This academia of the Ronell saga is not at all mine, any more. All the unchecked ego, the pretentiousness, the warmed-over Derridean and Freudian theory, the cult of personality, the in-group feeling, the peculiar rhetoric of it all.
The tone of all this takes me back to the 80s and 90, when I came up in the field. We might call it a particular "structure of feeling," a way of being in the world peculiar to that period. People getting away with crap because of their supposed brilliance. The sheer number of assholes in the field, horrible, horrible people.
I guess this modus operandi still applies to the Ivies and places like NYU, though the people I know in Spanish at NYU, Jo Labanyi and Jim Fernández, are the polar opposite of that. They are brilliant and unpretentious people.
I have never been as glad to be in a state school, far from this kind of attitude. I'm sure we have assholes here too, or arrogant people, etc... But at a good flagship state university this is not the way people think that they ought to act. People wouldn't be overtly proud to act like that, or to defend bad behavior in others.
So no, it isn't the bureaucratic, managerial university of Neo-liberalism that produces sexual harassment. This is an older pattern, left over from the 50s, when you could get someone a job by calling up your buddy on the phone, and sexually harass with impunity. This 1950s pattern gets refracted through the 1980s academic culture of theory stardom, and the results are toxic. It is especially toxic when wrapped up in "queer exceptionalism," the idea that sexual harassment is only a problem if it is the classic case of the middle-aged white guy hitting on the female grad student.
The academic having control over doctoral students with the power to make or break them is not a bureaucratic problem, but one of charisma--to go back to Max Weber. It is people who think the ordinary bureaucratic rules don't apply to them. Those rules are for the mediocre types in the state schools, maybe.
Showing posts with label academic life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic life. Show all posts
Friday, August 24, 2018
Friday, November 10, 2017
Feeding the Ego
I have a book review to do. The person does not cite me (when he might have???). Although the book will get a good review from me, it will be with less relish. I don't think that he had to cite me, but he might have. I think, egotistically of course, that the kind of ideas that I develop, and that he might have cited, would have benefitted his approach and made his book smarter. It is a smart book in its own right, though, so I have to be fair. Ah well...
(Do you think a book on translations of modernism between US and Spain would cite me, or not?)
I also have a tenure case to do. The person does cite me favorably, and I am favorably inclined to his work. He not only cites me, but makes me sound smart in the process, giving enough of my own words to make me sound that way, and using my point to make another good point of his own. And he does it more than once. This is not the perfunctory, cover-your-bases citation that we perform so often, the citation that only shows that you are aware of the work, that people will expect you to cite it so you do.
What is even more gratifying, is that he cites something that I forgot I had written (not the book but the particular analysis of a poem).
Why should I even need these ego boosting events? Normally, we work long hours writing a book, or several books, and we only hear sporadically about whether anyone likes or appreciates them, or knows why they are good. The institution treats scholarship as items on the cv to be counted. Your colleagues know that you have published, but they work in different fields.
My personal non-academic friends don't read my scholarship. I had an interesting conversation once with some acquaintances, people I see often, in which we were talking about how much we read. At some point, I had to say: do you know what my profession is?
So yes, as far the adulation and ego boosting: bring it on!
(Do you think a book on translations of modernism between US and Spain would cite me, or not?)
I also have a tenure case to do. The person does cite me favorably, and I am favorably inclined to his work. He not only cites me, but makes me sound smart in the process, giving enough of my own words to make me sound that way, and using my point to make another good point of his own. And he does it more than once. This is not the perfunctory, cover-your-bases citation that we perform so often, the citation that only shows that you are aware of the work, that people will expect you to cite it so you do.
What is even more gratifying, is that he cites something that I forgot I had written (not the book but the particular analysis of a poem).
Why should I even need these ego boosting events? Normally, we work long hours writing a book, or several books, and we only hear sporadically about whether anyone likes or appreciates them, or knows why they are good. The institution treats scholarship as items on the cv to be counted. Your colleagues know that you have published, but they work in different fields.
My personal non-academic friends don't read my scholarship. I had an interesting conversation once with some acquaintances, people I see often, in which we were talking about how much we read. At some point, I had to say: do you know what my profession is?
So yes, as far the adulation and ego boosting: bring it on!
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Academic Freedom
Here's an interesting one.
An "academic freedom syllabus" that sees academic freedom exclusively as administrators caving in in "knee jerk" fashion to the right. She repeats that phrase "knee jerk" so many times. And "alt right."
Most of the time, academic administrators are repressing freedom on their own accord, not because of some external right-wing threat. They are doing so when faculty challenge the administrators, or to satisfy some not right-wing constituencies of students, or in a misguided attempt to enforce Title IX.
