"What Is a Post-Academic?"

(Yes, I'm still on vacation, but I'm at home waiting for some work to be finished on my basement floor -- before and after pictures later perhaps. In the meantime, what else to do but write a short post?)

Some questions around the blogosphere have been raised lately about leaving academe: "if you take a different job, a job other than adjuncting or professing, does it always mean you've left academe? Are you, by default, no longer an academic?"

For many post-academics, the answer is emphatically yes. Many people decide they don't like the work, in one way or another. Others don't like the working conditions. Still others decide they like neither the work nor the working conditions. For all of us, walking away seems a better option than staying in a profession that, as Anastasia points out, does not care about us. Indeed, A Post-Academic in NYC says that "walking away" doesn't even
accurately describe what we're doing because it implies there was somewhere to walk to. And we're all pretty much agreed that there isn't.

But if there are those who emphatically no longer see themselves as academics for one reason or another, where dies that leave those of us who -- wherever we may be working, whatever we may be doing -- on some level still identify ourselves as academics?

Because I know I still do ... it has something to do with a state of mind, with ways of thinking, with ways of relating to the world. I think, in some ways, I was an academic before I ever even thought about becoming a professor.

But I digress. What is a post-academic? A post-academic is simply someone who has worked in academe, who has pursued a career as a professor, however successfully or unsuccessfully, and has, for any combination of the above reasons, chosen to take a step back (or two or three -- or perhaps run at a sprint never to look back) and do something else to earn a living -- for now or for forever.

My point is that a post-academic is never going to go back to being a nonacademic, unless you willfully reinvent yourself as such. For me -- and for a lot of us, I'd gather -- you don't ever really get rid of those habits of mind you developed, whatever it is you happen to be doing for a living now and/or in the future.

And I think it's important to emphasize the academic part, too, even if you never teach
another class, present at another conference, or publish another peer-reviewed article. Because, as much academe has exploited us, academe itself his, country's system of higher education, is losing something when we leave. Not that there aren't plenty enough other masochists to take our places right now but that we were contributing something that had -- and has -- a kind of value our society is unwilling to reckon with. And will continue to refuse to reckon with as long as the true cost is disguised by an underpaid workforce.

On Vacation

Yeah, just as all of you still in campusland are heading back to class, it's vacation week for me. No major plans. Peaches and I are staying home and trying to get some repairs and cleaning done, though hopefully we'll get away to the mountains or the beach for a day or two.

Hurricanes and earthquakes all in the same week ... who knew? Fortunately, Irene didn't do too much damage. Our leaky roof held up. Our basement didn't flood. The power stayed on. All good reasons to take a sigh of relief and sit back and more or less relax.

Anyway, posting might be a bit sporadic for the next week or so.

Hobart says: "Teh humanz, what suckahs! Us kittehs takes teh vacations every dayz!! "

Grad U Library After Earthquake

Yes, the library ... where I still have modest borrowing privileges, though I remain unaffiliated.

No, I didn't take the picture (and sorry for not giving proper credit ... for obvious reasons). The library remains closed while staff work to re-shelve over 10,000 books before the start of classes next week.

Did Anyone Else Feel the Earthquake?

I was at my desk in the office and at first thought is was the construction upstairs gone horribly wrong. Nope. Weirdest thing I ever felt, though. It wasn't strong enough right around here to knock things off desks or cause any structural damage, but I'd say it felt just short of that. If the shaking had been just a little stronger, I imagine I might have lost my balance.

Earthquakes?!! Of all things. Too weird.

Best bad pun of the day: San Andreas called and said, "It wasn't my fault."

Facebook

OK, so according to my stats, somebody's linked to my blog from facebook and readers are coming here from there. That's fine, I think. Publicity is good.

But I just want to put it out there that I am not on facebook -- not now, not ever. I would love to be having conversations with people who might be interested in the topics I post about. C'mon over here and leave a comment if you like. I don't bite (well, most of the time).

I'm way past the point of criticizing facebook users. It's whatever. Do what makes sense for you. Personally, I got pissed off years ago when people (both friends and relatives) I used to exchange emails with regularly got on facebook and basically stopped talking to me. Not out of ill will or anything. Rather, they were just too busy on their facebook pages talking to their "friends" to exchange a personal message or two that they (or I) might not necessarily have wanted the whole world -- even just "facebook friends" -- to read (and really, the fact that "friend" has become a verb is a little unnerving in and of itself).

I get why you people like it and can appreciate some of its uses (my band used/uses it for publicity), but the way everyone just jumped on that bandwagon -- "Why are you on facebook? Duh! Everyone's on facebook!" -- gets under my skin. No thanks.

If you've been reading this blog for any little bit of time, you know that a big part of how I was able to extricate myself from academe had to do with resisting the herd impulse, doing something just because everyone else was doing it -- because "it's what you're supposed to do" if you want an academic career. I'm supposed to watch everyone else's Sisyphean adventures in academic career-land year after year, and then, when my turn comes, just DO THE SAME THING? No thanks.

Not exactly directly analogous, I know. But my point is about thinking for yourself. Whether it's facebook or academe, make your own decisions. Don't let the herd decide what makes sense and what's going to work best for you.

Link to me all you want from facebook, but I won't be meeting you there anytime soon.

