OK. Are the $18000 in addition to an annual research account then? I was offered no start-up package but an annual research acount of $4500 until I get tenure.
I just took a job in a crim department -- NEVER thought I would end up outside of sociology but it's a good fit for me. The nice thing is that all the people in my department who were trained in soc have a courtesy appointment in the soc department. It means nothing but you can put it on your CV, work with soc grads, and basically keep your hat in your disciplinary home (and keep up with what is going on outside your little area of the world). But, you don't have the hassle of having two departments argue over your reviews and tenure.
On start-ups, I've aware of packages at top R1s (ranked in the top 25) and the going rate seems to be a start-up of 20,000 or so... However, usually things like course releases and summer salary has been in addition to this (and computer + moving expenses are all separate). A lower start-up with more course releases and summer salary would be more attractive to me, fwiw.
I am at a top 25 department and was given a flat $6000 in research support when hired. That may be low, but I am relatively certain that $4500 per year until tenure is excellent.
At R-1 in the East, I was offered $16,000, home and work computer, and $5000 in moving. Thus, I am sure that $4500 till tenure is one heck of a deal. Good job on landing that.
At a SLAC, I was offered $10K each of first 2 summers, $5K start-up each of first 2 years, and got a signing bonus for first summer of $5K. I also get a computer and moving expenses in addition. It was my impression (until now?) that this was very good. My superstar advisor told me to ask for $5K start up, and I was then offered $5K for each of first 2 years before I even asked. It's a lot that's front-loaded but there are "possibilities" for more later on, and I figure if I spread it out (in my head) it's about $6K each year until tenure.
I posted above that I was given a flat $6000 in research support. I should note that I defined research support narrowly. I was also given an office computer, software, and the like as well as $5000 for moving and 10% of my salary in summer support for the first 3 years. Still, both the $4500 per year and the $25k in summer money plus $10k in start-up sound excellent to me.
I am delighted to report that I just accepted a TT position at a State LAC and negotiated for moving expenses, computer, and $4000 for research support (this summer only). I had to bargain hard for all of this. (It is a 4/4 teaching load, so the expectation is for less research.) I am thrilled about this job (great school, faculty, location for me...) but reading other postings points out the disparities in our profession between the "value" placed on teaching and the (comparatively) higher value placed on research (read: "more money and other resources, plus the prestige"). All this talk about "moving up" to an R1 actually has me peeved (and I'm generally very calm about all this). I'm at a (top-5) R1 and I don't want to "move up," or move laterally for that matter (and reject the idea that I'm "moving down"). I have heard too many of our faculty lament "Why don't more of our grads go to R1s?" Sad that they don't realize that there are actually many of us who have prioritized teaching over research (I find myself itching to add, "But I plan to keep an active research agenda" since of course I have the skills and drive to do so - though perhaps it's assumed I'll "only" be a teacher -- says something about the value we place on teaching). I may not be as highly paid as I would be at an R1, but I'll be doing what I love, in an environment where my colleagues value what I value.
Congratulations, Zen! What can I say, more power to you. I think it's great that you love teaching. I myself like teaching, but I like doing research even better. And so I know I will always be happier in a R1 environment even if it is a lower paying one. That is why I did not apply to any LACs even the most prestigious ones. For me, it's not a matter of what I value most (I do not kid myself that the best way to contribute is through teaching, very few will read or use my research) but what I can do best , i.e., what I am happiest doing. Yes, the system is skewed, yes, the R1 faculty (and I also come from a top 5 R1) are skewed also. No reason do be peeved though when you will be doing what you love to do. Again, congratulations.
Congratulations Zen. It's great that you got the kind of job you want. One comment on this statement, "I have heard too many of our faculty lament "Why don't more of our grads go to R1s?' Sad that they don't realize that there are actually many of us who have prioritized teaching over research..."
An irony here is that I think a focus on teaching is largely behind those concerns you hear. One criterion by which any PhD program is judged is whether the program is producing people who will train the next generation. That happens at R1's. So, those of us who are faculty members at R1's want to train people who will in turn train the next generation, and that means placing our students at R1's. It's in large part only indirectly about wanting our students to maintain active research agendas.
Good going, Zen! As someone who's at an R1 but doesn't want to teach at one, I can relate. It's terrific that you've gotten your dream job, and it gives me hope my own search will eventually bear fruit -- if not this year, then next.
Congrats to Zen for following a passion for teaching and finding success! Everyone should be so lucky.
Not trying to stir the pot, here, but...
R1s are not the only place that train future professionals. Many students would not consider a career in the profession without encouragement and good undergraduate training at schools other than R1s. The idea that regional schools and SLACs play no part in this ignores the role of undergraduate education in professional development.
Perhaps more importantly, some of us have Ph.D.s from schools that are not R1 schools. My graduate advisors would be troubled to think that they had not helped train part of the next generation.
You're absolutely right anon. I made the comments above and should have phrased things differently. What I intended to say was that those of us in PhD granting departments would like to see at least some of our students go to PhD granting departments. This is as much because we want them training future PhD's as because we want them maintaining active research agendas.
If our profs at R1s want us to go to R1s so we can "train the next generation," perhaps they should be good work/family role models and not work 90-hour weeks. I can't accept that my life has to be that way if I want to be a mother and a professor. So instead of fighting the system for 6 years and then not getting tenure, I chose a different path.
--Sylvia, out of a top-5 R1 and now at an undergrad-focused school
Sylvia. I posted the training comments above. Do you really think the time demands on you will be less at an undergraduate-focused institution? I am a mother to three children, one of whom has very complex medical needs. They come way ahead of my career on my schedule of priorities, and I had all three before tenure. I work 4 days each week, from 9:30 to 3:30, and then usually at night after the kids go to bed. I feel the time crunch like any parent, but those hours are more than sufficient to do my job. My faculty position in a research-focused department has allowed me an ability to focus on my family that I wouldn't have been able to have in any other kind of job of which I am aware.
I'm one person, and I know the demands of research vary from person to person, but there are two things I think you should keep in mind. First, I suspect those mentors of yours may not work quite as many hours as they let on. Second, the time demands of a job focused on undergraduate instruction can be just as intense as those at an R1 school.
I need some advice. I just received a campus interview invitation for a specialized postdoc position over which I have salivated for a few months. However, the postdoc search has taken an inordinately long time. I am still considering my dream job, but if things fall through (God forbid) with the dream job, the postdoc would be an excellent opportunity. I don't want to reject the campus interview outright, but I need to stall for some time. I will be out of town for about a week investigating the housing market near the dream job, which gets me a little time. Those of you who have gone on campus interviews know that SCs want to bring everyone to campus as quickly as possible. I don't want to book a plane ticket (on my dime or theirs) only to have to back out of it.
Can anyone recommend how I can ask for more time? Should I mention the job offer when responding to the campus interview offer for the postdoc? I should note that a few days ago, an SC chair phoned to extend a campus interview (for a position I really didn't want) to me, and I politely explained my situation (job offer) and that I didn't want to waste the university's resources. I asked for more time before scheduling a campus unterview with Undesirable U, but the SC chair replied that he had to move down his list. I understand the SC chair's predicament, but I don't want to lose out on the postdoc opportunity in case the dream job falls through. (FYI: After beginning negotiations with the dream job, it has become clear that they would not let me accept a 2-year postdoc. If everything goes well with the dream job, I would accept it over the postdoc because I would have the resources at the dream job to jumpstart my next project--resources I wouldn't have at the postdoc.) I'm sorry that this is so convoluted.
