Not responding to the OP yet, but I wanted to post this other bit of academic-life loveliness:
A California university professor has been charged with peeing on a colleague's campus office door. Prosecutors charged 43-year-old Tihomir Petrov, a math professor at California State University, Northridge, with two misdemeanor counts of urinating in a public place. Arraignment is scheduled Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court in San Fernando. Investigators say a dispute between Petrov and another math professor was the motive. The Los Angeles Times says Petrov was captured on videotape urinating on the door of another professor's office on the San Fernando Valley campus. School officials had rigged the camera after discovering puddles of what they thought was urine at the professor's door.
I hope you get along well with your colleagues, Heebie.
If you take this part:
I resent my husband so much for having what I can't get that I can barely stand to be in the same room with him, I'm so consumed with jealousy.
as the key, I think your point 2 doesn't stem from point 3 and instead things are really bad regardless of the house stuff.
I will say that on the housework end of things, a heavy workload isn't an excuse for not pulling a reasonable chunk of the weight. I've usually had longer hours than Buck, and I'm more slovenly, so I've done less housework. But I've never done none, or close to none, and I've been abjectly appreciative of him for doing more. If the dude can make it home to eat and sleep, he can do at least some dishes and run the vacuum cleaner occasionally.
She may be being unreasonable, and maybe he does more than she's saying. But if she's giving a fair picture of the situation,
I haven't clicked through, but Heebie's analysis is so many light-years in front of the columnist's that it's stopped being funny. I feel sorry for the letter-writer; I hope she finds her way here and/or gets better advice elsewhere.
Whoops, hit post by mistake. Continued:
he needs to take a reasonable part of the household load.
On the fundamental problem, I have no idea.
I think your point 2 doesn't stem from point 3
Typo? I didn't claim this.
You didn't claim it, but you speculated that fixing the other problems might clear up the jealousy. I think Moby's just saying that he thinks that's unlikely.
6: I was a bit unclear. You said, First I'd find out if (2) exists outside of (3). By her own statement, it does.
It strikes me as insane that she blames herself (or, at least, specifics of her circumstances) for her failure to succeed in academia.
Other than that, it seems like the same ol' "you should probably have a backup plan that you're also excited about, lest academia eat your soul."
I don't think it counts as being pwned if I'm responding to a more or less direct question.
8: Oh, sure. And my personal belief is that it exists separately, too, even if she hadn't been so explicit.
I think I was picturing talking to her. It's not clear to me that she thinks (2) is separate from (3), so I'd distinguish it by finding out how she'd feel if he were in a different profession.
the same ol' "you should probably have a backup plan that you're also excited about, lest academia eat your soul."
If she were here, I'd love to know how serious her current research is. If she thinks she's doing good work, and they can make it on the money they're making, there's nothing wrong with what she's doing. But if she's just kind of messing around, she should probably go get a job doing something that she'll get paid for, and let the emotional wound heal over.
If she was also excited about what she's getting paid for, even better, but hanging around the fringes of academia and not really getting compensated for it sounds miserable.
Are grad schools helpful at all with finding jobs in industry? If you go back to your grad school and ask your advisor: "So, I've got this doctorate and I've done this research, and now I need a non-academic job. Who hires people like me?" do they help with that sort of thing?
14: She doesn't say, but maybe the great university where her husband is at is one of those in the ass-end of nowhere and non-academic jobs aren't very likely to be good jobs.
14: I would not expect advisors to know any more about non-academic options than their students. If I asked my advisor about non-academic options, I'm sure he'd mention some students of his who worked at hedge funds. But I'd already know that mathematicians can be hired by hedge funds and I already know which students of his went that route.
I would not expect advisors to know any more about non-academic options than their students.
Varies widely. In engineering or applied sciences, they would know lots of people in their own cohort or students of theirs or their colleagues who, frex, started companies and might need talent.
A lot of Universities have career services offices that will in theory help new PhDs find non-academic work, right? No idea how well they work. The one at Harvard memorably advised one humanities grad student that, should academia not pan out, she could become a documentary filmmaker.
when You Capitalize, make sure It's ranDom.
I would guess advisors would only be useful for people working in fields with close connections to industry. My advisor would definitely be clueless about how to get a job outside academia. As would I, unless I was comfortable working for some kind of evil finance company, which for some reason seem to think people like me have useful skills.
14: It's more a question of whether the field has any established channels to non-academic job markets. If it doesn't, then departmental faculty are likely to be unhelpful. University-level career services are much more geared to undergrads.
Sometimes I think advice columnists give out bizarrely wrong advice as a way to attract links from the outraged. Its another form of trolling.
Does McMegan give out relationship advice?
19 and 21 indicate I need to remember to rush to publish. I can always apologize later and take a year of leave to write my book about primates and doing bad things.
Yeah, I'd second 17. I didn't ask my department, but I can only imagine they'd have no clue. Those people I asked for practical advice _during_ my studies were bloody useless, so I can't imagine they'd have been helpful afterward.
some kind of evil finance company, which for some reason seem to think people like me have useful skills.
I'm pretty sure it's because we can describe what they want us to describe in a way no one can follow well enough to cry bullshit.
If there are "established channels" in the field then the students probably already know about them. For example, in math you can work for the NSA and everyone knows that's an option.
I hadn't thought about the personal connections point in 18, and definitely in the right field that'd be a big plus. Of course, those personal connections are going to be a lot less useful for looking for a job in a particular town than for looking for a job somewhere. If there's an obvious place to work it'd probably be better to work backwards (figure out who is at that job, and then try to find someone you know in common who may not be your advisor).
write my book about primates and doing bad things
Did you teach lemurs to rob liquor stores?
27: Yeah, I was thinking of non-obvious places to work. "You didn't know? Ad agencies are always looking for PhD anthropologists" or something like that. But that would probably be obvious if you were a PhD anthropologist.
Did you teach lemurs to rob liquor stores?
They taught themselves, and I saw them do it loads of times, I swear. It's not my fault if some grad student forgot to tape it, or if my RA doesn't keep a log book, or if I just make stuff up because I'm sure I'm right. Wait, not that last part.
29: Yeah, I'd think if it's common then you'd know someone who had done it. On the other hand, maybe this is less true of people who went to small graduate programs, in which case asking an advisor could potentially be useful.
30: These people have a system, including the cutest little .45 pistols. They want 25% of the take and don't try to cheat them.
30: once I saw a cotton-top tamarin teach a human baby to talk.
She could help her local police department solve crimes!
Cary Tennis? More like, Scary ... Stupidface.
Seriously, it's not just bad advice (the first part of his response, I mean; the second part is just "get some kind of therapy" and "I feel fine, so you should too") it's advice that misunderstands the problem almost completely. Despite what self-help seminar types tell us, we don't all get to work in our dream job if we just commit to it hard enough. Here you have someone who feels incredibly bitter that she hasn't been successful in her chosen field, and his response is, "The problem is that you betrayed your dream of being successful in another field with incredibly low success rates. You should pour your bitterness and sense of failure into that instead."
While some of us are lucky enough to have a sense of vocational calling/compulsion, that doesn't mean we're guaranteed financial or personal success. If Tennis had done even a couple of seconds of research or had any capacity for empathy he would see that this is an incredibly common problem in academia and not just failure to blissfollow in the proper direction.
Grumble mumble.
Can we just stop right there? What's wrong is that you are not acting. The longer you pretend that you're not supposed to be acting, the longer you are going to suffer. It doesn't matter what else you do. You're not doing the thing that you were meant to do.
Of course! You'll resent your husband's success and lack of housework much less when you're pretending to be an actress while working as a waitress.
35,36: It's genius! Instead of being jealous of her husband she'll be angry at her parents. Presumably she's not living with her parents anymore, so that would be a huge improvement.
Alternately, her jealousy of her husband could be displaced by anger at the advice columnist who completely missed the point of her letter. That would be good, too!
19: Are you going to tell us The Rest Of The Story?
As I was reading his response, I was kind of wondering if it was going to be developed into a kind of reductio ad absurdum -- show her how silly it would be if she felt totally crushed by not being a successful actress, then generalize to academia. Or something like that. But no, he really seems to think her true desire is to act and that she's been, what, sublimating this into caring about academia? Weird.
39: and now, that unhappy grad student is... an unhappy grad student!
Seriously, it's become shorthand in our house for non-serious academic thinking about careers. Documentary filmmaker! And if that doesn't work out, maybe astronaut, marine biologist, or pope.
or pope
So many bitter and frustrated Archbishops. So close to infallibilty, and yet so far.