They are creating "free speech zones" and speech codes.
The so-called "progressive stack" is very dangerous. If someone has the academic freedom to call on students according to a hierarchy of race and gender, why wouldn't another professor have the right to call on students according to a "regressive stack"? This professor might say, well, "since my colleagues are using the progressive stack in their classes, I need to counter this by calling on the most privileged first, etc..." Well, that would be outrageous, but if the progressive stack exists, then wouldn't the same academic freedom justify the regressive stack.
Of course, some would point out that the regressive stack is already being practiced. I can see that perspective too. So we could go around in a circle with this argument. I would counter that then the regressive professor could say that he is just following the status quo then, so he can't be disciplined for doing what he has always done. Because academic freedom.
I think this should be debated and if anyone can prove me wrong I would be happy.
An "academic freedom syllabus" that sees academic freedom exclusively as administrators caving in in "knee jerk" fashion to the right. She repeats that phrase "knee jerk" so many times. And "alt right."
Most of the time, academic administrators are repressing freedom on their own accord, not because of some external right-wing threat. They are doing so when faculty challenge the administrators, or to satisfy some not right-wing constituencies of students, or in a misguided attempt to enforce Title IX.
They are creating "free speech zones" and speech codes.
The so-called "progressive stack" is very dangerous. If someone has the academic freedom to call on students according to a hierarchy of race and gender, why wouldn't another professor have the right to call on students according to a "regressive stack"? This professor might say, well, "since my colleagues are using the progressive stack in their classes, I need to counter this by calling on the most privileged first, etc..." Well, that would be outrageous, but if the progressive stack exists, then wouldn't the same academic freedom justify the regressive stack.
Of course, some would point out that the regressive stack is already being practiced. I can see that perspective too. So we could go around in a circle with this argument. I would counter that then the regressive professor could say that he is just following the status quo then, so he can't be disciplined for doing what he has always done. Because academic freedom.
I think this should be debated and if anyone can prove me wrong I would be happy.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Associate Deans
We used to have associate deans for humanities, social sciences, hard sciences. Now we are going to have associate deans for "academic innovation and student success" and things like that. This means that we won't know them as well, because they are not in charge of various sets of departments, but of broadly defined conceptual values. There will be one for diversity, maybe one for sustainability.
I see this as part of the trend toward emphasizing less academic functions of academia, though the dean is making these positions 25% ones rather than 50 to save money. So the dean will do as much work, probably, but be paid half the amount for the administrative work sh/e does.
I see this as part of the trend toward emphasizing less academic functions of academia, though the dean is making these positions 25% ones rather than 50 to save money. So the dean will do as much work, probably, but be paid half the amount for the administrative work sh/e does.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Service
The idea (found this article via Clarissa's blog) is that:
When white men do more service, women and people of color will have more time to engage in research. We do not have to level the playing field by asking people of color and women to act more like white men. We can level the playing field by asking white men to engage in their share of service, too.
This is from a faculty member where I teach, so I am a little embarrassed at how simplistic this sounds. On the face of it, it seems logical, right? There is a finite amount of service, a finite amount of time each person has, so if we shift the burden we will have more research from one demographic.
I am trying to imagine, though, a scenario in which we white men could do more service and magically make our non-white-male colleagues produce more research. It doesn't work like this. My female colleagues who produce ample amounts of research are also stars in service. A man from my department who has always done a lot of service, while also excelling research and teaching, is now a vice-chancellor, probably perpetuating the white male hegemony in administration in the process.
People who excel typically do so by excelling in more than one area. If those who excel are white men, then of course we should ask people of color and women to do the same thing. In my experience service is valued more in those who also do research, and much less in those who load up on service in order to have an excuse not to get their research done.
Look at the cv of her dissertation advisor. Should he have done even more service than he has done in his life? Would that have made some other person of a different race and gender into a distinguished professor?
[Update: Also, this takes away agency from those who would presumably benefit. Women and POC would have to wait around for the white men to start doing more service.]
When white men do more service, women and people of color will have more time to engage in research. We do not have to level the playing field by asking people of color and women to act more like white men. We can level the playing field by asking white men to engage in their share of service, too.
This is from a faculty member where I teach, so I am a little embarrassed at how simplistic this sounds. On the face of it, it seems logical, right? There is a finite amount of service, a finite amount of time each person has, so if we shift the burden we will have more research from one demographic.
I am trying to imagine, though, a scenario in which we white men could do more service and magically make our non-white-male colleagues produce more research. It doesn't work like this. My female colleagues who produce ample amounts of research are also stars in service. A man from my department who has always done a lot of service, while also excelling research and teaching, is now a vice-chancellor, probably perpetuating the white male hegemony in administration in the process.
