Help, I'm trapped in an ivory tower! Or "what the fuck am i getting myself into with this academia stuff"

haha, i edited that over a length of time - i think it is in fact a full load.

actually, they put permanent FT at 4/4 and 'academic staff' FT at 5/5, probably to reflect the slight additional committee/advising type work permanent staff have, but of course that makes attaining 100% (for various pro-rating purposes) harder to do on the temp staff scale too, which might have something to do with why they're reported as having ~0 full-time instructors despite using instructors.

anyway, i talked to my parents, and they started looking into the possibility of getting me into an old beater or something to commute to this job so i wouldn't have to pick up and move there under the unreliable circumstances. and once they got a clearer picture of this newer possible offer, and how it compared to the area (about 20-25k short of positions with comparable responsibilities for comparable qualifications and experience, and maybe even another 25k short in total compensation) my dad said about the most complimentary thing i've heard about my academic career in forever, that i was worth more than that and if they weren't willing to pay me what i was worth they should just forget about it. my parents both work for a convenience store chain in the area now, the same kind of shit work they've had ever since the financial crisis bankrupted their mom-and-pop business, and they pointed out that brand-new assistant store managers with only high school diplomas and no real experience at the job made more than i had been offered. and they didn't think that was right, so even if it meant not grabbing for something rather than nothing, it was worth it to demand a real show of respect for my work.

which is where i was leaning anyway. but it was nice to hear. so i counter-offered basically asking for a 1-year visitor's position instead of a full-time temp's position. i doubt there's anything the faculty can do about it, and i doubt the school will give a shit, but i feel good.

thanks for updating us. and good for you!

anyone here ever refused to give a letter of recommendation before (and not on grounds of i dunno not knowing the student well enough)?

a few years back i happened to be assisting on a class, with supervision, and i got a student who was trying his darnedest but only ever turning in totally atrocious work. with my supervisor's blessing basically ended up passing him out of charity, particularly since he was close to graduation, but we never really managed to come out and say to him, this work is off the radar as far as basic competency goes.

now he's applying to graduate school, apparently to go into a teaching-related field. : /

yea definitely seems like a good idea to refuse to give it

thing is he used to be a factory worker and since graduating (besides still that probably) he's been doing at-risk- and nontraditional-student mentoring, apparently successfully… so it does seem like he's doing some good?

on the other hand if any of his teachers ever puts their foot down he seems fairly likely to bomb graduate school, rack up lots of debt, etc

aw I'd be tempted to write it anyway--seeing as a lot of students in that position are simply trying to acquire the required 3-4 letters from whatever suitable authoritative sources they can find. would figure that if his work is as bad as you say then a lukewarm letter isn't gonna make a difference in the end wrt to getting accepted. but then of course I totally understand your concern with putting your name on it. maybe ask to see something more recent from him?

i'd sit down and talk with him first and then write an honest (and short) letter highlighting his strengths while avoiding the parts that i couldn't honestly recommend

i gave a luke warm (i.e. awful) one once. i made sure she understood that's what it would be like, and she still wanted it, so *shrug*

yeah I've told a student that they probably should find another referee but if they really need one from me I can write it

jesus christ, it looks like i might actually have a couple courses to cover come late january.

now i just have to figure out how the fuck to teach philosophy online

Bullying-to-death story from Imperial is horrible and scary: http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publish-and-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/

still no idea of the cause?

I haven't seen it stated anywhere, just lots of insinuation.