Via

Some Advice for Unhappy Grad Students, Disgruntled Adjunsts, and Other Would-Be Post-Academics

Wish somebody had apprised me of this shit once upon a time. Now I have a whole lot of catching up to do:

Graduate school is a trap; orchestrate your exit before you have to leave.
Lots of reasons lead us to graduate school and the pursuit of careers as academics. I'm not here to judge those. I had my own, and, if things were different, I'd be sticking around. But, whatever your reasons for entering and staying for however long you find it sustainable to stay, know that there's probably going to come a time when your options become "either leave academe or stay and be miserable." Nobody's going to tell you this except us crazily sane post-academics, and nobody's going to tell you what the best strategy for planning your exit is. But you need one -- even if you never end up using it, you'll be that much better prepared to advise your own students in the future.

Do your research on what post-academic life has to offer you; you're not going to end up a corporate bot unless you let yourself.
Whenever you do leave, you're probably going to dislike on some level whatever it is you end up doing, even if there are also some things you like -- heck, we all know it ain't like reading Great Books and thinking Deep Thoughts. Prepare for this inevitability by researching possible jobs and careers and acquiring skills and knowledge that will lead you to the greater likelihood of a job with more that you like than dislike (Currently, I am researching day trading, and I expect to be blogging about what I'm learning further, as I learn more -- wish I had done this earlier, like when I hit the dissertation dry spell and couldn't write for three months, 'cuz while there are things I like about my current job, I don't aim to be a secretary forever, and I think I could be really good at this day trading thing, something I never even considered before.).

Anyone that tells you that you're compromising your ideals by looking into alternative careers while still pursuing your academic goals? Tell hem to piss off. They're wrong.
That pretty much says it all. Most likely your adviser, well-meaning as ze might be, will tell you this. It may have been true in the past. It's not now. The only thing you're compromising by pursuing your academic goals WITHOUT looking into alternative careers is your own future -- and your capacity ever to support yourself without the help of your partner, family, loans, credit, or food stamps.

Don't get hung up on the academic job market.
It's just around the corner now. The MLA Job List for 2012-2013 is coming out in less than a month. Don't stress. Your academic career is out of your hands. If you're going on the tenure-track market (fuck postdocs and VAPs), just send out letters to the places you can imagine yourself working. If you can't see yourself working there, don't waste your time. Concentrate on presenting yourself well to the ones that make sense for you. If that's only 3, then only send out 3 letters. The rest is ... not up to you anyway, so don't sweat it. Send out those letters and CVs, go have yourself a nice drink, and forget about it. Odds are no one is going to call you. It'll be a pleasant surprise if they do. In the meantime, work on that alternate career, so that next semester you can tell your Scheduler of Adjuncts (who earns $95K) to pay you more or fuck off, because you have options.

Make some friends outside academe.
They'll really help you put things into perspective. Odds are, you'll find a few smart, funny, creative, totally cool people, and they'll help you see what you're missing out on by burying yourself in academe. Not that a career in academe might not still end up being an option, but life on the outside isn't what you thought it would be as the 22-year-old pseudo intellectual you once were, either. Let's face it, you might still love academic work, but you no longer burn with that dumbass, naive "hard, gemlike flame." Grow up and get to know the world around you. Might turn out to be just a little more interesting than the "life of the mind" -- that narrow little world inside your own head insulated from the outside by academe's musty corridors -- that's trapped you for the last decade. And, even if you end up winning the jobs lottery and staying in academe, you'll be that much better prepared to interact with and advise your students.

Monday Morning AcademiCat

Hobart says: "Kittehs as handsome as I is don't need to be smart. Teh peoplz luuvs you even if you does dumbstupid tings like eat sandalz (Mmmmmmm!). But I iz handsome AND smart (even if I duz dumbstupid tings sometimes), and I like you to pleaze tell me so many times every day."

Disowning Your Writing

In academe, you want to make sure your name is attached to what you write. You want credit for your words and ideas. You even teach your students (or try, anyway) to take pride in what they write and to demand that others give them credit and that they give credit to others where and when it is due.

Outside of academe, you don't always want your name attached to what you write.

Consider:

As I've written before, Think Tank has a division of climate change skeptic wingnuttery that I fortunately don't have to have much to do with. It's mostly based in Other City, and none of the people affiliated with Crapital City Office where I am work on climate issues and would prefer not to be associated with that particular brand of wingnuttery on the part of their colleagues. In fact, most of the stuff that comes through here is considered "low profile, high complexity," involves bipartisan interests, and is generally inoffensive.

Every now and then something comes up, though.

Yesterday, Think Tank Boss's Boss (who works in Other City and is a climate change skeptic) emails Think Tank Boss two peer-reviewed articles by legitimate climate scientists and asks for 4-5 paragraph summaries. TTBB includes a sample of another article, a summary of some other study that has clearly spun legitimate research with a strong climate skeptic bias. TTBB wants TTB to do the same thing, but TTB, who works with environmentalists, tries not to get too involved with this sort of thing, while at the same time trying to respect TTBB's right to promote the issues ze chooses.

So, TTB asks me to do the summaries instead. Now, I don't mind the task itself. I get to read something mildly interesting (albeit painfully technical) and spend an hour or so putting the arguments in my own words.