People who excel typically do so by excelling in more than one area. If those who excel are white men, then of course we should ask people of color and women to do the same thing. In my experience service is valued more in those who also do research, and much less in those who load up on service in order to have an excuse not to get their research done.
Look at the cv of her dissertation advisor. Should he have done even more service than he has done in his life? Would that have made some other person of a different race and gender into a distinguished professor?
[Update: Also, this takes away agency from those who would presumably benefit. Women and POC would have to wait around for the white men to start doing more service.]
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Money as Speech
Ira Glasser in the interview cited in my post below on freedom of the press makes some pretty good points. All my liberal friends (and all my friends are liberal) think that the idea that "money is speech" in the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, is ridiculous. Glasser says that suppose the government says that you can only spend $100 to travel someplace. Wouldn't that restrict the right of travel considerably? Freedom of speech is not the freedom to mutter to yourself in a closet, say Glasser, but the right to disseminate a message more broadly. Otherwise the freedom doesn't travel very far.
My friends also say that it is ridiculous to say that corporations have rights like people do, according to this same decision. But the ACLU is a corporation, as is the New York Times. Passing restrictive campaign finance measures is "handing your enemies the tools to oppress you."
My friends also say that it is ridiculous to say that corporations have rights like people do, according to this same decision. But the ACLU is a corporation, as is the New York Times. Passing restrictive campaign finance measures is "handing your enemies the tools to oppress you."
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Is teaching "cost efficient"?
What I mean by this question is that the same sort of profoundly antihumanistic thinking that makes research seem pointless, that counts up citations or the lack of citations, would also make teaching *as we know it* largely obsolete. For lecturing, you could just mass distribute the work of brilliant lecturers. Why have countless people involved in giving physics lectures in numerous universities over the world? You could must pay 1,000,000 to the best damned lecturer and use those lectures everywhere from Perth to Dallas. Students could teach themselves out of textbooks and by listening to lectures. Of course, the antihumanist thinking also reduces education to *outcomes* that can be quantified or exercises that can be graded by machines. You could hire peons to grade more qualitative assignments like essays. You could have armies of tutors for those who can't manage the system.
The kind of *transactional* learning that occurs in a class discussion, or when a professor gives personal comments to a student she knows in the flesh, is not very cost effective, after all. Perhaps even less so than research. We know the academic institution values teaching less, because when they hire someone to teach with no expectation of research, the salary is much lower on a per course basis.
What I am talking about is something that is already occurring. Once you take research out of the picture, you no longer have the mechanism for training college professors who adhere to the older values of humanism. As the intellectual standards slip, the more education will become more remedial rote work that can be quantified and parceled out into low-paying jobs.
This is a downward cycle, because the stupider people get, the less need they will see for higher intellectual pursuits. The more education will be oriented toward the bare minimum, which will make people stupider, which will make them even more disdainful of intellectual pursuits.
The kind of *transactional* learning that occurs in a class discussion, or when a professor gives personal comments to a student she knows in the flesh, is not very cost effective, after all. Perhaps even less so than research. We know the academic institution values teaching less, because when they hire someone to teach with no expectation of research, the salary is much lower on a per course basis.
What I am talking about is something that is already occurring. Once you take research out of the picture, you no longer have the mechanism for training college professors who adhere to the older values of humanism. As the intellectual standards slip, the more education will become more remedial rote work that can be quantified and parceled out into low-paying jobs.
This is a downward cycle, because the stupider people get, the less need they will see for higher intellectual pursuits. The more education will be oriented toward the bare minimum, which will make people stupider, which will make them even more disdainful of intellectual pursuits.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Google Scholar
Bauerlein makes the argument in the Chronicle that there is too much scholarship in the Humanities, that this scholarship is not cost-effective. He uses google scholar to make his point. Now there seems to be a contradiction here, in that pointing to the low numbers of citations that many articles get invests these citations with a value that they do not have, in Bauerlein's own view. in other words, if a piece of scholarship has no intrinsic worth, then it cannot be accorded value simply because other, equally worthless scholarly articles cite it.
My most influential article, one that I know for a fact has defined a debate in my field, has only 13 citations on google scholar. Because of this article, I was well-known in Spain even before Apocryphal Lorca. Many people disagree with this article, but that's ok with me, because you can't be deliberately controversial and then expect agreement.
