Don’t let ‘em see you mad in the classroom (Part 1 of a series)
"Berlin Wall Hulk" by Gorgalore (Creative Commons license)
To follow up on what Caroline wrote last week about how there’s no crying in the classroom, I’m writing about a different kind of not-so-constructive display of emotion that gets stirred up in me when I’m teaching: anger. Caroline has already picked up on what is the root cause of why I’m teaching-while-angry, and that’s the lack of respect I feel I get as a teacher. Whether it’s feeling underappreciated as a peon adjunct and TA by admin or it’s more sociological, as the study that women and young faculty get more guff from students (geez, that’s a shocker!) suggests, there are moments where I can feel my inner Hulk about to burst through.
As an adjunct and grad student teacher without a whole lot of job security and a minority (which can come into play, too) who looks young, I definitely have some anger issues over a the sense I get that I lack authority in the classroom. Really, all these circumstances build on one another: The teachers most at-risk–grad student instructors, adjuncts, untenured faculty–often lack age, experience, and rank, so they also appear the easiest to pick on. And it is probably harder on women and minorities who might also appear young to project a sense of authority, just as it is for part-time teachers, just starting out in the profession and/or clinging on to it, with little institutional backing. And don’t tell me that students can’t smell blood in the water when a teacher is uncertain about her/his standing in the classroom, even if they don’t understand the finer points of academic rank. So how do I overcompensate for being young looking and an adjunct–I get mad!
OK, it’s time to talk my inner Hulk down a bit before I type this whole post out in BOLD CAPS, so read a more even-keeled assessment of what makes me mad about teaching below the fold…
Treating Teachers Well, Part 1: Why You Should Respect Teachers
A recent post by Teresa Ghilarducci over at Brainstorm deserves your attention because it shows how teachers are treated differently from other employees:
Let’s say you’re advising a business with varying quality and you want to improve performance. Would you ridicule the workers publicly; cut their pay and benefits; say they are the sole cause of the problem, and that you want brighter younger replacements who will work overtime and weekends? No new CEO would adopt this as a strategy for success. Attacking your workforce is not an effective way to improve quality, produce a better product, and attract top talent — a bright young replacement would notice the disrespect.
So why do people think attacking teachers is a route to education reform?
Ghilarducci goes into discussing charter schools and unions, but I’ll chime in with my own Hamster World view. Whether employees are unionized or not, you still have to treat them with respect. Busting the union does not let you off the hook.
In the Hamster World, I’ve been treated rather well. I’ve been thanked when I did a good job. In some cases, I even received a bonus, or at least some nice free meals. Nothing fancy, nothing Goldman Sachs worthy, but something that made clear I was appreciated as an employee and my work contributed to the company’s success.
Most employees just want a little respect on top of their paycheck. Most teachers do not get respect, or even decent, regular performance evaluations that let them know they’re doing a good job. Ghilarducci makes it clear–if you don’t treat employees well and fairly, they will leave.
More after the jump! Image of a teacher at work from 1917, public domain on Wikimedia Commons.
(more…)
A guide to feeding and caring for your Post Academic (with poll!)
"Trader Joe's Bag" by Francinegirvan (Creative Commons waiver)
Taking another page from the current issue of The New Yorker, we’re repurposing its “humor”–read: smug, smarter-than-thou–piece titled “Your New College Graduate: A Parents’ Guide” to suit our needs, using their questions and coming up with our own kinda answers. We won’t take ourselves too seriously, since it’s clear from this week’s cover that The New Yorker doesn’t!
What do I feed my Post Academic?
We told you about the Post/Academic’s love of freeloading before, so that’s one source of sustenance. Otherwise, you should make sure there’s a Trader Joe’s nearby, because they love cheap brie, knock-offs of gourmet brands, and organic fruit in plastic boxes.
Why is my Post Academic so fussy?