Except, here's where it gets tricky. After I read the articles, I find I can say with confidence that this research absolutely does NOT support the Global Warming Is a Myth wingnuts. The authors of the studies are, in fact, making the case that, because global warming is very real, we need the very best tools and methods possible to study it. They critique some tools and methods with the aim of developing better ones and, ultimately, more accurate predictive models.

Except, if you don't read all THAT carefully and you hone in on a few key phrases and repeat them to yourself OUT OF CONTEXT a few times, you might be able to convince yourself that here are legitimate scientists whose LEGITIMATE science supports the wingnut notion that Global Warming Is a Myth. But you'd be wrong to tell yourself this. One of the authors, in an effort to combat what ze sees as the misrepresentation and misuse of hir research, has a page on hir website explicitly describing why hir research needs to be understood within the proper context and how it absolutely does NOT support the agendas of climate skeptics.

*     *     *     *     *

Digression:

One of the assignments I used to give my freshman comp students early in the semester was to read an academic article (something somewhat complex and usually dealing with a subject people tended to have opinions about) and write a summary of it. They'd leave class that day grumbling, "Summary? Why do we have to write summaries? We're college students. Summaries are dumb high school assignments. All you have to do is put what the author says in your own words. What a waste of time.We're all going to write the same dumb thing."

And so, they'd do the assignment and come back to class, and then I'd call on people to read what they wrote. It was always fun to watch their faces as, one by one, their classmates read summaries very different from their own. They'd just look at each other, mouths open, and, eventually, we'd get into a discussion of how even simple exercises in reading comprehension involve acts of interpretation.  Unwittingly, their interpretations had influenced how they wrote their summaries.

The point of the exercise was not to make some sort of relativistic statement that "everyone is right, and there's no such thing as a wrong interpretation." That's bullshit, which was exactly what I wanted them to see. Of course, no one is ever going to summarize the same article exactly the same way, and we're always going to have biases. But the point of the exercise was to encourage them to become more careful readers as they moved into the research portion of the course -- to take greater care in distinguishing what they might want a source to say from what it actually said. 

So that they could represent their sources fairly and accurately and not make arguments based on distorted evidence.

*     *     *     *     *

So, what did I do with my summaries? I did exactly what the Global Warming Is a Myth winguts wanted me to. I spun the summaries to make it seem as though this research was supporting their views, at the same time preserving, on a technical level, what the articles were saying. I honed in on certain words and phrases and wove them into the text without proper contextualization.

I told TTB I'd be happy to be TTBB's ghostwriter, but I don't want my name on this garbage. TTBB is welcome to put hir name on it. 

I wrote it, but I do not own it.

(I'm already afraid, after being invited, that I may have lost an opportunity after someone Googled my name and found it affiliated in merely an administrative capacity with Think Tank.)

(And, as I'm previewing this post, fucken Rick Perry is on NPR saying that it's the Global Warming Is Real people who are DISTORTING THE EVIDENCE. *headdesk*.)

Arrrgggggggggghhhhhhhh!

I broke my Kindle.

Have an iPad with Kindle app, but I like reading on the Kindle screen. So I'm getting a replacement.

Aaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhh.

If my eyesight weren't as bad as it is, I'd totally be one of those people against the e-readers. But, holy $hit, I can enlarge the text on these things and read without straining my eyes, and you have no idea how awesome that is!!

I'm sold.

I got the Kindle first, right around the time I was finishing the diss. Everybody talks about how nice it is to be able to read for pleasure again, at least for a little while, after finishing the diss. For me, with the Kindle, that was true on a whole other level.

Unwittingly, the tech industry invented something they hoped to make money off of from the general public but also ended up with something incredibly useful for a minority population.

No complaints here...

Saturday PsychedeliCats

Lucky says: "Pleazed down't takeh meh picture right now. Teh alienz iz coming. Don't you seez dem iz rights ovver therere?

Hobart says: "Piss off peoplz. I haz places to go!"

Later:

Hobart says: "Sandalz! Oh how I luvs me teh smelle of some summerre sandalz!"

Perversely Amusing Quote (long)

Readers, you have no idea how much Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is amusing me. Here's another quote:

Visitors to Washington who want to see democracy in action traditionally waste their time at the viewing galleries of the Capitol building where -- if they are lucky -- they might see one or two legislators mumbling mechanically for the C-Span cameras. It is, as everyone knows, a big letdown -- a disillusionment that is cited whenever smart young people relate how they got to be so wise to the world.

However, had those same visitors merely walked across the street to Charlie Palmer Steak, they would have seen the machinery of conservative governance in action. This was the place for political spectatorship, where you could see the questions before the nation actually being resolved -- and you could do it over a meal, too, saving yourself a trip to Applebee's later.

You could start with the miniature lobster corndogs, a nod to the deep-fried treats of your red-state youth (but made with lobster, get it?), and then you could slyly bribe yourself with a plateful of the domestic Kobe sirloin, sixty-eight dollars. If you were smart, you would wash the whole thing down with a half dozen Manahattans -- you'd need them. If you looked around while you ate, you would have noticed that this was not the dim windowless steakhouse of your weekend debauches in Topeka. It was light; it was open; its polished limestone walls were accented with delicate Wedgwood blue; a curtain of glass showcased the prosperous diners to the sweating world outside. And did you notice that pond burbling fountain in the middle of the restaurant? And the heavy steel ingot that propped up your menu?