Some of these citations are me, citing my own article. Others don't seem to be citing me at all, or cite me only tangentially. Apocryphal Lorca has two citations, one from another article by me and one from the introduction to the special issue on Lorca in which my article appears. I guess the impact of this book is also non-existent, even though numerous people have written to me about it, how they have used in their courses, etc...
My most influential article, one that I know for a fact has defined a debate in my field, has only 13 citations on google scholar. Because of this article, I was well-known in Spain even before Apocryphal Lorca. Many people disagree with this article, but that's ok with me, because you can't be deliberately controversial and then expect agreement.
Some of these citations are me, citing my own article. Others don't seem to be citing me at all, or cite me only tangentially. Apocryphal Lorca has two citations, one from another article by me and one from the introduction to the special issue on Lorca in which my article appears. I guess the impact of this book is also non-existent, even though numerous people have written to me about it, how they have used in their courses, etc...
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Ideal Job
I know psychologists describe human satisfaction in terms of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. I tell my student that my job is the greatest I could ever hope for. I research and teach Spanish literature and they pay me money to do it. It almost seems unbelievable.
I experience high levels of autonomy in my job. Nobody tells me what I have to write about, and I can design courses of my own that reflect my own interests. Aside from class time, office hours, and a few meetings, I can organize my time however I want. I am trying to think of a job with as much autonomy as mine and I cannot think of one.
Autonomy also brings competence, in the sense that I can be responsible for my own areas of competence, developing them with no interference from anyone else.
Relatedness, in contrast, is a sore point. I have a hard time "relating" to students sometimes (to use a favorite word of theirs). I don't collaborate on research with anyone. I like my colleagues very much but I don't spend a lot of time with them every day. Autonomy and relatedness are inversely correlated much of the time. I value autonomy very highly, but I am suffering a bit from the isolation of academic life, especially since my personal life is rather miserable too.
I experience high levels of autonomy in my job. Nobody tells me what I have to write about, and I can design courses of my own that reflect my own interests. Aside from class time, office hours, and a few meetings, I can organize my time however I want. I am trying to think of a job with as much autonomy as mine and I cannot think of one.
Autonomy also brings competence, in the sense that I can be responsible for my own areas of competence, developing them with no interference from anyone else.
Relatedness, in contrast, is a sore point. I have a hard time "relating" to students sometimes (to use a favorite word of theirs). I don't collaborate on research with anyone. I like my colleagues very much but I don't spend a lot of time with them every day. Autonomy and relatedness are inversely correlated much of the time. I value autonomy very highly, but I am suffering a bit from the isolation of academic life, especially since my personal life is rather miserable too.
Why This Is Wrong
Clarissa pointed me to this vile editorial by Russell Berman. I'm afraid I might have to quit the MLA again in protest. In my field, two years of course work for the PhD is not going to be enough. The reason is that students coming from Spanish majors simply have not read enough in their undergraduate programs. To do enough reading to be even minimally competent would require more than three or four years of course work, but two is ridiculous. This proposal would give an even bigger advantage to students from Latin America and Spain who have more extensive cultural capital coming in.
I know it takes a long time to get a PhD. But let's think for a moment about what level of erudition it takes to be a "doctor," or learned one, in literature. There are few prodigies in scholarship, because it takes time to absorb knowledge and develop originality. An originality based not on disconnection from the field, but from deep absorption.
Berman also proposes a kind of fixed, lockstep curriculum, streamlined to allow for quick progress. So students would not be exposed to the research of their faculty members (courses based on the interests of the faculty) but a kind of one-size-fits-all approach that would make graduate teaching deadly for all concerned. This streamlined approach would not have allowed Jill and I to do our "poetry and performance" seminar, for example.
In place of a dissertation, Berman proposes three articles. In practice, this would amount to three seminar papers. The so-called PhD would not really be an expert in anything in particular, having written 75 pages rather than 250. He or she would never have been exposed to the original research of the faculty, and so wouldn't have a clue to what research really is.
Why do we elect literature haters to the presidency of the MLA? People who have contempt for the life of the mind? First it as MLP, then Gerald Graff, and now Berman.
I know it takes a long time to get a PhD. But let's think for a moment about what level of erudition it takes to be a "doctor," or learned one, in literature. There are few prodigies in scholarship, because it takes time to absorb knowledge and develop originality. An originality based not on disconnection from the field, but from deep absorption.
Berman also proposes a kind of fixed, lockstep curriculum, streamlined to allow for quick progress. So students would not be exposed to the research of their faculty members (courses based on the interests of the faculty) but a kind of one-size-fits-all approach that would make graduate teaching deadly for all concerned. This streamlined approach would not have allowed Jill and I to do our "poetry and performance" seminar, for example.