If your B.A. is fussy after finishing college and prickly about being asked about what they’re going to do with their very expensive education and four years of “training”, imagine how your Ph.D. feels after many more years of education and accruing more debt on top of those college loans? Plus, your Post Academic can’t bask in recent memories of camaraderie and youthful indiscretions, since we’ve pretty much critically unpacked and structurally demystified those “sentiments.” Besides, staff meeting is probably the last time we’ve mingled with any of our peers–unless Facebook counts. À la The New Yorker, ask your Post Academic these questions to gauge her/his mood–basically, their college grad questionnaire applies almost just as well to Post Academics! Just don’t expect a direct “Yes/No” response.
More on taking care of your Post Academic below the fold…
The Semi-Notorious New Yorker Cover
Wow. That New Yorker cover by Daniel Clowes, which depicts a PhD moving back in with his parents and hanging his advanced diploma on the wall hit too close to home. Gina Barreca wrote over at Brainstorm, “We wonder whether the implication is that Ph.D.’s are worth as much as third-place ribbons—and are as easy to obtain.”
Eh. Somehow I don’t envision that New Yorker cover convincing a lot of readers that PhDs are deluded individuals who are doomed to return to Mom and Dad’s basement.
Yes, the portrait creates an unflattering picture of those with advanced degrees, but the reason it stings is that it makes New Yorker readers with PhDs feel like they’re being attacked by their own kind. That’s reason enough to dislike the cover, and I find it annoying because it perpetuates grad student/professor stereotypes. I don’t think, however, that the cover has a strong enough message to convince a person who is on the fence about the value of advanced degrees to dismiss such degrees entirely.
People move back in with their parents all the time because their grand life dreams didn’t work out, but it doesn’t mean there’s a reason to condemn the profession they chose. After all, people still go to the theater and go to rock shows, and for every successful actor or band, there’s probably about 10 people living in their Mom and Dad’s basements.
I posted the image of the New Yorker cover because I’m analyzing it for a semi-scholarly reason. I am fully aware that I’m pushing it with that rationale, so I kept the image small. If you want to see the image in detail, buy your own copy of the magazine.
Last week on Post Academic (5/16-5/22)–With Zizek/SNL update!
First things first: The Zizek SNL petition on Facebook is gaining steam–well, as much as these things do. Since we posted on it Friday, the member count has gone up from 967 to 1,415, though I can’t say we should take credit for the spike. In the meantime, we found an imagined monologue for a Zizek appearance in the comments section of Gerry Canavan’s blog. And if we really are going to daydream about this thing the right way, maybe a more intellectually engaging musical performer than Britney Spears (which was an earlier choice on the FB fanpage; now it’s Laibach) could be paired with the force-of-nature Slovenian critical theorist. We (or, at least, Arnold) vote for M.I.A., who would actually be a really current get and who would be willing to bring it with some pomo and poco to match wits with Zizek.
If you’ve got a better idea for musical guest to go along with Zizek and/or have a really strong imagination, offer your suggestions and thoughts in the comments section below!
"MIA at Bonnaroo 2008" by Jack234 (Creative Commons license)
"Slavoj Zizek" by Pablo Secca (Creative Commons license)
Host Slavoj Zizek + musical guest M.I.A. = Best hypothetical theory geek Saturday Night Live ever?
If you hadn’t noticed, the rest of the week on Post Academic was also pretty rousing, touching on hot-button issues like the adjunct crisis and the Arizona Ethnic Studies Ban. We also wondered whether a little time off from academia wouldn’t be such a bad idea for aspiring Ph.D.s and would-be tenure-trackers.
Thanks for reading and enjoy the rest of your weekends!