When it rains, it pours. I truly hope that others are getting the interview requests they earnestly deserve.
trixie--if this is your dream job, they have offered you the position, and you have turned down another TT interview because of it, why on earth would a postdoc be a consideration?
that said, given that the postdoc is a consideration for you, you could make something up (important meetings at work, family vacation), but I think it would be better to just be honest about the offer. Tell them you have real concerns about the offer not working out, and when it will all be decided. Assuming the decision timeframe isn't excessive, the postdoc people will probably be understanding.
i don't think it should come as any suprise to the post-doc folks that you have other irons firmly in the fire at this point in the job season. i'm not sure why the apprehension about "dream job" falling through, but if it is really your dream job it seems prudent to get there and get it wrapped up asap. it seems unlikely that the post-doc people would rescind their offer if you were up front and told them you needed a week before committing their resources to your trip. they have after all, taken months to get to this point in their search, and are probably experiencing the same type of situation with many of the candidates they have on their short list. maybe you can simply ask: "will i be removed from your list if i request a week to commit to the visit?" if the answer is no, you're all set. if the answer is yes, then they are choosing to move forward despite knowing your candidacy is tentative...
Thanks for the great advice, posters. I do hope to sign the paperwork for the dream job within the next 9-10 days after my partner checks out the location and job prospects. The postdoc is a back-up. (Undesirable U is located in a place where my partner was convinced hu couldn't obtain work after hu researched the area, making it an undesirable position.)
I want to echo this sentiment, "the time demands of a job focused on undergraduate instruction can be just as intense as those at an R1 school." The difference is simply what occupies that time.
Like the previous poster, so far I'm navigating the waters okay, but it's tough to be an academic with children, and tougher for most women than men, and I think that's whether the school that you're at is oriented toward teaching or research.
As someone who has been at a non-R1 for a while, I can attest to the time demands. You work a lot, particularly as a junior person, but you balance your time between teaching, service, and research. More courses = more work. The big difference that I've found is that you don't have the same kind of pressure to attract grant money or publish a certain number of papers in particular journals. My colleagues appreciate that their publication count is not exceedingly scrutinized.
I'm another person trained at an R1, has never wanted a career of my own at an R1, and recently accepted a job at a SLAC with no grad students. Part of my preference is due to my passion for and strengths in teaching as opposed to research. But part of it is the time demands and stress-level of the environment as well. Being a faculty member anywhere is a lot of work, sure. I think we all get that. But everyone I've ever known at a R1 had to do everything, do everything well, and publish widely in top journals to get tenure. They also are all divorced, never-married, have no kids or a partner who chooses to forego their own career ambitions to be the primary caregiver for the kids.
At a non-R1, I expect to be busy with teaching but I won't have the constant pressure to publish 2-3 articles per year (or more). Instead, I'll write a book and get a few articles, and I've been assured that's enough to get tenure. In the meantime, I'll have kids, see my kids and my spouse, go to the movies once in a while, and feel good about the contribution I'm making.
I'd also like to say that tenure-track jobs anywhere are not plentiful these days. As tenured faculty members work longer and when they do retire are often unreplaced (as universities aim to cut costs by relying on adjuncts and graduate students to do the teaching), tenure-track jobs are disappearing. Universities continue to admit PhD students in larger numbers than the job market will bear. I truthfully see this as an escalating pyramid scheme. I personally have no desire to advise PhD students; can I honestly tell them to work hard, publish, and because they play by the rules they'll get good jobs? I simply do not believe that to be the case. Some of them will; some will get bad jobs, and some will get no academic jobs at all - which is fine, but is not what most of them think they're signing up for. And outside of academia, the PhD is less necessary and the opportunity costs of spending several years attaining a PhD will not typically be offset by the payoff in the end.
Claude, I do not know what it is that makes you and Mills feel like you have to offer the final voice on topics, but it amusingly keeps leading to statements like "They also are all divorced, never-married, have no kids or a partner who chooses to forego their own career ambitions to be the primary caregiver for the kids." If that is the case, I am truly sorry that you know such a narrow, uninteresting slice of academia. But more realistically, I think that it's just a factor of your need to convince us all that you are right.
I think you consistently fail to recognize that there are those who disagree, come from other angles, and approach the world differently than you - and that that is OK. That's what the Zen seemed to be getting at. And while I have decidedly different career goals than Zen, I genuinely appreciated the input because it made me realize some things I was missing in the search process. And the dialogue that followed was genuinely interesting too - from both sides (and I think most readers would agree - regardless of their own preferences). Why try to shut that down - what purpose can that possibly serve?
Trixie - i think that actively pursuing other options can only help you in the long run. not delaying the postdoc interview might actually work in your favor. it allows you to play it cool while negotiating with dream job (who may or may not know that they are dream job). anon13ptcliyu
I have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion about the comparative difficulties of teaching- vs. research-oriented work, but I definitely understand your frustration with the lower regard in which teaching at SLACs often seems to be held in the R1 world. I have seen people pushed onto the R1 track when this was not what they wanted, and when they would likely have been happier going the SLAC route. Even when the pressure is not active (or more passive, as when people are not provided with advice on putting together application materials for teaching-oriented schools), I think a lot of people feel that they would be looked upon as having disappointed expectations if they don’t go the R1 route. So, congratulations both on landing the job that you want and on resisting the subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to go in a different direction. Knit yourself something celebratory!
I wasn't trying to shut down any discussion.... I was just stating my opinion and my experience. When I said "they all..." I said, and was referring to "everyone I've ever known at an R1" - are you angry at me for sharing my own experience, which has, in turn, shaped my preference not to be at an R1? Why do you care what my personal opinion is anyway? Seems like you are the one trying to shut down discussion.
Anon-Mother of 3--it sounds like you are living the dream! I should say that I'm at a strange school--a teaching-oriented and research-oriented place--we all teach 2-1 here but don't experience huge pressures on publishing/grant-getting. So, I'm living my dream, too.
This is totally off-topic, but it's really interesting to contrast the early heady days of the old blog with the sporadic and spiteful sniping of today. I guess the optimism has washed away and bitterness has set in.
btw, bitterness is part of the academic stereotype. why? on paper, we have the best jobs in the world: no bosses to speak of, we have the opportunity to help people, we are paid fairly well, we have lots of time off, we have relatively flexible hours, we get to work on (presumably) interesting projects of our own choosing, etc.
sorry--i'm just sipping my coffee and had these thoughts. it is the miscellaneous thread, after all.
I've been wanting to initiate a discussion about the ASA job bank - which I think should be publicly available - for a while now. I would love to hear others' thoughts on this (though maybe no one else cares), but fear that this too would devolve into the kind of thing happening here.
Mills, tired of winter but still stubbornly optimistic and keeping the bitterness at bay for now
8:56--interesting article. i'm abivalent about the asa job bank. on the one hand, anything free is nice (and they are competing with the chronicle, which is free). but on the other, if you are looking for a professor job, it makes sense to become a member of the ASA.
back to the bitterness question, I think some dissatisfaction (among R1's, at least) may stem from the following factors: a) the rewarded work has little "meaning" (i.e., few read or care about your research), while other work (teaching) is more meaningful, but unrewarded--or, you simply hate/suck at teaching; b) promotion is largely decided by people who are viewed as peers, not superiors; c) promotion does not really bring more administrative influence; d) unless you are at a big-name institution, you may have relatively little prestige outside academia; e) you work too many hours for too little money.
In this case, I may have been reading something into Claude's comments that wasn't there - and if so I apologize. It seemed to me to be consistent with past posts which were of the "if you don't agree with me, I don't want to hear it" variety. I may have injected a little more of the history of posts and other unrelated junk into my response to that particular post. (I have spent one too many years around fellow grad students who are convinced the teaching route is the "higher road" and are adamant evangelists of this point - with whom I disagree, but don't think they need to "convert" - and may have injected that here.) So, if that was not your intent in the post Claude, I am sorry for suggesting otherwise.