I really can't speak to the academic stuff, not being one, but the relationship issue seems to break down into two things: First, there's the straightforward envy of her husband. They wanted the same thing, he got it, she didn't. I don't think there's any cure for that but getting over it somehow -- maybe therapy, but she's reacting sanely to real facts that there's no easy way to change without getting the miracle lottery tenure-track job. Second, I get the sense from the housework complaint that there's a related problem that's not exactly the same, that they both agree that his job is important, and whatever it is she's doing all day isn't. Sure, she's doing some research, but he's got the real job, he makes the money they're living on, and it's her job to facilitate that by making sure the housework gets done. She's feeling like his support staff.
That doesn't make him a bad guy -- circumstances seem to have worked out to make it happen that way. And there are plenty of marriages out there where one partner is support staff, and it works okay if they don't mind. But to be happy, I think this particular woman needs to find something to do that in her mind at least sometimes takes priority over his stuff -- either because she's making money, or she cares about the work for its own sake, or something.
Other than the "at all times" part, I think that's probably not far off, Mr. Marx.
43.last: I have an idea she might use.
41: or pope.
Bonus: Name change encouraged!
Wow, Tennis seems to be off his game. I actually thought this advice to an unhappy grad student was pretty reasonable:
http://www.salon.com/life/since_you_asked/2010/12/09/graduate_school_doubt/index.html
I do feel terrible for the woman in the OP letter, though, enough that I can't think of any plausible advice. Envy of an accomplished partner is fucking poisonous.
Hey, Commenter, nice job with the video-game weekend. I had a blast.
On topic, yeesh. I would not have been comfortable having the maybe-not-academia conversation with my advisor. It's one thing if you've made up your mind to leave, but quite another if you might still need glowing letters for academic jobs. My department made a big point of presenting career panels on alternative paths—an endless rotation of alumni who had gone into biotech/consulting/journal-editing. I went to the campus careers office once to see what else they could offer. "I'm not keen on biotech, consulting, or journal-editing," I said, "so what else is out there?" Answer: consider biotech, consulting, or journal-editing. Helpful!
43 seems wise. Housekeeping can be reduced to living like bears with furniture - what would he do if he lived alone? That may be his alternative - but she needs to have work she values even if no- one else does. Curie, McClintock, there are some precedents.
Of course, settling for honor when you wanted glory is hard.
I would love the door- pissing story if I thought it was an alternative to other infighting craziness.
48: Thanks! It seems to have been a huge success, glad you enjoyed yourself.
Cary Tennis is a very strange advice columnist. He doesn't really give advice or actually answer people's questions. But sometimes whatever strange ramble he comes up with manages to connect. (Or sometimes, like with this letter they just miss.)
I just spent far too long tracking down my favorite piece of his.
51: Gawker had fun with Cary Tennis a couple of years ago. I believe he even responded in a very passive-aggressive, leave-Cary-Tennis-alone way that, now that I think of it, is typical of pretty much everything that Salon has ever published.
OT: I just encountered the word "lactard", which is apparently what some of the kids are now calling someone who's lactose intolerant. If you start from the standpoint that "retard" is not an acceptable term (which I'm sure some of you don't), is there any way "lactard" is acceptable? Do I give the late '20's something user the smackdown? (Please say yes. She annoys me in general.)
I'm pretty sure the 'tard suffix is always playing off 'retard'. So smack away!
I guess a smackdown is appropriate, but making lactose intolerance the basis for derision and a mean nickname is just so weird. Why would anyone care? Does she work at a dairy? Does she go around saying, "Hey, celiac face!"
"Hey, celiac face!"
My wife has celiac you monster. I prefer to call her glutard.
Dan Savage is promoting the use of "leotarded" as a supposedly non-offensive alternative to retarded.
I actually find lactard to be sort of clever. After all, the lactose intolerant are slow to digest lactose.
54: "Lactard" is not acceptable for the reason you give. Plus, calling somebody a "Non-dairy Creamer" would be more cutting.
Envy of an accomplished partner is fucking poisonous.
Yes, and I agree with Moby way back in 2. Doesn't seem to be much emotional support from the spouse or even serious discussion between them. If they can improve/resolve the relationship, it might be easier to deal with the career, self-worth, and/or housework issues.
I like Cary Tennis, but he recommends cognitive behavioral therapy for all problems up to and including hangnails and drain clogs.
To the OP: I think this couple is totally screwed. I've seen academic couples where both are successful. I've seen academic couples where one willingly sacrifices their job for the other. But I've never seen an academic couple survive where one succeeded and one failed.
It seems the envy and the sense of personal failure would be too much to take. And the standard coping mechanism ("Well, academia is stupid anyway") isn't an option for the writer.
Dan Savage is promoting the use of "leotarded" as a supposedly non-offensive alternative to retarded.
I love Dan Savage, but "supposedly" is doing a lot of work here.
63: Supposedly's husband is putting in too much time getting tenure.
She herself is lactose intolerant, so I imagine she thinks it's self-deprecating or something.
She's a co-worker with whom I rarely interact. My annoyance with her is based on her general affect; she's mostly well meaning. Is it possible that she doesn't even recognize that it's a play on 'retard', given her age (i.e., do kids even use that as an opprobrious epithet anymore?) and her non-New England roots?
63: Yeah, that's like white people using "Canadian" (or whatever) instead of the n-word. Nope! Sorry!
Is it possible that she doesn't even recognize that it's a play on 'retard', given her age
No.
Dan Savage is promoting the use of "leotarded"
She herself is lactose intolerant
Hmmm. This complicates things. My general rule is that people are allowed to call their own race/ethnic group/medical condition/etc. whatever the fuck they want. Not really sure if the general rule should apply here.
69: She's not entitled to the "tard" bit in any meaningful way, I think.
67: I didn't really think so.
Now could someone come up with diplomatic wording? My first impulse is to scold, but I'd actually like to say something more constructive.
"I'm sure you didn't mean anything hurtful with the word 'lactard', but it's a play on 'retard', which I think makes it offensive to many people."
66: I'd never heard that one before.
63: Yeah, that's like white people using "Canadian" (or whatever) instead of the n-word.
People do that? Wow. That's so retarded ghey leotarded awful.
72: I think it started out as restaurant worker code. People who work in restaurants have extraordinarily complicated stereotypes about races and ethnicities and their respective tipping, etc. practices.
I would not have been comfortable having the maybe-not-academia conversation with my advisor.
I had this conversation with my (former) advisor last fall and at the time I thought it went extremely well. But now she seems to keep forgetting that we had it. For instance, in mid-December she saw me in the hall and asked if I'd heard anything about any MLA interviews yet. I was so confounded by her question that instead of a straightforward and confident "No, because I didn't apply to those jobs," I only managed to eke out a "Um, no?" before she breezed her way past me. I saw her at the photocopier two days ago and she insisted that we must get together soon to talk about jobs.
Also, we never met this often when I was actually her student. (Yeah, 'this often' here = 2-3 times a year. What a great advisor!)
I don't even understand how the "Canadian" thing would work in practice. But please don't start with examples.
"I'm sure you didn't mean anything hurtful with the word 'lactard', but it's a play on 'retard', which I think makes it offensive to many people, you lactwit."
I find myself in agreement with 62, though I've been trying to avoid saying so.
I've often thought that couples working in the same field of endeavor, especially a field in which competition is fierce, are particularly fraught. Academia is a lot like the arts: if you're both musicians, one of you might -- might -- make it, and the other is likely not to. If your entire soul and being, your sense of fulfillment and self-worth, is tied to that endeavor, that's bad enough as it is (no matter what you want and try to do, you might have to move on to something else, and that should be okay with you), but trying to love and support your mate while you figure out how to let go is extraordinarily difficult.
This bit is great:
The concern, by some, is that eventually new terms will become a new pejorative. " 'Intellectual disabilities' carries less baggage with it at this moment," said Douglas Biklen, dean of the School of Special Education at Syracuse University. "Twenty years from now, it can become the new epithet."
Rosa's 15-year-old brother, Nick, doesn't think it will. Maybe school kids will taunt others, he said, by saying " 'What are you, intellectually disabled?' That's pretty hard to say, so I doubt it."
77: Back of the house identification of customers seated at tables. There are scads of these.
To the OP, I wonder if there's not more that the husband could be doing to help his wife pursue the career in conservation anthropology or whatever -- taking a job in a less prestigious place that has a lab where she could do more work, making his wife getting a lab job where she could work towards more publishable stuff a condition of his staying at the University, etc. I don't have any real idea if that could work but one does wonder about his ability to help or at least empathize.
I guess the couple might be screwed, but probably only as a result of being overly focused on their careers, which is kind of doubly sad.
