Archive for the 'jobs' Category

January 3rd 2012
Hey, philosophers: buy your own damn keg

Posted under Gender & jobs & unhappy endings

Fat, drunk, and stupid is apparently no barrier to a career in philosophy!

Via Inside Higher Ed, I learned today of the tradition of the “smoker” at the American Philosophical Association’s Eastern Division meeting:

Over the years, the reception at the APA eastern conference has functioned as a job fair of sorts, where, over free-flowing booze, candidates talk to potential employers.

For weeks, philosophy blogs had been alive with discussions about how women job candidates feel vulnerable at the reception, how some of them had been hit on as they talked to recruiters, and the sheer awkwardness of trying to navigate job interviews with a beer bottle in hand. While many disciplinary meetings feature departmental receptions, they tend to be for alumni gatherings and outreach as much as anything; the philosophy reception is one event where candidates say they are urged to schmooze simultaneously with hiring committees, random others, and competitors for the jobs they want.

Ugh–for all of the reasons that the women philosophers note in the linked blog posts above, of course.  But this is also clearly the bright idea of a profession in which the job market is almost entirely a buyers’ market rather than a sellers’ market.  As a tenured professor, I must admit that it would be a lot more fun for me to conduct quasi-interviews over cocktails instead of meeting in the pit in a drafty hotel basement with a sad water cooler the only refreshment.  It would also be a lot of fun for me to ask job candidates to wear silly hats, sing show tunes, and pass trays of hot appetizers of their own devise.  But then, the job interview process isn’t about me, is it?  Continue Reading »

31 Comments »

January 2nd 2012
New Year’s Roundup: Plus ca change edition

Posted under American history & bad language & childhood & class & Gender & jobs & unhappy endings & wankers & women's history

Hope your 2012 is Dy-No-Mite!

Well, friends, Happy New Year and all that crap.  We’re back home on the High Plains Desert, and it’s sunny and reaching into the 50s and 60s this week.  Fun!  I will miss feeling like Jaime Sommers running at sea level for the past two weeks, but it’s time to get back into running at 4,713 feet elevation-shape again.  While I’m out, here are a few linky-dinkies to keep you amused, if not informed. 

  • Kyle Smith of the New York Post asks, “Why do feminists reject their ultimate icon, Margaret Thatcher?”  Maybe the better question is why isn’t Margaret Thatcher a feminist?  “‘I owe nothing to women’s lib,’ Thatcher said, and at another point she remarked, ‘The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.’”  Duh.  I forgot:  feminists never do anything right, and everything is always our fault.  Women’s careers are never enabled by the work of previous generations of feminists–no, in fact women only profit by heaping scorn on feminism and feminists.
  • From the annals of it’s all mom’s fault:  this problem has a name, and it’s momYes, 1950s middle-class mothers, in addition to being blamed over the years for causing autism, “smothering” their children, and sending a generation of upper-middle class Easterners into a lifetime of psychotherapy, are now being blamed for Public Health Menace #1:  OBESITY!  Awesome!!!  Continue Reading »

28 Comments »

December 27th 2011
Lind on Hitchens and “public intellectuals” in America

Posted under American history & bad language & Gender & jobs

Michael Lind wonders about all of the praise lavished on the late Christopher Hitchens:

But though he played one on TV, Hitchens was not an intellectual, if the word has any meaning anymore. Those known by the somewhat awkward term “public intellectuals” can be based in the professoriate, the nonprofit sector, or journalism. They can even be politicians, like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But genuine intellectuals, as distinct from mere commentators or TV talking heads, need to meet two tests.

First, intellectuals need to produce some substantial works of scholarship, literature or rigorous reporting, distinct from the public affairs commentary for which they may be best known to a broad public. If you do nothing but review other people’s work or write brief columns or blog posts, it is easy to appear to be much smarter and erudite than you really are.

Second, genuine intellectuals base their interventions in public debate on the basis of some coherent view of the world. A dedication to rigorous and systematic reasoning, wherever it may lead, is what distinguishes intellectuals from lobbyists or partisan spin doctors who change their views according to the demands of a special interest or a party. It also distinguishes them from mere “contrarians” — the term Hitchens used to describe himself — who attract publicity by taking controversial stands according to their whims.

Hitchens left behind no substantial scholarly or literary work, and if he had any core principles or values they are hard to discern. He denounced the Gulf War and backed the Iraq War; he supported Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz while continuing to insist that Henry Kissinger was a war criminal. Continue Reading »

25 Comments »

December 8th 2011
Public History Ryan Gosling

Posted under American history & fluff & jobs & students

Via Leslie M-B at The Clutter Museum, we learn that someone has made a very funny mashup called Public History Ryan Gosling, in which said Gosling “seduces you with public history theory.”

Too funny.  But I must ask you:  Continue Reading »

24 Comments »

December 7th 2011
Plagiarists: I’d turn back if I were you!

Posted under childhood & jobs & students & unhappy endings

Nice use of the subjunctive, but please correct punctuation!

Tenured Radical offers more thoughts on academic honesty, plagiarism, and cheating this morning in the form of an imagined conversation with her imagined spawn as she sends the child back to college after Thanksgiving break to complete hir exams.  Go read, and send it on to your students.  Continue Reading »

20 Comments »

December 6th 2011
Plagiarists take warning!

