That’s exactly the reason I want to get into grad school and become a professor myself. Thanks for making me feel a bit better–or at least more hopeful–about my career choice. 
The politics are astonishingly vicious. As some wise person once opined, it’s because there’s so little at stake that academic politics are as as vicious as they are.
But of course, there’s not so little at stake. There’s tenure, which is important, and being in a position to make decisions affecting people’s lives and not face the consequences, which people who have tenure are capable of doing. It’s mostly that the salaries are so low, but you do get left alone a lot and get to research what you want, if you play the politics right, so people put a lot of energy into it.
Oh, the tales I could tell…
I don’t face a lot of problems for teaching DWEMs–I just try to teach the most interesting stuff I know, and let people come to stuff I don’t know on their own, without my concerning myself about being scrupulously fair about every gender and ethnic group being represented on my syllabus. You catch some flak no matter what. This past term, for example, I taught the American Short Story, and a student asked on my informal eval why I taught only 6 women writers out of a total of 20. I had two responses: 1), she miscounted and there were actually 9 women out of 22, and 2) of the final three writers we studied (all men, all chosen by me) I had asked the class to recommend their choices for study. If she felt so strongly about the imbalance, she could have suggested three women and the final ratio would have been 12 women out of 22, but she (and everyone else) declined to nominate choices so I got to pick three writers I felt were worth studying (T.C Boyle, John Barth, and Thomas Wolfe).
But some of my colleagues see their positions as primarily political: that is, they’re usng the classroom to address issues of social justice and such, which is their right, but I think it’s more valuable to teach literature AS literature, and try to field the social and political subject when they arise (as they do) in a neutral manner and let the students make their political points however they choose. I hold my (rather strong) beliefs, but I figure if I try to avoid expressing them overtly, and even try to suppress my own political positions on occasion, there will still be some times when they creep into the discussion anyway. My colleagues tend to think that, as long as we all hold political positions, you might as well be as upfront as you can in expressing them, which is the difference between the two schools.
The funny part is that we often end up taking similar positions: I’m about as opposed to Bush’s war on Iraq as anyone can be, but if a student expresses pro-war views (where they’re relevant to a class discussion, as they could be in a class I just taught on WWII in Film and Literature) I’ll try to shut up as best I can, and hope an anti-war student voices the contrary position, whereas my more overtly political colleagues would, I think, feel comfortable expressing their own views in class.
In Spain many courses do this by separating “lab” and “lecture”; both halves are part of the same course. In class you’re given the… tools. Definitions of what each of the organic chemistry groups is, for example (and multi-leveled ones: not just what atoms and bonds form them, but the many ways to detect them, their reactivity, etc.). In lab, you learn how to use them. How to find recipes for specific compounds; later, how to write your own recipes.
Most of my “lectures” involved some degree of discussion. But I don’t think I would have learned much if I’d been told “the library is on the first floor, go there and find out how to do Organic Chemistry”. Which is what some of my brother’s professors pretty much did, there was one who published a new book every year and it was just the compilation of the “reports” he’d gotten from the students (typos and all).
I see I never responded to certain questions, so:
the eccentricity level would have to be pretty high to get notice from me, or from the members of the committees I’ve sat on. The assumption is that grad students are both poor and eccentric, so anything short of total nakedness or a gorilla costume would probably pass unnoticed (or un-commented on).
The happiness factor IS something I care about, and would factor in, although the contrary argument (which I’ve made) is “What do you care if he’ll leave us in two years, he’s GREAT!” My answer (when I’m not the one posing the question) is
a) we don’t want to be doing this search every few years , and
b) someone who’s looking to move on will probably not be a great colleague while he (or she) is here. This can often be sussed out in the late stages of the interview process, when the candidate will be asking such questions as “Can I have my own office?” or “That salary will have to be increased substantially to get me interested in accepted an offer” or “Teach three classes per semester? I think not. Let’s cap it at two classes, shall we, and both of them in my advanced area of study, please”–such questions indicate that we will have to disaccomodate ourselves WAY too much to keep the candidate happy, and so we can decide that it is not worth hiring him at all, even if we were to meet his conditions.
Uh, I’m married to a tenured professor. Don’t forget to tell them how hot professors are… The beard, the studious looking glasses, the pens and pencils in his pockets, the jackets with patches on the elbows… ooooh, can’t wait for him to get home tonight!
That’s not an issue if you’re a full-time student before and after the drop, or at least it wasn’t at the University of Maryland when I was there. Full-time students paid a flat tuition rate, regardless of how many credits they had signed up for.
If dress or general eccentricity wouldn’t be a deal-breaker in an academic interview, what (other than something obvious like not having a PhD) would? Mr. Neville is currently applying for academic jobs (in astronomy). Last year he got short-listed at a number of places, interviewed at them, and got no offers.
I’m applying to a few different grad programs, and, while they’re going to land me in the academic world, I’ll be a step outside of the professor aspect of academics. (I’m going for library science, art history, and museum studies at the master’s level.) Ideally, I’d like to do research and help people learn as a large part of my career, but I’m not sure if going into teaching in a “traditional” sense would be right for me. (Honestly, as an undergraduate, if I could have kicked out most of the kids in my lower level classes and the “it’s just an elective!” ones out of my upper level classes, I would have. I really don’t have patience for stupid questions like “is this going to be on the test?” and it drove me batty to have students in the class who asked those types of questions.) I know that it’s going to take a lot of hard work and volunteering to get into a research and interpretation position at a museum, and I know I’ll likely need a second master’s to pair with the library science if I want to be a research specialist at a large or academic library.