In place of a dissertation, Berman proposes three articles. In practice, this would amount to three seminar papers. The so-called PhD would not really be an expert in anything in particular, having written 75 pages rather than 250. He or she would never have been exposed to the original research of the faculty, and so wouldn't have a clue to what research really is.
Why do we elect literature haters to the presidency of the MLA? People who have contempt for the life of the mind? First it as MLP, then Gerald Graff, and now Berman.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Do You Know Who I Am?
I've received some invitations to be a referee in my email recently. "Hey, we're starting a new on-line journal, if you want to submit articles or be a referee for us... If you want to be a referee, send us your cv."
My reaction, always, is to delete the message. Why? I have enough peer-reviewing to do already. I can publish, myself, in better journals. Being a member of an editorial board or being asked to referee a certain article in my speciality is fine, but I don't need to send you my cv to referee for you! I am an established, senior scholar in my field at an R1 institution and if you are contacting me at all to do peer reviews you should know who I am.*
The journal in question who most recently contacted me requires that their referees simply have a PhD and be college faculty. (Any idiot can get a PhD.) There is no effort to get the most qualified referees, merely a mass email sent, I presume, to many, many people. This particular journal did not seem to be scam or one that required a submission fee. That is all the more unfortunate. If someone is starting a legit journal, they should contact distinguished scholars for the editorial board, not a random group of no-name referees.
___
*"Do you know who I am?" is always an assholic thing to say. I apologize for sounding like an asshole in this post. Even if you feel the urge to say that, don't say it. Ever, Even if the person who's irritated you deserves this response, you will still be more of an asshole than that person, who is simply dumb, rude, or ignorant, but is not the arrogant jerk that you are.
My reaction, always, is to delete the message. Why? I have enough peer-reviewing to do already. I can publish, myself, in better journals. Being a member of an editorial board or being asked to referee a certain article in my speciality is fine, but I don't need to send you my cv to referee for you! I am an established, senior scholar in my field at an R1 institution and if you are contacting me at all to do peer reviews you should know who I am.*
The journal in question who most recently contacted me requires that their referees simply have a PhD and be college faculty. (Any idiot can get a PhD.) There is no effort to get the most qualified referees, merely a mass email sent, I presume, to many, many people. This particular journal did not seem to be scam or one that required a submission fee. That is all the more unfortunate. If someone is starting a legit journal, they should contact distinguished scholars for the editorial board, not a random group of no-name referees.
___
*"Do you know who I am?" is always an assholic thing to say. I apologize for sounding like an asshole in this post. Even if you feel the urge to say that, don't say it. Ever, Even if the person who's irritated you deserves this response, you will still be more of an asshole than that person, who is simply dumb, rude, or ignorant, but is not the arrogant jerk that you are.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Teaching & Research
My good friend and colleague Jorge has won a big teaching award. Of course, he is also one of the most publishing scholars in my department. Good teaching and good research often go together, so I don't think Jorge is a rare case in the least. It's like hitting and fielding in baseball: some will be better offensively and some defensively, but there will be plenty of talented athletes who are good at both.
Popular views of teaching in research posit two kinds of college professor: the absent-minded researcher who can't be bothered to teach well, and the dedicated teacher who is so devoted that there is no time for publications. Nowadays, you have to have a good teaching portfolio as a grad student to even get a tenure-track job. Pedagogical training is better and more extensive than it ever was. At least in the humanities and some social sciences, many prominent scholars genuinely care about undergraduate teaching and want to do it well. (I can't speak to the sciences, because I simply do not know enough, but it wouldn't surprise me to find more dedication to teaching than we might expect based on popular stereotypes.) People who stop doing research don't automatically become better teachers either. A good balance between the two activities helps to prevent academic burnout.
Popular views of teaching in research posit two kinds of college professor: the absent-minded researcher who can't be bothered to teach well, and the dedicated teacher who is so devoted that there is no time for publications. Nowadays, you have to have a good teaching portfolio as a grad student to even get a tenure-track job. Pedagogical training is better and more extensive than it ever was. At least in the humanities and some social sciences, many prominent scholars genuinely care about undergraduate teaching and want to do it well. (I can't speak to the sciences, because I simply do not know enough, but it wouldn't surprise me to find more dedication to teaching than we might expect based on popular stereotypes.) People who stop doing research don't automatically become better teachers either. A good balance between the two activities helps to prevent academic burnout.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Student Affairs Mission Creep
I have problems with articles like this one:
Take your dirty scare-quotes off my expertise. So we believe our primary role as teachers is to teach. Imagine that. We lack pedagogical training, so maybe we should take courses in the education school, right? The same courses our students tell us are worthless bullshit busywork courses. Our years of experience in the classroom count for nothing, by this logic.
