About a year ago, at the end of fall semester 2010, I saw my adviser for the last time. I gave hir a nicely bound copy of my dissertation. Ze gave me a copy of hir recently published new book.
I have not read the book yet. No, not even skimmed the first chapter.
Now, to be clear, I had and still have a lot of respect for this professor. I like the way ze writes. Professor colleagues have described hir as someone "incapable of writing badly." I agree. Also, I chose to work with hir because I thought hir scholarship had more substance and less shit than ... the norm in my field.
So why have I not yet read the book? Two possible reasons come to mind:
1. I have subconsciously decided that academe, even at its best, is full of shit and not worth my time.
2. I have worked hard at distancing myself from something I once cared about a great deal over the last year and resist the danger of genuinely engaging as a mode of postacademic self-preservation.
Probably, it's some combination of the two.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
My Take on Academic Conferences
UPDATE: Apparently, according to this IHE article, my experience is not at all uncommon. But if you're reading this blog, you probably knew that already -- probably from your own "beer and circuses" conference experiences. And then there's this, too. How timely!
A few recent posts around the blogosphere, such as here and here, have exposed academic conferences for the expensive charades they often are. While my experiences differ somewhat from what others have written, I don't really disagree with their assessment. Here are some reasons why the conference I've been invited to and will present at this spring will most likely be my last:
Conferences really are too damned expensive to be paying for out-of-pocket, most especially if you are an underpaid graduate student or adjunct, since they are, for all practical purposes, "required" for furthering your academic career.
Didn't you just throw up a little in your mouth when I said "furthering your academic career"? Of course you did! In all seriousness, the only reason I participated in as many conferences as I did as a graduate student was I had funding. My department had a policy about allotting X dollars to each graduate student for X number of years to attend conferences IF AND ONLY IF you were presenting a paper. So, I presented a bunch of papers and got funding. When this source ran dry, I applied for outside travel grants and got them.
When I think about it in retrospect, what a waste! Providing travel funds to graduate students allowed the department to pat itself on the back for "supporting" us with what must have essentially been a mere drop in their budgetary bucket, certainly MUCH less than paying us a fair wage for teaching, while at the same time, in practical terms doing absolutely NOTHING to further our "careers." But I never would have gone without that "support," so I suppose I should be grateful, right? Right.
I will be paying for this upcoming conference out-of-pocket. Not a big deal, really. I can afford my own plane ticket and room, eat decent meals, and even buy myself a few drinks without draining my bank account. But ... if I had to absorb this expense every year, more than once a year ... on an adjunct's salary? Even an assistant prof's salary?? You've got to be kidding. What would be the point, if not "furthering your career"? Intellectual development? Yeah. I just threw up in my mouth a little more ...
Conference papers can be quite good but mostly are quite bad ... and what's the point anyway?
I've heard some astonishingly good papers over the years, papers that entertained, papers that made me think in ways I'd never thought before, papers that set my brain on fire through the sheer power and play of language. Papers that just plain blew my mind. But ... a lot of papers put me to sleep, too. More often than not, conference papers are less than brilliant.
Personally, I've been on both sides of the good/bad paper divide. I know well the time and effort it takes to write a paper that puts people on the edges of their chairs, a paper praised by a leading scholar in your field, a paper that leads to a publication. All of those things have happened to me. But I've also pulled papers out of my ass the night before I left town for the conference. Those papers were terrible. No doubt I put a few people to sleep. No doubt a few sensitive souls were embarrassed on my behalf.
My point, though, is this: What's the difference? Nobody cares if you read a boring paper. They'd just as soon sleep or surreptitiously pull out their laptops and work on their own papers anyway, pretending they're taking notes. On the other hand, if you read a brilliant paper, you'll certainly feel better about yourself ... you'll receive praise and possibly publication invitations. But none of this will lead to a job in academe. Simply going to "share ideas" may leave you intellectually enriched (wait, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth again!!), but you won't be able to appreciate your intellectual enrichment properly because you'll also be just plain broke.