The Alcoholic Horndog Tenured Professor Stereotype: Animal House
Two weeks ago, Post Academic launched the series “The Alcoholic Horndog Tenured Professor Stereotype,” which reviews movies that have helped contribute to the bad reputation of professors. Each movie is analyzed in terms of Hot Pepper Rating, Fashion Sense, Likeliness of Having an Undergrad Piece on the Side, Boozing and Drugging Quotient, Financial Fakery, Teaching Talent (or Lack Thereof), and Quotations. Then the stereotypes are debunked, lest you mistake your professor for an Alcoholic Horndog. And now … an assessment of Donald Sutherland as Professor Jennings in “Animal House.”
Meet the Professor: Donald Sutherland, Professor Jennings, English
Hot Pepper Rating: Low. Donald Sutherland is actually a good-looking guy, but he plays the role with such skeeviness that he eliminates his natural appeal.
Fashion Sense: Low. He’s rocking the professor-as-beatnik look.
Likeliness of Having an Undergrad Piece on the Side: High. He stole Boone’s girlfriend! He might try to steal yours!
Boozing and Drugging Quotient: High. Literally, as in he’s a stoner.
Mental Condition: See above.
Financial Fakery: Low. This may be the most authentic element of the movie. His clothes are worn, and he appears to enjoy couch-surfing.
Teaching Talent: Low. No one was supposed to learn anything, especially Milton, at Faber College.
Quotations: “Don’t write this down, but I find Milton probably as boring as you find Milton. Mrs. Milton found him boring too. He’s a little bit long-winded, he doesn’t translate very well into our generation, and his jokes are terrible…. But that doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility for this material. Now I’m waiting for reports from some of you… Listen, I’m not joking. This is my job!”
Conclusion: If I were to blame anyone for the stereotype of the Alcoholic Horndog Tenured Professor, I would blame Donald Sutherland and the writers of “Animal House.” This movie is a comedy classic for a million and one reasons, but it did professors no favors.
Follow-Ups, from A(naconda) to Z(izek)
Let’s follow up on some of the recent posts we’ve put up. You’ll have to keep reading to understand why we have images of an anaconda and Slavoj Zizek here. What’s odder is that the anaconda is probably more directly relevant to the follow-up than Zizek is!
"Green Anaconda" by Stevenj (Creative Commons license)
Alternative Careers in (Post)Gradland: Last week, we mentioned that the great blog Gradland had put up some very illuminating posts on non-tenure track careers for academics, discussing adjuncting and high school teaching. Well, Gradland is back with some more options in the movie biz and the publishing industry. The former is where Anaconda comes in, cause Gradland’s subject “Alice” was hired to do research for the J-Lo/Ice Cube/Jon Voight vehicle.
Freelance Writing Tips from the Legends: In last week’s Footnotes, we mentioned a handy advice piece for freelance critic types posted on Geeta Dayal’s blog — which I apparently forgot to link! This week, PopMatters–gotta put in a plug for my home team!–began a series of articles asking renowned music writers and editors to offer their best tips to aspiring and/or struggling freelancers. Hey, anything a hall-of-famer like Robert Christgau has to offer is something I’d be listening to!
"Slavoj Zizek" by Pablo Secca (Creative Commons license)
Broke-Ass Update on Middlesex University: We covered the cause célèbre that the Middlesex U Philosophy department in the UK has become for scholars worldwide. This thoughtful column written by John Protevi for Inside Higher Ed explores what might be the ramifications of the downsizing of Middlesex U Philosophy for programs and depts Stateside.
…with a little bonus Zizek!: So how does Slavoj Zizek come into play here and why? Remember that he’s one of the academic superstars cosigning a letter of support for Middlesex U Philosophy? That answers how and here’s the why: À la the Betty White campaign, there’s a Facebook fan page petitioning Zizek to host SNL! Though not only does it (obviously!) pale in size to the B. White petition, but, at 967 members, it’s also behind around 13-to-1 to the Save Middlesex U Philosophy fanpage.