82: I had the same thought -- there's no way to know, but you have to wonder.
Lactard is wrong. But it is funny. "Retard" is hard to vanquish because it is so phonetically satisfying. The spitting t, the curling snarl of "ard". Adding the hard 'k' in 'fucktard' or 'lactard' makes it even funnier.
73 is exactly right, and kind of inspiring.
Sometimes, when there is no war to fight, or when our enemies are far distant, we are nothing but apothecaries, weighing out our cares, taking inventory of our woes and hopes.
Patience, grasshopper. Good reminder.
81: For no reason at all, is there a code for a table with a loud child.
85, no there's actually a pretty good reason...
51.2:As we sort through the stamps on the envelopes containing the sands that are the days of our lives, we are but dust in the wind. Dust in the Wind.
OP:I just saw this movie. This couple needs to go to Paris immediately and become Left Bank hippies. Otherwise he will become trapped in a soul-destroying career trap and end up on a park bench, staring into his shattered dreams. I cannot even contemplate what will happen to her.
There was another movie with MacLaine, Nicholson, Winger and Daniels about an academic marriage but that was different.
Lactard is wrong. But it is funny. "Retard" is hard to vanquish because it is so phonetically satisfying.
Yeah, ditto for "faggot".
Debra Winger was totally the Zooey Deschanel of her day.
88: We can think of a third one, too.
Debra Winger was totally the Zooey Deschanel of her day.
My opinion of Debra Winger is shaped in some small way by Linda Obst's use of her as an example of a star who managed to have a relationship that gave her added clout, that wasn't to another movie star.
I thought that Debra Winger and Barry Diller looked particularly fabulous palling around together in the eighties.
91: Poor Ohio's good thing is the same as its bad thing.
51.2:The rest of the things you are feeling are the unknowable and unnamable secrets of the heart. If you become conscious of which things are unknowable, you will be able to look at each unknowable thing and simply say, "That is one of the unknowable things
It is hilarious. Not even treacly pablum, this is a Double Whopper with extra cheese and Special Sauce, as rendered in the workshops of El Bulli and turned fricking molecular.
And it apparently works. I like this guy.
It is hilarious. Not even treacly pablum, this is a Double Whopper with extra cheese and Special Sauce, as rendered in the workshops of El Bulli and turned fricking molecular.
This is great.
91, 95: Arguably, Mississippi's good thing should be Vermont's good thing.
Eh, the thing in 51.2 is alright. I wouldn't know how to respond to a letter writer who described her hypothetical love as a boy in the first place. 51.2 is a long-winded way of saying: shit happens, and it will be difficult, but don't forget to breathe.
91: Utah's accolade of highest reported wellbeing shouldn't count since it's likely the result of being the state with the highest use of antidepressants.
I just realistically can never catch up to someone who came out of the gate with a degree in my field, multiple publications, and health intact.
I don't think this is automatically true. If she can somehow manage to do a few years of good work, starting now, then she might have a fighting chance. Maybe.
Isn't anyone going to write my "don't use that word" e-mail for me? As much as I like the spirit of 78 (not to be confused with the Spirit of '76), it doesn't quite fit the diplomatic criterion.
I went through something not entirely unlike the woman in the OP. After an excessive period of feeling shitty I analyzed what exactly I wanted out of an academic career and realized that a large part of it was simply falling into the trap of seeing my professor's self-regard as successful in The Only Thing That Really Matters as objective reality. So I analyzed what it was that really gave me pleasure about what I'd been doing, down at the level of "wow! I'm having a blast right this minute!" My short list came down to: designing stuff, building stuff, testing complicated things that nobody had ever made work before and making them go - things I myself had a part in making. The clouds parted and I realized that these were exactly the things I do every day at my current job. I won't quit bitching about the crappy bits, but this really is where I belong.
Also it's kind of cool that when I screw up badly there's a loud explosion and stuff flies all over the lab. Annoying on one level, but the five-year-old in me totally digs it.
Ever screw up on purpose when you need to lift your spirits?
102- Maybe you could swathe it in passive aggression: "It's totes cute how you incorporate offensive words insulting to the disabled into your youthful little speech mannerisms!". Maybe with quotation marks around the "totes".
Not really all that helpful, I know.
Isn't anyone going to write my "don't use that word" e-mail for me?
My advice would be to just leave it alone, but that's probably a minority opinion here.
probably a minority opinion
Racist.
I really wouldn't do it by email. An oral "Could you quit that? It sounds like you're calling people 'retarded' and it gives me the creeps." might work as well as anything else.
Hey now, I didn't say minorities were retarded. Just their opinions.
Utah's accolade of highest reported wellbeing shouldn't count since it's likely the result of being the state with the highest use of antidepressants.
Maybe it's all the online porn we're watching.
Seriously though, LB is right: if you feel you just *have* to say something, don't do it by email. Chances are she isn't going to use the word around you again, what with having already made the joke. If it comes up a second time, then you can soft-pedal it with something like "I don't want to be the Speech Police or anything, but that kinda bothers me" and defuse some of the tension that conversation will create.
I agree that this isn't a good e-mail thing.
82: I've personally known a couple in which the successful one insisted not only that her husband be hired, but that someone else in his specialty be hired.
Then they solved a Hilbert problem, using their seemingly different fields, and had their choice of double appointments.
To bolster 108 via 111, the construction "This makes me uncomfortable" is useful. It's not a guarantee against defensiveness, but it gives her a big opening to approach the problem from the perspective that she's doing you a reasonable favor by knocking it off. And she might go from there to understanding that she's being a jackass.
her husband be hired, but that someone else in his specialty be hired
Behind their backs, though, the rest of the department just called them nepotards.
What's the point of email if you guys keep nixing all the weaseling out of face-to-face confrontations?
How else would I know where to get penis enlargement pills?
In an email, the person might feel targeted. They could be afraid that a 'record' is being established or that it (and any apology sent in reply) will be forwarded around the globe.
104: Oh the temptation... sometimes it's almost too much. There have certainly been times when my cow-orkers and I have checked that we have everything we need in the bag and then someone says "I guess all that's left is pushing the parameters a bit..."
Not even treacly pablum, this is a Double Whopper with extra cheese and Special Sauce, as rendered in the workshops of El Bulli and turned fricking molecular.
This comment added value.
making his wife getting a lab job where she could work towards more publishable stuff a condition of his staying at the University, etc.
Isn't the whole academic apparatus already fucked enough without adding to the nepotism? Back when my wife and I were still naive enough to be thinking about PhD's she worked in a lab where the PI was one of those type of hires. That lab was a godamn disaster for employees and grad students alike and it was widely known that she was only tolerated because her husband was bringing in a shitload of grant money via his genuinely successful lab.
Isn't the whole academic apparatus already fucked enough without basically guaranteeing that academics who marry each other are condemned to live apart or leave their field, especially since the hiring process is so fundamentally random?
As I was reading his response, I was kind of wondering if it was going to be developed into a kind of reductio ad absurdum -- show her how silly it would be if she felt totally crushed by not being a successful actress, then generalize to academia.
This was exactly my reaction.
I mean, there have to be limits, but if a college in (for instance) bumfuck nowhere wants to hire somebody who is married to somebody with a career, it doesn't seem totally out of line that they would try and address the future of that second somebody's career.
113 etc - isn't that reasonably common? I only know what I hear from C, but he's mentioned a few "so X was appointed and a job was found for their spouse" scenarios, and not just in Oxford.
I analyzed what it was that really gave me pleasure about what I'd been doing, down at the level of "wow! I'm having a blast right this minute!" My short list came down to: designing stuff, building stuff, testing complicated things that nobody had ever made work before and making them go - things I myself had a part in making. The clouds parted and I realized that these were exactly the things I do every day at my current job. I won't quit bitching about the crappy bits, but this really is where I belong.
This is a good point. Re-narrating thing to yourself is helpful.
Why not change "My parent's convinced me to.." to "I decided to .."?
123: Me too. Then again, I have a vested interest in maintaining non-crushed-ness about not 'making it' in academia.
||
Can I bitch about my brother? At what point should you feel offended if someone keeps feeding you bullshit about why they can't attend any family events? It's silly to wish he'd be blunt. Either way, I feel rejected, so it doesn't matter whether the rejection is candy-coated bullshit or not.
I'll tell the story for giggles. Brother #1 says "Hey, the wife and kids and I are going skiing at the end of February. Want to join us? Can't stay with us or use our nanny but we haven't seen you in a year and a half."