Social events at conferences bring out the worst in the type of socially challenged people one often finds among academics.
I usually hide out in my hotel room and avoid these things like the plague. At the last conference I attended, I made the mistake of going to one. There was an open bar. Actually several. On my third drink, I found myself in a conversation with the chair of one panel I had presented on and a fellow presenter from my other panel (yes, I presented on two panels at the same conference and was loopy with the excitement of it all ... which is why I went to the reception ...). So, I'm talking to these people, and, as the alcoholic fog begins to clear, I realize that BOTH of them are A) drunker than I am and B) hitting on me. WTF?!? And, as if that weren't awkward enough, one is a man and the other a woman, and they ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF EACH OTHER so as to have my undivided attention. And (!!?) just as this is occurring to me, to my horror, I also realize a member of my committee (this is pre-defense, mind you), possibly drunker than all of us, has been watching the entire spectacle for god only knows how long. You better believe I excused myself and got the f#$k away from there as fast as I possibly could.
Hopefully, at the upcoming conference, I will have the sense to remind myself of this travesty and avoid similar situations. But, then again, who cares? Since I am no longer under the delusion that such "networking" will further my career, why not enjoy the free booze? Lecherous colleagues and leering committee members be damned.
A few recent posts around the blogosphere, such as here and here, have exposed academic conferences for the expensive charades they often are. While my experiences differ somewhat from what others have written, I don't really disagree with their assessment. Here are some reasons why the conference I've been invited to and will present at this spring will most likely be my last:
Conferences really are too damned expensive to be paying for out-of-pocket, most especially if you are an underpaid graduate student or adjunct, since they are, for all practical purposes, "required" for furthering your academic career.
Didn't you just throw up a little in your mouth when I said "furthering your academic career"? Of course you did! In all seriousness, the only reason I participated in as many conferences as I did as a graduate student was I had funding. My department had a policy about allotting X dollars to each graduate student for X number of years to attend conferences IF AND ONLY IF you were presenting a paper. So, I presented a bunch of papers and got funding. When this source ran dry, I applied for outside travel grants and got them.
When I think about it in retrospect, what a waste! Providing travel funds to graduate students allowed the department to pat itself on the back for "supporting" us with what must have essentially been a mere drop in their budgetary bucket, certainly MUCH less than paying us a fair wage for teaching, while at the same time, in practical terms doing absolutely NOTHING to further our "careers." But I never would have gone without that "support," so I suppose I should be grateful, right? Right.
I will be paying for this upcoming conference out-of-pocket. Not a big deal, really. I can afford my own plane ticket and room, eat decent meals, and even buy myself a few drinks without draining my bank account. But ... if I had to absorb this expense every year, more than once a year ... on an adjunct's salary? Even an assistant prof's salary?? You've got to be kidding. What would be the point, if not "furthering your career"? Intellectual development? Yeah. I just threw up in my mouth a little more ...
Conference papers can be quite good but mostly are quite bad ... and what's the point anyway?
I've heard some astonishingly good papers over the years, papers that entertained, papers that made me think in ways I'd never thought before, papers that set my brain on fire through the sheer power and play of language. Papers that just plain blew my mind. But ... a lot of papers put me to sleep, too. More often than not, conference papers are less than brilliant.
Personally, I've been on both sides of the good/bad paper divide. I know well the time and effort it takes to write a paper that puts people on the edges of their chairs, a paper praised by a leading scholar in your field, a paper that leads to a publication. All of those things have happened to me. But I've also pulled papers out of my ass the night before I left town for the conference. Those papers were terrible. No doubt I put a few people to sleep. No doubt a few sensitive souls were embarrassed on my behalf.
