By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
“It must be great being a college professor. You get summers off!”
All professors have probably heard this sentiment, in one form or another. It is usually accompanied by a sigh, the commenter wishing that she had such a cushy life. Though as many times as I have heard it, I know that it is not necessarily intended as a slight or a criticism. Most often, it is expressed as a good-natured if ignorant observation about the unusual perks of a somewhat exotic job, rather like when people tell flight attendants, “Wow, you get to fly all over the place for free!”
What makes academic life seem so exotic is that being a professor is more like practicing a medieval craft than pursuing a modern profession. As befits a world of robes, elaborate ceremonies, and gothic quadrangles, universities maintain a system of unique rewards and demands that harkens back to pre-modern times.
Practically, this means that the work habits of academics are hard to reconcile with the patterns of most normal professions. Academics are supposed to do two things—produce knowledge and share that knowledge with the larger community. They are also, according to tradition, supposed to govern and police themselves. Although that does not mean what it used to, when universities had special laws and even their own jails (some of which are preserved as tourist sites in European university towns such as Heidelberg in Germany) it still means that universities pride themselves on being governed by their own—deans, directors, chairs, and presidents drawn from the faculty.[1]
Here we get at the root of the contrast between what people think professors do and what they actually do. For the things that are most visible to the outside world—teaching in the classroom, meeting with students in office hours, grading assignments—is also only a part of what academics are expected to do. When junior faculty sigh and say they “really need to find time to do my own work,” they are rarely referring to teaching. Indeed, even the most dedicated teacher who devotes time to developing and preparing new courses is going to need a lot of time alone to gather and develop new knowledge. That means everything from reading and reviewing the newest literature in their field to working on their own projects. None of these tasks lend themselves to punching a clock. Academics are paid to think and read and write, which means a lot of their time is unstructured, and they have freedom to organize it according to their own priorities. That is the positive view. The less positive view is to note that unstructured work means that it is never really over. There is always more to read, and those books and articles don’t write themselves.
So academics have to deal with less immediate but more constant pressures than people in other professions, all the year round. That is not a complaint, since I am sure that a lot of people in other types of jobs wish the pressures they felt were less tangible, but it is something to think about before claiming that because professors only teach a few classes a semester, or do not teach in the summer, they have a lot of “free time.”
If those outside academe have a hard time understanding what goes on there, that is also because the practical details of academic life can vary greatly depending on both the type of university or college and the field in which an academic operates (and of course upon whether one is on the tenure track). Schools can range from teaching-heavy colleges (which would include both small private institutions and satellite campuses of state universities, as well as community colleges) where the average professor is expected to offer four or five courses a semester (and do all of her own grading) to the elite research universities where the load is usually two courses a semester—perhaps less, if the faculty member has special administrative responsibilities such as chairing a department or directing an institute—and where most of the grading is done by graduate students, as part of their apprenticeship before beginning their own academic careers.[3]
Teaching and research exist in tight, inverse proportions: the lower the teaching load, the higher the research expectations.[4] What those research expectations may be depends on the field. In the natural sciences, successful academics are expected to manage a laboratory and conduct a range of experiments. That means hiring and supervising a small army of student assistants, and applying for and managing the large outside grants necessary to fund the operations. Natural scientists also publish several research reports and articles a year. Most of those publications will be multi-authored, which (to put it most charitably) allows scientists to leverage their work into more publications than they could have produced on their own. Humanities and social science professors publish fewer and longer pieces—journal articles and books, usually single-authored—and are less dependent on labs and grants, except when they need to travel to archives.
Critics ranging from undergraduates unable to get an appointment to complain about midterm grades to Wall Street Journal op-ed writers have attacked the attention faculty pay to what can appear to be unnecessarily esoteric research.[5] Imust admit to having mixed emotions about these criticisms. There is nothing wrong with demanding that faculty remember their responsibility to share their knowledge with non-specialists, and I am a firm believer in the importance of teaching. What such critics tend to miss, however, is the responsibility of professors not only to repeat old knowledge but to create new knowledge as well. At their best, such criticisms can serve to puncture the pomposity of over-specialized academics. At their worst, they sink to the level of the know-nothings who want to eliminate the library budget because no one has read all the books that are already in it.