There's a story - an urban legend of sorts - at my R1 grad program about a star student who turned down great R1 jobs to work at a teaching school because she wanted "more" than she thought the female professors she had as mentors in grad school had. Turned out she got more - in the form of a lot more committee work, teaching, and commitments - and soon quit that job to go back to school. I think she's a veterinarian now and I'm not sure if she ever had time for the "more" she was hoping for.
I might be naive, but I made it though grad school with a child, a partner (who has a job and works more hours than I do), and a life, and I'm pretty confident that I'll make it to tenure at an R1 that way too. There are lots of examples of it in my sub-area, though, so maybe that helps - or I'm just an idealistic idiot.
7:53 was me. I'm glad to see that you can be more civil towards me when you are unaware of my identity. Perhaps I'll try more anonymity in my future posts. (I would hope that the attacks could cease without such a measure, but since you seem to get worked up into a lather at the mere sight of my pseudonym, I doubt this is possible.)
8:56 - thanks for posting that article. i'm curious about how much variation by department there can be w/in a single university. i suspect lots. for example, the physics department might be great on all these measures while sociology maybe a disaster in terms of tenure clarity, work/life balance and numerous other dimensions. one thing is clear, though, while $ is nice, it's not the only thing.
i also agree w/ you that access to the asa job bank should be free. i nominate you to write a mind-numbingly long resolution on the subject:)
I would take you up on that if I weren't still recovering from writing a mind-numbingly long dissertation. Alas, only so many long-winded things one sociologist can compose in a short time.
I'm also curious about the differences across departments and whether they tend to be relatively uniform within a given institution or some can be collegial and pleasant places and others total snakepits. It would also be interesting to see comparisons across R1/R2/SLAC along the lines of the discussion here, but since it's such a small, nonrandom sample that probably wouldn't tell us much anyway. I guess we should be happy anyone cares enough about faculty satisfaction to do a survey in the first place.
I've been curious why no one's ever mentioned community colleges or Not-very-select colleges in all these months. They are very important places to "make a difference."
Met someone at the ASA's in Montreal who was winding down her career at a unionized CC and had thrived there, raised kids as a single parent, etc. etc. Nothing but great things to say about work-family balance and such. Sounded great to me.
Anyone there now? Pursuing jobs like this? Avoiding and if so why?
To Mills and others: Thank you!! I feel like I owe everyone on this list a HUGE hug. I've been hanging around this blog for such a long time it seems, seeking support (I'll now admit that *I* was the one who posted the anxiety-filled 11/20 post re: Thanksgiving :) ... Now that the job-hunt is over, I'll just be sending out my positive energy to each of you (in my off-line life, I am *way* less ethereal than my postings make me seem, I swear.)
Abrazos, Zen (who also misses the early "heady days" as anon put it, but doesn't miss the constant anxiety that had me glued to our blog...)
The discussion about differences between types of schools could take up an entire blog of its own. That said, one thing that surprised me about my job market experience was how faculty attitudes about "job vs. career" varied by type of school.
At the R1 where I eventually landed, the faculty seem to enjoy being consumed by sociology, but in a healthy way, not a desperate workaholic way. At the MA-granting regional university, profs enjoyed talking sociology, but less so, and tended to be more in the "it's a pretty good job" camp. The farther down the research scale (in Carnegie ranking terms) I went, the more profs seemed to treat their work as "just a day job" vs. something that really consumed them.
This is based on a very small sample size, of course. And I also don't mean to sound like I'm putting down anyone who treats it like a day job vs. a career or vocation. It's just something I wasn't expecting.
Re Community College and other less-selective schools - I didn't include any CC's in my applications this year, but if I'm on the market again next year (likely at this point!) I plan to broaden my search and apply to CC's. This year I didn't because my faculty informed me that their students don't apply to teach at community colleges, but since neither of them is offering to pay me to be unemployed I'm thinking they may just have to get used to the idea that one of their students could end up at a CC! I've also been thinking that as someone who's an activist and into social justice issues, a community college with the diverse student population one tends to find there may just be the place to be. But I do think there's an elitism at play here (as the comments from my faculty would indicate) and for other folks there's also the issue of having money for research, and the fact is that CC's usually don't have those kinds of resources or pull in so many big grants. ~Felix~
if you like teaching, I would guess that a CC might be a far more rewarding experience than a lower tier SLAC. I would guess that more CC students are paying for their education themselves, and often are aspiring to get into a 4 year college. so they may be more enthusiastic and motivated. at a lower-tier SLAC, you may find that too many of the students are dumb rich kids who want to party, as one of my friends (at one of those schools) recently put it.
One qualifier to 8:49's post about the potential for interested students at CC's - because students are frequently using these as a means into a BA/S granting school, frequently the curriculum is incredibly constrained. The one in the same town as my large state university actually dictates the books, and majority of the topcis to be coved in class to meet the requirements of students being able to transfer the creidts out. So, you may lose a LOT of control over the content of your courses in such a setting, at least from what I have seen.
that's a good point. and it's probably true that even though the caliber of students at lower tier universities is pretty poor, they may still be brighter than most (but certainly not all) CC students.
I think that like all other schools, there's a lot of variation within community college. One of the ones that I attended offers tenure. I'd look for something like that if I went that route.
I really enjoyed reading the posts since yesterday regarding different pros and cons and perspectives on SLACs, R1s and CCs.
5:58, I appreciate and accept your apology. And thanks to whoever else that was who jumped in on my behalf. I don't think I did any "if you don't agree with me, go away" stuff earlier in this blog. If I did, I didn't mean to. The only thing I never had patience for was the naming debate, because I knew we couldn't take a real vote on it and it seemed to get really nasty.
In terms of this current debate - it's absolutely the kind of thing I think is valuable for this blog and the kind of stuff we should be discussing. My personal preferences aside, I'm GLAD we differ on this (so we don't all want the same jobs...). It comes down to - what do you want? What do you enjoy? What kind of career do you want to have? What kind of sociologist do you want to be?....
The related issue I tried to raise in a previous post was about whether PhD-granting institutions are granting too many PhDs, given the gradual (or not-so-gradual) relative disappearance of tenure-track jobs.
Claude, I totally agree with your point that grad programs are over-admitting. I've raised that issue with a variety of folks. Grad students seem to agree, though (surprise, surprise) faculty don't seem to think it's much of a problem. I think (and I say this as a person with a TT job) that given the state of academia, the increase in hiring lecturers etc, that admitting these large cohorts and starting new grad soc programs (U Vic and U of Vermont to name two) is simply unethical.
As to the hierarchy and job satisfaction at a variety of institutions...it seems that, yes, R1 jobs are seen as the holy grail. That said, from my impressions of job satisfaction and lifestyle choices of faculty members when I was interviewing at a variety of schools (R1s, R2s and SLACs) it seems that people are most happy when their job demands fit their lifestyle. That is, for those who love an all encompassing job and live/eat/breath soc - competitive R1s must be very fulfilling. For those of us for whom sociology is a very fulfilling, but not all encompassing, part of our lives SLACs or CCs may be more fulfilling. I remember being thrilled when interviewing at SLACs and faculty talked about the time they spent on hobbies and interests outside of soc, freely and w/out guilt! I also recall that a study was discussed in the chronicle of higher ed demonstrating that CC profs had the highest job satisfaction rating.
All that said - it seems that the discussion on the "old" blog about sleeping with various members of a hiring committee and the subsequent thank-you note protocol is infinitely more interesting than our current discussion!
i agree that grad programs over-admit too. i don't think we need to go as far as the ama, but did you know that they admit only a certain number of students to medical school each year to make sure there is still a demand - particularly in certain specializations? they train FEWER physicians each year than the country needs. lawyers on the other hand.....
since we know more about statistics than the physicians & the lawyers, we (as a discipline) should probably aim to train *exactly* as many as institutions of higher education demand.
i feel another lengthy asa-resolution coming on....