My point, though, is this: What's the difference? Nobody cares if you read a boring paper. They'd just as soon sleep or surreptitiously pull out their laptops and work on their own papers anyway, pretending they're taking notes. On the other hand, if you read a brilliant paper, you'll certainly feel better about yourself ... you'll receive praise and possibly publication invitations. But none of this will lead to a job in academe. Simply going to "share ideas" may leave you intellectually enriched (wait, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth again!!), but you won't be able to appreciate your intellectual enrichment properly because you'll also be just plain broke.
Social events at conferences bring out the worst in the type of socially challenged people one often finds among academics.
I usually hide out in my hotel room and avoid these things like the plague. At the last conference I attended, I made the mistake of going to one. There was an open bar. Actually several. On my third drink, I found myself in a conversation with the chair of one panel I had presented on and a fellow presenter from my other panel (yes, I presented on two panels at the same conference and was loopy with the excitement of it all ... which is why I went to the reception ...). So, I'm talking to these people, and, as the alcoholic fog begins to clear, I realize that BOTH of them are A) drunker than I am and B) hitting on me. WTF?!? And, as if that weren't awkward enough, one is a man and the other a woman, and they ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF EACH OTHER so as to have my undivided attention. And (!!?) just as this is occurring to me, to my horror, I also realize a member of my committee (this is pre-defense, mind you), possibly drunker than all of us, has been watching the entire spectacle for god only knows how long. You better believe I excused myself and got the f#$k away from there as fast as I possibly could.
Hopefully, at the upcoming conference, I will have the sense to remind myself of this travesty and avoid similar situations. But, then again, who cares? Since I am no longer under the delusion that such "networking" will further my career, why not enjoy the free booze? Lecherous colleagues and leering committee members be damned.
* * * * *
In all seriousness, I will do my best to write a "good" paper rather than one that puts people to sleep, and paying my own way for once will help me better appreciate why this will likely be my last conference.
 |
| If you're still having conference envy, want a good laugh, and haven't read this book yet, I highly recommend it. |
Monday, December 19, 2011
Your Monday Funny (Er, Gallows Humor)
I can confirm this firsthand. When I was in graduate school, Peaches went through a stint of unemployment. I was teaching 3 classes, working on my dissertation, going to conferences, getting my first peer-reviewed article published ... the whole academic 9 yards. My entire monthly adjunct salary was ... not enough to cover our mortgage payments. You know how much Peaches got for sitting around all day playing computer games and waiting for recruiters to call? Enough to pay the mortgage. And the recruiters? They did call, and he got another job soon enough. Me? Well, you know the rest of my story ...
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Another Postacademic Blog
While the author of Songwriters on Process does not expressly identify himself as a postacademic, he is, in fact, just that. Here's someone with a Ph.D. in English, someone who actually had a tenure-track job which he left several years ago, someone who currently has a nonacademic job he likes that lets him use skills he developed as an academic, and a blog where he writes about the art of writing. What more could a former English prof, who gave up academe to live in a vibrant city and make a decent income, ask for?
So, go on over there and check out the blog. The substance of the blog posts may not be of special interest to postacademics who aren't into music or songwriting, but, given the memes of encouragement and looking ahead that have been going around lately, it might be valuable to take a peek into the life of someone who's a few years ahead of us in this postacademic adventure. Here's someone who left academe gladly and willingly. Even though he was "one of the lucky ones" like Amanda Kraus with a tenure-track job, he saw through the bullshit and got the hell out. Here's someone who is now a happy and successful postacademic. In a few years -- hopefully sooner! (and some of us already!!) -- we will be, too.
So, go on over there and check out the blog. The substance of the blog posts may not be of special interest to postacademics who aren't into music or songwriting, but, given the memes of encouragement and looking ahead that have been going around lately, it might be valuable to take a peek into the life of someone who's a few years ahead of us in this postacademic adventure. Here's someone who left academe gladly and willingly. Even though he was "one of the lucky ones" like Amanda Kraus with a tenure-track job, he saw through the bullshit and got the hell out. Here's someone who is now a happy and successful postacademic. In a few years -- hopefully sooner! (and some of us already!!) -- we will be, too.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Nonacademic Jobs That Require Academic Credentials
Every now and then I poke around the interwebs to see what's out there for postacademcis. I'm not talking about the many, many more jobs out there, like my current one, that any postacademic could do but which do not require academic credentials. I'm talking about the ones that actually want you to have that alphabet soup after your name, even if what you'd be doing isn't exactly what you taught to undergrads or wrote your dissertation about.