Read the rest of… Ronald J. Granieri: A Glimpse Behind the Ivy Curtain
When your leading fundraiser – and the guy who allegedly offered to raise Blago $1.5M in exchange for your appointment to a vacant U.S. Senate seat – faces a 19-count indictment, and has already shown in other cases (Blago’s two trials) a willingness to flip and testify for the Feds, I can understand how the stress might trigger serious physical problems.
Having had my own top fundraiser and best friend wear a wire on me for months as the Feds closed in, I am, regrettably, all too familiar with this plight.
I have no idea what’s going on with JJJ mentally or physically. But for me, when the feds started sniffing around, and you realize that they have unlimited resources at their disposal and tremendous leverage over your closest confidante, those were the most stressful days of my life.
The fact that even his family is saying little – and not strongly pushing back against various insinuations – suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye.
I first saw JJJ speak nearly a decade ago to an audience of rich white people at St. Louis Country Day School. Advocating policies that would raise their taxes significantly, he had them in the palm of his hand. It was shortly after I saw then-Senate candidate Barack Obama speak for the first time, and frankly, there was no comparison. JJJ was, hands down, the most impressive pol I’d ever heard.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Where’s Jesse Jackson, Jr.?
By John Y. Brown III, on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
A shocking antidote to a shocking bullying episode.
Karen Klein, the 68-year-old school bus monitor from suburban Rochester, N.Y. was the victim of a horrific bullying episode caught on tape in a video now gone viral. She is the quintessential grandmother –and a genuinely kind hearted and caring woman.
She’s received an outpouring of support, well wishes, and donations.
Southwest Airlines offered her a 3 days all-expenses paid trip to Disney with her choice of 9 guests.
I think Karen Klein should invite her family and the kids who bullied her on this trip and their families–with the condition that the trip be covered by a Reality TV crew and the bullying teens and their families have to spend the entire time with Karen Klein and her family. Obviously, there will be lots of discussion and reflection on why the bullying occurred and, hopefully, heartfelt apologies and perhaps a friendship and respect for the bullying victim who will obviously be viewed as the hero in this awful episode.
It is a seemingly crazy idea, but one I think could work. Really. Karen Klein is an extraordinarily wise and patient woman who could pull this off successfully. And turn the most momentous national teaching moment about the cruelty of bullying into what could be the most significant teaching moment ever about exposing the cowardly forces that create bullying and the resolution between the bullied and the bullies that humiliate the bullies –and discourage future bullying episodes by those who watch.
It would not be a reward by any means. It would be the most humiliating and possibly most important 3 days of the bully’s lives. And for the lives of many future bullies who watch. The gift these teen bullies would be receiving would not be 3 days in Disney. But an opportunity to redefine themselves as decent human beings who could take on the cause of denouncing bullying by others like them. Nothing would speak to discouraging future bullies than former bullies who have seen the light. Not even 68 year old grandmother victims, unless they turn the tables in a manner such as this. It may just work.
And, of course, this has to be Karen Klien’s decision, and I don’t want her pressured into doing something she doesn’t want. She’s endured enough already. But if the following petition helps get the idea in front of her to consider, and she agrees it is something she wants to do and believes would be valuable, I’d love to help provide our encouragement
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
This Father’s Day, I will be spending in bed rooting for Tiger Woods to win the US Open, and then for LeBron James to carry the Miami Heat to a 2-1 NBA Finals series lead. Not IN SPITE of their widespread unpopularity, but BECAUSE of it.
I explain why in my latest column for The Huffington Post:
For most of his career, I’d been largely indifferent to NBA superstar Lebron James. My passion is college basketball, and since Lebron leaped straight from high school to the pros, I never had the opportunity to root for him in Kentucky blue, or curse him if he had, God forbid, put on a Duke uniform.
My opinion of golf phenom Tiger Woods was always a bit more jaundiced. I developed an early man crush on Phil Mickelson, and was continually frustrated with (while being constantly awestruck by) Tiger’s mind-meld hold on Lefty — and on the rest of the PGA tour, for that matter — during his extraordinary and unparalleled domination of the sport for nearly a decade.
But as Lebron leads his Miami Heat through a brutal playoff finals series against the Oklahoma City Thunder, and as Tiger tries to recapture his magic formula for winning Major tournaments in this week’s U.S. Open, I will be enthusaistically cheering both of them on.
Why my change of heart?
Each of these men, after all, made a series of stupid mistakes.