Jobs ARE harder to get now. 30 years ago students in most fields got full funding (there's always been attrition due to personal this-isn't-the-life-for-me factors, but attrition due to logistical difficulties such as lack of funding is on the rise), and there were tenure-track jobs awaiting them when they finished. In the postwar (WWII) era, there was a boom in college attendance rates due largely to the GI bill (plus more women and more people of color attending college in recent decades as legal discrimination has abated), and faculty were needed to teach the students. Today, many tenured faculty are waiting longer to retire (I know of one who just retired at 85+), so their jobs aren't opening up for new folks. More importantly, even as they do retire, universities are not necessarily replacing them. Universities are acting more and more like corporations (and many college presidents call themselves CEOs), aiming to increase revenues by increasing tuition and decrease costs by farming teaching out to adjuncts and grad students (as some faculty stars understandably demand smaller teaching loads, someone has to fill in and teach), who they pay poorly and who they don't provide health insurance. It is a spiraling problem.
Personally, I don't think the solution lies only in admitting fewer PhD students; I think it lies in preserving tenure-track jobs and, where that's not feasible, full-time, multi-year contract appointments (after several years pursuing a PhD we at least want some kind of job security and minimum pay....)
It's been a while since I've been on this site (I left it for dead a month ago), but this is an interesting new thread, and one my friends & i discuss often.
to the topic at hand: another factor in the general sense of decline among sociology PhDs, IMO, is that sociology had its heyday in the 50's and 60's. Sociologists acted as special advisors to the President, there was lots of research funding, etc. That's why sociology is so often housed in the ugliest buildings on campus--our heyday coincided with an architectural nadir. Then, vietnam and the corresponding activist (and to some extent, pomo) sociology of the 70's-80's (and through today) has discredited the field and is partly responsible for the shift of federal grant money (for projects that would have gone to sociology in the past) over to separate demography departments, criminology departments, schools of public health and other multi-disciplinary research centers. These places use our theories and take our money. We need to be better at defending our disciplinary borders.
(This is just idle bullshit though--I haven't actually looked at sociology's share of social science research funding or anything.)
That said, I think the future is bright for sociology. It's a good sign that the hot sexy research in economics and psychology trespasses on sociological turf.
that's an interesting point, Nick. It makes sense as an additional factor. I don't think people are always aware (I know I'm not) of the significance of sociology historically v. today in political terms. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sociology's funding 'heyday' in the 1950s and 1960s owed to the fact that many sociologists were willing to serve as tame corporate and government lapdogs, producing research that would serve powerful interests. Activist sociology in later decades did not discredit the discipline except in the eyes of corporations and the state, who had no use for anyone with a critical perspective who believed that sociology had a purpose other than bolstering their power. Right wing political interests then began a calculated campaign to push critical or activist academics -- including sociologists but not limited to them -- out of the academy. This has coincided with the general shift that Claude talked about towards the corporatization of the university, with all its varied and sundry effects (the assault on tenure, job security and academic freedom, the decline in faculty and student role in university governance, the increase in university research directly sponsored by corporations). There are ongoing political efforts to reduce or curtail NSF or DOE funding to disciplines or programs that are associated with critical perspectives. Some sociologists, though, happily for them, can still hope to get fat grants if they produce work that is ideologically useful to the state or corporations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Add Health study is the largest sociology research grant (or if not the largest, pretty damn big). I'm not seeing how it serves corporate or right wing interests, but I may not be as attuned to "corporate ideology" as you are.
Personally, I'm a good liberal, but I don't think an overt association between sociology and the political left is good for either. If we want sociology to be relevant beyond a narrow academic circle, if we want greater prestige and funding, then sociologists need to behave as if they are scientists (even if we aren't actually doing science). If limp rhetorical activism prevails (at the ASA and elsewhere), sociology will be easily dismissed by an increasingly conservative public and the leftist causes it has tried to serve will be no better off either.
Nick (if that's who you are): So your explanation for why the job market has been particularly hard the last few years is because of a 1970s based right wing conspiracy to rid the academy of critical perspectives? One could make the argument that sociology has largely been discredited (rightly or wrongly) in many camps, which has let to the gradual loss of university funds for soc programs. But a right-wing ploy? C'mon man.
oh--I should clarify another point: I'd never suggest that any recent spike in sociology unemployment is due to a long term decline of the discipline (though the excess PhD labor problem is probably exacerbated by this apparent decline). I was talking about long term trends.
I don’t have the data on the exact sources or amounts of funding for sociological research, but I don’t doubt that the Add study is a large individual grant. It’s a useful case to discuss. I admit that some of my phrases were probably too vague and misleading. I didn’t mean to suggest that all the people whose research gets this kind of funding are lap dogs, now or in the 1950s. I think in most cases it is more a question of not appreciating the political implications of their work (this isn’t therefore more scientific, just less attentive to its own politics).
The basic design of the Add study itself, a longitudinal survey of adolescents that does not transcend the level of ‘community’, already depoliticizes adolescent health, locating its causes in individuals themselves and their immediate contexts and away from macro social, economic, and political factors. The study’s web site offers: “Add Health postulates that families, friends, schools, and communities play roles in the lives of adolescents that may encourage healthy choices or may lead to unhealthy, self-destructive behavior...As a group, adolescents are healthy people. Threats to their health stem primarily from their behavior. As they direct their energies toward achieving popularity, autonomy from adults, success in school or sports, satisfying romantic and platonic relationships, and confidence in themselves, they make choices that have health consequences.”
Really? Threats to their health stem PRIMARILY from their behavior? Is this a finding or a starting assumption? I guess people who think major threats to their health lie in a profit-based health care system that leaves millions of them without health insurance or access to proper medical care; pollution and toxic-waste dumping in their communities; the pushing of processed and chemically altered fast food on them from birth, including in their schools, and the lack of availability of healthy options; the poverty and job loss that isolates many in dangerous environments and forecloses their opportunities; cuts in funding for physical education and few public facilities for exercise; meager or nonexistent sex education and no access to free or low-cost pregnancy or STD protection... are wrongheaded. While the role of institutional race/class discrimination in determining health disparities among adolescents may be addressed in some of the individual studies, the project as a whole doesn’t present it as a significant question. The research brackets off major social forces that are of great importance in adolescent health outcomes but cannot be captured within their framework. The stress on individual behavior, or ‘choice’, is entirely consistent with a right-wing conservative framing of the issue.
Studies that want to examine those structural factors and the politics of adolescent health from a critical perspective, especially if done in conjunction with radical scientists, unions of health-care professionals or community activists working for social change, are unlikely to be handed grants like this. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions, but they are not the rule. People like the critical medical anthropologist Paul Farmer have to walk a fine line if they want to retain funding even for less political research.
Most radical or activist research is inspired not by “causes” but by a commitment to a set of values, such as democracy, equality, freedom, justice, and human rights, including the rights of adolescents not to have their health imperiled by private, profit-seeking interests or the government officials in bed with them. Theirs is not “limp, rhetorical activism” but often a committed (resisting the temptation to say “erect”) critical public sociology. You think the public for this work is small and shrinking. I disagree, but its public does have less money and less of a part in determining prestige than powerful corporations. So you are probably right that more critical scholarship would lead to decreased funding and a resulting loss of prestige in some circles. But funding and prestige are not the same as relevance or social value, and under present circumstances may be in inverse proportion to them. And for some there are things more important than the status of our discipline.