A substantial expansion in the role of student affairs bureaucracy means that even less attention will be paid to the primary mission, the dissemination of expert knowledge. Every time there is a new perceived problem (in this case developmental delay, or the well-known fact that 18 and 19 year-old freshman are not particularly mature), there is an opportunity for student affairs mission creep. This drives the cost of higher education up without improving actual EDUCATION.
Many, if not most, faculty members and those who employ them still seem to believe their primary mission is to disseminate "expert" information. Colleges hire professors and instructors who have no pedagogical education or training and who are often profoundly lacking in knowledge of human development as well. Ironically, the further one advances in the academic hierarchy, the less one is expected to know about teaching and those who are taught.
Take your dirty scare-quotes off my expertise. So we believe our primary role as teachers is to teach. Imagine that. We lack pedagogical training, so maybe we should take courses in the education school, right? The same courses our students tell us are worthless bullshit busywork courses. Our years of experience in the classroom count for nothing, by this logic.
A substantial expansion in the role of student affairs bureaucracy means that even less attention will be paid to the primary mission, the dissemination of expert knowledge. Every time there is a new perceived problem (in this case developmental delay, or the well-known fact that 18 and 19 year-old freshman are not particularly mature), there is an opportunity for student affairs mission creep. This drives the cost of higher education up without improving actual EDUCATION.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Strategic Plan
Over the summer, I sent my dept. chair a link from the CHE about how useless Strategic Plans are. Of course, that makes me the most logical person to head the dept. committee on implementing the university strategic plan on the departmental level.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Review Scam Spam
Be wary of emails like the ones described here. Someone I know recently asked me about a solicitation she had received from a new journal asking her to be a reviewer and/or editor. It was obvious that is was not a legitimate outfit, so I told her not to respond. If a journal wants you to review a paper, they will send you a personal (not mass) email and ask you to review an article on a subject you are half-way familiar with. The particular solicitation my acquaintance received was full of unidiomatic and ungrammatical phrases--not the kind of message you'd get from a legit journal in a humanities field.
There are also scam conferences. You get an email inviting you to a conference in a field you have nothing to do with. It might not even sound like a real field, usually it's something vague-sounding in order to attract more papers. There might really be a conference, but the point is to charge people a hefty registration fee to attend. The conference organizers basically just rent out some meeting rooms in a hotel and make a huge profit.
This journal charges a $550 "handling fee." Obviously, they pay their reviewers nothing, so most of that fee is going to be pure profit. You should never pay a handling fee to submit an article to any journal. I've never done this in my life. The editorial board has people I've never heard of from obscure places.
You shouldn't submit to journals, either, where you have to be a subscriber to submit. The only exception is when subcription comes along with membership in a professional organization. You have to be in the MLA to publish in PMLA. I wouldn't subscribe to Hispanic Journal just to submit an article there, though. It's a second-line journal at best, so I don't really need to publish there, and it's not something I would subscribe to except to publish there. Old issues of a journal that my library gets anyway would just clutter up my office. That's true even of great journals, unfortunately.
There are also scam conferences. You get an email inviting you to a conference in a field you have nothing to do with. It might not even sound like a real field, usually it's something vague-sounding in order to attract more papers. There might really be a conference, but the point is to charge people a hefty registration fee to attend. The conference organizers basically just rent out some meeting rooms in a hotel and make a huge profit.
This journal charges a $550 "handling fee." Obviously, they pay their reviewers nothing, so most of that fee is going to be pure profit. You should never pay a handling fee to submit an article to any journal. I've never done this in my life. The editorial board has people I've never heard of from obscure places.
You shouldn't submit to journals, either, where you have to be a subscriber to submit. The only exception is when subcription comes along with membership in a professional organization. You have to be in the MLA to publish in PMLA. I wouldn't subscribe to Hispanic Journal just to submit an article there, though. It's a second-line journal at best, so I don't really need to publish there, and it's not something I would subscribe to except to publish there. Old issues of a journal that my library gets anyway would just clutter up my office. That's true even of great journals, unfortunately.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Productivity
The only things academics produce are publications. Those are the only widgets we make. Productivity in teaching would be what, the number of students taught? Then a large section is always more productive than a small one. Power-point lectures to 400 students are the most productive. Once again, then, teaching and research are defined so differently that the very definition of productivity is wildly different: the graduate prof with a lot of publications is likely to teach fewer courses with fewer students and be less productive, however brilliant her teaching.
Economists talk about productivity as how much work each employee can churn out per hour, so that is a measure of efficiency.