My sense is that people in the social sciences and in history (and, of course, the hard sciences) have a better shot at finding such a position (because there are more positions out there demanding their particular background) than those of us in literature and languages or other humanities fields. But, my point in this post is to suggest, especially to those of you still inside academe and trying to figure out an exit strategy, that you should do some research. Besides learning what employers want regardless of whether you have a PhD or not, spend some time figuring out what employers want from job seekers WITH PhDs and see if you can position yourself from the beginning of your nonacademic job search to give it to them.
To get you thinking positively, below is an ad for a position I stumbled on today. It's for someone with a social sciences background, so I won't be applying for it. However, it is still an open position. Go for it if the qualifications sound like you and you are ready to make the leap!
You DO have options out there besides eternal adjuncthood and Starbucks, sometimes seemingly your only options yet a false, terrifying, and utterly misguided and reductive dichotomy if ever there was one!
My sense is that people in the social sciences and in history (and, of course, the hard sciences) have a better shot at finding such a position (because there are more positions out there demanding their particular background) than those of us in literature and languages or other humanities fields. But, my point in this post is to suggest, especially to those of you still inside academe and trying to figure out an exit strategy, that you should do some research. Besides learning what employers want regardless of whether you have a PhD or not, spend some time figuring out what employers want from job seekers WITH PhDs and see if you can position yourself from the beginning of your nonacademic job search to give it to them.
To get you thinking positively, below is an ad for a position I stumbled on today. It's for someone with a social sciences background, so I won't be applying for it. However, it is still an open position. Go for it if the qualifications sound like you and you are ready to make the leap!
Job Title: Item Development Associate/Analyst
Overview:
The [Organization's Name] is a not-for-profit behavioral and social science research organization founded in 1946. {Organization's] Federal Statistics Program (FSP) assists its government client by providing technical support and content expertise in the management, implementation, and reporting of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know in various subject areas. We are currently seeking an Item Development Associate/Analyst for an upcoming project in the development of the NAEP background questionnaires.
Responsibilities:
In conjunction with assessments of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-graders’ knowledge in different subject areas, background questionnaires are completed by students, teachers, and school administrators. The questionnaires cover topics such as demographics, course taking, teacher education and training, class-room organization, instruction, and school characteristics and policies. The data are collected using self-administered paper-and-pencil and computer-based modes. The Item Development Associate/Analyst will work closely with FSP’s item development team, the client, and contractors to ensure that data collected by the NAEP background questionnaires are accurate, valid, and will provide relevant information for national and state policy makers, researchers, educators, and the general public.
Well, as I said, being a lit. rather than a soc. person (and not really looking right now anyway), this particular job isn't for me, but there are other jobs out there if you do your research. I just wanted to give you a positive nudge today and a glimmer of REASONABLE hope (as opposed to the totally unreasonable bs kind you get inside academe about tt jobs).Responsibilities:
• Assist in the development of student, teacher, and school background questionnaires by reviewing and providing comments on background questionnaire items for different subjects and grade levels
• Keep up with the latest research on item writing, both computer-based and paper-and-pencil, as well as issues related to multi-mode data collections
• Review and evaluate item performance using data from past assessments
• Participate in meetings with clients and other contractors
• Review and provide comments on cognitive laboratory samples and protocols
• Observe cognitive laboratory sessions and operational data collections if requested
• Conduct studies related to data quality
Qualifications: • A Master’s degree or Ph.D. in survey methodology, education, sociology, or other social sciences
• Prior experience writing items for surveys (either paper or online) is required
• Familiarity with large-scale assessment and basic statistics
• Excellent oral and written communication skills
• Ability to work independently and as a member of a team
• Detail-oriented and able to produce high-quality work within tight deadlines
• Proficiency with MS Office
• Familiarity with SAS, Stata, or SPSS
Writing samples and transcripts may be required of candidates selected to interview.