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/speculative-diction/stressful-systems/

reflection on the case, no new facts

http://www.haujournal.org/index.php/hau/article/view/hau4.3.007/1598

Anthropology and the rise of the professional-managerial class
David Graeber

Abstract

Many of the internal changes within anthropology as a discipline—particularly the "postmodern turn" of the 1980s—can only be understood in the context of broader changes in the class composition of the societies in which university departments exist, and, in particular, the role of the university in the reproduction of a professional-managerial class that has come to displace any working-class elements in what pass for mainstream "left" political parties. Reflexivity, and what I call "vulgar Foucauldianism," while dressed up as activism, seem instead to represent above all the consciousness of this class. In its place, the essay proposes a politics combining support for social movements and a prefigurative politics in the academic sphere.

aka let's pretend the 70s and 80s never happened?

what even happened then

u didn't miss much

omg i'm reading that essay now we should discuss it on some other thread because this one feels inappropriate for me just complaining about how wrong it gets everything. his entire description of the "neoliberal" process in the 80s is just effectively making shit up, and leads me to suspect that he actually doesn't understand anything about the 50s and 60s at all.

ahahaha i mean: "In this sense what’s happened to universities since the 1970s—very unevenly, but pretty much everywhere—has represented a fundamental break of a kind we have not seen in eight hundred years."

he should read one (1) clark kerr or something jesus

does he even know what the free speech movement was protesting christ

maybe the graeber 80s is an alternate universe, let us not forget:

Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages.

do i get a cash prize for spotting a typo (last sentence of the second footnote)

these academiatricians don't know NOTHING

I'm tipping toward the "he's mostly correct" position on the negligible political impact of academia in general over the past few decades, and his not very nice answer why (I'm not in anthro so I can't speak to particulars in that department). But ultimately his last sentence is very positive.

I'm cheering when he says "reflection [on one's power and privilege] takes the typically American puritanical form, in which members of said elite compete with one another for moral superiority based on claims of greater cognizance of their own compromised nature." Yep, having sat through hours of such reflection, yep yep yep.

there's an irony that seems remarkably unremarked on in how proponents of long-view historicism manage to always assert that now (for whatever value of now is current) is the moment when everything is changing in a way that has never been seen before.

Invoking the dynamic of American Puritanism would appear to be an endorsement of long term continuity.

i'm talking about all the other stuff in the piece not that point in particular

His idea that Foucauldians are projecting the professional context of academia onto their subjects of study strikes me as rather glib. Too easy a knockdown to be convincing.

He mentions Scheper-Hughes. She makes what I think are some similar points, that in "perilous times" perfectionism is an unaffordable luxury. This seems to me to be a correct take on the the drawbacks of "vulgar Foucauldianism":

What is the value of ethnography in such a sad contemporary context? Many young anthropologists today, sensitized by Michel Foucault (1975, 1980, 1982)) on "power/knowledge," have come to think of ethnography and fieldwork as unwarranted intrusions into the lives of vulnerable, threatened peoples. The anthropological interview has been linked to the medieval "inquisitional confession" (Ginsberg 1988) through which church examiners extracted "truth" from their naive and naturally "heretical" peasant flocks. We hear of anthropological observation as a hostile act that reduces our "subjects" to mere "objects" of our discriminating, incriminating scientific gaze. Consequently, some young anthropologists have given up the practice of descriptive ethnography altogether in preference for distanced and highly formalized methods of discourse analysis or purely quantitative of models. Others concern themselves with macrolevel analyses of world economic systems in which the experiential and subjective experience of human lives is left aside. Still others engage in an obsessive, self-reflexive hermeneutics in which the self, not the other, becomes the subject of anthropological inquiry.

I grow weary of these postmodernist critiques, and given the perilous times in which we and our subjects live, I am inclined toward a compromise that calls for the practice of a "good enough" ethnography. The anthropologist is an instrument of cultural translation that is necessarily flawed and biased. We cannot rid ourselves of the cultural self that we bring with us into the field any more than we can disown the eyes, ears, and skin through which we take in our intuitive perceptions about the new and strange world we have entered. Nonetheless, like every other master artisan (and I dare say that at our best we are this), we struggle to do the best we can with the limited resources we have at hand--our ability to listen carefully, empathically, and compassionately.