Posted under bad language & jobs & students & unhappy endings

Make my day!

Flavia at Ferule and Fescue wrote recently about snagging some plagiarists in an upper-level class for majors, and she writes about how sad it makes her although of course she’s standing up for fairness and academic integrity.  Go read the whole thing, but here’s a little end of term/exam week plea for students:

[T]his is what I’d like to tell my plagiarists, and what I wish they’d hear and believe:

“You did something unethical, and you knew it was unethical; ‘giving you a break’ would be unfair to your classmates and it would be unfair to you; it’s my job to enforce academic standards and to see that you wrestle honestly with tough intellectual tasks. You’re selling yourself short when you think that you can’t come up with good ideas or write a good paper on your own. You will fail this class and the academic dishonesty charge will go on your record. Continue Reading »

21 Comments »

December 4th 2011
CV etiquette question: how much is TMI?

Posted under jobs

Classy Claude writes in with an interesting question:

Dear Historiann,

I’m just totally curious:

  • Should CVs include lists of places where one’s book has been reviewed?
  • Should CVs include lists of other articles/books that cite one’s own work?
  • Should CVs include lists of articles/media outlets where one has been interviewed?

I have seen all of these things recently and I was sort of shocked, but maybe this is the way of the future?  What do you and your readers think? 

Your Pal,

Classy Claude

Wow, Claude–I don’t think I’ve ever seen a CV quite like any of the ones that may be coming across your desk, but I haven’t been on a search committee since 2004-05, or in terms of the evolution of technology and trends in the profession, since the War of 1812Continue Reading »

40 Comments »

December 1st 2011
More thoughts on Penn State: a former insider’s view

Posted under American history & jobs & unhappy endings

Today’s guest post is from a former faculty member at Penn State.  Ze talks about the hierarchical administrative structure of the university, and wonders if it might be part of an explanation for why top administrators at Penn State made the catastrophically bad decision to harbor a child rapist and to conceal his crimes. 
 

Are u ready for some football?

I began my career at Penn State and spent seven years there, getting tenure, before I moved on.  It’s been awful to watch the events of the last month play out.

Most of the commentary about the child sex abuse allegations against the former football coach and the administrative failure to stop it have focused on the corrupting influence of football — on the health and safety of women and children; on academic affairs; on the budget as a whole.  These critiques are important.

But I never had a lot of contact with the football program.  No football player ever enrolled in one of my classes, but perhaps that was because of the courses I taught, which are about gender and poverty.  (Not so popular with male athletes?)  Football wasn’t a world I knew well.

I did, however, have contact with the university administration, and the way I see it, it deserves more attention in the analysis of what went wrong at Penn State. Continue Reading »

18 Comments »

November 28th 2011
Diane Ravitch: the only honest reformer, or an opportunitistic, grudge-bearing polemicist?

Posted under American history & Gender & jobs & students & women's history

Used and discarded by the king!

In “The Dissenter” in the current New Republic (h/t RealClearBooks), Kevin Carey has written a fascinating article on professional education reformer Diane Ravitch.  As many of you may recall, she has switched sides recently from being a conservative supporter of No Child Left Behind, charter schools, and vouchers, to identifying those very reforms as part of an intentional effort to “destroy” public education.

The whole portrait of Ravitch is worth the read.  Like many women of her generation (Ravitch was born in 1938), she achieved her graduate education only after marrying and starting a family.  Even then, she couldn’t win acceptance into Columbia’s doctoral program in History–she was deemed too old (at 34!) and too female.  But Carey makes it clear that hers is really the career of a polemicist, not an academic.  More important than graduate school is the fact that she volunteered for six years at The New Leader, “a small but influential publication of the anti-communist left, [where she] asked for a job. When the editor, Myron Kolatch, said he couldn’t afford to hire her, Ravitch offered to work for free.”  Carey continues:

The New Leader was where Ravitch received her true education. The small staff was crammed into one room on the fourth floor of an old building. Then and future luminaries like Daniel Bell and Nathan Glazer would drop by to turn in their latest essays; strong argument was prized. “This is where she learned how to write,” says Kolatch. Ravitch worked intermittently for The New Leader until 1967, when she took a part-time assignment from the nonprofit Carnegie Corporation to report on the city’s school system.  Continue Reading »

15 Comments »

November 26th 2011
Tenured Radical’s Top Ten Turkeys

Posted under American history & Gender & jobs & students

Go read–it’s one impressive feminist meta-analysis of what ails education at all levels, as well as a tasty linkfest.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with all of her turkeys, and then some.  (Go ahead–guess where she puts Linda P. B. Kathei, the UC Davis Chancellor.  Also, don’t miss the fact that she not only puts the eternally dopey U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on her list, she also co-nominates the man who elevated him to his eminent position, President Barack Obama.  So please, all of you who complain every time I write something you deem insufficiently worshipful of The One, go over to her comments section to b!tch for a change.)

Meanwhile–here’s something that’s worth 75 seconds of your time: Continue Reading »

6 Comments »

« Prev - Next »