You DO have options out there besides eternal adjuncthood and Starbucks, sometimes seemingly your only options yet a false, terrifying, and utterly misguided and reductive dichotomy if ever there was one!
 |
| Via, an article about job prospects aimed mostly at undergrads, but the takeaway for grad students planning to stick it out for another semester or year is that you might seriously want to consider getting an internship rather than teaching an extra class. |
Thursday, December 8, 2011
"Real World" Lessons from Academe: Back It Up, Bub
A series of frantic phone calls and emails exchanged today:
Think Tank Boss: "recent Ph.D., we need you to do some research. Think Tank Project Director put out a press release on Subject X and is now being harassed by Politifact to back up what ze said. TTPD needs sources ASAP that argue in favor of Subject X."
Me: "Sure, no problem."
Think Tank Boss: "And get sources that are NOT from the industry association that supports Subject X. Those could be considered biased."
Me: "Sure, no problem."
So, I go poking around Google and then Google Scholar (since I no longer have remote access to the databases at Grad U) and a few other places. Subject X is not really all THAT controversial, and Think Tank Project Director hasn't said anything particularly novel about it. And I have no trouble finding some peer-reviewed sources that back hir up. All I can access, though, without either paying money for one-time use or going up to Grad U, are abstracts. Possibly this is good enough, and so I forward the abstracts, appropriately highlighted, along to Think Tank Project Director.
TTPD to me on the phone minutes later: "Oh, this is great! Thanks for sending this along, but is there any way we can get the full documents? This Politifact reporter is seriously on my case. Ze is just LOOKING for something to catch me on. I already sent hir my original sources, but ze rejected them, because they were all either industry publications or just abstracts, like the ones you sent. Ze wants to know I have actually USED good sources to back up what I said."
Me: "Well, I can go up to Grad U and get the full text for you. Or, the quickest way to get it, if you want to pay the $30 per article the web database services are charging, you can download them yourself right now."
TTPD sending off sparks across the phone wires, bristling at the Politifact reporter for having the audacity to ... check facts: "Oh, no, I don't want to send you all the way up to Grad U for this. I'm sure you have other things to do in the office."
Me: "I wouldn't mind at all. I'm always eager for an excuse to go to the library."
TTPD: "No, no. You said I could pay to get these? How do I do that?"
I explain how to do that and we hang up. Fifteen minutes later, TTPD calls again.
TTPD: "You know, I'm here today at Southern State's statehouse, and they have a library, and it seems the library subscribes to the journals. And I found the articles right here in bound volumes on the shelves! So, I'm just going to, I think, make copies and scan them and send them to the reporter!"
Me: "Great. Glad you found what you needed. Hope it does the job."
Libraries. Wow! Who knew that's where you were supposed to go do your research? Ideally, you should do it, you know, BEFORE you turn in a paper or ... put out a press release, but, hey, better late than never.
Think Tank Boss: "recent Ph.D., we need you to do some research. Think Tank Project Director put out a press release on Subject X and is now being harassed by Politifact to back up what ze said. TTPD needs sources ASAP that argue in favor of Subject X."
Me: "Sure, no problem."
Think Tank Boss: "And get sources that are NOT from the industry association that supports Subject X. Those could be considered biased."
Me: "Sure, no problem."
So, I go poking around Google and then Google Scholar (since I no longer have remote access to the databases at Grad U) and a few other places. Subject X is not really all THAT controversial, and Think Tank Project Director hasn't said anything particularly novel about it. And I have no trouble finding some peer-reviewed sources that back hir up. All I can access, though, without either paying money for one-time use or going up to Grad U, are abstracts. Possibly this is good enough, and so I forward the abstracts, appropriately highlighted, along to Think Tank Project Director.