Two bills proposed in recent years, both aimed to limit academic freedom especially on the Left, are illustrative. HR3077 sought to increase government control over Title VI funding, and S2802 sought to deny NSF funding to the social/behavioral sciences and also increase government review powers. The impetus and support for these initiatives, like the ongoing campaign against tenure and other supports for academic freedom, was provided by conservative think tanks. In this last case, the proponents don’t even bother to hide the fact that their intent is to get rid of Leftist academics, although they tend to denigrate all academics in the process. It is not a ploy, but a concerted campaign to force critical scholars from academe, which belies their insistence that Leftist academics are unthreatening, irrelevant losers.
I always thought "health" was a codeword for sexual health in the Add Health propaganda. When funding was up in the air because conservatives weren't sure about the study's goals and thought it was all about sex someone said, "Add health," and it worked to get it funded (hence the name). I thought the aim of the study was to communicate to conservatives, and others, that something needs to be done in this domain because the policies we have now aren't cutting it.
While add health does not consider issues of environmental degradation and the health care system (although I believe people have linked some of those factors into the geocodes), it does have a strong emphasis on contextual influences on health, and is hardly limited to evaluating individual choices. In fact, I would bet that the vast majority of add health research points to contextual and genetic influences on health. Blaming the social environment for an individual's behavior is hardly a conservative approach. Social conservatives also tend to resist the collection of any data on premarital sex, and I'm sure would be outraged to learn that the federal government has funded research on the distribution of blowjobs (even though they were pretty interested in one particular blowjob). In my judgement, add health is hardly a "critical" project, but its sympathies lie on the left side of the spectrum. It hardly serves any corporate interest, as far as I can tell.
regarding "committed critical public sociology" i am reminded of andy abbott's words (from an after-dinner speech a few years ago):
"Politics and Controversies in Sociology SRA Dinner ASA 2000, Washington 13 August 2000
When I chose the topic Politics and Controversies in Sociology, I was not yet aware of the topic of the annual ASA meeting itself. President Feagin's title of oppression, domination, and liberation underscored the degree to which politicization has come to dominate the Association's life and indeed to crowd other concerns from the Association's agenda.
Many people in the SRA dissent from this strong politicization and indeed there has been talk about activating the SRA as a possible alternative organization to the ASA, an organization focused on sociology as an intellectual enterprise rather than a political one. I am of two minds about this project. I am also, as it happens, of two minds about after dinner speeches. It is one thing to give them, it is quite another to attempt to listen to them. Much, then, as I hate to disappoint those of you who have come to hear me say something blunt and outrageous about the follies of the ASA, and much, indeed, as I would like to say something blunt and outrageous about the follies of the ASA, I have chosen instead a milder course, and that is to argue that we have taken the ASA's political shenanigans far too seriously.
We have therefore missed the fact that the spectacle of a bunch of reasonably well-heeled, sinecured academics parading around a pair of fancy hotels and talking about Oppression, domination, and liberation is fundamentally and delightfully silly. Here we are trading students and manuscripts like so many yard-sale fanatics while we bustle importantly from the oppression of women here to the oppression of Puerto Ricans there and the oppression of short people somewhere else. Can anyone in the world take this seriously as political action? Is it not the very epitome of absurdity? If we ask what would be the response of the oppressed masses to a typical sociological paper about oppression, a moment's reflection gives the answer.The oppressed masses would tell us at once, that like them, the sociologists are just trying to get by and feel good. Getting by in a fancy hotel is great, if you can manage. Beats working..."
"an organization focused on sociology as an intellectual enterprise rather than a political one"
This is an impossible distinction. All intellectual work is political. All sociological work is political. All scientific work is political.
You can ignore the intrinsic politics of scholarship or try to sweep it aside rhetorically, but this will never alter the fundamental empirical reality.
Andrew Abbott has met the oppressed masses, they speak with one voice, and it is his. One of the most glib references to oppression I've heard. Has a real Rush Limbaugh quality to it. That's not a compliment.
If the trends Claude called attention to continue uncontested, the number of "well-heeled, sinecured" sociologists will continue to decline. Adjuncts and graduate assistants with no job security, no protected freedom of speech, no health care and no child care will probably have a lot to say about these issues irrespective of the conference theme. But they probably won't be able to afford to go to conferences anyway, so the ASA should be 'safe'.
"One of the most glib references to oppression I've heard. Has a real Rush Limbaugh quality to it."
I don't think abbott said anything that trivialized oppression itself, only the sociological responses to it.
statements like, "All sociological work is political" simultaneously overstate the significance of research and trivialize politics. It's a natural to want to believe your work is "political," when in fact it's about as politcally meaningful as a round of golf. your work may *reflect* your politics, but that does not make it political.
That said, I am referring to typical research--there are occasions when research does become politically meaningful (e.g., that add health article on virginity pledging a couple years ago).
I don't know that things are as dismal as some of these posts make it sound.
There are good quality programs that fully fund all their students who are making reasonable progress and the vast majority of those students find tenure-track (or some other type we're looking for) work in a year or two on the market or after a visiting job.
As far as farming out to adjuncts, like other sectors of work who are hiring temporary workers, it's happening in academia, but I've actually heard that there's a slow starting, but increasing, trend to hire tenure-track teaching faculty at the big research schools. This lets the research-oriented folks focus on research, but the universities still get good teachers who have job security, benefits, and are committed to the department and university. I think that both Northwestern and UC-Irvine advertised for this this year, and others are considering it.
Nick: I don’t think you responded to a lot of what anon above was saying. The language of individual ‘choice’ is theirs. ‘Contextual and genetic [!] influences’ or ‘the social environment’ have a limited and specific meaning that doesnt include the issues anon raised. While the study doesn’t explicitly tow the corporate line, it sure doesnt raise any questions about the role of corporations in threatening adolescent health-- the food and beverage industry, the pharmaceutical and health care industries, the corp elites that fight public health and social welfare programs, and more generally the role of corporations in generating poverty, which has probably the most significant influence on health outcomes. That a study is about sexuality doesnt make it critical or oppositional or ‘Left’, even if ultraconservatives like Jesse Helms find it intolerable. The point is that researchers had to present it as research that would not question conservative ideology about teen sexuality in order to get funding. Adding health only made this worse because then, like the website shows, they were forced to suggest that adolescent sexuality was not only a serious cause for concern on its own but posed a major if not the most important threat to adolescent health.
I definitely agree that add health is a compromise, and that they may have tailored the language of the proposal in order to get past conservative watchdogs. but that's just good grantsmanship--it doesn't mean the study itself is essentially conservative or corporate. and I also said that I agreed that it wasn't explicitly critical or overtly leftist. But if I had to put it on the political spectrum, I'd say it is slightly left of center.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, sort of like the peace corps--conservatives say it's a waste of money to send hippies to foreign ratholes, (some) lefties say it's a vehicle of capitalist imperialism.
"the vast majority of those students find tenure-track (or some other type we're looking for) work in a year or two on the market or after a visiting job."
Any data to back this up?
