Science Professor (aka as Female Science Professor) over at Scientopia gave a reader some advice about whether or not it’s okay to date a senior colleague. Academia is a complex and many-layered animal with insane demands to make of any academic hoping for tenure. Dating an academic colleague with one’s the tenure vote still to come is a risky move, people. I’m with Female Science Professor on this one: my vote wouldn’t be altered by the colleague-dating situation, but it very well could be for others on the panel.

Does it suck hugely to have to walk away from possible love in order to attain one’s dream? Absolutely. But anyone who has already decided to pursue the nearly impossible tenure track has already announced loudly and with a barbaric yawp that they are more than willing to offer up their firstborn, their kidney, their hand, their mother, and several years of happiness to the tenure gods for even a smidgen of a sliver of a chance.

Humans are animals, and will do anything to survive and continue the species: food, sex (love), and survival, that’s all we need and are instinctively hell-bent of the pursuit of those goals. As far as I’ve seen, only tenure can veer an otherwise intelligent human animal away from food, sex and survival. (Wo)man up and realize how much you really want tenure, what you’re willing to give up for said dream, and walk the hell away from love until you’ve nailed down tenure.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(Rockefeller University)

The unfortunate phenomenon of elementary-aged girls becoming interested in STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) subjects, going off to college intending to major in and then pursue a career in one of those fields, and ultimately veering off somewhat sharply into less science-and-math rich majors and careers is common.

Fortunately, it has not gone unnoticed by the chicks who have gone on to work in their dream STEM fields, and several entities have started working to foster girls’ education and career paths in STEM subjects.

Michelle Obama, not a STEM girl herself (what with being a lawyer and all), is all for supporting girls in math and science and gave a little talk about it recently. My favorite bits from the transcript:

And if we’re going to out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world, then we have to open doors to everyone. We can’t afford to leave anyone out. We need all hands on deck. And that means clearing hurdles for women and girls as they navigate careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

And it starts with lighting the spark for science and math in elementary school and grade school. We talk about this all the time. I know for me, I’m a lawyer because I was bad at these subjects. (Laughter.) All lawyers in the room, you know it’s true. We can’t add and subtract, so we argue. (Laughter.)

And so encouraging girls early not to lose heart in those fields, and encouraging them through high school is important. But it also means making sure that these young women can keep pursuing their dreams in college and beyond.

Further Reading:

Why So Few Women In Science, Technology, Engineering and Math?
Dual Academic Careers
First Lady Michelle Obama Speaks to the Dept. of Education

Posted by Alexa Harrington

Ever wonder what those professors with their cush teaching posts do with their well-paid time? Educate young minds or lie about, smoking pipes and wearing tweed and discussing any topic in the most pedantic way possible? Perhaps. Or maybe they’re working their asses off trying to keep the jobs they nearly killed themselves to get.

An article about faculty productivity in The Chronicle of Higher Education made Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab want to list her schedule so we could all decide for ourselves whether or not she earns her keep. I read it, and since I can’t see how she has time to wipe her nose let alone have a proper life, I say she’s well worth her paycheck and clearly contributes to her students’ education.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(professor)

Not really. I adore math and all its perfect logic. I’ve ranted before about math and smart girls and the general idea that being capable of doing something well has nothing to do with gender, race, sex, or your ass’ ability to sprout wings.

Tara C. Smith at Aetiology has some words about this subject as it relates to her career. She’s a scientist and an assistant prof and she can manage to research epidemiology without her hotness getting in the way.

Previous Posts:

Smart Girls Are Hot
Why So Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math?
You Can Kiss my Math Because Smart Girls Are Hot
Dual Academic Careers
Left-Leaning Professor Types
The Hotness of Geek Barbie

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(geek barbie)

According to The Guardian, UK, Wikipedia has realized the lack of academic contributions to its massive heap of information and is making an effort to get smartypants specialists to contribute some well-informed knowledgey bits on the site.

Whether it’s a site-able source (it’s absolutely not, according to many professorial types) or not, everyone uses Wikipedia as a quick way to satisfy some burning question (what in the hell does “the whole nine yards” mean, anyway?*) or as a starting point on some quest for reams of information on almost any subject one can think of. It’s like a Twinkie or Oscar Meyer baloney: I don’t trust it, I would never serve it at a dinner party, but I’m still gonna eat it.

Wikipedia’s reputation as a less-than accurate source for information stems from the fact that any chucklehead with access to the Internet can edit and add information to the site. It’s funny that that trips people up, as the entire ethereal mass of binary perfection that is the online universe is all subject to bastards hosing down the suckers with false information. I’m just saying.

*Wikipedia is no help on this one. It gives a laundry list of what the phrase doesn’t refer to. I’d always thought it referred to the length of cloth required for a traditional kilt and the across-the-chest portion of said garment. See Braveheart if you have no idea what I’m talking about.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

I don’t want to agree with Michael Platt that for-profit schools succeed and not-for-profit schools are seemingly always in financial straits, but he makes a certain amount of sense. I’m not saying I’d relish earning a degree from a for-profit college, but there must be some way for traditional colleges and universities to support rich and deep learning while also not sucking fumes financially.