TTPD to me on the phone minutes later: "Oh, this is great! Thanks for sending this along, but is there any way we can get the full documents? This Politifact reporter is seriously on my case. Ze is just LOOKING for something to catch me on. I already sent hir my original sources, but ze rejected them, because they were all either industry publications or just abstracts, like the ones you sent. Ze wants to know I have actually USED good sources to back up what I said."
Me: "Well, I can go up to Grad U and get the full text for you. Or, the quickest way to get it, if you want to pay the $30 per article the web database services are charging, you can download them yourself right now."
TTPD sending off sparks across the phone wires, bristling at the Politifact reporter for having the audacity to ... check facts: "Oh, no, I don't want to send you all the way up to Grad U for this. I'm sure you have other things to do in the office."
Me: "I wouldn't mind at all. I'm always eager for an excuse to go to the library."
TTPD: "No, no. You said I could pay to get these? How do I do that?"
I explain how to do that and we hang up. Fifteen minutes later, TTPD calls again.
TTPD: "You know, I'm here today at Southern State's statehouse, and they have a library, and it seems the library subscribes to the journals. And I found the articles right here in bound volumes on the shelves! So, I'm just going to, I think, make copies and scan them and send them to the reporter!"
Me: "Great. Glad you found what you needed. Hope it does the job."
* * * * *
 |
| Via |
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mad World
You might imagine the world of work outside academe is a "mad world," where
Tears for Fears wrote the original song. Alex Parks covered it more recently. I like the Gary Jules version:
No one ever said any of this living business was easy ... If you're starting to think you're crazy because things no longer seem to be what everybody else says they should be, possibly it's because you're starting to perceive things closer to how they really are ...
And you wouldn't be entirely wrong. But academe has its own share of "sorrow" and "no tomorrow," and, if you've found your way to this blog, you, too, probably "find it hard to take/When people run in circles."All around [you] are familiar faces
Worn out places, worn out faces
Bright and early for the daily races
Going nowhere, going nowhere
Tears for Fears wrote the original song. Alex Parks covered it more recently. I like the Gary Jules version:
No one ever said any of this living business was easy ... If you're starting to think you're crazy because things no longer seem to be what everybody else says they should be, possibly it's because you're starting to perceive things closer to how they really are ...
Monday, December 5, 2011
Shoulda Coulda Woulda
One thing us postacademics get really tired of hearing really quickly is some version of the following:
I just shake my head at both sides. Sure, the "I don't get it" crowd has a point, but, rationally speaking, if so many otherwise intelligent people are continuing to ignore obvious signs that graduate school is a trap, there must be more to it.
There IS more to it. Consider:
Prospective (and, indeed, current) graduate students get a lot of conflicting information and mixed messages they aren't really equipped to sort through. For example, the student might have read some articles in Inside Higher Ed or the Chronicle (or any number of mainstream publications) that talk about the dearth of academic jobs and what a big waste it is getting a Ph.D. To a nonacademic with no graduate school inclinations like my acquaintance, this is both the only information they have and the only information they think they need to be able to pass judgment on someone like Crazy Friend.
But the aspiring student has a host of other information -- some of it quite personal -- to grapple with. There is the praise from undergraduate professors, some of it no doubt truly misleading the student to believe they are the "special" exception -- a standout even among those talented enough, passionate and committed enough, to be distinguished from the masses. Of course, this praise does nothing but perpetuate the myth of meritocracy. Even if your undergrad profs are right about your talent (and ... well-meaning as they might be, they're probably wrong), how good you are only matters when How Good You Are Matters matters more than How Well You Fit Based on the Frantic Review of 600 Candidates Right Before Finals (all of whom were similarly praised and encouraged by their undergrad profs years ago).