I don't love skiing, but I miss them, and we find cheap flights and free lodging, so we're in. Plus both they and us have had new babies, and I'd like to get the cousins together and meet the new baby.
Yesterday Brother #1 says "I invited Brother #2 and his family." (The one who I'm referring to at the beginning of this saga.) "I looked it up and there are cheap flights for them, and I told him they could stay with us." (WTF? Just because Brother #2 plays hard to get, they get offered lodging? Brother #2 is not particularly strapped for cash. But this is not the point.)
I emailed Brother #2 and said, "Hey, I'd love to see you, you could meet Pokey and Brother #1's new kid. Plus we've never gotten together with our three families like this. Also if you want, you could stay with us. We've got extra bedrooms, too."
Here's his (partial) response:
"Thanks for the offer, but I don't think we're going to be able to make it. We have [Toddler]'s school fundraiser that Saturday and just had a rather disastrous trip to Tahoe a few weeks ago. [Toddler] was sick and puked every night, [Wife] got ill from the altitude, and to top it off [Cat] died the Friday before we left. All in all made for a tough trip. Have fun and hopefully we can all get together soon!"
It just seems so goddamn phony, especially because there are excuses of this nature with every single family get-together. But it's probably the underlying rejection, and not the disingenuousness, that hurt my feelings.
The end.
|>
isn't that reasonably common?
Only if they really really want to hire you, and economic stars align. Since there are plenty of super-stars, there are plenty of stories of this happening, but it doesn't happen to most people.
Boy, I'd be bitching about the both of them. I don't know what you do, but my feelings would be hurt as well.
I mean, there have to be limits, but if a college in (for instance) bumfuck nowhere wants to hire somebody who is married to somebody with a career, it doesn't seem totally out of line that they would try and address the future of that second somebody's career.
I generally agree with this. But in this instance she self describes the situation as having a degree she wasn't particularly interested in and the only success being one post doc project (and whether she even finished that one isn't mentioned). By her own admission she wasn't interested in the research required to be in the tenure race, has other options, and the primary problem is an emotional fixation on being a tenured professor.
Sifu is exactly right in 122, 124. Intentionally finding married academics is a good survival strategy for universities in the middle of nowhere. These days, both partners are usually successful, even if they're not both academics. So unless the spouse does something that's found everywhere, a small town poses big problems.
Pretend that comment made sense.
Bottom line: It's hard to get two successful people to move to Ithaca, NY or Bloomington, IN unless they both happen to be employed by the largest employer in town.
Intentionally finding married academics is a good survival strategy for universities in the middle of nowhere.
Except that the same strategy* is also employed by universities located in places like Cambridge and Berkeley. NTTIAWWT.
*the spousal job might not be academic, per se; I've heard of cases where minor league plum administrative jobs went to the trailing spouse.
Chicago had a case where all of the intro to Latin gigs that normally went to grad students were given en masse to the high-school teacher wife of a newly-hired VP.
Presumably if you're good enough to be getting poached by a university in Cambridge, they've decided that a job for your partner is a relatively small price to pay. Also, universities in Cambridge can be a hard sell for people coming from better climates or bigger cities (i.e., New York).
Not 15 minutes ago I overheard someone saying "Syracuse is gorges." Thieves.
||
Here's my fantasy reply:
Dear Brother #2,
I'm guessing you're throwing bullshit excuses my way either because:
1. you don't want to get into an argument about your real reasons, or
2. your real reasons are straight-up rejection, and you're trying to be polite.
If it's 1, that's totally insulting. I'm not going to be disrespectful towards your true reasons, or try to talk you out of genuine emotions. If you guys feel a certain way, that's how it is, and that's not open to debate.
If it's 2, then don't worry; this whole charade already leaves me feeling hurt and rejected.
Bite me!
Heebie
|>
139: my first thought was that there's some issue with his wife and he doesn't want to reveal his real reasons because then he'd be causing trouble between her and you guys, which is worse than causing trouble between him and you guys, but then again I know nothing about your family.
Other than the "especially because there are excuses of this nature with every single family get-together" part, Brother #2's response doesn't seem so horrible to me. Without that background, I'd think those were legitimate reasons they might not want to go on the trip.
I think it's wife-based, too. It's pretty well known that Wife #2 can't stand Wife #1, (who is wildly difficult to get along with.) So that's my most informed guess as to why they won't come. Brothers used to be really close friends, and their wives have effectively ended that friendship altogether.
On the other hand, they're sufficiently secretive that I'd have no clue if there was another reason. Also they get defensive really easily.
My first reaction (without knowing anything about the background of your prior interactions with Bros. 1+2) was something along the lines of 140, plus maybe those are his real reasons -- taking a flight and a weekend trip with a toddler is a pain, plus they have a prior commitment, plus they just did that and it was horrible and they're exhausted and don't want to do it again so soon. It's too bad that they're not more flexible and that their desire to hang out with you doesn't overcome all that, but that's a little different from straightforward rejection.
I'd be a little more annoyed with Brother 1, who offered Brother 2 housing after denying it to you.
141: It's really just because this is such an extensive, ridiculous pattern. If they even gave lip-service to how much they miss us and how hard they're trying to attend events, I'd probably cut them more slack. But it's always these super-flimsy excuses plus defensiveness.
I'd be a little more annoyed with Brother 1, who offered Brother 2 housing after denying it to you.
Both brothers are aggravating in their unique ways! Although, given Wife 1, it is probably best that we're staying separately.
142: well, if that's the deal, then of course he's not going to talk about his real reasons. If he said "we don't want to come because my wife has a problem with my brother's wife", one would assume his wife would be (rightly) pissed, because now the family's ire over the lack of togetherness would be focused on her. If you two are mad at him, well, whatever. Siblings/blood relations, you know? If you're mad at her, that's a whole different deal. Your spouse's family believing that everything would be much better if you weren't around: sucky. Your spouse's family believing that you and your spouse are kind of distant for murky, unknowable reasons: less sucky.
If they even gave lip-service to how much they miss us and how hard they're trying to attend events,
In fact, a dear cousin perpetually can't make family gatherings, but she delivers the news in a way that feels loving and genuine.
So in a sense I'm mad at my brother for being ineloquent. Which isn't fair. Either way, I'll wait till I'm not mad before actually writing a response.
Siblings/blood relations, you know?
The heart of the problem is that I worry this is threatened. Ie that we'll gradually become estranged.
If you think it's wife-based, I'd vote for talking to brother #2. Not to try to talk him into this trip, specifically, but because it's crappy when tensions like that affect the next generation. You want HP and Pokey to get to know their cousins, and at least feel comfortable around them, and that can't happen if bro #2 is all excuse-making every time.*
You know him best, and you know whether his wife is likely to be reading his e-mail and/or in the room when he talks to you by phone. But I'd get on the phone and say, "I totally get why you can't make this particular trip, but I want the kids to meet their cousins and I thought we could brainstorm some low-stress ways to make that happen."
And then, because I'm a bull-by-the-horns kind of person in these situations, I'd probably add, "Look, if the issue is that your wife doesn't want to spend more time around Bro #1's wife, I get it. Can we still come up with some plan for a future visit that minimizes that?"
*and I agree it's the "every time" that's the problem. By itself, that e-mail is a pretty reasonable excuse to me, although if I got it I'd suspect the underlying reason is "We have limited money to spend on discretionary stuff and right now we don't want to spend it on this, but don't take it too personally."
"Look, if the issue is that your wife doesn't want to spend more time around Bro #1's wife, I get it. Can we still come up with some plan for a future visit that minimizes that?"
Divorce!
I have to go get Hawaiian Punch, but let me explicitly say that I welcome the above comments and any other advice you guys have, and I'll respond when I get a chance.
I'm just saying. I'm rather closely acquainted with a family whose members had a fairly big difference of opinion over a life-choices thing (think religion, but not that). They still managed to get together regularly for Easter, Thanksgiving, children's birthdays, etc., and to basically keep the conversation focused on food, children's sports teams, and other mostly innocuous topics.
It can't be done unless there's some fundamental underlying commitment to "We all want X" (family togetherness, cousinly friendship). But it *can* be done, and I think the blood relationship/sibling bond is the best way to bring it about.
I should say that about 2 years ago I more or less forced him into a heartfelt talk about the matter, and it was maddening and exhausting. Constantly redirecting back on track, reiterating that I'm not judging, and validating his feelings when he'd actually share anything resembling an opinion. Getting arguments about my feelings. Getting wishy-washy non-committal statements to anything resembling a concrete plan moving forward. (Back then it was that my mom really wanted to see all three of us kids at the same time, and my brothers would. not. make. it. happen. Eventually mom gave up. Then mom got cancer, and it happened. We're back to Never Going To Happen, though.)
