Posted under O Canada & bad language & fluff & jobs
He’s mad as hell, and he’s not going to take it any more! (WARNING: the language is NSFW or children. Just sayin’.) Via The Daily Beast:
How many of us can relate to the “expert” in this video? “I spent my entire life attending the nation’s most prestigious schools to talk about bull$h!t like this. I’m really just happy to be on TV.” Awesome! Continue Reading »
Posted under jobs
In a post about having responsibility but no power in a new service task, Bardiac writes:
I’ve been asked to consider taking on a new responsibility here. It’s a responsibility that comes with a lot of responsibility, and relatively little power, though it’s very important that the job be done well and ethically. It involves working with folks who have tenure, organizing them to get certain tasks done.
. . . . . .
So, as a responsible person with relatively little power (I can’t fire these folks, affect their pay, or withhold special treats/privileges), what do you do when someone says “no” to doing their share of a group job?
In general, it’s a good policy to avoid assignments in which one would have all of the responsibility, but little or no authority. I have taken on major service tasks in which the responsibility-to-authority ratio was a little more evenly balanced–for example, I served as Graduate Studies Chair, and I served on the program committee of a major conference. (These jobs also kicked my butt–that was the responsibility side!) But in both of those jobs–as on the search committees I’ve been on–I got relatively immediate gratification. We hired a fine new colleagues/admitted some promising new graduate students/or put together a great conference program–and so I got to see what all of my work added up to within a year or so–and then it was done.
We all know that service tasks undertaken by the faculty are hardly ever recognized or rewarded with respect to our annual salary exercises or with respect to tenure and promotion. And yet, someone’s got to do the jobs in which the authority : responsibility ratio is all out of proportion. Continue Reading »
Posted under European history & conferences & jobs & publication & women's history
From the mailbag at Historiann HQ, a question about working outside the historical field in which one originally trained:
Dear Historiann,
I have a question about working outside one’s dissertation field, and wonder to what extent the topic of one’s dissertation dictates the career. Is it permanent? I am now working on a topic largely unrelated to my doctoral work, and I have already discovered this to be less-than-an-asset on the job market. For jobs in my dissertation field, any search committee would look askance at current project; for jobs in “current project field,” they will look askance at the dissertation. (Think: dissertation on revolutionary France, current project on Argentina).
To what extent are we defined by a choice of dissertation topic, even throughout our careers? I have heard people commenting about a very senior (famous) historian who wrote a recent book, saying “how can he work on Y? He’s a specialist on X!” (X being his doctoral subject). He completed his Ph.D. 30 years ago, and has written a number of books. My view is, surely he’s had time to become a specialist in some other field/s of history since then. But this view is obviously not shared by all in the discipline. Should a junior scholar wait til after tenure to bust out their “true historical passion?”
Signed,
Roving Renata
Renata, I agree with you that people in our profession can be extremely fussy and fuddy-duddy about switching fields and gaining new competencies. (And as someone who wrote a book that wasn’t a revision of her dissertation at all but was an entirely new project–well, let’s just say that I can relate to your anxieties.) People are unusually identified with their first books, especially if their first books were well received. I once had a colleague who was absolutely haunted by this. He once said to me, “it’s just agonizing to think that people will read my first book and think that that’s who I am as a scholar!” Continue Reading »
Posted under American history & Gender & bad language & childhood & jobs & wankers & women's history
These boots were made for kicking some a$$!
Hiya, folks! Hecksapoppin here–it’s warm and clear here on the High Plains Desert, so I have to pitch hay while the sun shines. Here are some ideas to keep you occupied while I’m out.
Posted under happy endings & jobs
Happy Monkey says congratulations!
In response to “Practicing collegiality, and what to do when it’s not returned,” onlooker writes,
Perhaps you have thoughts on this question: What if a [tenure-track Assistant Prof.] were to leave [a] post after [the] first year? Can one resign a TT position within a year (especially for a “more prestigious” school) without ruining . . . relationships with [hir] colleagues? Is moving quickly considered okay within the field at large or can it damage your professional reputation?
onlooker: I’m sure that taking a more prestigious job will only enhance your reputation as a rising star in your profession! But, I think you ask a really good question, which seems to boil down to “can I do this without seeming like I’m a complete jerk?” My answer is yes, of course–unless you want to look like a jerk. (I’ve done that–it’s fun! Especially when I delivered my big F.U. speech at the last faculty meeting I attended in my former job. But, I’m sure that others will want advice on how to make a more graceful exit.) Continue Reading »
Posted under jobs
How did that Gummi Bear get on the T & P Committee?
Female Science Professor had an interesting post earlier this week about a side-effect of tenure that bugs a lot of people: many faculty who were tenured and promoted under one set of standards are now responsible for applying a more demanding set of standards to today’s tenure and promotion candidates. (I freely confess that I’m one of them–I went up for tenure under the existing standards in my college, and a few years later, those standards were significantly revised and elevated.)
A not-uncommon complaint of tenure-track faculty, particularly during the tenure decision year, is that some of those who are deciding their Fate would not get tenure under today’s rather rigorous system of evaluation. How can the process be fair if people unqualified for tenure today participate in decisions about the tenure of others?