This question is probably only pertinent if you’ve been on an admissions committee that decides the fates of graduate student applicants, but I’m going to ask anyway. In deciding whether to accept a student for your department, would you take into consideration more heavily their background work [area of study] or the recommenders’ comments on their ability to adapt their knowledge and skills to the discipline that they are applying to? (This is given that the person has a background in a semi-related field, but has no actual classes in the “canon” of the field they were applying to.) Would this person be less eligible for funding if they were accepted, but showed as much promise in the field as someone who had a background in it that was also accepted and would be given funding?
Also, what do you think of up-and-coming graduate students and academics who are anti-canon in your field?
::bump::
Sorry for blowing this off for so long–I forgot I had an active “Ask the…” thread out there. I don’t know which I’d take MORE seriously, the credentials or the recommendations, but if someone lacked some essential quality laid-out in the job ad, I’ll sure need some powerful recommendations to feel reassured about that person’s capacity to do the job. I mean, virtual unanimity from all the recommendors that his/her versatility, self-starting, talent at acquiring new skills, etc. is off the charts.
I’m not sure (from the use in the first paragraph quoted) what you mean by “canon.” Usually, that word means something like “works traditional and widely accepted by old folks” but your first paragraph implies just “works in the field of any kind.” My tolerance for people who are “anti-canon” in the first sense is that it (surprise!) shrinks as I grow older. What I’ve discovered is that several of my younger colleagues (and I’m only in my early fifties, and a recent rebel myself) haven’t rejected canonical works as much as they’ve just not read them. IOW, I personally have a lot of respect for people who’ve embraced non-canonical works because they think they’re better somehow than the canonical standards, but just choosing them because the canonical works are intimidating or difficult is just plain lazy and, worse, defensive. (If you’re the only person in your department who’s familiar with “your” author, you’re hardly ever going to encounter a colleague who’ll question your work, which ultimately makes for a fragmented department.) There’s a lot of people claiming to be anti-canon who are simply “anti-hard work” as I’ve learned the hard way, by having hired colleagues who turn out to be lazy twits, so if you’re sincerely anti-canon, I’d try to make sure that the people doing the hiring know how well you’re familiar with the canon you’re rejecting.
Hmm, I hadn’t thought of that. As a half-time student, I pay by the credit, so you may be correct in that it’s different for full-timers.
I’m a research scientist, not faculty, although as a grad student I was part of a crew that met with all the short-listed folks for two different faculty slots that came up in my department. My advisor had also been involved in several searches, and gave me the inside scoop on the selection process and biases involved.
Things that a science department candidate has little or no control over in the selection process:
- pressure on the department by the university to increase diversity (especially re hiring women in traditionally male-dominated fields)
- the feelings of current faculty on whether the candidate would be a “good fit” for the culture of the department over the very long term
- the potential for collaborative research among colleagues, as well as the possibility of too much overlap with an existing faculty member
- the current faculty’s perception of whether the candidate’s research is relevant to the field or groundbreaking
- the importance the department places on research vs. teaching (related to dept. culture)
- sheer luck
Things that a candidate does have control over that could help skew the vote in their favor:
- giving a great job talk, which should display the candidate’s ability to do interesting research and comfortably convey all the key points to a mixed audience (students and faculty alike)
- if research is important to the department, as many peer-reviewed papers in print or in press as one can possibly manage and/or grant money in hand
- be confident but not obnoxious or cocky; also, be circumspect in how one discusses the work of others in the field (the guy you might be slagging could be the dept chair’s best friend from grad school, so beware)
- be familiar with the work of the current faculty and have ideas about how collaborations could be made - in other words, be ready to sell how good a fit you could be to the department
- if face time with the students is part of the interview process, treat the students as if they actually matter (and for pete’s sake, don’t ogle the female students)
For the two searches in which I was involved as a student, there were over 100 applications total, of which three were shortlisted for one position and seven for the other. It’s very tough even getting shortlisted, never mind hired. Best of luck to your husband in his search.
It’s okay. But, uhm, that didn’t quite answer my question. (I really hope that didn’t sound rude; if it did, I’m really sorry!) I was asking about entrance as a graduate student and not as an employee. Sorry if that was unclear. I’m guessing it works similarly, though.
As for the “anti canon” thing, it was a separate question as well. For example, I bring this up because I have a friend who’s doing media studies via his master’s work in English literature. He’s not big on Shakespeare or, say, Chaucer, but can enjoy 19th century women’s list just fine in addition to deconstructing modern film and television as part of his studies.
I don’t do graduate admissions, and I’m in the middle of running a job ad now, so I probably gave you an answer too heavily geared toward jobs rather than grad admissions, but the two processes aren’t entirely dissimiliar. The one big difference is that you’ll be willing to take some more chances in admitting people to grad school (what’s the worst that could happen?). Someone with weird-ass credentials, though, might not get offered the same money, TA fellowship, etc. that a mainstream candidate will. But I dont do grad admissions so that’s just a WAG.