Lebron James branded himself with a scarlet A for arrogance by announcing his departure from the Cleveland Cavaliers in what many thought was a callous, disloyal manner; and then by carelessly bragging that by taking “his talents to South Beach,” he’d produce a string of NBA championships for the Heat. In the most communitarian of sports — a game that rewards teamwork over selfish hotdogging — Lebron emerged as the poster child for Gen Y narcisism, the prototypical me-first face of the Facebook generation.
Tiger Woods’ scarlet A was, of course, a bit more true to the original Hawthorne. From his initial domestic-induced car crash, to the perverse scenes of Kardashian-wannabes hiring Gloria Allred to grub their fifteen minutes of sex scandal infamy, Tiger enriched the monologues of the late-night host and comedic stand-up industry for weeks on end.
Both Lebron and Tiger have been mercilessly villified; their public unfavorability ratings possibly unmatched by any American not named John Edwards.
54 Percent of Voters Say They Will Choose Candidates Who Emphasize Problem-Solving Over Party Affiliation
Problem Solving Voters Also Twice as Likely to Change Mind Before 2012 Elections
According to a new No Labels poll, a majority of American voters can be characterized as problem solving voters (PSVs), defined as individuals more likely to support candidates focused on solving problems than those who align most with their parties. 33 percent of PSVs also say they are likely to change their vote between now and November, compared to only 15 percent of non-PSVs.
A total of 94 percent of independents identify as PSVs, along with 30 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of Republicans. Only 16 percent of PSVs believe current leaders in Washington are able to get things done.
“This poll reveals that there are more than just independent voters up for grabs in this election. Significant percentages of Democrats and Republicans say they value problem-solving over partisanship,” said No Labels Co-Founder Mark McKinnon, who discussed the poll results on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today. “This is a huge voting bloc that absolutely cannot be ignored. Candidates who embrace the message of problem-solving in working across the aisle are likely to find a very receptive audience among voters.”
The poll was taken through a phone survey of 1,004 registered voters with a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
For more information on the poll or to arrange an interview with a No Labels co-founder, please contact Sarah Feldman at press@nolabels.org or (202) 588-1990. To learn more about No Labels, please visit www.NoLabels.org.
By Krystal Ball, on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
Women’s health and birth control access have sparked a contentious political firestorm in American politics as Republicans have unleashed a barrage of restrictive and damaging legislation. As we fight back against these historic attempts to undermine women’s health and family planning access here in the US, let’s not lose sight of our sisters around the world. Access to family planning education and contraception is one of the global keys to improving health, economic development, and security.
While fertility rates have declined dramatically in most of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia have resisted the trend toward fewer lifetime births per mother. From 1950 to 2000, the average fertility rate in developing countries was cut in half, from 6 to 3.
Fertility rates, however, in many African countries have remained stubbornly high. In Nigeria, the rate is 5.5, in Chad and Uganda it’s over 6. With a fertility rate over 7, Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of childbirth in the world. The fact that it is also poor, uneducated and prone to extremist movements is no accident.
Take a look at this list of countries by fertility rate. A quick glance confirms that poor countries tend to have high rates and rich countries tend to have low rates. Is this simple correlation or causation? In other words, which comes first, the economic development or the declining fertility rate? It’s probably some of both but there’s good reason to believe that access to contraception, even in a poor country, can decrease fertility rates and improve economic development.
Researchers in Bangladesh studied the impact of access to birth control, in Matlab district, over the course of 20 years. They found that in villages with family planning, every measure of well-being, including health, earnings and assets, improved. While cultural preferences for large families remain, an increasing amount of research also shows that couples in developing countries desire fewer children. Marie Stopes International surveyed Afghan families and found that the ideal size for most Afghan families was 4 or 5 children, in other words, 2 or 3 children less than their current fertility rate would dictate. Afghan couples also seemed to understand the benefits of limiting family size. One man commented that: “Three to five (children) is perfect in order to feed and educate them well.” Another study found that more African women said they wanted contraception but had no access than said that they actually use contraception. Most poignant however was the reaction of one woman, a mother of 17, upon receiving birth control for the first time. The woman was reportedly so delighted that she “hugged and kissed Aziza (the provider), ripped open a package and swallowed a pill with a gulp of water.”