Late to the party, but 140 would be the Occam's razor choice, IME IMHO.
Play the two sides off against each other for fun and profit. Make nice with wife 2 by badmouthing wife 1. Make nice with brother 1 by badmouthing brother 2 and his absences. Then, precisely when they least expect it, you can move in for the kill by betraying whichever side has offended you more.
Heebie, apply Obama's Razor: determine which brother's support was most voluble and sincere when you were growing up. Then slap him under the bus.
I really wouldn't do it by email.
I perhaps should have mentioned that she works in an office 1,500 miles away from me. Her comment was via e-mail. (Had she said it to me in person, I would have called her on it immediately.)
if you feel you just *have* to say something
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.
Also, universities in Cambridge can be a hard sell for people coming from better climates or bigger cities (i.e., New York South Bend).
I've calmed down. I suspect Brother #2 is not wanting to blame it all on Wife #2, and her reasons are that she finds life generally exhausting, plus Wife #1. (She finds general life more exhausting than anyone else I've ever met.)
My stupid brothers, but at least this sparked an idea of something I'd like to post about.
Then slap busthrow him under the bus.
161, yes I should have written "Then unterbusthrow him."
152: think religion, but not that
I can't figure out what falls into this category that Witt would be unwilling to name, presumably for anonymity reasons.
153: which is better, cake or pie, probably.
Maybe it's all the online porn we're watching [here in UT].
I'm suddenly curious: is there a lot of porn specifically targetted at Mormons? I'm trying to think how that would work, but I can't come up with anything aside from general sunny demeanors and those underpants.
I'm sure Apo has come across something. That 'leotarded' picture was wonderful.
is there a lot of porn specifically targetted at Mormons?
isn't that reasonably common?
Relative to the number of positions, maybe. Relative to the number of people trying to solve the problem, no.
Except that the same strategy* is also employed by universities located in places like Cambridge and Berkeley. NTTIAWWT.
Yes and no. Historically, prestigious universities in big cities tended to feel their location allowed them to externalize the problem ("Hey it's the NYC area, your spouse will find something"), whereas smarter smaller places knew they didn't have that option. Some schools (e.g. Chicago) also had a habit of high-handedly going to smaller schools nearby and generously offering to dump spouses on them. Senior hires are somewhat different.
the rest of the department just called them nepotards.
Shortly after we moved to where we now live, one of the female grad students said to my wife "It's nice to finally have a female faculty member who isn't married to someone else in the department".
and generously offering to dump spouses on them
The 70s were just a different time.
My impression back when I paid more attention to academic hiring was that spouses, if they got anything and were not part of a star couple, got positions like "lecturer" - non-tenure track, but a better and more secure package than the standard adjunct one - or worked in librar(ish) or administrative capacities. But I did hear about a couple cases where there were two tenure-track spots for very different positions open, two searches, and then one search canceled and the positions filled by a couple who did similar things, but not because the department really wanted both. That seems like the kind of thing that can cause some annoyance, if you felt you really needed to fill both fields.
124: if a college in (for instance) bumfuck nowhere wants to hire somebody who is married to somebody with a career, it doesn't seem totally out of line that they would try and address the future of that second somebody's career.
It doesn't seem totally out of line, given that we're kind of used to the practice, but I'm curious whether there are other fields that engage in the practice. It's certainly harsh that a trailing spouse might have to make his or her career secondary, on pain of the two being condemned to living apart, but doesn't that situation obtain for a great many couples in a variety of occupations?
I'm curious whether there are other fields that engage in the practice
Nonprofit hospitals also do it sometimes. You may notice a common element in these two types of institutions.
176: Nonprofit hospitals? You mean research or teaching hospitals? So the common element is the desire to attract talented labor, along with the monies that presumably pour in once that talent is on board?
I'm getting a little tired.
You may notice a common element in these two types of institutions
Puddles of urine?
Further to 177: I wonder if I'm missing something, because if the desire to attract talented labor along with the monies that accrue from such is the key, it seems that numerous other occupations are in the same position, yet they don't engage in spousal nepotism.
For profits are more about hiring executives' marginally qualified kids.
Maybe somebody should try to pee on the floor of a law firm and see if they can't get a job for their spouse.
You guys are funny and all, but dammit, Jim, I'm trying to get a handle on why academia should particularly need to engage in spousal nepotism, see?
Why is it that the combination of the name "Tihomir Petrov" and the act of peeing on a colleague's door made me instantly (and accurately) assume that he was a math professor?
An economist would have hired somebody with a comparative advantage in urine-production.
A social psychologist, knowing what is really important, would have peed on the frame.
All you need is a bottle of saline, a 2-quart enema bag, and one standard kitchen blender.
Not how you make pound cake.
Maybe he was working on the P vs NP problem.
"My solutions. Let me show them to you."
"My solutions. Let me show them to you."
Most purported solutions are nothing more than urea hype.
From the OP:
the weird-angled response she gets
I would have written "cock-eyed", but I'm afraid now that it's a horrible slur on the level of "lactard" and I'm too stupid to realize it.
91: Arkansas: Bromine Production. Our lack of distinction let us highlight for you.
116: What's the point of email if you guys keep nixing all the weaseling out of face-to-face confrontations?
Dear Brotard,
Cut the crap.
Cut the crap, then dilute it and submit it to your physician for approval.
I've heard of a couple cases where the trailing spouse got a tenured position. In every one they were married to a heavily recruited star prof and already had tenure at a good institution, generally the same one where the star currently was. Closer to home and in the non-academic world, my mom got a job when my dad was being recruited for his position in Geneva. She had no interest in being a housewife, and they had an opening which she was perfectly qualified for. That and my dad insisting on it meant that the normal search process for that position was waved aside and she got it.
"Trailing spouse" sounds like a reality show.
121
Isn't the whole academic apparatus already fucked enough without adding to the nepotism? Back when my wife and I were still naive enough to be thinking about PhD's she worked in a lab where the PI was one of those type of hires. That lab was a godamn disaster for employees and grad students alike and it was widely known that she was only tolerated because her husband was bringing in a shitload of grant money via his genuinely successful lab.
I am sympathetic with this.
I am less sympathetic to the woman in the post. It seems to me that if your academic career flames out being married to a successful spouse isn't a bad fallback position.
199.last: Sure if you are some kind of fantasy example of Homo economicus rather than an actual human being.
182
You guys are funny and all, but dammit, Jim, I'm trying to get a handle on why academia should particularly need to engage in spousal nepotism, see?
I don't think they particularly need to, they just do. Although perhaps academic couples these days are less willing than most couples to adopt a one career marriage model.
I heard about a case where two already-tenured professors were being recruited by a comparable (elite) university, but there was only one position officially open and only one of them applied for it. The one competing for the opening apparently kept everything fully professional just as any other candidate would, but the potentially trailing spouse gave a talk - outside of the search, but still effectively a job talk - so bad that faculty felt insulted. The speculation was that the spouse was basically taking advantage of them for a free trip, knowing that everything depended on the real job search.
Eventually both were hired.
I think the key points about academia here are:
1) It's a career track that's hard to get off and then get back on again.
2) You apply to jobs across the whole country, rather than picking a place to live and finding a job there.
I'd imagine that any other career that had those properties would also be moving to doing more spousal hires.
I'd imagine that any other career that had those properties would also be moving to doing more spousal hires.
And yet, TV news anchors do not seem to experience a similar phenomenon. Mysterious!
(I'm not picking on you personally, btw.)
Why get all het up about nepotism in academia specifically? There's endemic nepotism everywhere all the time in everything. Why should academia be so special? We're talking about people getting jobs at (mostly) private organizations. That is everywhere always largely driven by nepotism.
And yet, TV news anchors do not seem to experience a similar phenomenon. Mysterious!
They don't? TV stations don't help find jobs for the spouses of proven on-air talent who they're trying to woo from elsewhere?
I don't know much enough about the television industry to whether that's true or not...
Are local news anchors in a mid-tier city likely to be hired from people who already live in that city, or are they hired away from local news stations in smaller cities? If an anchor is married to say a producer, is it really the case that a station trying to hire them away doesn't also find the producer a job?
The point here is that "news anchor" is too specific. It's a job, not an industry. People meet spouses through their job, but in less monolithic industries than academia you'd tend to expect their spouses to have a different job.
For example, in academia there are lots of professors but very few top level administrators (dean/provost/president types). Often those top administrators are married to other academics, who are typically not top administrators. So although it'd be rare to see a school hire someone as president and their spouse as provost, it'd be de rigeur to hire someone as president and find their spouse a professorship or similar job. My guess is that TV anchors are similar.