It's because of classy touches like those that your congressman never did move back to your home state, regardless of what he used to say about "sharing your values." Speaking of that congressman of yours: If you were lucky, you'd see him here. Indeed, for the price of that steak you could watch him and his fellow members make decisions on matters that would affect you for the rest of your life. And you might have noticed he was making those decisions in close consultation with nonmembers -- people just like you, in fact, only with better hair, better clothes, better teethc, better manners, and a better job working for far richer and more important people than you.

There is nothing new about persuasion-for-hire in Washington. What was new in the conservative years was the size of the lobbying industry and the blithe acceptance of its enormous role in matters of public significance...

Wait, the "conservative years" ended? Heh, I needs to go make a restaurant reservation now, only it's not for me (dudes, like, for real -- it's my job!). And then I think I needs me a Manhattan.

Invited

To be on a panel at Regional MLA Conference in 2012.

Huh?? How did this happen? I haven't sent out any conference paper proposals in many months and actually backed out of the panel I was supposed to present on at Same Regional MLA Conference 2011 back in April.

So. Someone read something I wrote. Decided ze would like me to be on hir panel. Googled my name (first tried looking me up at Grad U., but I'm no longer "affiliated"). And called me up here at Think Tank.

Bizarro. Conversation went like this:

Me, picking up office phone: "Hello, Think Tank, Crapital City. This is recent Ph.D. speaking."

Solicitor of Conference Paper: "Hello. Is this the same recent Ph.D. of Grad U.?"

Me: "Yes, I used to teach there but finished my degree a year ago and am now working here. What can I do for you?"

Solicitor of Conference Paper: "I read your article on Pickled Apricots and Space Ships, and I was wondering if you'd like to be on the panel I'm chairing on Pickled Apricots and Space Ships at Regional MLA Conference in 2012. I think your work is really interesting."

Me: "Thank you. I'm flattered. As I mentioned, I'm not working in academe right now, but I might like to be on this panel. Here is my email address. Send me more information."

Solicitor of Conference Paper: "Will do. Hope you'll say yes!"

Now, what am I supposed to do here? Pickled Apricots and Space Ships is something I need to work more on as I develop Project Dissertation-to-Book (which I have not touched since the last Research Update), so maybe a conference paper derived from a completed chapter on Pickled Apricots and Space Ships is something to aim for, something that would motivate me.

On the other hand, I don't know if I want to spend money out-of-pocket to attend Conference in Other (boring) City to give a 20-minute talk and surround myself the rest of the time with people who will only remind me over and over and over again why I am not currently "affiliated" formally with academe.

In a different way, this invitation itself is yet further evidence of academe's perversity. Other Scholar finds my work interesting? Finds it interesting enough to go out of hir way to look up my contact info, call me, and invite me to be on hir panel?

And yet, academe thrusts me out. Would I rather be working in academe than as some think tank executive's "assistant" (no offense, TTB)? If you've been reading this blog, you know that's a dumb question. Of course, I'd rather be doing something I like more, something I'm trained in, and something other people clearly agree I'm good at -- something less wasteful of my talents and with which I'd be more satisfied at the end of the day (and let's face it, less bored). But academe offers me no sustainable job options.

Academe, I fucking HATE you more and more with each passing day.

Everywhere Except in Academe

Over at From Grad School to Happiness, JC has a great post up that starts out lamenting the problem of homeless adjuncts but ends up not only drawing attention to this particularly disgraceful consequence of the current academic labor structure but also taking a clear and strong stand on the question of whether adjuncts and recent Ph.D.s (and TAs, too!) have the right to demand something better in terms of pay, benefits, and job security.

Go read the whole post, but here is my comment (slightly amended):

You are absolutely NOT being an academic snob for pointing out that, at the end of a decade of professionalization and work experience, people have the right to expect a job that pays something like a living wage. They have the right to expect that their efforts -- and, indeed, their knowledge, skills, and experience -- should be respected, valued, and rewarded by their employers. That's not entitlement. It's the norm for most other professions. Companies and organizations wouldn't be able to retain workers or make progress in their industries if there wasn't a performance-based and experience-based reward system. People demand it. I don't care how much you love your job, how much of a calling it is -- at the end of the day, you're there because you're getting paid.

True, there are unskilled types of jobs -- and many people doing them -- that don't pay well, don't offer stability, and come with no benefits. That is: Unskilled. Types. Of. Jobs. Jobs that require skills, knowledge, and experience in order to do well at them are a different story. Even if you start out as a Starbucks barista with only a high school diploma, you can work your way up to store management and even to higher levels in the company if you pay attention, show up to your shifts on time every day, treat the customers well, and learn the shit you need to learn about making coffee and running a business.

Everywhere else, knowledge, experience, and skills count towards better pay, greater job security, and better opportunities -- everywhere, that is, except in academe.

 It's time more people started taking a stand.

"Free Market of Ideas"?

From Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation:

Like many winger ideas--anticommunism for example--it sounds good at first. A "free market of ideas" sounds like "free inquiry," or a "free exchange of ideas"; an environment in which hypotheses are tested and bad ones are weeded out while good ones go on to earn the respect of the community of scholars. But this is not what the phrase means at all. Markets do not determine the objective merit of things, only their price, which is to say, their merit in the eyes of capital or consumers. To cast intellectual life as a "market" is to set up a standard for measuring ideas quite different from the standard of truthfulness. Here ideas are bid up or down depending on how well they please those with the funds to underwrite inquiry--which effectively means, how well they please large corporations and the very wealthy.

 I've been a fan of Frank's since I first discovered his work in The Baffler years ago. I like his style. He's both engaging and inflammatory. In this statement, for example, he's talking about organized conservatism on college campuses as well as in Washington, and, on the one hand, there's a ring of truth to what he's saying (don't deny it, Think Tankers!: The value of research in an academic environment isn't best determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. Some fields are better funded because they offer more opportunities to apply their research outside academe, but that doesn't make business or engineering better than history in terms of what they contribute to human knowledge or the future of society -- our species evolves, in part, because we have the capacity to apprehend and analyze what happened in the past. But because that relationship is indirect and long-term rather than direct and in the nearest present, people whose primary interest is making money in the here-and-now are less likely to fund grants for history professors than engineering professors.

And then there's the issue of what research reveals, too. Sometimes it reveals unpleasant things, things that challenge core beliefs, things that threaten to undermine power (and the moneyed interests that support it). And no, I'm not referring to history or English professors or other left-wing, liberal "elites" today. I'm talking about Galileo, who was, according to Stephen Hawking, "perhaps more than any other single person, responsible for the birth of modern science." Thanks to the inquisition, Galileo spent the later years of his life under house arrest. And yet it is undeniable that his discoveries, over time, have led to the generation of a great deal of wealth -- both material and intellectual. But there was no way to know that at the time, just as there is no way to know whose intellectual contributions today will have the greatest impact on human society centuries from now. That's why, at universities, we need "free inquiry," not a "free market of ideas." You can't ever wholly get rid of egos or other "special interests" that affect how academic research is produced and disseminated, but you can strive for "free inquiry" rather than succumbing to a "free market."

On the other hand, it would be disingenuous to say that Frank isn't exaggerating the conspiracy element just a bit. A lot of conservatives -- many who work in think tanks -- really do believe in what they believe in and are more than willing to have a rational conversation about why. They may be making money promoting their ideas, but they're not just here, as Frank argues, purely for the sake of what he calls "political entrepreneurship" (that's a great phrase, though, isn't it?).The most tiresome thing about politics today -- about the stalemate we're dealing with -- is that neither side is willing to examine carefully why the opposing side believes what it does and does what it does.

I haven't finished the book yet, so the jury is out on my overall review...

Your Monday Afternoon Ugly

Today, I offer you something of an antidote to yesterday's Sunday Morning Cute:

A preserved alligator head, Think Tank Boss's souvenir from New Orleans (I did ask for something bizarre, grotesque, and/or reflective of the local culture), which now sits atop my office printer:

Unlike Hobart, I don't think this creature has anything much to say, since the (ahem) preservationists had to cut out her tongue to keep her looking so fresh-as-a-daisy mean and spiteful.

If she could, she'd probably say something along the lines of: "You'd better be damned glad I'm dead."

Your Sunday Morning Cute

Hobart says: "Everytime mornings, especially weekendz, I wakes my peoplz up at teh crepuscular (I haz BIG vokabelerry fer a kitteh!) hour and makes dem feed me yummmmmmy foodz. And zen dey iz awakes alle nice an early so I feelz reassured dat everytig iz rite wit teh wuurrlde. And just as teh sunny sunshine iz coming up and my belly iz fulle, I gives meselfe a nice goodlong bath before taking my furrst morning napp."

Disingenuous

Today's word of the day is "disingenuous," which means "failing to reveal the full story or whole truth," and is "often used in the context of politics, sometimes insinuating cynical or calculating behavior." I don't necessarily want to insinuate cynical or calculating behavior, but let's use "disingenuous" in the context of politics:

It is "disingenuous" to say that one is creating jobs in one's own private business or industry, particularly if that business or industry is political in nature, when one's political party aggressively promotes policies that are actively destroying jobs in the same geographic region in other businesses, industries, or professions -- notably, important public ones, like education.

*     *     *     *     *

Let's look at an example: Grad U., a large public university, exists in a state with both a Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled general assembly. But progressive critics lately have accused Grad U. state's leaders of leaning too far to the Right to appease their Republican colleagues in an emphasis, as they work to balance the state's budget, on cutting spending rather than increasing revenue. What does this mean for the state's system of public colleges and universities? 

In FY 2011, balancing the budget meant cutting $1 billion in total state expenditures but only insignificant measures, such as a higher tax on alcohol, to raise more revenue (and Republicans opposed even those). Also in 2011, Grad U. state ended what was called the "millionaire tax," a state income tax increase from 5.5% to 6.25% in 2008, 2009, and 2010 on state residents earning over $1 million a year. The net revenue from that tax over those 3 years was $170 million, which may not seem like much in a state with an annual budget of around $13 billion, but the net effect of such decreased revenues from this and other measures cannot be considered unrelated to the significant budget shortfalls at the state's colleges and universities which have resulted in furloughs, salary freezes, hiring freezes, and job cuts. While such shortfalls -- and their results -- have been ongoing since the recession began to affect state and campus budgets in 2008, the continuing push to "cut, cut, cut" has led to underfunded campuses, even as the state starts to recover from the recession.