Increased access to contraception is not just good for families, it also contributes to a stable and sustainable world. While the link between poverty and terrorism has been difficult to tease out, the growth for example of the deadly Boko Haram terrorist group in Nigeria appears directly tied to grievances about poverty and inequality, economic stress that is worsened by large families.
All of this is to say nothing of the burden that climate change puts on our world and the strain and conflict it creates. The Department of Defense calls climate change an “accelerant of instability” that exacerbates volatile situations.
Warmer temperatures and increased incidences of severe weather lead to more natural disasters, dislocation, and disease. This stress and hardship in turn fuels extremism. Smaller families consuming fewer resources can be a step on the road to lessening the impact of extreme weather events on global security.
Read the rest of… Krystal Ball: Women’s Health is Key to Global Health, Economic Development, Security
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Commit to goals ahead of time so you have no choice but to achieve them!
A short story by Flannery O’Conner has a scene where a character throws his hat over the high fence so he’ll have no choice but to climb over it as part of the story’s adventure.
I love that.
And try to replicate that in my life.
For example, this morning I put on and comfortably fastened a new pair of pants for the first time. The pants were purchased two sizes smaller than my usual waist size. Because I wanted to be sure I had no choice but to achieve my goal.
It was a great feeling of success for being so goal oriented.
Even though I bought the pants nearly 3 years ago.
While I’ve gone to great lengths to keep this website a forum for ideas, and not a personal forum, I should say something about the various stories regarding my political future in Virginia, the state that has been my primary home since late December 2010. The short of it is this: I don’t know and am nowhere near deciding. If I were to run, it would be as a Republican. And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.
As to the horse-race question that animated parts of the blogosphere, it is true that people whose judgment I value have asked me to weigh the prospect of running in one of the Northern Virginia congressional districts in 2014 or 2016, or alternatively, for a seat in the Virginia legislature in 2015. If that sounds imprecise, it’s a function of how uncertain political opportunities can be—and if that sounds expedient, never lose sight of the fact that politics is not wishfulness, it’s the execution of a long, draining process to win votes and help and relationships while your adversaries are working just as hard to tear down the ground you build.
I by no means underestimate the difficulty of putting together a campaign again, especially in a community to which I have no long-standing ties. I have a mountain of details to learn about this northern slice of Virginia and its aspirations, and given the many times I have advised would-be candidates to have a platform and a reason for serving, as opposed to a desire to hold an office, that learning curve is one I would take seriously.
And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: A Response to Political Rumors
There has never been much of a reservoir of respect in Barack Obama’s White House for the Republican Party. The disdain is partly the reflex of Chicago-bred operatives who found John McCain’s campaign soft and clumsy; partly the mindset of intellectual liberals who view John Boehner and Mitch McConnell as pedestrian local Civitans made good; but mostly it is the product of a worldview that sees conservatism as neither trendy nor clever, and as the fading gasp of a whiter, duller society. By all lights, Team Obama expected to dismantle Mitt Romney, who seems to them to crystallize all the inadequacies of their opposition.
So, imagine their perplexity that Romney is either slightly ahead, or tied with Obama as spring heads to summer. For all of the Obama campaign’s tendencies to discredit any polling they don’t like, the numbers tell a more or less consistent story: Gallup puts Romney’s chronically low favorable ratings at their highest point yet, about even with Obama’s; CBS/New York Times reveals that the president’s much touted embrace of same sex marriage hurts him more than it helps, and that strikingly, nearly seventy percent of the country attributes the president’s history-making on the subject to political motives. ABC/Washington Post shows that a country preoccupied with the economy believes that a Romney presidency will make it better, and that an Obama reelection will have little effect.
All professors have probably heard this sentiment, in one form or another. It is usually accompanied by a sigh, the commenter wishing that she had such a cushy life. Though as many times as I have heard it, I know that it is not necessarily intended as a slight or a criticism. Most often, it is expressed as a good-natured if ignorant observation about the unusual perks of a somewhat exotic job, rather like when people tell flight attendants, “Wow, you get to fly all over the place for free!”
So academics have to deal with less immediate but more constant pressures than people in other professions, all the year round. That is not a complaint, since I am sure that a lot of people in other types of jobs wish the pressures they felt were less tangible, but it is something to think about before claiming that because professors only teach a few classes a semester, or do not teach in the summer, they have a lot of “free time.”