One of my goals this summer is to learn to distinguish, by ear, the various palos of flamenco, because I want to teach a course on this some day. This is productive work but not efficient. All the work on the scholarly base seems highly unproductive, in fact, because it doesn't lead directly to articles and books, and only some of it filters down into classes taught. I could never justify all my work on the scholarly base in the management-speak of "productivity."
Economists talk about productivity as how much work each employee can churn out per hour, so that is a measure of efficiency.
One of my goals this summer is to learn to distinguish, by ear, the various palos of flamenco, because I want to teach a course on this some day. This is productive work but not efficient. All the work on the scholarly base seems highly unproductive, in fact, because it doesn't lead directly to articles and books, and only some of it filters down into classes taught. I could never justify all my work on the scholarly base in the management-speak of "productivity."
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Real Reason for Tenure
In my view, the real benefit of tenure is to create a class of faculty members who identify closely with an institution, who feel the department and the university is theirs. The tenured faculty do not own the university in any literal sense, but they are like partners in a law firm in a specific sense: they feel the university is, essentially, the faculty of that university, not a set of buildings. I know that I feel that way, as a tenured faculty member. If you think of the collective expertise of a university faculty amounts to, you will see that is is one of the most impressive phenomena of human culture. This is true even of a mid-level university such as the one I teach at. Of course, those without tenure on the tenure track still want to be promoted, so they also aspire to this sense of identification if they don't feel it yet.
Job security creates longer terms of employment and a sense of identification. It also means people move less often, sometimes creating frustration (for the individual) and stagnation (for the institution). Once you have tenure it is very difficult to move, because departments only want to hire Assistant Professors, administrators, or stars. Although I moved once after tenure, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to again. I pay a heavy price, then, for the security I receive.
To create this feeling of identification, you need a sense of autonomy. This is what we normally call "academic freedom," or the idea that a senior faculty member can be trusted to choose his / her own intellectual path. I could write a book about jazz if I wanted to. I probably won't, but I could, and this feeling of autonomy helps me because even working in a narrow sub-field (as I do). I know my decisions won't be questioned by administrators who have no clue about what a valid intellectual project looks like. Longer terms of employment also take into account the up and downs of scholarship. I could have a relatively less impressive five year span and I think I should be allowed that, frankly.
Administrators come and go. I've seen seven deans in 15 years. The faculty are a stabilizing force counterbalancing whatever the new trends in Higher Education might be.
People hired to teach courses on the adjunct track, payed by the individual course, typically feel little sense of deep identification with the university. The move to abolish tenure aims to make everyone, more or less, an adjunct. Even in fields where tt positions are hard to come by, the existence of some jobs like that offers a powerful incentive. If most or all jobs become contingent, then it is hard to imagine anyone going into academia any more in the first place. Even highschool teachers have tenure, after all.
Job security creates longer terms of employment and a sense of identification. It also means people move less often, sometimes creating frustration (for the individual) and stagnation (for the institution). Once you have tenure it is very difficult to move, because departments only want to hire Assistant Professors, administrators, or stars. Although I moved once after tenure, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to again. I pay a heavy price, then, for the security I receive.
To create this feeling of identification, you need a sense of autonomy. This is what we normally call "academic freedom," or the idea that a senior faculty member can be trusted to choose his / her own intellectual path. I could write a book about jazz if I wanted to. I probably won't, but I could, and this feeling of autonomy helps me because even working in a narrow sub-field (as I do). I know my decisions won't be questioned by administrators who have no clue about what a valid intellectual project looks like. Longer terms of employment also take into account the up and downs of scholarship. I could have a relatively less impressive five year span and I think I should be allowed that, frankly.
Administrators come and go. I've seen seven deans in 15 years. The faculty are a stabilizing force counterbalancing whatever the new trends in Higher Education might be.
People hired to teach courses on the adjunct track, payed by the individual course, typically feel little sense of deep identification with the university. The move to abolish tenure aims to make everyone, more or less, an adjunct. Even in fields where tt positions are hard to come by, the existence of some jobs like that offers a powerful incentive. If most or all jobs become contingent, then it is hard to imagine anyone going into academia any more in the first place. Even highschool teachers have tenure, after all.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Collegiality
Collegiality is a sticky issue, because if two people don't see eye-to-eye, which of them is being uncollegial? A lot of us have intense, difficult personalities, might not be naturally easy people to get along with. When conflicts arise, it is hard to know who is to blame (for example, between two people who are both somewhat difficult.) There might also be legitimate differences in opinion / ideology that make things more difficult, or difficult work conditions. If the administration puts the squeeze on a department, some might react by siding with the administration, while others might legitimately resent them for that. I have friends in various departments who don't like other friends of mine, even when all parties concerned are dedicated professionals. I also don't know if I would be as good friends with certain people if I shared a working space with them.