Looking back to 2010, it's hard to underestimate how hard recession-driven budget shortfalls have already hurt the state university system. Two years after the recession's initial hit, the system state-wide still had to cut $37.8 million from its 2010 budget. That ended up including $12 million in job cuts (both layoffs and the elimination of open positions), as well as "$2 million in maintenance expenses and $3 million in travel expenses, library budgets, and computer support." The cuts also included $1 million in financial aid, but, not surprisingly, "The cuts include a fair number of adjunct and part-time faculty, and that's where the students will see a real impact."

In other words, decreased revenues aren't creating jobs here on campus, they're eliminating them -- essential ones, jobs that have "a real impact" on the quality of education students (whose tuition, meanwhile, is rising) are able to receive. Instead of considering ways to increase revenue that would create stable, permanent positions, these recent cuts have led to job losses among those with the most tenuous appointments and a freeze on hiring for already open tenure-track positions, as well as the creation of new ones. (And this isn't a problem in just Grad U. state. Several tenure-track jobs I applied for elsewhere in both of my searches were "cancelled due to funding cuts.")

Fast forward to FY 2011. For the entire state system of public colleges and universities, the governor approved a state-supported operating budget in 2011 of $834 million, comprised of both tuition and state appropriations, but that budget still left Grad U. campus $7.8 million short of its projected need for "mandatory" expenses. Whatever those "mandatory" expenses might be, let's be clear: You could rehire a whole lot of recently laid-off adjuncts for $7.8 million and create more tenure-track jobs, too.

Which brings me back around to the "millionaire tax," the $170 million in revenues it brought in between 2008 and 2010, and its elimination in 2011. While $170 million may not seem like a lot within the state's overall budget, it puts into perspective supposedly "necessary" cuts to the university system's budget. Opponents of the tax, mainly Republicans, have alleged

that it was responsible for an apparent drop in the number of [Grad U. State] households reporting over $1 million in income since the rate was imposed. But state tax data shows that the number of millionaires declined not because they left the state but because their income fell below the million-dollar mark due to the recession.

Most households in that bracket get a considerable amount of their income from investments; the fall of the stock market reduced their earnings. In 2008 and 2009, a cumulative 5,364 taxpayers with over $1 million in income in 2007 dropped from the ranks of the millionaires simply because their incomes were lower than the previous year. They didn’t move out, they moved down.

It made no sense to eliminate this tax in 2011, especially with stock market returns up and, presumably, more people back in the millionaire class. Moreover, whatever the "millionaire tax" was used to pay for before, it could have been used, in 2011, to forestall further university layoffs and hiring freezes that are harming the quality of public education in the state.

Looking ahead to FY 2012, while this latest yearly budget will "restore $60 million to schools," it will also "have a more substantial impact in subsequent years when it bites 40 percent off the structural deficit in a series of moves, such as reducing formula-driven funding increases to state and private colleges." Restoring $60 million to "schools" isn't all that much, given the deep cuts of the past several years and the fact that "schools" include not only colleges and universities but K-12. The 2012 budget raises more revenue (budget is up to $14.3 billion over the previous year's $13 billion) through higher fees of various kinds, but "closes a yawning deficit without raising  taxes." Why this refusal to raise taxes that could fund jobs that support vital public programs? Why are we dealing with the structural deficit long-term by increasingly defunding colleges and universities?

Republicans are responsible for controlling the rhetoric surrounding these budget debates, but Democrats have been gutlessly acquiescing to both the rhetoric and the policies it supports. It is disingenuous to say that either party has contributed significantly to job creation.

*     *     *     *     *

It is also disingenuous to say that Grad U.'s administration shouldn't be taking greater responsibility for mismanaging the budget they do have. Retaining a significant number of non-teaching staff positions that are grossly overpaid is at least as much to blame. A public university shouldn't be cutting teaching positions while a large number of nonessential administrative positions still pay six-figure salaries.

But this subject deserves its own post, a Part 3 to go with "Let the Numbers Speak for Themselves" Parts 1 and 2.

*     *     *     *     *

I left my adjunct position at Grad U. when the number of courses I was offered for Spring 2011 brought my salary below a sustainable level, thanks to cuts in the number of courses and sections offered to students, thanks to budget cuts, thanks to salary and hiring freezes, thanks to the state's refusal to raise taxes. The job I now have was "created" to support a growing organization but an organization that, in the name of "reform," supports, in general, the kinds of spending cuts and rejection of tax raises described above. While there is no direct correlation between the destruction of one job and the creation of the other, it would be disingenuous of me not to point out the indirect correlation -- at the large-scale level of policy.

But are we just talking about six of one, a half dozen of another? A job is a job is a job, right?