Myths about Ethnic Studies, the Practice
I wanted to finish up the discussion on the Arizona Ethnic Studies ban by considering the state of Ethnic Studies in practice, as opposed to the way it’s imagined by the likes of AZ Superintendent Tom Horne and others who decry its mere existence. The way the media portray Ethnic Studies and the conservative politicians try to make hay out of it would lead someone to assume that African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Chicano Studies, along with Gender Studies and Queer Studies (as Gradland aptly points to in a comment), are some kind of brainwashing juggernaut that controls all Liberal Arts education. For those of us working in those fields and familiar with the way the university works, that’s a big surprise to us!
Myth–Ethnic Studies is everywhere!: Really? Honestly, I’d love to live in the intellectual world that Horne and Ethnic Studies detractors imagine, where Ethnic Studies is taught everywhere and holds such sway over students, informing them about, you know, “downer” histories of oppression that are actually not discussed so much. As I mentioned in my first snarky post on the matter, Horne makes it appear like the Tucson public school district is some bastion of Ethnic Studies, where minority middle school and high school students all gather together in their ethnic cliques to take these radical electives. OK, so I have no first-hand knowledge of Tucson public schools, but I’ve got to believe this description is overblown, especially when a Tucson public school official claims the law might only affect 3% of the districts 55,000 students.
More about the reality of Ethnic Studies in practice, below the fold…
Why Are There So Many Underpaid Adjuncts in Higher Ed?
Megan McArdle’s piece at the Atlantic, which is a response to a piece on the rough lot for adjuncts at Inside Higher Ed asks a good question: If academics are supposedly liberal and pro-labor, why do underpaid adjuncts make up so much of the higher ed workforce?
Here are a few possible answers, plus my evaluation of those answers from the Hamster World perspective:
Tenured faculty members don’t pull their weight when it comes to teaching.
Response: I’m sure there are some tenured faculty who don’t carry their load and give everyone else a bad rap, but those people should be treated as individuals. In the Hamster World, you wouldn’t fire an entire department if it is harboring one slacker. You’d put the slacker on notice and then fire the slacker (or at least give the slacker a hard time since you can’t fire someone with tenure).
That’s what Socialism gets you.
Response: McArdle warned her commenters not to make assumptions and claim the academy made its own bed. First of all, too many people assume that academics are liberals. Anyone who’s been in the academy for any amount of time will tell you that’s not so. The Socialism argument is a crock because the system is obviously broken, and pointing fingers isn’t going to fix it. In this kind of situation, one’s political leanings are irrelevant.
More after the jump! (more…)
Myths about Ethnic Studies, the Theory
OK, now we’ll get a little more serious about this AZ Ethnic Studies ban, digging into some of the assumptions and misconceptions about race and the study of race that the whole thing and debate is based on. Though maybe I’m spending too much time offering an intellectual perspective, because, as Talking Points Memo suggests, the ban is probably just a cynical political ploy by the man behind it all, Tom Horne, who’s running for even higher office as Attorney General of the state.
1. “Reverse discrimination”: One of the common arguments against Ethnic Studies and Affirmative Action is they promote “reverse discrimination” that favors minorities and disadvantages non-minorities. ”Reverse discrimination,” as the name suggests, presumes a one-to-one correspondence between individuals and a zero-sum game between them: anything that benefits me, hurts you, never mind what aspects of our lived experiences and social backgrounds make up our identities. The basic “logic” behind this line of attack is spelled out in the AZ law when it “declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals,” with the premise being that all individuals should be treated equally and appreciated for their individual merits.
To pursue this line of argument a little further, the false claim being made here is that an Ethnic Studies class undermines the respect for the “individual” because it’s about race, ethnicity, and group identity–never mind that any civics class that’s about national community or class about U.S. history also depends on some notion of group identity. This model of “group identity vs. individualism” is also the assumption behind anti-Affirmative Action positions that suggest any reference to race as a group identity infringes on individual rights. OK, all this seems (falsely) “logical” enough, right?
See how the myth of “reverse discrimination” is debunked below the fold...
