Archive for the 'jobs' Category

June 7th 2014
Education round-up: the suck it up edition

Posted under American history & jobs & local news & students & technoskepticism & unhappy endings

cowgirlbroncobestedFriendly greeting!  Comments on the local weather, and humorous story about my weekend plans.  Here we go:

  • Denver second grade teacher Austen Kassinger says that struggle is inherent to learning, and that parents need to push their children to achieve by owning that struggle.  After spending an entire evening working through five long-division problems in fourth grade, her mother told her to figure it out:  “No, she did not think the assignment was unfair. No, she would not write a note to Mrs. Hall. And no, I absolutely could not stay home from school. Thus went her long-standing policy for schoolwork: If my sisters or I didn’t understand something, it was our job, not hers, to talk to the teacher. . . .I wonder what would have happened if my mother had taken the approach of the comedian Louis C.K., whose tweets about his children’s homework recently went viral: ‘Yet again I must tell my kid ‘don’t answer it. It’s a bad question.’ ’ ‘Who is writi[n]g these? And why?” “My kids used to love math. Now it makes them cry. Thanks standardized testing and common core!’ My mother could have said some version of those things in response to my meltdown, but she didn’t. She chose not to blame the question, or the teacher, or the test. And because of her steady insistence that if I took ownership of my learning, I could master any subject, I recovered from long division and went on to take AP calculus, multivariable calculus and linear algebra — in high school.”
  • This is the chief complaint I hear from K-12 teachers:  lack of parental support for their work, or even resentment that parents undermine the standards they have set for their students.  Yes, the same parents who make sure their children get to soccer and football practices and games on time, and force their entire families to eat crappy food and live in the backs of their minivans and SUVs to do so.  I just don’t understand the priorities of my fellow Americans.  At all.
  • Dartmouth digital humanist Mary Flanagan writes about the power and the overwhelming distraction of laptops and other personal digital devices in class.  She has encouraged the use of digital technologies in her classes to good effect, “[b]ut most days, there will come a time where faculty or guest speakers actually speak, or dialogue happens or provocative points are raised. It is then that students with technology-control issues immediately check out and check into Facebook or online games or shoe shopping. Unless they are directly involved in a hands-on activity for which they will be accountable in public by the end of class, it is much easier to give in to the presence of technology and lose the experience of direct engagement.”
  • Do you ban the use of tablets, laptops, and/or phones in your classes?  I have a blanket statement on my syllabus about not using digital devices to distracting ends in class, but I haven’t banned them outright.  A few of my students every semester buy e-books and use their Kindles or tablets in class to access them as well as PDFs of assigned articles and primary sources.  This year, several students have used their phones for this purpose as well.  As for laptops, it’s only a few students at my university who use them in class, and my experience is that it’s both some of the high performers and some of the low performers who use laptops in class.  That is, they work well for very organized and dedicated students, and they serve as vehicles for distraction for others.  I have been of the opinion that it’s up to students to pay attention, or not–remembering full well all of the means by which I used to distract myself in college classes nearly 30 years ago.  Also, if students are distracted by someone else’s laptop or tablet, it’s up to them to find a seat in which they can learn.  But now I’m starting to think that digital distraction may play a role in the poor performance of my two most recent classes, and that I may need to start banning laptops.

Continue Reading »

26 Comments »

May 30th 2014
Would I do it tomorrow?

Posted under conferences & happy endings & jobs & weirdness

Why did I agree to do this?

Why did I agree to do this?

Great advice for academics planning next year’s conference and travel schedule, from David Plotz of Slate:

What an honor! You have been asked to appear on a panel, to keynote a conference, to advise a celebrity, to be publically acclaimed. Perhaps you have been offered a plump check. Perhaps you’ve even been promised a prize! Of course you’re flattered. Of course you accept, because you have so much time to prepare. After all, this thing isn’t happening until October. It’s next year. It’s in 2018. It’s so far in the future, you’ll probably be dead by then.

You’ve made a terrible mistake.

Here’s what will happen. Though the engagement seems infinitely far away today, it will eventually, inevitably, be a week away. Then it’s a day away. And you still haven’t written the speech you need to write. You still have to make a hotel reservation and buy a train ticket and find a baby sitter and apologize to your sister for missing her birthday dinner and beg Dan to cover for you in a meeting. (Sorry, Dan.) The opportunity that sparkled so brightly when they flattered you into it six months ago isn’t gleaming anymore. It’s just a gigantic hassle.