From the press release:

It is the LACK of profit/incentive that has caused many of the primary and postsecondary schools in this country to fail the students.

If primary schools were profit-driven, maybe they wouldn’t hold onto crappy teachers. Maybe they would abandon the ridiculous agrarian calendar. Maybe they would stop allowing unions to place teachers’ rights above student rights. Our government should not be running the business of education.

If universities were profit-driven, maybe they would stop misleading students with noted professors who then rarely step into a classroom. Maybe they would strive for better graduation rates as opposed to throwing out challenged students because they are afraid it might hurt their overall outcomes/reputations. Maybe they wouldn’t have one placement advisor for every 2,000 – 5,000 students. Maybe they would warn students who pay $80,000 for their education that their starting salary is likely to be well below DOE-proposed GE metrics. Our government should not be running the business of education.

Ooof. And then the big fat bucket of True Knowledge Must Never Be Based On Financial Gain worms is dumped unceremoniously in front of me and it’s back to square one. Damn I loathe square one.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(square one)

The notion most of us have when thinking about the University (read that with a deep and important voice, please) is of a well-architectured limbo-land full of higher thought, in-depth learning, and forward motion steeped nicely in tradition. The University isn’t (or didn’t used to be) as susceptible to the rules of government and society; they’ve managed to create their own little spheres.

These days, when you really stop to ponder the reality of the University bubble, that place of higher thinking seems a lot more watered down in its autonomy. Money, politics and red tape have pulled the rest of the world into the fabric of the University, while the University is forced, more and more it seems, to rely on the non-University world in order to survive.

No less than eight members of my family, between 1932 and the present, have spent their careers at Universities. I’m not an idiot; I know that even in 1932 the University was already pretty susceptible to red tape and politics. But the University was still thought of, from without and within, as a place where academic freedom was considered sacred.

It appears, especially through the eyes of those on the inside, as though the last vestiges of higher learning and new thinking are being chipped away at an increasingly rapid rate, all in the name of popular research and big-name publishing. That all comes down to the ongoing faculty wrestling-match to figure out who will land the biggest chunk of grant money.

You can’t survive without money, and you can’t continue your research (or your job) without funding. Grant money is usually awarded to those trying to answer the newest, biggest, hottest question of the year. It’s difficult to land decent financial support for researching the esoteric topics.

When a dispute regarding academic freedom comes up, it’s usually about the rights of instructors to speak freely (within reason; there’s never any need to go overboard, for crying out loud) about politics and religion and all the Big Bads no one’s supposed to bring up in classroom discussions. Academic freedom is also supposed to include the rights of students and faculty to think, wonder, ask questions, and to perform research in order to find some answers. If money and funding are driving the machine, it seems obvious that the academic freedom to do research is being severely shaped by outside interests.

President Robert Zimmer of the University of Chicago gave a speech recently at Columbia University’s conference entitled “What is Academic Freedom For?” He spoke about academic freedom at institutions of higher learning, what that means and why it’s important to protect and maintain that tradition in the modern-day University.

The greatest contributions universities can make to society over the long run are the ideas and discoveries of faculty and students that emanate from the resulting intellectual ferment and the work of alumni across the scope of human activity”•alumni whose capacity for invention has been dramatically enhanced through their education in this environment. Moreover, that universities are almost unique in making this type of contribution only highlights its importance to society.

If this is the purpose of universities, the purpose of academic freedom is precisely to preserve this openness of inquiry and freedom of thought. In other words, academic freedom is designed to protect and preserve for the long run the unique capacity of universities to contribute to society. More…

Further Reading:

Academic Freedom in the 21st Century College and University
Academic Freedom
AAUP: Academic Freedom
What is Academic Freedom For?
Pres. Zimmer’s Address Delivered at Columbia Univ.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

Graduate school, should it have escaped everyone’s notice, prepares no one for reality. One learns insanely vast oceans of information, but this just means that the M-Something or the PhD in question just knows a lot of stuff—more than most other breathing bodies about one particular slice of one weensy area of reality. Knowing that much information is awesome. But a job it does not acquire. I know, I am an unnecessarily logical bitch. I get that a lot.

So, here you are, all filled up with the knowledge and no way to turn the smartness into cash money. There’s always teaching, fighting for tenure, and someday becoming a beloved professor. But that rarely works out these days. I’ve heard you have to either off someone, sell your soul, or hand over your firstborn to get a professorship. I’m going to officially state that academia may not be the best option. Which is unfortunate, as by this point, your particular topic and the world of academics are the two bits of this life you grok fully and without any doubt as to your capabilities.