Don't puncture my dreams of becoming a trailing spouse, Witt.
Maybe I'm gonna get killed for this but I get wearied by academics telling me how "brutal" it is to be a professor.
"Brutal" is in the quote excerpted in the original post.
The brief period when I was dating someone in my field was pretty ill-advised in a number of ways, but I have to admit one of the most uncomfortable thoughts that crossed my mind was that I really didn't want to get stuck trying to negotiate to get her a position that I didn't objectively think she deserved. Then I felt like an awful person. But, you know, in general it seems wise to be able to separate your personal and academic judgments of someone, and I don't know how the couples where one person just isn't that good manage. Most of the academic couples I know, though, are pairs of people who are both very good and who work very well together, so I guess they found some kind of optimum. I have to admit, though, in a couple of cases I've wondered what universities were thinking, buying effectively one researcher for the price of two.
205
Why get all het up about nepotism in academia specifically? There's endemic nepotism everywhere all the time in everything. Why should academia be so special? We're talking about people getting jobs at (mostly) private organizations. That is everywhere always largely driven by nepotism.
I don't think this is true, assuming nepotism refers to hiring relatives (as opposed to hiring cronies).
Apparently I have to admit a lot of things.
I don't think this is true, assuming nepotism refers to hiring relatives (as opposed to hiring cronies).
I would say relatives of cronies is probably the most common.
I can't see any reason for 210 to be presidential. ("The source asked to remain anonymous because he was being a dick.") Can you, Vicente?
91: Arkansas: Bromine Production. Our lack of distinction let us highlight for you.
Arkansas vies for glory with Oklahoma. "Best License Plate" does the state's robust prison population proud.
Why should academia be so special? We're talking about people getting jobs at (mostly) private organizations.
Is that even true? I don't have numbers offhand but it was my impression that in terms of student enrollment the numbers were much higher for public.
Indeed, by far most academic jobs are at public institutions.
212: there's that.
I still don't get it; is the assertion that being junior faculty is not kind of a sucky job?
204ff: I don't know about TV stations, but the daily newspaper where I worked employed many couples.
Sifu, some people don't even have a job. Therefore no one with a job is entitled to complain about anything.
219, 220: I wouldn't imagine public schools usually having the money to offer a spousal hire; maybe it happens.
is the assertion that being junior faculty is not kind of a sucky job?
Compared to what? An associate in a big law firm? A bootlicker at Goldman? An entry-level management consultant? A Chilean miner? Honestly, I'd rather be a tenure-track faculty member than any of those things. Sure, there are plenty of things about the job that kind of suck. But on the whole, once you've actually got a tenure-track position, it's a pretty good gig.
All of that said, you should pity me. For I have suffered.
I thought nepotism rules (anti-nepotism rules) actually complicated spousal hires a bit a public institutions (though there are surely ways around that, like the common in all fields practice of picking a few candidates solely to legitimize a decision already made, informally, of course, to hire one of them).
224: I think public schools are probably *more likely* to do spousal hires, not because they have "more money" but rather because they have larger departments and more positions and thus more wiggle room.
224: In my field, there are plenty of public institutions, usually located in non-desirable places, that do lots of spousal hires. It's a smart way to keep people -- and in addition to being humane, probably makes good economic sense.
I am changing my name to Von Wafer. Sure, it'll be hard for people to access my publication record, but it'll be worth it.
225: the lack of geographical flexibility strikes me as a definite hardship compared to those. Especially the Chilean miners. You want to live wherever you want, make your living as a celebrity vivisepultee.
224 219, 220: I wouldn't imagine public schools usually having the money to offer a spousal hire; maybe it happens.
Yeah, it happens. (Pwned by 227 and 228.)
221 is the assertion that being junior faculty is not kind of a sucky job?
My current thinking is that it sounds sucky compared to being a postdoc, but on the other hand, it's potentially permanent, which probably makes up for boring teaching and committee work. And, I mean, if that's the suckiest part of the job? Doesn't sound as bad as almost any other job I could imagine having.
Someone can point me to 232.last several years down the road so I can laugh at myself.
Vakeaton Quamar Wafer (born on July 21, 1985 in Homer, Louisiana), commonly referred to as Von Wafer, is an American professional basketball player
In fact he was born not in Homer, but in another Louisiana town by the same name.
My impression was that most of those anti-nepotism rules were done away with long ago. The only time I'd heard about them was in articles about Julia Robinson and how Berkeley wasn't allowed to hire her for a long time even though she was a member of the national academy of sciences.
the lack of geographical flexibility
So true. I lived in Oklahoma for two years, after all. But the temporal flexibility -- assistant professors are taught to bend time -- helps make up the stagger. Seriously, I always liked being able to work when I wanted.
I'm trying to get a handle on why academia should particularly need to engage in spousal nepotism, see?
Because it's one of the fields that people aren't in for the money, so merely paying the successful spouse more than the two of them together were making in Bigville isn't enough to make the minor spouse as-well-off.
232: I'd happily agree to do an extra course a year and some committee work in exchange for having a future and not having an impending move hanging over our heads. The conditions of a postdoc are objectively pretty sweet, but I've found it much much more stressful than any other stage of my life.
Seriously, I always liked being able to work when I wanted.
That doesn't seem that unusual to me, though. I feel like a lot of high-ish pressure knowledge occupations have the basic attitude that you can work whenever you want as long as you work all the time.
238: Huh. I haven't mostly felt that stressed out. On the other hand, people who seemed objectively less competent in grad school who have churned out three times as many papers as I have as postdocs seem to be having better luck on the job market. We'll see how it ends up....
I was thinking about anti-nepotism in terms of the process, not whether or not someone can be hired. Private schools seem to have more leeway in terms of doing away with lots of the formalities of a search. But obviously it's not enough to prevent spousal hires at public schools.
Also, I'm sure faculty and staff have different rules.
Several weeks ago I was feeling awfully stressed out, though. I have a bit of a safety net at the moment, which might have changed my outlook.
Private schools seem to have more leeway in terms of doing away with lots of the formalities of a search.
This is something I've been grumpy about this week, since it seems like one of the places I would most like to go has just kind of hand-picked someone without bothering to interview other plausible candidates. I mean, I'm fine with being rejected, but at least pretend like you weighed the options fairly?
I think the main reason I find it stressful is that at every other step (undergrad, grad school, postdocs) I felt pretty confident that unless I messed up I was going to do fine.
But there are lots of "people like me" who end up at schools in crappy towns, with terrible weather, and bad students. So this is the first time where I really feel like there's serious uncertainty about my future. Hence the significant increase in stress.
as long as you work all the time
Well, there is that. On the other hand, when my kids are sick, I can stay home with them and nobody says boo. Except the ghosts, who just won't shut up.
So actually, the real reason it's stressful is that the fallback of a solid second postdoc is quite unappealing because it basically means my spouse's career is on hold for a long time (you can't get very far if you're only ever at a place for two years). If I was willing to be a postdoc for 5 years then I'd be a lot less stressed.
Yeah, the potential permanence of ending up in a shitty town worries me. But I'm happy with the next postdoc I have lined up, so at the moment I feel like I don't have to accept a faculty offer I'm not fully happy with. I'm debating whether I should try to tactfully withdraw some applications to places I probably wouldn't be so happy, or just wait to see if they call me for interviews and then figure out what to do.
246: Ah. Yeah, luckily I have no spouse life, so I'm still fine with being peripatetic a while longer.
It strikes me that, while there are a lot of shitty things about academia, including the problems involved in finding any job, being a junior academic is not even conceivably remotely a sucky job in the grand universe of potential employment options. Dude, you only have like six hours of mandatory time per week and your big pressure is to spend a lot of time doing research in a field that you presumably love and for which you get paid a reasonably middle class salary. Oh noes. I get pissed off when associates at big law firms whine about what horrible jobs they have (again, compared to what?) and comparatively speaking it's ludicrous for a junior faculty member to do so, even if we can all find things to bitch about in any job.
TV news reporters, I've learned, do have to move all over the country, but are mostly young, hot single babes.
247: The usual advice here is that an interview is just as much you learning about them as them learning about you. So waiting until right after the interview to withdraw is reasonable, because before the interview how would you know whether you'd like it there? Maybe you'd visit and realize it's great?
you only have like six hours of mandatory time per week
lolwut? I guess it depends a little on your definition of "mandatory", but still.
Mandatory meaning "at this particular time you have to be at this particular place." 6 is still a little low, what with committees, seminars, and office hours. But yeah the awesomest thing about academia is the low ammount of time you're being forced to do something in particular.