So, if students can depersonalize praise and be objective, they would less likely fall into the trap, but most people would have a hard time doing that -- and the naysayers would, too, if they were on the receiving end of this encouragement and had an interest in further academic pursuits.
Also, the strong interest in further academic pursuits itself leads even those not drunk on their undergrad advisers' praise to believe "facts" and "statistics" about job placement rates used by departments to promote their graduate programs. Speaking personally, this was one of the largest factors clouding my judgment. Since a few years had passed between the time I finished undergrad and started grad school, I had some distance (like acquaintance's Crazy Friend). Rather than overzealous praise, my own desire to succeed in a profession I cared about, coupled with more disciplined work habits and more general maturity than the typical 22-year-old entering a grad program, led me to choose a program that, while not the most prestigious, for one thing, had what appeared to be a very robust number of job placements.
In other words, I DID look at career prospects. The larger picture represented in the media told one story, but the program I'd been accepted to and looked forward to attending told another. And this was 10 years ago, when the kind of information readily available today to anyone with Internet access wasn't out there -- was either not collected (and, in many cases, still isn't) or was misrepresented (i.e. placements are meaningless unless you know how many others who started the program the same year have since either dropped out or are working as adjuncts). At the beginning and throughout my time as a graduate student, I repeatedly heard announcements of tenure-track job placements, along with yearly totals that seemed impressive .......... impressive, that is, until several years in I started observing how many others the department was simply retaining as adjuncts, with and without the Ph.D., and how many just walked away, just disappeared without a trace to become postacademics. My understanding of who adjuncts were -- and how many of them my own department employed -- was limited by my experience. During the first few years, I saw them as failures, if I saw them at all. Duh, why weren't they following all the CV-building advice I was and publishing and presenting at conferences? But later ... well, who knew there were so many? And who knew so many of them were there due to no lack of competence on their part? They were doing the same things junior faculty on the tenure track were doing (they had to in order to stay competitive for tenure track jobs elsewhere); the university simply wasn't acknowledging it.
A very large department like the one at Grad U depends on a significant degree of invisibility, whether deliberately reinforced or not, to make the kinds of claims it makes about job placement that allow them to recruit and retain people like me -- and probably like you, too.
To be fair, I don't hear this, personally, all that often. But just the other day, an acquaintance was telling me about a friend, somebody still in her 20s but gainfully employed as a journalist, who is seriously considering going for a Ph.D. in the humanities. "I just don't get it," my acquaintance (who does not have a higher ed background and never considered graduate school) says to me,If I were in your shoes, I NEVER would have made the mistake of going to graduate school. Everybody knows there are no jobs in academe, and nobody in their right mind should spend that much time, effort, and money on education and professional training that will NEVER pay off with a job. I just can't understand why so many otherwise smart people make such a stupid choice.
I keep pointing out to Crazy Friend there aren't any jobs and, like, why would she quit the job she already has and borrow money to go for a useless degree? That's just mind-warpingly unfathomable. Is Crazy Friend being willfully ignorant? As far as I can tell, you'd have to be. I really just don't get why people just shut themselves off from what they don't want to hear and believe. The facts are pretty stark.And there's no shortage of articles, news stories, and blogs telling everyone that cares to listen that going to graduate school in the humanities is a bad idea. Why don't people listen to reason? I told my friend not to go, but she won't listen. She wants to be a professor.
 | ||
| Via |
There IS more to it. Consider:
Prospective (and, indeed, current) graduate students get a lot of conflicting information and mixed messages they aren't really equipped to sort through. For example, the student might have read some articles in Inside Higher Ed or the Chronicle (or any number of mainstream publications) that talk about the dearth of academic jobs and what a big waste it is getting a Ph.D. To a nonacademic with no graduate school inclinations like my acquaintance, this is both the only information they have and the only information they think they need to be able to pass judgment on someone like Crazy Friend.
