level, it can be a bit much for too little payoff. Not worth trying to stick at it if you can't get a job or hate it. 

[spork]

Yes, and that's more or less the point Polly and others have been making over quite a few recent threads. Apparently some academics feel that they have to live and breathe (and die) an academic even if academia provides them no sustenance at all (not necessarily out of disloyalty or evil, perhaps just honest lack of sufficient good jobs for highly qualified people).

In my estimation very few people feel that way. What's really going on with people like Polly is they need to see themselves and be seen as useful by giving out advice. Obviously if someone is 'caterwauling' about their life in academia, they've already been thinking about leaving. Obviously.

There's a difference between thinking about leaving and actually leaving.

[mahagonny]

Yes, and that's more or less the point Polly and others have been making over quite a few recent threads. Apparently some academics feel that they have to live and breathe (and die) an academic even if academia provides them no sustenance at all (not necessarily out of disloyalty or evil, perhaps just honest lack of sufficient good jobs for highly qualified people).

In my estimation very few people feel that way. What's really going on with people like Polly is they need to see themselves and be seen as useful by giving out advice. Obviously if someone is 'caterwauling' about their life in academia, they've already been thinking about leaving. Obviously.

There's a difference between thinking about leaving and actually leaving.

Wow! Thanks for that Spork! You got here just in time.

There's a difference between letting people do what they have a right to do and make their own legitimate choices and meddling and harassing union organization efforts, which we all know Polly has done. But by all means, weigh in in favor of illegal retaliation against union efforts if that's your inclination. Let's get acquainted!

[spork]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I recommend Zeb Larson's advice column in The Chronicle, "Why I Quit Academe for a Coding Boot Camp."

[polly_mer]

1) I saw a machine learning talk recently that could have been greatly improved by someone knowledgeable pointing out why using a flat head screwdriver was a poor choice when the proper tool was a bandsaw.

2) There's a huge difference between the situations where a union could help and the situations where it's likely the faculty will get a mass email either cutting all the contingent faculty or flat out closing the school.  A union only helps if things are basically OK and choices can be made differently about resource allocation.  It does no good to unionize when:

* the union doesn't speak for within rounding of all the qualified people on 1-3 shared top priorities.  What part-time humanities faculty want seldom aligns with what full-time engineering faculty want.  What the involuntarily adjunct teacher wants seldom aligns with what the tenured full research-focused professor wants.

* the situation is dire enough that the union will negotiate away practically anything to keep payroll flowing, even at the expense of benefits or even agreeing to pay cuts.  Trying to save all the jobs is a very different mindset than trying to keep an institution competitive for students who have choices.

Super Dinky closed and now no one has a job there.  A union for better wages and conditions doesn't matter at all when the institution flat out closes. Many more institutions are at the brink of closing departments, if not the whole institution, than were at that point last year and last year was not good in many regions.  That's a very inconvenient truth that seems to be ignored by many faculty.

3) The number of people who want faculty jobs in some fields so exceeds the number of jobs available that people are delusional if they think anything will be fixing how bad many of those jobs can be and people still take them.  The union works in large part by making a credible threat regarding withholding labor if conditions aren't met.  Having confidence that most of the faculty could be replaced in less than a week if necessary seriously undermines the threat.

[mahagonny]

Super Dinky closed and now no one has a job there.  A union for better wages and conditions doesn't matter at all when the institution flat out closes. Many more institutions are at the brink of closing departments, if not the whole institution, than were at that point last year and last year was not good in many regions.  That's a very inconvenient truth that seems to be ignored by many faculty.

Sorry, but you had problems. How would you tell people to study there when you're so busy telling people not to work there?

[marshwiggle]

There's a difference between letting people do what they have a right to do and make their own legitimate choices and meddling and harassing union organization efforts, which we all know Polly has done. But by all means, weigh in in favor of illegal retaliation against union efforts if that's your inclination. Let's get acquainted!

You seem to view this as basically a binary choice; people are either supporters of unions, or bent on the destruction of unions. There are a lot of people who probably don't fit either category.

By analogy, lots of people are concerned about weeds in their lawns. Some people want to use Roundup and obliterate anything that wasn't planted. Other people "naturalize" their yards and let indigenous plants take over. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle; they still want a lawn, but they want to be very selective about where and when to use any chemicals to avoid harm to animals, humans, or the environment.

I see unions as kind of the labour equivalent of Roundup;  when they are powerful they have a pretty drastic effect on all kinds of things. I've never done anything to oppose them, (other than simply not joining), but I think they often make some things worse while trying to make other things better.