I dunno, teaching classes and committee work can't be much more than 6 hours/week or something like that, right? Certainly not more than 20? I'm sure you have to spend shitloads of time actually doing research and preparing for classes and whatnot, but since that is the thing you purportedly love doing or else you wouldn't be an academic I'm not going to feel too sorry for you at all.
If you're teaching say 2/1, that means you have an average of 4.5 hours of teaching per week, plus 2 hours of office hours, plus another hour or two of committees/seminars/quals/etc. So probably 8 or 9 is the number of hours where you could get in trouble for not doing what you're supposed to be doing right then.
249 gets it right. The key thing, I think, is that graduate school is really infantalizing for most people, the job search is almost unbelievably grim (as the thought that one might never get a good job and thus have to abandon one's vocational goals is omnipresent), and that shit leaves some pretty deep scars. But once the actual tenure-tracking begins, it's not, like, an intellectual utopia or anything, but it's a pretty good job. Most people, though, are so beat up by that point, so exhausted by graduate school and traumatized by the job market, that it's hard for them to feel good for a few years.
I should be clear that I'm pretty much just making up the 6 hours/week number and that I don't have a good experimental design for ascertaining whether or not it's accurate.
I haven't actually heard much complaining about tenure-track jobs that people actually have, at least not in the sense of those jobs being worse than many alternatives. It's the process of obtaining them, and what happens if you don't, that stands apart from many other types of jobs.
Of course, experimental sciences are quite different. If you have a lab then there are a lot more hours where you actually have to be in a particular place at a particular time.
where you could get in trouble for not doing what you're supposed to be doing right then
I think I've said here before that I've considered, at various points in my so-called career, testing how long it would take the administration to do something if I didn't show up to teach my classes, for department meetings, or for office hours. I think it would take quite some time. In part, I suppose, because I've banked a fair amount of good will. People, consequently, would assume that I was in crisis rather than sitting at home watching the Oprah channel and eating bonbons. But even after they realized that the reason for my shirking was hard to determine -- or maybe even malicious -- I still think they wouldn't get around to doing anything about it for a really long time.
There apparently is a bit of a recruiting problem in the academic side of the professional field I'm in, so even though they keep churning out masters credentials at a rate higher than the professional job market will be able to hire, hiring for the tenure-track is apparently less competitive than it is in related "pure" academic fields. It seems to be not unusual for people to come in with degrees in the related disciplines, too, provided they have administrative/professional experience.
I think the six (or whatever) hours is misleading, though. I mean, I technically never really have to be anywhere at a particular time, but if I'm in town and not showing up to seminars and spending several hours a day in my office, people are going to start complaining that they can't find me. It's true, as Halford says, that I enjoy the research parts of my job (and I also enjoy the parts that involve sitting around and chatting with people about physics), so it's fairly painless. But, even though technically I should be able to fully work from home or coffee shops or whatever, in practice it would start getting me into trouble pretty quickly.
Surely the first few weeks of you not showing up to things people would just assume you were off traveling somewhere right?
I must say, I hate change of all kinds, but "Von Wafer" is a truly excellent pseud.
haha. what kind of idealist thinks you can get rid of "retard"
"No really, I like being handicapped!"
also, its at least as hard to deal with a partner who is a failure than one who is a success. so I think the lesson is that not knowing your place is the cause of most unhappiness.
When I hear someone use "retarded" in a derogatory way, I calmly tell them that I don't like the use of that word in that manner.
They usually respond well.
Of course, experimental sciences are quite different. If you have a lab then there are a lot more hours where you actually have to be in a particular place at a particular time.
Oh, it is to laugh. A lab, forsooth. Fieldwork; dependent on weather; dependent on natural fire; forestalled by fire natural, preventive or arsonic; stolen from Golden Gate Park; cut short by the State Department... A lab.
Lyme disease, electrocution, malaria, snakeheads. Although, to be fair, the electrocution I'm thinking of happened in a lab.
I was saddened the other day to realize that my dream academic job is likely impossible to get at this point--even assuming that I could get into graduate school--professor of health policy. Can't really do the straight-up economics bit, since I don't have an undergraduate degree in econ. Luckily, there are other jobs, not just think tanks but at non-profit insurers too. The other well-regarded people are mostly M.D.s
Luckily, people without acadmic qualifications get published in Health Affairs, and there is some room for people with a legal background.
I wonder whether this person might be happy in industry. Organic chemists and molecular biologists can get work in pharmaceuticals.
But the health stuff from her post really resonates as does the stuff that's out of her control. In my case, it's the illnesses of other people. Ironically, I think that those experiences dealing with the health system might make me better at the work, but I'm definitely off-track and often despair of getting the right help to get back on track.
My boyfriend's advisor actually steered a lot of people to industry, but he did a lot of consulting for industry, and his former chair at Water/loo was funded by a chemical company (maybe Mons/anto). They got out of the chemicals business, so poof went the chair.
He gets plenty of grants, but he was recruited away to Qu/eens when an alumnus gave a boatload of money for a professorship just for him.
133: The wife in the couple I know who went to Bloomington is a psychiatrist. There's a major shortage of those in smaller towns and outside the coasts, so you know, win.
I think that Vancouver had a special "extra points for spouse hiring." I know of one person who wanted to be considered on her own merits, so she chose not to apply under that policy, lost out and is now really bitter, because another spot in her field isn't about to open up.
213
... I have to admit, though, in a couple of cases I've wondered what universities were thinking, buying effectively one researcher for the price of two.
In physics perhaps something along the lines of, "we like the guy and his wife is actually pretty smart for a girl and if we hire her too then the feminist harpies won't be able to keep complaining that we have no women in the department".
Along this line, a friend of mine has been talking about getting a Ph.d. in history. I told him not to do it, because he'd feel like a failure if he couldn't get an academic job.
He's been trailing his wife as she's gone through a tumultuous residency process and fellowship. She's pretty committed to research and most medical research is in BigTowns, so I don't know that he can fall back on the SmallTown thing which would probably make him perfectly happy.
He's already got a law degree and a masters in historic preservation, neither of which he's used in any meaningful way. He worked for his Dad for a bit, but otherwise not so much.
He'd love to be a history professor at a small liberal arts college or work in historic preservation and land use, but there aren't that many gigs. Right now, he's doing a lot of volunteer work for the local preservation society, but they have no money and can't pay him.
274: A guy with a M.A. and a J.D. who wants to get a Ph.D. doesn't want to be a history professor. He wants to be a grad student.
Organic chemists and molecular biologists can get work in pharmaceuticals.
My wife and I were both chem majors (she doubled in geology, I never even finished my undergrad). We ended up doing the cop and teacher thing precisely because pharmaceutical companies have been bleeding jobs for years with no end in sight. 2009 and 2010 alone account for something like 100K+ layoffs.
When I hear someone use "retarded" in a derogatory way, I calmly tell them that I don't like the use of that word in that manner.
Me too. I only want to hear people use "retarded" in a complimentary way.
Somebody stole the gas charge card from their ex, stood at the pumps offering a 50% discount for cash, and charged $70,000 worth of gas before being caught. Why can't I ever work for somebody who doesn't notice $70,000 dollars? Education sucks.
So do I, it'd fill in the time till I can retire nicely. Now, who's going to match my current salary so I go and read history?
Why can't I ever work for somebody who doesn't notice $70,000 dollars?
I wouldn't notice either until I got an invoice or the card company rang me to query it (which would happen PDQ, don't you people have credit limits?) But if somebody was charging stuff to my card right now, say on line, how would I know?
This happened over a nine month period.
Somebody stole the gas charge card from their ex, stood at the pumps offering a 50% discount for cash
Heh, the other day I had a twenty year old from a well off family doing this to get cash for heroin.
People, people who read Unfogged,
Are the luckiest people in the world!
This lady wanted cash for heroin also, but she swiped her boyfriend's work charge card, so she'll be in more trouble. She stole from a small town near here.
But if somebody was charging stuff to my card right now, say on line, how would I know?
Your bank might contact you by phone and ask about your apparently anomalous purchases. Mine has done this a few times when I've gone abroad without telling them and they suddenly notice things being charged to a card from some flyblown souk on the fringes of the Jebel Akhdar rather than from the respectable outfitters and provision merchants whom I normally patronise.
273: his wife is actually pretty smart for a girl
Yeah, smart enough to have married a big physics stud, right?