Not quite. As a mercenary for the time being, I don't waste too much time concerning myself with such matters. I'm glad I have a job (six of one, a half dozen of another -- it'd be disingenuous of me to say otherwise), but, as Sisyphus points out, cutting taxes in her state has led, on the one hand, to the defunding of the state university system -- once considered by some the greatest public university system in the world -- and a dearth of academic jobs there but, on the other hand, has NOT led to the creation of new nonacademic jobs, either. Unemployment, in June 2011, was at 11.8%, well above the national average.

*     *     *     *     *

So. I'm sure I've said something here to raise someone's ire in one way or another. One of the things I liked best about teaching was  provoking students to rethink beliefs and values they took for granted, sometimes by playing devil's advocate, sometimes just by introducing different perspectives. The point wasn't to get them to give up their beliefs and values or substitute other ones but to take the time to understand better why they believed what they believed and whether their beliefs and values would hold up over time to the challenges and scrutiny they would inevitably face.  

Phew, at least my poor students don't have to be subjected to such radical brainwashing anymore. Now, I've got a blog!

Feel free to comment.

Ingeniously Disingenuous Trollcat (damn, I wish I'd come up with that!)

Crepuscular

Do you ever find that you hear a word, maybe a word you haven't heard in a while, and it just sticks in your head?

Crepuscular is the word of the day. I heard it on the radio the other day, and now my brain keeps repeating it.

Maybe because it explains why my cats wake me up at the a$$ crack of dawn every day by attacking each other on the bed -- and why they get even crazier begging for their dinner just as the sun is going down.

Via

The Kind of Departmental Job AnnouncementsThat Mislead Graduate Students

The following announcement was emailed by the department chair at Grad U to the entire department (apparently, somebody still thinks I'm "affiliated" enough to still be on this list). Except for names, places, and other identifying information, it is verbatim:

Dear Colleagues:

I am delighted to announce that Another Recent Ph.D. has received an appointment as a visiting faculty member in the Appropriate Department at Unpronounceable University in Unpronounceable, Obscure Province of Far Away Asian Country. In July, Another Recent Ph.D. successfully defended hir dissertation, "Something or Another in Particular Genre, 18XX-19XX."  Hir committee consisted of Charismatic Believer in Academe (chair), Boring Defender of the Status Quo, Diss Director of Your Humble Blogger, and Professor from Some Other Department.

Congratulations to Another Recent Ph.D. and hir advisors! 

Best,

Your Polite and Encouraging but Clueless Department Chair

Now, I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with the announcement itself. Indeed, it's a nice gesture that such a large department publicly acknowledges the successes of its graduates. At the same time, it was emails just such as this that I received all throughout my time as a graduate student that reinforced my belief in the "If You Do Everything Right..." myth.

I'd get these e-mails and think to myself, "If Another Recent Ph.D. can do it, I can, too. I've seen Another Recent Ph.D.'s CV, and mine already looks as good and will look even better by the time I go on the market." This went on for years, and I did see their CVs very early in the process and looked at them as models for what I needed to do. During the first semester after my proposal was approved, I participated in a dissertation workshop, of which professionalization was a part. In the workshop, they SHOWED us the CVs of people who had gotten jobs (and whose congratulatory emails I remembered seeing) and said, "This is what your CV needs to look like to be competitive. If it does, you, too, will get a job." The irony is that, during my last year, as I was essentially done with everything but the defense and on the market ABD, that year's workshop leader asked if ze could use MY CV as a model!! I guess because this was 2009; after the recession hit, there just weren't enough examples from those who had ACTUALLY gotten jobs. And they used to only send out these acknowledgments when people got tenure-track appointments...no shit, again, we're in a downward spiral here...

But I digress.

There are some other misleading things about these emails, too. Related further to the "If You Do Everything Right" myth is the fact that sending out these announcements without also acknowledging how many ABDs and recent Ph.D.s went on the market and DIDN'T get jobs in a given year effectively reinforces the fiction that the job market is functional. It'd also be really great if they'd say how many job seekers were, in any given year, adjuncting at Grad U., waiting for things to improve, because, you know, "it's a bad year."

Srsly. Have you ever heard anyone say of the academic job market recently that it's NOT a "bad year"?

The other thing, now that they've started sending these acknowledgments out when people get non-tenure-track jobs, is that graduate students don't tend to read past the expression of optimism -- "Another Recent Ph.D. got a job! Wow, our department has a really great placement rate!! I have a decent shot." Which is exactly the message they're supposed to get -- the message that, to cite my previous post, keeps 'em runnin' and keeps the department's adjunct pool overflowing with desperate yet hopeful job seekers. Of course, graduate students should know enough to look around their departments and read between the lines and recognize that there's some information missing. But that's hard to do when information is not forthcoming and you don't really know a whole lot of your colleagues. Once I was done with my coursework and was "promoted" (Hahahahahahahaha!) from TA to adjunct, I knew fewer and fewer of my colleagues. By my last semester, I hardly knew anyone except the 4 people I shared an office with. It wasn't until I looked up the numbers for this post and this post that I realized I had 94 adjunct colleagues (and that's not counting TAs).

Again, I digress.

The ratio of job seekers who get jobs vs. those who don't needs to be publicly visible, otherwise these nice, congratulatory e-mails merely offer false hope -- again and again and again.