I think of some of the subjects of this book for whom anthropology is not a hostile gaze but rather an opportunity to tell a part of their life story. And though I can hear dissonant voices in the background protesting just this choice of words, I believe there is a still a role for the ethnographer-writer in giving voice, as best she can, to those who have been silenced, as have the people of the Alto by political and economic oppression and illiteracy and as have their children by hunger and premature death. So despite the mockery that Clifford Geertz (1988) made of anthropological "I-witnessing," I believe there is still value in attempting to "speak truth to power." I recall how my Alto friends grabbed and pushed and pulled, jostling for attention, saying "Don't forget me; I want my turn to speak. That one has had your attention long enough!" Or saying, "Tá vendo? Tá ouvindo?"--"Are you listening, really understanding me?" Or taking my hand and placing it on their abdomens and demanding, "Touch me, feel me, here. Did you ever feel anything so swollen?" Or "Write that down in your notes, now. I don't want you to forget it." Seeing, listening, touching, recording, can be, if done with care and sensitivity, acts of fraternity and sisterhood, acts of solidarity. Above all, they are acts of recognition. Not to look, not to touch, not to record, can be the hostile act, the act of indifference and of turning away.

http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/15954?utm_content=buffer46da0

'foucault kids' sigh

that's an awfully loaded term for describing what simply seems to be interdisciplinary work! maybe I'm missing something.

i think there was supposed to be a slight implication of quality-independent-thought too

tbh that basically describes my quasi-interdisciplinary dissertation. a lot of self-imposed and self-directed "training" as well.

http://www.extremesportstrader.co.uk/shots/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/rocky-snow-training.jpg

http://instagram.com/p/xpskLsLe29/

fun shirt

the job market is pretty damn grim this year. not that that's news of course.

i feel like my barely suppressed disdain for this profession and the people in it (and by extension myself for "wanting" to be a part of it) must be still be coming through in my cover letters. gotta work on that.

the job market isn't grim for "top candidates" from "top schools"

ha, yeah i keep thinking about what i could have done differently and top of the list every time is "go to a more prestigious school."

jesus christ, it looks like i might actually have a couple courses to cover come late january.

now i just have to figure out how the fuck to teach philosophy online

― j., Monday, November 17, 2014 1:52 PM (1 month ago)

monday!! they can't cancel that shit on me NOW

did you figure out how the fuck to teach philosophy online?

welp

no, no i did not

so how is that going

i worked in online course design and implementation for years ama

boat's kind of sailed on design for the sucker at this point. i'm noticing some initial problems overcoming, on top of the usual difficulties students pose (new to school, general intellectual apathy and incuriosity, gen ed credit disengagement), a heightened rat-and-pellet orientation that the interface only seems to make worse. similarly w/ the atomization in the social experience of the course; way too many people seem unaware of anything else their classmates contribute, despite a few weeks of yammering and prodding on my part. interface doesn't help there, either; it actually makes it technically inconvenient to even -see- discussions as ongoing conversations rather than bags of disjoint squibs of opinionating, lobbed into the void for the sake of perfunctory discharge of course obligations.

i've been wondering if maybe i'm not just a little over-sensitive because i have too much exposure to my students' raw (unworked) intellectual productions now. i had plenty of that before, but in the social reality of the (physical) classroom, a more decorous inattention to the works-in-progress that are students' thoughts and utterances is possible.

scrap the infrstructure & make all your students join ilx

but we stopped counting people's posts years ago, what would i enter in the online gradebook that we also don't have

If it's an online course, then are many of your students distance learners, meaning that they may not have friends in the class? I'm guessing that this would exacerbate the problems an online interface already creates for doing the basic conversational background work of reading each others' body language, sizing one another up, assessing the mood in the room, etc.

If the interface allows for small group work, then that may be something to think about, if it puts students in connection with each other. Probably hard to monitor.

i have had success moving the discussion board to a blogspot to which all students have posting privileges. it flattens out the initial discussions a little bit so that it doesn't immediately look like a dozen barely-connected nodes and younger students are way more familiar with the blog-and-comment flow than with old fashioned treed discussion boards. also i suspect students have more of a feeling of ownership over posts and are thus more likely to get feisty.