The problem with using collegiality as a criterion for promotion is that the largest burden should fall on the senior colleagues. In other words, if a junior colleague is perceived as uncollegial, often that is in reaction against treatment by the senior colleagues. They shouldn't be able to mistreat the person and then turn around in call the same person uncollegial for fighting back. I remember that feeling that the senior colleagues are not on your side, and since I got tenure I've tried very hard not to be that guy. I am still in the position of judging the untenured people, and every one knows it, but usually if a senior colleague positive then junior people will not go out of their way to make enemies.
In short: the senior colleagues should set the tone. Some conflict should be expected; not everyone is going to like everyone else. You shouldn't take sides in other departments unless you have an extremely good sense of what's actually going on.
The problem with using collegiality as a criterion for promotion is that the largest burden should fall on the senior colleagues. In other words, if a junior colleague is perceived as uncollegial, often that is in reaction against treatment by the senior colleagues. They shouldn't be able to mistreat the person and then turn around in call the same person uncollegial for fighting back. I remember that feeling that the senior colleagues are not on your side, and since I got tenure I've tried very hard not to be that guy. I am still in the position of judging the untenured people, and every one knows it, but usually if a senior colleague positive then junior people will not go out of their way to make enemies.
In short: the senior colleagues should set the tone. Some conflict should be expected; not everyone is going to like everyone else. You shouldn't take sides in other departments unless you have an extremely good sense of what's actually going on.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Research and the College Professor
We want our college professors, even those who end up teaching in small liberal arts colleges, to have a PhD from a Research 1 Department. The PhD is a research degree, and a lot of what you have to do as a PhD students has nothing to do with undergraduate education or your future career. So why make people who just want to teach college jump through so many hoops? There have been suggestions that the PhD is too long and hard, etc...
The idea here is that Graduate Courses are not just courses on the subject matter, but courses taught by people who have done research on that subject matter, have first hand knowledge of it at a granular level. This means that the subject matter itself changes, is developed, would not be taught the same way twenty years later. So college professors, even if they are not active researchers themselves after the PhD, at least have up-to-date knowledge when they begin. They have been exposed to some really good minds.
Now really good SLACS like Oberlin also want their professors to continue to do research themselves. The teaching load there is almost equivalent to what it is at a research 1 University. So they want their undergraduate students, also, to be exposed to really good minds actively engaged in research. I'm sure if you have ever taught a course you've seen the difference between students who care whether you have an interesting mind, and those who don't.
If you see teaching as transmitting knowledge in a very basic way, then I guess research would not matter. As long as you knew a little more than the students, you would be fine. It wouldn't matter whether you had thought about the texts you are teaching in a new way in twenty years. For myself, I know things get stale after a while. I need to find myself new things to teach, new approaches to teaching, etc...
It's interesting that upper middle-class people want their kids to go to places where the professors do research. They wouldn't articulate it like that, necessarily, but they choose selective liberal arts colleges, Ivy leagues, or the best of the "flagship" state universities, if their kids can get in. If they thought only teaching mattered, then they might choose less highly ranked institutions where professors are actively discouraged from even thinking about research.
The idea here is that Graduate Courses are not just courses on the subject matter, but courses taught by people who have done research on that subject matter, have first hand knowledge of it at a granular level. This means that the subject matter itself changes, is developed, would not be taught the same way twenty years later. So college professors, even if they are not active researchers themselves after the PhD, at least have up-to-date knowledge when they begin. They have been exposed to some really good minds.
Now really good SLACS like Oberlin also want their professors to continue to do research themselves. The teaching load there is almost equivalent to what it is at a research 1 University. So they want their undergraduate students, also, to be exposed to really good minds actively engaged in research. I'm sure if you have ever taught a course you've seen the difference between students who care whether you have an interesting mind, and those who don't.
If you see teaching as transmitting knowledge in a very basic way, then I guess research would not matter. As long as you knew a little more than the students, you would be fine. It wouldn't matter whether you had thought about the texts you are teaching in a new way in twenty years. For myself, I know things get stale after a while. I need to find myself new things to teach, new approaches to teaching, etc...
It's interesting that upper middle-class people want their kids to go to places where the professors do research. They wouldn't articulate it like that, necessarily, but they choose selective liberal arts colleges, Ivy leagues, or the best of the "flagship" state universities, if their kids can get in. If they thought only teaching mattered, then they might choose less highly ranked institutions where professors are actively discouraged from even thinking about research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)