Continue Reading »

14 Comments »

May 29th 2014
Brisk winds from the archives, or, a publicly engaged historian at work on Roe, Brown, and the Christian right

Posted under American history & Gender & jobs & race & wankers & women's history

impeachearlwarren

Drop whatever you’re doing now and go read Randall Balmer’s excellent article on “The Real Origins of the Religious Right.”  Subtitle:  “They’ll tell you it was abortion.  Sorry, the historical record is clear:  it was segregation.”  Balmer, who has just published Redeemer:  The Life of Jimmy Carter, recounts what he found in the archives while researching that book.  If it really was Roe that radicalized the Christian right, then what the hell were all of those “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers and billboards about in the 1950s, 60s and 70s? (Isn’t that a nice touch with the stars and bars over there on the left?  Very subtle.)

That’s right, friends:  it was Brown v. Board of Education, not Roe:

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti-Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

Continue Reading »

8 Comments »

May 28th 2014
The so-called “liberal” academic workplace

Posted under class & Gender & Intersectionality & jobs & race & students & unhappy endings & wankers & weirdness & women's history

AliceteapartyJust go read this description of a job interview in a humanities program at a rich SLAC.  The search Chair told our informant, Anonymous, that the young African American woman on the faculty had been denied tenure.  Some flava:

Dr. Chair explained that the whole process had been very unpleasant and that the aforementioned white male colleagues had been “hurt” as a consequence. I said something innocuous in response like, “Oh well I suppose the tenure process is hard on everyone.” But Dr. Chair assured me that there had been problems for a while. “We just want this to be a nice place,” she said.

In addition to making her white male colleagues sad, Dr. Chair told me that the African-American woman who had been fired did not produce what she was expected to produce or teach what she was expected to teach. When I asked what those expectations were, Dr. Chair sighed and said something to the effect of, “She’s a black feminist, you know, and it’s just: not everything is about black feminism.” She said this to me matter-of-factly, as if it were a satisfactory answer to my question.

Continue Reading »

11 Comments »

May 27th 2014
The “high cost of higher ed” is in fact not going to college (and in not going to class)

Posted under American history & jobs & local news & students & unhappy endings

What am I missing

What am I missing?

David Leonhardt asks “Is College Worth It?,” and finds that the pay gap between college grads and people without college is at an all-time high.  Fortunately, he sings one of my favorite songs here too:

[The] public discussion today — for which we in the news media deserve some responsibility — often focuses on the undeniable fact that a bachelor’s degree does not guarantee success. But of course it doesn’t. Nothing guarantees success, especially after 15 years of disappointing economic growth and rising inequality.

When experts and journalists spend so much time talking about the limitations of education, they almost certainly are discouraging some teenagers from going to college and some adults from going back to earn degrees. (Those same experts and journalists are sending their own children to college and often obsessing over which one.) The decision not to attend college for fear that it’s a bad deal is among the most economically irrational decisions anybody could make in 2014.

The much-discussed cost of college doesn’t change this fact. According to a paper by Mr. Autor published Thursday in the journal Science, the true cost of a college degree is about negative $500,000. That’s right: Over the long run, college is cheaper than free. Not going to college will cost you about half a million dollars.

Longtime readers will recall my frustration with the “high cost of higher education” media conversation, mostly because I think it’s dominated by people who are choosing to pay for private, selective educations for their children, not by people who patronize our fine state colleges and universities, which have in fact kept the price of their educations artificially low by shifting a majority of their faculty from tenured or tenure-track positions to adjunct casual labor.  Also, where’s the accountability for school performance by students in these conversations?  Are students with 3.0 averages or higher suffering from unemployment at the same rate as students who didn’t work as hard in college?  We don’t know, because no one ever holds alumni responsible for any part of their achievement (or lack thereof).

This article comes just a week after I submitted my final grades for the two classes I taught in the spring semester, an upper-level course aimed at History and other Liberal Arts majors, and a lower-level survey course.  Continue Reading »

53 Comments »

May 20th 2014
My 15-month summer starts. . . now!

Posted under happy endings & jobs & local news

Something about that “nothin’ to do/nowhere to go-o” line keeps ringing in my head. And it’s true! Continue Reading »

9 Comments »

May 18th 2014
Editing While Female

Posted under American history & Gender & jobs & unhappy endings & women's history

Susan B. Glasser, Editor of Politico, tells her story about Editing While Female, and points to the generic conventions of complaints about women in leadership positions in modern journalism:

Shortly before I became the editor of the national news section of the WashingtonPost in late 2006, Ben Bradlee, the legendary former editor of the Post, came up to me at a party. I hear you’re going to get the national job, he said to me. “Do you have the balls for it?”

I was 37 years old, my son was a toddler, and my incredibly supportive husband, the Post’s longtime White House reporter. I was sure that I did. But I was wrong.