Speaking of partner choices in academia, I'm here in the library cafe trying not to claw out my eyes as I listen to a 50-ish male Prof in full-on cheery bonhomie/hearty laughter/I am so fucking full of life and charm aren't I mode while the female grad student attempts to talk about her research paper. To make it more on-topic, he's laughing about how as a grad student himself he didn't have to worry about admit-interviews but now prospectives have to work a lot harder, lol.
Does he have leather elbow patches on his jacket?
Professions where the leading spouse's jobs are all over the map can be horrible for the trailing spouse. The military is an example. The US government does give preference to the non-military spouse when that spouse is applying for federal work.
I keep reading the OP title as "The messy afterbirth."
275: He doesn't know what he wants to do.
The M.A./J.D. program was a joint 4-year program.
289 is a great find.
273 In physics perhaps something along the lines of, "we like the guy and his wife is actually pretty smart for a girl and if we hire her too then the feminist harpies won't be able to keep complaining that we have no women in the department".
Um, James? Your sexism is showing. In a few of the examples I had in mind the woman was clearly the better scientist. In the others both are very good, but they work only with each other, so hiring both doesn't add much to the diversity of research going on in the group.
oh I remember that, gswift. It sucks right now, but that's been a traditional route. There have been a lot of layoffs after Pfizer bought Wyeth.
My BF works for a majority family-owned German compny which is pretty conservative about hiring and firing, though the Swiss and Americans are starting to change that a bit.
If he were to get laid off before a green card app went through, we'd have to make some really important decisions, because he might have a hard time getting a job in his field.
I could move to Canada without marrying him, but he wouldn't be able to stay here unless we got married.
the others both are very good, but they work only with each other, so hiring both doesn't add much to the diversity of research going on in the group.
So would you suggest that they hire one and get the labor of the other for free?
I'm still over the moon about having landed an awesome t-t job for next year, but the prospect of moving my husband (it will be the second move he's made in his life) and praying that he finds a job is easily the most stressful aspect of the situation--even more so than finishing the diss. I had hoped to get more help from the hiring U on this matter (especially since he is not an academic, but could easily work at the U), but his lack of formal credentials is turning out to be a big problem.
294
Um, James? Your sexism is showing. ...
My sexism? It is now sexist to suggest that there might be a few male chauvinist physicists?
297: Yes, I trailed my wife and it is a huge ass-pain.
298: Sorry, James, you're right. I was reading you less charitably than I would read most people here. But in these situations, no, I don't think the people doing the hiring were being chauvinist.
273, 294, 298: I read James to be saying that physics departments live in such fear of feminist harpies that they'll hire someone less qualified in order to placate them. Whereas in reality, I think female physicists still often have to be better than their male peers to get recognition. But on second reading, perhaps James recognizes that certain dinosaurs on hiring committees may whine about having to hire all these women when in fact the women they're hiring are perfectly qualified. (Thus merely pretending to bow to the feminist harpies.)
At any rate, thanks for speaking up, essear.
302
... Whereas in reality, I think female physicists still often have to be better than their male peers to get recognition. ...
Actually female physics PhDs seem to be favored over their male peers in the academic job market. See here .
... At 17%, the percentage of women assistant physics professors is slightly higher than the percentage of physics PhDs earned by women in the recent past (about 13%). ...
... Twenty-two percent of the new physics faculty members hired for 2006-2007 are women (Figure 6) . One-fourth of new assistant physics professors are women. Again, this is higher than the percentage of women among recent physics PhD recipients. ...
17%, 22% and 25% vrs 13% yield odds ratios of 1.37, 1.89 and 2.23.
300
... But in these situations, no, I don't think the people doing the hiring were being chauvinist.
So what is your explanation? Here are some alternatives.
1. The hiring departments are giving less weight to pure research ability and more to things like teaching ability, energy, enthusiasm and ability to get along with others than you are.
2. The hiring departments think that since almost all significant work is done by the top people the differences between second rate people don't matter much. So it is better to hire one A list candidate and one C list candidate than 2 B list candidates.
3. As noted in 303 women appear to be getting bonus points. So a male female pair of candidates will have an edge over two male candidates if that is the likely alternative.
4. Physics departments find hiring people stressful and are happy to fill two positions at once.
... At 17%, the percentage of women assistant physics professors is slightly higher than the percentage of physics PhDs earned by women in the recent past (about 13%). ...
This doesn't mean what you claim it means unless we also know the percentage of women who try for tenure-track jobs (rather than, say, going immediately into industry).
My claim about recognition was a more subjective one, that women still get their work judged more harshly and get presumed to be less serious about physics. But aside from the below study on bias in peer review, I don't really have hard data on it, so forget it.
BUDDEN, A., TREGENZA, T., AARSSEN, L., KORICHEVA, J., LEIMU, R., LORTIE, C. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.
279: Since his current salary is zero, any income at all would be better, and he'd be less depressed. (No joke. He'd feel like he had some purpose.)
304: also:
5. Women who make it through Physics grad school in spite of chauvinists such as the ones you rightly mention are likely to be skewed towards smarter, harder working, more insightful, more dedicated, and so forth.
It's far easier for a so-so male physicist to make it than a so-so female physicist simply because she has additional obstacles unrelated to raw skill. I'd be stunned if this wasn't the entire cause of the discrepancy.
Just to make my point in 307 completely clear - female physicists who won't make it to Assistant Professor leave before they get their PhDs due to additional pressures, while male physicists plug on free from some of that extra bullshit, leaving the Assistant Professor candidate pool enriched in unqualified males.
307 308
These posts seem a bit out of touch with reality. See here for a more realistic view of the job market.
However, most of those are not at a research university like the one where you earned (or are working on) your PhD. Comparing 60 to 1200 tells a different story for that part of the market. The odds of a recent PhD getting a job at a research university are only about 1 in 20. The fourth installment of this series, along with info in part 3 will address some of the things you need to pay attention to if you have this as your goal. You need a clear plan to put yourself in the top 5% after 2 or 4 years in a post doc, and be prepared to win the grants and reputation that will earn you tenure. (Getting the job is not the end of the battle!)
The 95% failure rate is not so far from the 96% I postulated in an earlier comment (especially since getting a tenure track job does not automatically mean you will get tenure). This means most women PhDs also fail (although their odds are better) and it is ridiculous to imply that all the failures are "unqualified".
And according to this women disproportionally drop out of physics at the college undergrad level not as grad students. And in light of the pitiful career prospects in physics this is sensible of them.
•Examination of the academic "pipeline" reveals that women disproportionately leave physics between taking it in high school and earning a bachelor's degree. While almost half of high school physics students are girls, less that one-fourth of bachelor's degrees in physics are earned by women. After this initial "leak" in the pipeline, women are represented at about the levels we would expect based on degree production in the past. There appears to be no leak in the pipeline at the faculty level in either physics or astronomy (Figure 11 and Figure 12).
•Estimates of the retention rates for physics graduate students show only small differences in the dropout rate for male and female students.
309: I always feel like posts like Dr Pion's that you link are being unreasonable when they say things like "The odds of a recent PhD getting a job at a research university are only about 1 in 20." That number is meaningless for most people. The story is more like: if you get your PhD from one of, say, seven to ten top schools, your odds of getting a job at a research university are something like 1 in 2. If you get your PhD from anywhere else, your odds of getting a job at a research university are something like 1 in 200.
These numbers are made up, of course, but the point is that if the numbers aren't broken down by PhD institution they're meaningless. The difference between first-rate schools and others in terms of placing students in jobs is stark. The corollary, of course, is that there are a lot of good people educated at top schools teaching at lower-ranked research universities, whose students are almost guaranteed not to have the sort of success their advisor does.
I'm still over the moon about having landed an awesome t-t job for next year,
Congratulations!
(It feels weird to say congratulations to a complete stranger, but I'm glad someone's found a job.)
310
Any comments on the below quote also from Dr Pion?
The long odds against getting a t-t job at a research institution are why I started this section by mentioning that most PhD students who enter academia will end up "below" (in the hierarchy of colleges) where they earned their degree. This is inevitable, and can be understood with a simple "Fermi question" analysis. How many PhD's will your major professor produce? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Only one is needed to "replace" him or her, so all the rest are fighting for that job.
310
... The story is more like: if you get your PhD from one of, say, seven to ten top schools, your odds of getting a job at a research university are something like 1 in 2. ...
So what are the 7-10 top schools? The 10 schools producing the most physics PhDs produce about 250/year. So if these schools are also the top schools and their PhDs get all of the 60 good jobs available then the odds are less than 1 in 4.
309: I don't mean to imply that anyone not getting a t-t job is unqualified - that's a poor choice of words on my part. Still, there are far more men than women looking for t-t jobs whose chances of getting them are tenuous.