I’m thinking you may require assistance with the prying off of your fingers from your lab table/thesis/dissertation/research notes/library carrel/desk in the windowless basement “office.” The Oxford University Press will save you: they’ve just published Jerald M. Jellison’s book, Life After Grad School: Getting From A to B. Technically still under the very edge of academia’s umbrella, but much more saturated with real life and logic.

Jellison’s book is simple; it reads like a To Do list with only the necessary explanations to go along with each item. This is not at all what I expected from a Univ. of California professor. He’s done well in academia as well as in the business world, so perhaps that combination has helped to simplify his writing. Whatever the reason, it’s comfortingly logical in its this-is-possible forward momentumness. Rarely do academics leave their world with emotional grace; they’ve invested too much to walk away easily. Jellison has broken down the horrific task of leaving one life and beginning another into absorbable and complete-able bites.

From the publisher:

There are 2.5 million graduate students across the U.S. in programs designed for a career in academics, and it is rarely acknowledged that less than five percent will realize their dream of becoming a professor. And as tenure track job openings disappear, this percentage will only shrink. The truth is that many of these students aren’t getting the support and instruction from their grad schools on pursuing a career outside academia, nor do many realize that they have the knowledge and skills that could make them a very attractive candidate for a job with a corporation, government agency, or nonprofit.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

For Prospective Undergrads:

Rejected by a school that you know, in your heart of hearts, you’re destined to attend? Allen Grove has superb advice on appealing a rejection letter. Does the school ever take heed of appeals? If so, what are the criteria they require in order to consider reversing your current rejected status? What does a sample appeal letter look like? Mr. Grove has you covered.

For Grad Student Hopefuls:

If you’ve asked one too many departments to spend their time and energy on smoothing your entry into their graduate program and are now faced with one too many acceptance letters, Female Science Professor has advice for gracefully declining. And apologizing, thanking those who helped you, etc.

Academia can be a dark and hopeless place should you ever find yourself without allies. Take my advice: Don’t screw over anyone who has ever been kind to you. You’ll only end up screwing your future self over several times over. Be a person, not an inhuman ass#@$%.

Be aware enough to realize how small academia really is: there are not enough spots for everyone. This means anyone who helps you to move up and forward in your academic education/career is potentially assisting someone who may become their direct competition someday. Do not take for granted their willingness to put themselves on the line for you.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image)

The notion most of us have when thinking about the University (read that with a deep and important voice, please) is of a well-architectured limbo-land full of higher thought, in-depth learning, and forward motion steeped nicely in tradition. The University isn’t (or didn’t used to be) as susceptible to the rules of government and society; they’ve managed to create their own little spheres.

These days, when you really stop to ponder the reality of the University bubble, that place of higher thinking seems a lot more watered down in its autonomy. Money, politics and red tape have pulled the rest of the world into the fabric of the University, while the University is forced, more and more it seems, to rely on the non-University world in order to survive.

No less than eight members of my family, between 1932 and the present, have spent their careers at Universities. I’m not an idiot; I know that even in 1932 the University was already pretty susceptible to red tape and politics. But the University was still thought of, from without and within, as a place where academic freedom was considered sacred.

It appears, especially through the eyes of those on the inside, as though the last vestiges of higher learning and new thinking are being chipped away at an increasingly rapid rate, all in the name of popular research and big-name publishing. That all comes down to the ongoing faculty wrestling-match to figure out who will land the biggest chunk of grant money.

You can’t survive without money, and you can’t continue your research (or your job) without funding. Grant money is usually awarded to those trying to answer the newest, biggest, hottest question of the year. It’s difficult to land decent financial support for researching the esoteric topics.

When a dispute regarding academic freedom comes up, it’s usually about the rights of instructors to speak freely (within reason; there’s never any need to go overboard, for crying out loud) about politics and religion and all the Big Bads no one’s supposed to bring up in classroom discussions. Academic freedom is also supposed to include the rights of students and faculty to think, wonder, ask questions, and to perform research in order to find some answers. If money and funding are driving the machine, it seems obvious that the academic freedom to do research is being severely shaped by outside interests.

President Robert Zimmer of the University of Chicago gave a speech recently at Columbia University’s conference entitled “What is Academic Freedom For?” He spoke about academic freedom at institutions of higher learning, what that means and why it’s important to protect and maintain that tradition in the modern-day University.

The greatest contributions universities can make to society over the long run are the ideas and discoveries of faculty and students that emanate from the resulting intellectual ferment and the work of alumni across the scope of human activity”•alumni whose capacity for invention has been dramatically enhanced through their education in this environment. Moreover, that universities are almost unique in making this type of contribution only highlights its importance to society.

If this is the purpose of universities, the purpose of academic freedom is precisely to preserve this openness of inquiry and freedom of thought. In other words, academic freedom is designed to protect and preserve for the long run the unique capacity of universities to contribute to society. More…

Further Reading:

Academic Freedom in the 21st Century College and University
Academic Freedom
AAUP: Academic Freedom
What is Academic Freedom For?
Pres. Zimmer’s Address Delivered at Columbia Univ.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)