She continues, “In the course of my short and controversial tenure in the job, I learned several things,” Continue Reading »

12 Comments »

May 16th 2014
The edutainment chronicles: comedy gold!

Posted under American history & bad language & jobs & students & technoskepticism & wankers

Via Jonathan Rees on Twitter, he of More or Less Bunk fame, we learn that Clayton Christiansen recorded a series of Very Distinguished lectures for the University of Phoenix, and he was amazed to learn that the people in the audience were models, not actual Phoenix students!

“They were truly beautiful people,” he related. He asked them where they attended college and was surprised when they replied, “Oh, we’re not students, we’re models.”

For appearance’ sake, the producers had put attractive people in the seats for the moments when the cameras cut away from Mr. Christensen and panned the audience. They also added spiffy animations and graphics.

In 2011, Phoenix asked him to deliver some 90-minute lectures on innovation and other business principles. Rather than hold them where he teaches, at Harvard Business School, Phoenix rented a spot at the Institute of Contemporary Art, where he could speak with a view of Boston Harbor as his backdrop. He was struck by the view, he said, but even more so by the people to whom he was lecturing.

“They were truly beautiful people,” he related. He asked them where they attended college and was surprised when they replied, “Oh, we’re not students, we’re models.”

For appearance’ sake, the producers had put attractive people in the seats for the moments when the cameras cut away from Mr. Christensen and panned the audience. They also added spiffy animations and graphics.

Why not use real students? According to a Phoenix spokesman, “The production team hired extras who could be there for the day, since the production required a major time commitment for the day.”

- See more at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomline/u-of-phoenix-lectures-by-clay-christensen-redefine-model-students/#sthash.wismjYRO.HMrkkdOA.dpuf

“They were truly beautiful people,” he related. He asked them where they attended college and was surprised when they replied, “Oh, we’re not students, we’re models.” – See more at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomline/u-of-phoenix-lectures-by-clay-christensen-redefine-model-students/#sthash.wismjYRO.HMrkkdOA.dpuf

“They were truly beautiful people,” he related. He asked them where they attended college and was surprised when they replied, “Oh, we’re not students, we’re models.”

For appearance’ sake, the producers had put attractive people in the seats for the moments when the cameras cut away from Mr. Christensen and panned the audience. They also added spiffy animations and graphics.

Why not use real students? According to a Phoenix spokesman, “The production team hired extras who could be there for the day, since the production required a major time commitment for the day.”

- See more at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomline/u-of-phoenix-lectures-by-clay-christensen-redefine-model-students/#sthash.wismjYRO.HMrkkdOA.dpuf

“They were truly beautiful people,” he related. He asked them where they attended college and was surprised when they replied, “Oh, we’re not students, we’re models.”

For appearance’ sake, the producers had put attractive people in the seats for the moments when the cameras cut away from Mr. Christensen and panned the audience. They also added spiffy animations and graphics.

- See more at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomline/u-of-phoenix-lectures-by-clay-christensen-redefine-model-students/#sthash.wismjYRO.HMrkkdOA.dpuf

That’s supposed to be the punchline, delivered by Christiansen:  “’Because the low end always wins, I didn’t dismiss these people,” he said. “This actually is a very different game than we’ve been in before.’”  Except if you read the whole story, it’s clear that Christiansen himself sells out to the values before he ever meets the Phoenix “model students:” Continue Reading »

22 Comments »

May 15th 2014
Lean in, ask for equal pay, get fired.

Posted under American history & Gender & jobs & unhappy endings & women's history

 

Oopsie!

Oopsie!

Ken Auletta on why Jill Abramson was fired as executive editor of the New York Times:

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

I think “assertive” and “exhibiting leadership” is what they call “pushy” when a man does it.  Continue Reading »

18 Comments »

May 14th 2014
Is anyone speaking at commencement ceremonies this year? Or, why are rich & powerful people such wimps?

Posted under American history & bad language & jobs & students & wankers & weirdness

Are you seriously telling me that a former chancellor of a major university, a former U.S. Secretary of State, and the current head of the International Monetary Fund are so allergic to complaints about them that they can’t bring themselves to speak to graduating classes unless they’re assured that no one will offer anything harsher than polite applause in response to their remarks?  I guess the rich and powerful really are different from us–they think that their work and decisions should put them above any questions or criticism from the mere hoi polloi.  What a bunch of wimps!

Students and faculty are perfectly within their rights to question the bestowal of honorary degrees on these speakers.  But from what I’ve seen, speakers are declining to appear at commencements if anyone merely questions the righteousness of their appearance on campus on Twitter or other social media, or stages a few sit-ins or teach-ins.  Continue Reading »

22 Comments »

« Prev - Next »