But the aspiring student has a host of other information -- some of it quite personal -- to grapple with. There is the praise from undergraduate professors, some of it no doubt truly misleading the student to believe they are the "special" exception -- a standout even among those talented enough, passionate and committed enough, to be distinguished from the masses. Of course, this praise does nothing but perpetuate the myth of meritocracy. Even if your undergrad profs are right about your talent (and ... well-meaning as they might be, they're probably wrong), how good you are only matters when How Good You Are Matters matters more than How Well You Fit Based on the Frantic Review of 600 Candidates Right Before Finals (all of whom were similarly praised and encouraged by their undergrad profs years ago).
So, if students can depersonalize praise and be objective, they would less likely fall into the trap, but most people would have a hard time doing that -- and the naysayers would, too, if they were on the receiving end of this encouragement and had an interest in further academic pursuits.
Also, the strong interest in further academic pursuits itself leads even those not drunk on their undergrad advisers' praise to believe "facts" and "statistics" about job placement rates used by departments to promote their graduate programs. Speaking personally, this was one of the largest factors clouding my judgment. Since a few years had passed between the time I finished undergrad and started grad school, I had some distance (like acquaintance's Crazy Friend). Rather than overzealous praise, my own desire to succeed in a profession I cared about, coupled with more disciplined work habits and more general maturity than the typical 22-year-old entering a grad program, led me to choose a program that, while not the most prestigious, for one thing, had what appeared to be a very robust number of job placements.
In other words, I DID look at career prospects. The larger picture represented in the media told one story, but the program I'd been accepted to and looked forward to attending told another. And this was 10 years ago, when the kind of information readily available today to anyone with Internet access wasn't out there -- was either not collected (and, in many cases, still isn't) or was misrepresented (i.e. placements are meaningless unless you know how many others who started the program the same year have since either dropped out or are working as adjuncts). At the beginning and throughout my time as a graduate student, I repeatedly heard announcements of tenure-track job placements, along with yearly totals that seemed impressive .......... impressive, that is, until several years in I started observing how many others the department was simply retaining as adjuncts, with and without the Ph.D., and how many just walked away, just disappeared without a trace to become postacademics. My understanding of who adjuncts were -- and how many of them my own department employed -- was limited by my experience. During the first few years, I saw them as failures, if I saw them at all. Duh, why weren't they following all the CV-building advice I was and publishing and presenting at conferences? But later ... well, who knew there were so many? And who knew so many of them were there due to no lack of competence on their part? They were doing the same things junior faculty on the tenure track were doing (they had to in order to stay competitive for tenure track jobs elsewhere); the university simply wasn't acknowledging it.
A very large department like the one at Grad U depends on a significant degree of invisibility, whether deliberately reinforced or not, to make the kinds of claims it makes about job placement that allow them to recruit and retain people like me -- and probably like you, too.
* * * * *
There's a lot more to say on this subject, but this post is long enough for today. The bottom line is that there's a bigger picture the Shoulda Coulda Woulda naysayers outside academe aren't privy to. Take responsibility for your choices, but don't let anyone get away with telling you you're stupid for not doing your research before you got into this mess. It's more complicated than what some pundit writes for a general audience, however much truth she or he may tell.
Next time: Two very different ways of thinking about why academe NEEDS people who put their love for the pursuit of knowledge first and their best interests career-wise last ...
Sunday, December 4, 2011
fucken facebook
Every now and then, I get a cluster of hits from somewhere on fucken facebook because one of you crazy readers linked to some post or other.
I have expressed my loathing for facebook before and the lemming-like behavior it seems to generate among otherwise intelligent and/or decent people.
While I am mildly curious who is linking to me, I am not curious enough to join to find out. Grow a pair and leave a comment already!
I have expressed my loathing for facebook before and the lemming-like behavior it seems to generate among otherwise intelligent and/or decent people.
While I am mildly curious who is linking to me, I am not curious enough to join to find out. Grow a pair and leave a comment already!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)