From the NEA Higher Ed Journal Thought & Action (vol 22, fall 2006, if anyone wants the full cite I'll provide it): "First and foremost among these developments is the tidal change in academic staffing patterns that is moving, seemingly inexorably, toward creating a predominantly contingent workforce. More specifically, nearly two in five of all full-time instructional staff now hold term-limited appointments subject to renewal. While 2005 figures are not yet available, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Syatem (IPEDS) Fall Staff Survey for 2003 shows that among about 630,000 *full*-time faculty, some 34.8 percent, or approximately 219,000, are appointed off the tenure track on term contracts. In addition, there are some 128,000 full-time tenure-track (but yet untenured faculty) probationary faculty; they may come to obtain a secure appointment (via tenure) but, for now, their appointment contracts are subject to not being extended. As of 2003, a whopping 55.1 percent of full-time faculty hold time-limited appointments: the 20.3 percent of faculty who are probationary on-track (tenurable) faculty plus the contingent full-time but off-track faculty. Here is the most astonishing (we think disturbing) datum: from 1993 to the present, the proportion of all newly hired full-time faculty appointed *off* the tenure track increased *each* year from slightly more than 50 percent to very nearly three in five (58.6 percent) in 2003 (the year of the most recent data). Every indication suggests that the number and proportion of contingent (non-probationary) full-time appointees has continued to expand, and thus it is likely that their proportion of all *full*-time faculty will cumulatively exceed one half in the foreseeable future. In other words, contingent or term appointments became during the past decade the *modal* form of new *full*-time faculty appointments. Still another dimension of contingency is the greatly expanding number of part-time appointments: roughly 543,000 part-time faculty (leaving aside the challenges of accurately counting part-timers and the inevitablity of multiple counting of persons who teach at more than one postsecondary institution). Thus, while the relentless rise of part-time appointments over the past three decades to constitute (by head-count) nearly half the academic workforce may be 'old news', when considered alongside the dramatic redistribution of full-time appointments, it is clear that the academic profession has endured a massive makeover."
It would be nice to think that sociology is the exception to these changes and that the efforts you mention portend a real turnaround, but I doubt it. Hate to be a wet blanket, but stats are stats.
You say tomato,.... You say 'compromise', I say being pummeled into ideological submission in a culture of fear. It would be 'just' good grantsmanship if the funding process were completely unpolitical. This was not the case with the Add study. That sociologists need to design and present their projects to appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests in order to secure funding was exactly my point.
1. it collects data on the sexual behavior of adolescents. this wouldn't seem to be inherently political, but conservatives have made even the collection of data on sex a partisan issue. they are afraid that teenagers may be having it, and they want to keep their heads in the sand. they also worry that if large numbers of teens are having sex, this will justify condom campaigns and erode support for abstinence.
2. I've never worked with it, but I believe the study is designed in large part to understand the social ecological factors that influence health behaviors. The proposal language notwithstanding, this implies that teens are influenced by their peers, by their school climates, by their neighborhoods, etc., and as such, they are not completely responsible for the health "choices" they make.
I think those two factors put it slightly left of center. But this is just my perspective, and there are valid reasons to see it differently.
When I said that research was inherently political, I did not mean that it was all self-consciously performed as a form of political action, or relevant, or any of this. What I meant was that the people and issues that concern us, the questions we ask, the funding of our research, the way we design our studies and the way this is influenced by political and economic pressures, and how and to whom we present our work are all inherently political. No research is more political or less political. Its practicioners are just more or less politically reflexive.
"You say 'compromise', I say being pummeled into ideological submission in a culture of fear. It would be 'just' good grantsmanship if the funding process were completely unpolitical. This was not the case with the Add study. That sociologists need to design and present their projects to appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests in order to secure funding was exactly my point."
I think it is good granstmanship if you are able to sell the proposal to a hostile audience without changing its core elements. I really doubt that there were any changes to the core project based on ideological opposition. It's true that it was nixed a couple times, but I don't think they abandoned anything for the final proposal--they essentially added a bunch of other health outcomes so that it wasn't a "sex study." but the sex questions are all in there, in at times excruciating detail.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on how they sold the project, rather than what it is. It may not be a critical leftist study, but it's really not conservative or corporate either.
And, further, it seems like Add Health is achieving its purpose (what it set out to do) and it's producing useful and important research. It's not addressing other important aspects of adolescent health, but it doesn't make it meaningless or suggest that it's catering to anybody else's whims.
I'm not just talking about the presentation of the study but its design and the questions it asks (and doesn't ask) when I say it's consistent with a conservative frame. I consider these core elements.
Regarding how it is 'sold', it would be slightly different if they presented it one way to funders and differently to the public, but the public presentation of research is a very important aspect of its political meaning. I want to reiterate that I'm not saying anything about the sociologists involved or their political views, about which I know nothing. And some of the studies within it may go in independent directions, although this would threaten future funding.
You're probably right, though. The American political spectrum is so skewed to the right that it may qualify as left of center here for the reasons you mention. I'm sure our opinions about that differ too. ;)
"And, further, it seems like Add Health is achieving its purpose (what it set out to do) and it's producing useful and important research. It's not addressing other important aspects of adolescent health, but it doesn't make it meaningless or suggest that it's catering to anybody else's whims."
I don't think anyone has made the claims you're contesting.
"I'm not just talking about the presentation of the study but its design and the questions it asks (and doesn't ask) when I say it's consistent with a conservative frame. I consider these core elements."
I think actual conservatives would strongly disagree with you. but if you are far enough toward one end of the political spectrum, the difference between the other extreme and the middle can appear small (witness Nader's claim that Gore and Bush are essentially the same).
"Regarding how it is 'sold', it would be slightly different if they presented it one way to funders and differently to the public, but the public presentation of research is a very important aspect of its political meaning."
I've read quite a few add health papers and attended a number of talks on it, and I haven't noticed anything particularly conservative about them. quite the opposite, usually.
"You're probably right, though. The American political spectrum is so skewed to the right that it may qualify as left of center here for the reasons you mention. I'm sure our opinions about that differ too. ;)"
It's possible, but I consider myself a solid liberal (with exceptions on some issues). I definitely had a post-celebration hangover after the election this year. and more pertinent to this discussion, I hate the fact that researchers even have to think about how their proposals are going to be viewed by these awful conservative think tanks.
Well, it's lookin' like my proposal "Factors Influencing the Frequency of Oral Sex Among Guantanamo Military Personnel" doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Damn - I knew I should've gone with different subfields.
My point, way back when, was that there has been an effort on the part of conservatives not just to demolish faculty sovereignty but to drive out critical, radical or activist academics and to punish the disciplines they associate with them. I said that people could still get big research grants if their research supported corporate-conservative interests or views. I should have added ‘or does nothing to challenge them’. Critical, left research on adolescent health would look very different from the Add survey, and the questions it would raise and make central would be threatening to right wing interests. It would almost certainly not get a grant, and the mere fact that sociologists were doing it would put the discipline in conservative crosshairs.
Again, I don’t think, seen from a perspective other than the far right, there’s anything essentially Left about doing research on sexuality. Left of Jesse Helms is not Left. The Add study does not make political power, economic inequality, and injustice central in determining adolescent health outcomes. Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative, and the focus on family, peer, or ‘community’ influences does not make it less so. When I talked about critical or radical sociologists being under attack I said nothing of liberal scholarship, which I’m sure under most circumstances, if not in the Add case, conservatives are willing to tolerate and sometimes even find useful. So far.
"The Add study does not make political power, economic inequality, and injustice central in determining adolescent health outcomes."
no disputing that. but ideally, you don't "make" anything determine outcomes. no point bothering to collect data otherwise.
"Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative, and the focus on family, peer, or ‘community’ influences does not make it less so."
Actually, it does. No doubt there are many contextual or systemic risk factors that add health ignores, but to locate health risks in the broader social environment is to remove them from the sphere of individual choices.
12:38, "Critical, left research on adolescent health would look very different from the Add survey, and the questions it would raise and make central would be threatening to right wing interests."
Can you provide some examples of what types of questions your ideal Add-Health would offer?
Okay, lazy writing on my part. That was shorthand for: The Add study does not make the issues of political power, economic inequality, and injustice in central in [its analysis of the important factors] determining adolescent health outcomes. It ignores them. In fact it does exactly what you say, and I agree, should not be done. It begins from the questionable postulate that the risks to adolescent health stem primarily from their behavior, and proceeds to collect data about that behavior and its influences. I'm sure existing medical sociological literature has shown poverty, a lack of access to health care, and other politically and economically structured conditions to be key factors in health outcomes.