*     *     *     *     *

The other thing you might not pay attention to if you were reading this most recent email as a graduate student is that, while Another Recent Ph.D. might be happy enough, it really isn't such a hot job. Depending on your perspective, it might not be any better than sticking around and adjuncting.

While I'm not against going abroad for jobs, if that suits you, this a visiting appointment, which means that in one year -- or two or three, depending on the length of the contract and whether it can be renewed -- Another Recent Ph.D. is going to be on the market again. Even if ze likes the idea of taking a job at Unpronounceable University in Unpronounceable, Obscure Province of Very Far Away Asian Country, how does ze effectively conduct hir next job search from over there? Consider the cost of having to fly back for interviews and campus visits, if ze were lucky enough to get them. And consider the lack of research resources ze might have to contend with. How does the dissertation-to-book process go when you don't have adequate resources, not because, like me, you are no longer "affiliated" but because your affiliation doesn't come with much and you are literally thousands of miles away from a library that could meet your needs? How does not being able to make much progress on research and publication make you a better candidate when you have to go on the market the next time?

What happens to Another Recent Ph.D. when this appointment ends and ze finds hirself back in the states in a year or two or three with no tenure-track job, little progress on research and publications, and out of touch with whatever potential nonacademic job contacts ze might have had before ze left?

Back to adjunctland.

I do hope things work out better for Another Recent Ph.D. I don't know hir personally, but I wish hir the best of luck with hir new job. Unfortunately, the odds are against hir. One thing is for sure, however: We will only find out if ze, in a year or two or three, moves on to another non-adjunct -- possibly tenure-track but not necessarily -- job, at which point, Polite and Encouraging but Clueless Department Chair will send out another nice message. But if ze ends up adjuncting or working as a secretary or unemployed in her parents' basement? We'll never know.

And that is just plain misleadingly unfair to graduate students who have the right to know -- from the people they ought to be able to trust -- what the profession they are hoping to enter holds in store for them, no matter how good they are and no matter how hard they try.

More Rat Corpses

Eh, the title was a warning you were going to get another image like this one. So, if you clicked and are now disgusted by this new one I almost stepped on today, it's your own fault:

Really, I don't know why I am taking pictures of dead rats and posting them on my blog. This latest one I'm finding even more revolting to look at than the first one I posted. I think it's bigger. It was only about half a block from where the other one was, and I'm going to get to watch it decompose all week unless I take a different route. Just like the other one.

Is there something metaphoric here? The first time I blogged about a dead rat, I wrote that, having left academe, I was finding myself looking down at grim, ratty reality rather than up at academe's idealistic fantasies and self-aggrandizing delusions er self-deceiving fictions or  -- what is the phrase I'm looking for here? Hairy ass Life of the mind or something like that...??

But, really, academics are no less subject to the rat race than anyone else. If anything, more so. Run run run run run. But where are you running to? A tenure track job? Heh. Not if you don't already have one. Promotion? Sure, go for it if you're already tt -- but, really, if you're tt, do you have a choice? And while tenure and promotion will certainly make your life at least a little better in terms of salary and job security, what about the future of the profession? In the long run, if those who have tenure now don't work harder to use the privilege of their position to both preserve and reform the profession, there won't be anything but adjuncts a generation from now.

Run run run run run.

There's been a lot of buzz this week about William Pannapacker's latest take on fixing graduate school in the humanities. (go to my previous post for the link if you haven't read it already -- I'm too lazy to link again), especially about how the "satisfaction" of doing work you like is supposed to compensate for exploitation -- for using people for scut work and then disposing of them before they've had a chance to prove their merit, for taking advantage of their over-motivated willingness to do "satisfying" work for a pittance only to close doors as soon as they've earned the credentials to walk through them, for being worse in so many ways than the rat race so many graduate students think they're escaping through the Ivory Tower.

Run run run run run.

So often when I think of academe these days, I'm reminded of the title character in Ellison's Invisible Man. Specifically, I'm reminded of the scene in the first chapter when he dreams about his grandfather and the briefcase with the sealed letter, supposedly a letter of recommendation. His grandfather tells him to open it. Inside there's just another sealed letter. He opens that one. And there's another. Eventually, he opens the last one. It says, "To Whom It May Concern ... Keep This N----- Boy Running."

And, if I've run too far astray from rats, there's also the opening scene from Native Son, in which Bigger Thomas kills the rat in his family's apartment only then to use its corpse to torment his sister:

Via

The meaning? Let me quote from one of our students' favorite sources for explanification of those awful, mean, tough, long books we (in my case, used to) assign:

Symbolically, the rat is as "trapped" in the apartment as the family is; both are eating nutritionally deficient "garbage," none may escape and both are ultimately vulnerable to vicious murder.

Well, OK, so I'm exaggerating. Of course, it isn't as bad today to be an aspiring academic as it was to be black and poor in mid-twentieth-century Chicago. But you get my point.

Run run run run run run run run run.

Academe traps us like the rats that inhabit so many decrepit grad student basement offices (and I've seen 'em, too -- big fat ones that stink when they die under couches and no one notices for a few days).

Until you realize you're a rat and there's nowhere left to go but out.

*     *     *     *     *

Stay tuned for updates, kids! It's gonna be real hot here this week, and that corpse is gonna be REAL pretty to look at by Friday.