It’s a complicated question because, although the tenure bar has definitely been raised with time, you can’t know whether someone who had too-low-for-tenure-today productivity way back when would rise to the challenge of today’s standards or not.
FSP decides that ultimately this isn’t such a big problem, and I agree. There are jerks everywhere, and having an awesome record of publications and grants is no guarantee of sanity or reason in tenure votes. Continue Reading »
Posted under happy endings & jobs & unhappy endings
You know how there are no jobs in history this year? Well, unfortunately for me, my friends who are Associate Professors are finding jobs and leaving Colorado! I’m happy for them and all of the new challenges and opportunities that they’ll face in their new jobs and new lives, but really: where is their consideration? Clearly, they haven’t been thinking about me at all! Seriously: I’m looking at three friends moving out of state this summer, and a fourth friend who teaches here is shopping for apartments three states away! (This is why I’m posting a photo of the sad monkey today. The sad monkey is me!)
I’ve written here before about how the academic life’s peripatetic nature means always leaving friends behind. Well, I’m now officially the friend who is being left behind! I guess that’s a lesson to remember: things change even when you stay in place. I love having so many readers and commenters here–but it’s not like I can have a cup of coffee with you whenever I want to and get your advice about my research, or you could ask for my help with yours, or like I could walk your dogs for you, or stay up late with you over a bottle of wine.
There is a point to this post, aside from indulging my self-pity: Continue Reading »
Posted under European history & art & fluff & jobs & publication & students
Today we have in a letter from the mailbag at Historiann HQ some interesting questions about finding appropriate publication outlets for interdisciplinary work. We all say we support interdisciplinarity and admire it–and yet, scholars whose work is truly interdisciplinary have a damnably hard time finding jobs and appropriate outlets for their publication. Here, a young scholar wonders about the politics of attempting to publish an article in one field when she’ll one day be looking for a job in another discipline
Hi Historiann,
I’m a long time reader and lurker. I’m a history grad student with one toe in [a Closely Related Discipline, or CRD for short]. I did an intensive study of an unpublished collection [in CRD], which my committee is suggesting I publish separately from the dissertation because it’s heavy on details appreciated more by practitioners of CRD than history, and because getting an article out in grad school looks good.
The problem is, while “interdisciplinarity” is all the rage, I don’t know where to publish. I wanted to throw this out to someone outside my department and committee, because they’re starting to sound like an echo chamber. CRD journals seem like a good fit, but I’m worried that history department hiring committees won’t know what to make of an article that’s not published in a history journal. What kind of audience should a first article be aimed at? Do interdisciplinary journals really live up to their goals? Would it be better to go with a full on CRD journal and hope some historians read it, or try to pitch it to a history journal with interdisciplinary aspirations? How does one measure the “prestige” of the journal and their readership? (This is something my committee keeps telling me to keep in mind, but I have no idea what it means!) How does interdisciplinary work look to hiring committees? Will publishing in a CRD journal mark me as a bad fit for a history department hire, even if I have history conference CV lines?
Thanks for your help,
Interdisciplinary Eileen
Dear Eileen,
First of all, congratulations on having written something that your committee believes should be published. That is quite an achievement for a graduate student, and you should feel proud of your committee’s confidence in your work. Secondly, I think you’re worrying yourself unnecessarily about hypothetical problems. Continue Reading »
Posted under jobs
Undine writes that ze knows “where politeness dwells on the internets:”
But politeness does still exist–in professional email.
A few years ago, I started noticing that a number of academics didn’t just launch into requests or whatever when writing emails. Instead, the emails began with the sentence “I hope you are well” or another courteous phrase unheard of back in the olden days.
And the complimentary closes of the emails became more polite, too. Although a lot of people still apparently prefer “best,” I’ve seen comments at the Chronicle saying that this is too curt, and in the last couple of years, I’ve seen a lot more variety in this part of the email, too: “best regards,” “warm regards,” “all best,” “with best wishes,” “cordially,” and so on.
That’s my experience. I always err on the side of formality when e-mailing complete strangers, addressing people by titles and last names unless and until invited to do otherwise. And, it seems like this is the “house style” among professionals. As Undine writes, “I’m charmed by this politeness. It makes me feel as though I’m in a Jane Austen novel and am receiving a letter, not an email.” Continue Reading »
Posted under American history & bad language & jobs & wankers
Why do the Villagers hate politics?
I'll bust a cap in your a$$!
“The way Congress is working right now, I decided I could make a better contribution to my state and country on a smaller stage,” [Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan] Bayh told me Tuesday. “There are some ideologues in the Senate. There are some staunch partisans. The vast majority are good, decent people who are trapped in a system that does not let that goodness and decency translate itself into legislative accomplishments.”
When his father Birch Bayh was running for re-election in 1968, Bayh noted, Republican leader Everett Dirksen approached the Democrat on the Senate floor and asked how he could help. “It’s unthinkable today,” Bayh said. “One after another, the barriers to incivility get broken down.
Senators actively fundraise against their colleagues, they campaign against their colleagues and that is not conducive to consensus building if you know the people you have to work with want to do you in.”
Uhhh. . . call me crazy, but I don’t want Mitch McConnell raising money for Democratic Senators’ re-elections! It seems like the very definition of politics is that “the people you have to work with want to do you in.” Continue Reading »