"to locate health risks in the broader social environment is to remove them from the sphere of individual choices." Locating health risks in the broader social environment is exactly what the study does not do. It locates them in individual behaviors and then looks at the immediate influences on these behaviors. I don't think conservatives argue that people's behavior is not shaped by their social environment or social influences. They seem to believe, after all, that teenagers being asked questions about sex by sociologists is going to lead them to start having sex, and apparently become gay in the bargain. The essence is the claim that our health outcomes are determined by our individual behaviors and not by forces acting upon us that affect our health directly, or indirectly by shaping our living conditions or sharply limiting our options.
I think it may be on the breadth and nature, and possibly the meaning, of the 'broader social environment' that we disagree, which is fine. I'm pretty tired of this discussion and will be getting back to my irrelevant, meaningless work soon, so I'll let you have the last word.
well, I don't need to have the last word, and agree that we are wearing out this topic, but I must respond to a couple points.
Your "immediate influences," actually include peer networks, school variables, neighborhood variables, and even state-level policy factors, and they are included in the add-health study. If obesity, drug use, tobacco addiction, mental health, or risky sex are influenced by these contextual factors, then it removes some of the adolescent's responsibility for these consequences, which is decidedly contrary to the conservative mantra of individual choice and personal responsibility.
"I don't think conservatives argue that people's behavior is not shaped by their social environment or social influences."
I think you give too much credit to conservatives. when the outcome is something bad, like crime, you won't hear conservatives blaming it on the neighborhood. and I don't think they worry about the consequences of asking survey questions on the adolescents' behavior--they worry about its consequences in the political sphere.
and for the record, I don't think research is irrelevant, it's just not a good vehicle for activism.
another thought: if add health was truly a conservative study, instead of all those questions about anal sex, they would be asking more about religious beliefs and (on the corporate side) brand-awareness.
wow - this is what happens when I don't check the blog for a few hours?! what an interesting discussion. And thank you to whoever posted at 10:06 today - can I have the full cite?
Good morning. I don't need the last word either, but find myself compelled to answer.
"I don't think abbott said anything that trivialized oppression itself, only the sociological responses to it."
Maybe that was his primary intent, but he trivialized oppression. Would his dinner companions have chuckled quite so loudly over their desserts if instead of "the oppression of women here to the oppression of Puerto Ricans there and the oppression of short people somewhere else" he had said "the oppression of women in Afghanistan, the oppression of undocumented immigrants in the US and the oppression of indigenous peoples in Central and South America," probably closer to an accurate portrayal of the actual content of the papers presented?
There are academics who vastly overestimate the political impact of their academic work, and they make easy targets. But what about the sociologists who additionally work for or with hotel workers' unions, for instance, contributing their research and communication skills to struggles for social justice? Is that political action? What about sociologists joining their efforts with Hurricane Katrina survivors? Is this "the very epitome of absurdity"? What about the ASA's current effort to challenge the State Department's denial of entry to Adam Habib (preventing him from attending the 2007 meeting)? Mere "political shenanigans"?
C'mon. No one has said that. I certainly didn't. What I said was, well, what I said, over several posts. I don't think we need to dig up all of those bones of contention again. After reading the article about Add's history, I had great sympathy for the researchers. It was not my example. It wouldn't have even been on my radar of examples of how the right wing shapes the sociological research agenda and forces out critical research--not least because I know so little about it--but since it was raised as evidence AGAINST that claim I felt obligated to respond. I don't doubt it has produced significant findings and useful knowledge. While I didn't point to specific examples of research that actvely supports corporate interests since I didn't want this to get personal, I did suggest other evidence in support of my claim.
Well, then who said Add Health is "consistent with a conservative frame" and "Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative" and that it was designed to "appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests"?
regarding abbott--it's true that it would not have been very funny if he had used the cases you mentioned. I've only met the guy once, so I have no idea whether he tends to trivialize oppression, but I'd guess that he does sympathize. In any case, I'm pretty sure his point was about the ASA and not the oppression itself, so his crime is no worse than any other person trying to get a laugh.
regarding sociologists who get involved with hotel unions, etc.--I think that's wonderful. Totally commendable. I just think there should be a distinction between activism & advocacy and scholarly research. We may not be doing science, but I think we should pretend to be.
Given that the ASA is advocating on behalf of one of its members, I think it's fine to petition the state department. But I'm totally against the ASA taking official positions on partisan issues (even though I would probably agree with all of the statements).
None of these is the same as calling it a "truly conservative study." That is a misleading oversimplification of a more complex argument. I don't think it's possible to state my case with any more clarity than I have already, so I won't try. Of course I can't stop you or anyone else from thinking that's what I've been saying, but for the record it isn't.
7:58: In the interest of extending an olive branch, if I could delete my last post, I would--in retrospect, it was a little juvenile. We probably don't completely agree on Add Health's political implcations, but we probably don't disagree as much as it would appear here. But the conversation has brought up some interesting issues, so thanks.
Oh--I wasn't trying to suggest you claimed it was "truly conservative"--I was just imagining what it might look like if the heritage foundation had designed it.
I've never met him, and he may be deeply concerned about people who are oppressed. That concern was not reflected in his remarks at that dinner, which trivialized oppression, as you put it, to get a laugh. If his intent was to trivialize research on oppression, he did that too. What he tends to do in general is not really relevant.
"I just think there should be a distinction between activism & advocacy and scholarly research. We may not be doing science, but I think we should pretend to be."
As I said before, I think it is impossible to make a distinction between research and political action, because all scholarship is political. Retreating into a 'scientific' posture or claiming that we are merely engaged in nonpolitical intellectual pursuits or the 'objective' search for knowledge does not erase this basic fact. It just puts us in greater danger of serving political interests without realizing it.
"Oh--I wasn't trying to suggest you claimed it was "truly conservative"--I was just imagining what it might look like if the heritage foundation had designed it."
"7:58: In the interest of extending an olive branch, if I could delete my last post, I would--in retrospect, it was a little juvenile. We probably don't completely agree on Add Health's political implcations, but we probably don't disagree as much as it would appear here. But the conversation has brought up some interesting issues, so thanks."
Oh--just got this. Olive branches all around. I agree wholeheartedly, and enjoyed the conversation more than my last few posts yesterday implied. It has raised some interesting issues, so thank you.
If you think that sociology has a problem with adjunting and part-timers, think of how hard it would be to get a job in english or linguistics or other areas. Of all the people I met in other fields in grad school, the sociologists at my school definitely had one of the best markets, but maybe that's not true across the board and it's not to say that it's not getting worse with every passing year.
I'd like to see an article that breaks down the statistics that 10:06 posted, and to know not only how it varies by field, but what impact the growing number of for-profit colleges that often employ professionals or people with "day jobs" to teach their classes have on those numbers and trends.
And I'll add that we're probably not as far apart as it might seem on the ASA and the amount of limp, rhetorical and even hypocritical 'activism' that flourishes therein either.
I totally agree that sociologists have it better than some. I wasn't actually talking about sociology alone, or specifically, in my post about rising adjuncts and fewer tenure-track jobs. I think it's a problem in most fields, as it has to do with the corporatization of the university as a whole.
"As I said before, I think it is impossible to make a distinction between research and political action, because all scholarship is political."
Here is where I think we *might* have a fundamental difference. I concede that research is biased, that it is imperfect, and that it may reflect the personal politics of the researcher. But I do believe that distanced objectivity is something to strive for in research (though I realize it is unattainable--I'm not that old-fashioned).
I am uncomfortable with research that pushes a priori answers for any reason, political or personal. My research may reflect my politics, but I honestly try to minimize the impact of my own biases. I don't decide the outcomes in advance, and I don't use my research to push any political agenda.
