Sunday, April 24, 2011

A bit of kindness always clings to the hand that gives roses. (Chinese Proverb)

This happened a couple of days ago, but it is still bothering me.  I'm driving behind this fellow and up ahead I see a squirrel crossing the road.  Like a lot of squirrels, it apparently doesn't have a wealth of knowledge about the intricacies of internal combustion vehicles, and is confused at the prospect of crossing the asphalt swath.  As I religiously wear glasses when driving, finding them quite helpful at times, I can see this quite clearly and have plenty of time to slow down to ensure the safety of the little critter, and the car in front has plenty of time to do so as well.  But instead of slowing down, swerving if necessary, and making at least a tiny effort not to needlessly kill a creature, this Neanderthal (and forgive me for slandering Neanderthals) makes not the slightest effort to alter his driving and sure enough squashes the poor critter.  No brake light, no remorse, and I'm sure, no soul.  And he was traveling with what I assume to be his wife and young son.  Fine role model.

And earlier on this same trip, as the road passed a lake, there were a few signs warning drivers to not "abuse" geese as they crossed the road.  Why would there be a need for such signs?  Apparently there is.

I can see why there are so many movies, etc., about zombies, vampires, devils and other dead, evil beings.  They travel among us.

Labels:

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Tenure Games


This topic could be a book rather than just a blog, so I'll try to keep it manageable.  First, let me frame the topic by stating that though I directly benefit from the tenure process by essentially being guaranteed a job for the entirety of my professional life, I am actually against tenure for college professors as we know it today.  I do understand the desirability of protecting academic freedom*, but it seems unfair to allow such job security without accountability.  It's kind of like the notion, which strikes me as absurd, that the actions of a human lifetime can determine the rewards and punishments of eternity.  And in fact, it's pretty common that once one gets tenured, s/he is on autopilot for the rest of the ride.  A few schools are going to five year reviews.  I think that makes sense, but not if the expectations are the same as those for getting tenure, which can burn people out.

When I was a student, I can recall a really excellent teacher, one of the maybe three good teachers I had in college, that suddenly disappeared one semester.  A lot of students complained, as we didn't understand how the college could let such a good teacher go.  But now I understand.  You can get fired for being a bad teacher, but you can't get tenured or promoted for being a good one. (Note "Student Evaluations" blog of 10/11/09, and especially the comments of EM)  As it happens, "Publish or Perish" is not only alive and well, but is thriving under the moniker of "teacher/scholar."

Now don't misunderstand me, a college instructor absolutely has to be engaged with his/her discipline.  My problem is the rigidity with which "traditionalists" adhere to that mantra, interpreting engagement as being published in "prestigious" journals, and often measured by an arbitrary and esoteric formula (Tier 1 journal? First author? X points for that....)  PRJs (Peer Reviewed Journals) are the coin of the realm in academia, and since these count the most (sometimes they're all that counts), the game is all about figuring out how to get published in these journals that hardly anybody reads, and less still understand.  In many cases, the overriding question piloting one's professional engagement is "Can this get published, and can I get credit for it?" not "Does this have value, is it interesting to me, does it make me a better teacher and scholar?"  Thus you see the same drivel sliced up three different ways with a slightly different spin (maybe) to get 3 hits to pad the vita, or faculty agreeing to advising students on their theses and dissertations only if they can later receive a coauthor credit.  Maybe I should expand on this in another entry, but the point is that tenure too often hinges on quantity rather than quality within rigidly defined parameters of engagement (i.e., a specific kind of scholarship, though creative projects, grants, etc., are "counted" in some fields), commonly established by those that never had to live up to such standards themselves.

And this is where the fun begins.  At somewhere around the fifth year, a tenure-track assistant professor (and as schools try to cut costs with adjuncts there aren't as many of those, as apparently hiring a $50,000+ a year History professor- and I'm not making that number up, as liberal arts professors often start in that range- is cost prohibitive) submits a portfolio in application for tenure (typically in conjunction with promotion to associate professor).  Some schools have college-wide tenure committees, others have committees internal to the department/area, but however constructed, a committee of one's peers will engage in serious review of the candidate's career to determine whether that career will continue at that institution.  There are 3 questions that typically underlie the deliberations, though few will admit to it: 1)  Is there anything about the candidate's teaching that is a serious problem?  (Really really terrible instructor, sleeps with students, lawsuit waiting to happen, things like that)  2)  Are the number and type of publications "over the bar?"  (The interesting thing about this one is that often nobody really knows where "the bar" is.)  and 3)  Do the other faculty like him/her?  (And this is usually a function of who happens to be on the committee, but this can only raise or lower the bar, not eliminate or infinitely elevate it.)   If the candidate is passable as an instructor, has listed enough acceptable publications on his/her vita, and hasn't aggravated those faculty members on the committee (sometimes multiple committees), then that instructor is awarded a job for life, called tenure, which comes with no further performance obligations beyond adhering to the rules and not engaging in illegal or immoral activities.

And students wonder why so many of their instructors don't seem to have a passion for teaching.

*And by the way, it is no small irony that the system designed to protect academic freedom and encourage free thinking may in fact be limiting it, as the haves are often judging the have nots, typically with a bias of maintaining the status quo.  That statement doubtlessly requires support, but I'm tenured, so I don't have to.

Labels:

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Consensus

There's been a lot of attention given to bullying lately, and rightly so, as kids learn how wrong it is and what to do about it, and we all learn about the hazards of cyberbullying.   But this is about bullying in the workplace.

Of course intimidation is a time-honored management style.  I remember a teacher/football coach from high school who used to say, for instance, that "the only thing the primitive animal understands is pain," as we were apparently the primitive animals to which he referred. Delightful fellow. But it isn't just about preying on the weak for figurative lunch money anymore.  I've seen a different type of workplace bullying, where apathy, self-interest, and fear are  artfully corralled and manipulated.  I call this "consensus bullying."  

Here's how I've seen it work, with faculty, at least.  An individual with a small amount of power creates or participates in the illusion that the group is to make a decision in a democratic manner.  When the group meets, that individual strongly, even relentlessly, presses his/her case.  There may be some others that agree or are convinced by the presentation, but most have reservations or disagree.  Those others know that there is a price to pay for "speaking up."   For the untenured members, the imagined price is risking one's career (tenure) by taking sides or potentially alienating anyone that might influence one's career.   (This is an interesting aside, so I'll make the next entry about tenure games.)  That's understandable.  Cowardly,  melodramatic, but understandable.  For the tenured members, the price is the hassle.  And this is the key. Where the typical bully, such as the instructor that loves to exert power over students (and we've all seen these pitiful, insecure instructors) calculates that the weak will not engage in the hassle because the conflict is likely to have negative repercussions for the loser, the consensus bully understands that it's not so much about the strength of the "opponent" as it is about the size of the hassle.  Most people don't enjoy conflict (though faculty are famous for notable exceptions), and most of us have learned to "pick our battles." So in finding an issue that is important to the bully and not  terribly important to the others, when the bully creates a high hassle potential situation, most others will simply let the bully have his/her way.  At most, token resistance may be forwarded, then abandoned when it becomes apparent that it's not worth the hassle.  And the thing is, most of the time a faculty member (or probably most people, really) will not think it's worth the hassle if it doesn't seem to affect him/her directly and significantly.  For example, if there is a suggested change to a course/program, if it's not your course/program, you probably don't care that much and will just go with the flow, even if you disagree, when faced with the aggressive bully.  But let me be clear, where faculty do have self-interest at stake and it's perceived to be a fair fight, faculty can mix it up with and beyond the best of them.

What often happens, then, is that the silent majority is uncaring or opposed, but unwilling to go through the hassle of fighting the battle that may be harmful or at least uncomfortable, so most people will just let it slide, say little or nothing, and vote yes.  And then the bully is able to say that there was a democratically determined, even mandated, outcome, and move forward with the aegis of consensus.  Yet the truth is that the bully got his/her way. 

Labels:

Sunday, April 03, 2011

What have you done for me lately?

Your distant past has little bearing on your immediate future.  By that I mean that it is your most recent experience that is of interest to an employer, admissions officer, and almost everyone else.  So if you are in college writing a resume for a potential employer or graduate school, don't write anything at all about high school.  Everyone will know that you have a high school degree (from where no longer matters), and no one cares about any of your high school sports and activities.  In general, it is only the last degree that matters.  If you have a doctorate, it doesn't matter where you got your master's and undergraduate degrees.  So basically, once you become an adult, you should probably stop talking about high school, and the older you are, the more true that is.

 "peaked in high school" [Urban Dictionary]

(n./adj.) This phrase can be used to describe people that routinely bring up high school when they are well into their 30's, because they haven't had a single exciting or interesting experience since their senior year, and as such their lives and themselves are said to have, "peaked in high school."

This term is often used when speaking disparagingly about an individual or group. This phrase can only be used appropriately after-the-fact (i.e. after individual/group leaves high school) to accurately gauge if (s)he qualifies for such status.
 

Labels: ,