Now, it may be that my researh has implications that support one political position more than another--I accept that. But that isn't decided in advance, which is the crucial distinction.
This is where I would distinguish research from political action. Political positions are established in advance, when in fact, my own findings would probably be more consistent with a conservative interpretation than a liberal one (and I'm a very solid liberal). If my research is political action, it is a near-sighted and clumsy political action that supports my opponents as much as it does my allies.
That said--I am not suggesting that you do any of these things. We may agree on this issue as well.
-nick
p.s. Would you consider using a moniker? yesterday I think it was just the two of us, but today it might avoid some confusion.
Schuster, Jack H., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 2006. "On the Brink: Assessing the Status of the American Faculty." Thought & Action 22 (fall 2006): 51-61.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the top-tier schools don't generally go back to the applicant pool--which belies all those rejection letters about all the "promising" and "qualified" applicants...
Could we start a collection of response times from journals? Here, or maybe on the Wiki? Seems like it might be a valuable use of collective information. Of course, there are multiple variables involved, but maybe we can create an average if we get enough data points. I'll start.
Time to first reviews from journal: AJS: 6.5 months SSM: 2.5 months JMF: 2 months
SSM=Social Science and Medicine? JMF=? (I could have great fun with this one.)
Could you please define the journal acronyms? I get AJS, but the other two I don't follow. Please define acronyms from now on so that those in different subfields can play along.
My contribution: The Sociological Quarterly (TSQ): 2.25 months
I was contacted last year by a top tier school who went back to their pool. Other people had gotten rejection letters from them, but I hadn't, and sure enough, they emailed right after I'd accepted another job.
It didn't hurt too much. I guess it's because I probably wouldn't have taken the job anyhow. For personal reasons, where I ended up was much better for me and hopefully will pay off in dividend in the long run. The experience made me feel like some upward movement's possible in the future rather than I blew it this time.
The best part was actually that years ago the DGS of that top-tier department recommended that I not apply for grad school there, thinking it was out of my league. I wish he'd remembered that as well as I did when he (as part of the search committee) was interested in me last year.
On G&S - I found them to be relatively quick. I don't remember exactly how long, but I know it wasn't longer than 6-8 weeks. The thing to keep in mind on these estimates though is editorship turnovers (ASR, G&S and others recently having gone through one).
On SCs going back down their list - every university has their own policies on how this works, and from what I have gathered from a pretty wide range of universities - there seems to be NO rhyme or reason across "tiers" on how these are set up. I know of several places across levels that are "one and done" and of several across levels that have restarted their search even after a first round of campus invites - both because of rejections and not finding a suitable candidate.
Demography: over 6 months Sex Roles: almost 6 months Journal of Family Issues (JFI): 6 months and counting (I've sent an email, no response)
Clearly, I could benefit from this forum; I seem to have a knack for choosing journals with lengthy review times! I'd love to hear from more of you on journal response times. Also, what about publication rates? I know it's very low (around 10%, right?) for the top journals, but what about more specialized or lower-ranked journals? Thanks!
The following website has some information about top- and lower-tier sociological journals' publication rates: http://ww2.hs.iastate.edu/rge/research/compendiumWEBpage.asp
I'm unable to post the entire link here. This is what I did to find the link:
1. At google.com, enter "sociology journals publication rates." 2. Click on the 3rd entry, titled "UNT Libraries." 3. Next click on "Sociology and Social Work" in the table at the top of the page. 4. Click on the click under "A Compendium of Journals."
I've had quick turnaround with JMF (Journal of Marriage and Family)--less than 3 months--although it just changed editors so that might change, too. And with ASR, 5+.
Following up on Hermia's question, does anyone have any insight into the publishing books or journal articles debate for tenure? I understand that some research is better suited for journals. For those readers who could go either way, have you been advised to publish articles or revise your research into a book manuscript with getting tenure in mind?
Clemens, Elisabeth S., Walter W. Powell, Kris McIlwaine, and Dina Okamoto. 1995. "Careers in Print: Books, Journals, and Scholarly Reputations." AJS, 101(2): 433-94.
What's the best strategy for those us whose job search is unfortunately over for the year? (Hard not to feel like a loser here, folks, despite everything that's been posted about randomness and luck...I wasn't desirable to anyone (!), even for an interview. That says SOMETHING about me and my standing among future peers. Oy...)
Should I try to get a local teaching gig as an adjunct to show next year's employers that I am serious about academia. I don't want to do this because of the pay, and because I need better-paying employment. What do ya think?
To the March 10th anonymous, don't give up. I went on half a dozen interviews early last year, and ended up second six times. I had one more interview pop up in March, and I almost didn't go because I was so tired of the process. I was just going to stay in school for another year. I went, got the job, and am enjoying myself. It is not what I expected to do (I was looking either for a Ph.D. or MA/research focused type of job). I'm at a lib arts college, and I don't know if I will stay here 'forever,' but I like it thus far. There are still jobs popping up!! Keep applying and do the best to keep a positive attitude (I KNOW it is tough). Good luck!
My advice to March 10: Yes, you may hear something (unless you actually have received a rejection letter from every place you applied). If not, I wouldn't make the decision to adjunct at this point, if the goal is to make yourself look serious about academia to next year's employers, as you put it. A full-time one-year appointment looks way better than just adjuncting. And there are usually several one- or two-year appointments advertised around this time. I, for, one applied for one last year in late March and was hired in late April. It has served me well this year on the market - showing potential employers that I can handle a very full, full-time teaching load (though I didn't have much time for research or publishing), and I got a handful of interviews - and a tenure-track offer - this year. I also feel soooo much more confident about my teaching, as I really got a lot of experience this year.
So - look for temporary, visiting, or other full-time lecturer/instructor appointments. If you don't get one of those, THEN adjunct (and if that route, then teach more than one course, even if it means being at more than one location).
I second Claude's advice. A one or two year appointment is much more of an indication of your committment to the profession. It will also give you a new set of "colleagues" who can speak to your work as such (and not as a grad student). Lots of these spots popping up these days... and the business of hunting these down will keep you from staring at the phone.... Good Luck!!!!
You can find several advertised lecturer positions, including at Temple, on the ASA job bank. Search for "lecturer" or "instructor" or "other" and you'll find some. Also check the Chronicle.
So now that the 2007-2008 job search is pretty much wrapped up, anyone have any advance info for fall 2008? I would guess departments are figuring out right now what positions will be opening up.
363 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 363 of 363what's the range for start-up packages at good universities? how much is a good package this year?
I've heard quotations as high as $18,000 (excluding computer and moving expenses) for start-up funds.
Are these $18000 in addition to research funds?
The $18,000 was intended to be used to jumpstart research; start-up funds usually mean "research funds."
Wow, that's high. I was offered $6,000 and no additional research money.
OK. Are the $18000 in addition to an annual research account then? I was offered no start-up package but an annual research acount of $4500 until I get tenure.
Two comments...
I just took a job in a crim department -- NEVER thought I would end up outside of sociology but it's a good fit for me. The nice thing is that all the people in my department who were trained in soc have a courtesy appointment in the soc department. It means nothing but you can put it on your CV, work with soc grads, and basically keep your hat in your disciplinary home (and keep up with what is going on outside your little area of the world). But, you don't have the hassle of having two departments argue over your reviews and tenure.
On start-ups, I've aware of packages at top R1s (ranked in the top 25) and the going rate seems to be a start-up of 20,000 or so... However, usually things like course releases and summer salary has been in addition to this (and computer + moving expenses are all separate). A lower start-up with more course releases and summer salary would be more attractive to me, fwiw.
I am at a top 25 department and was given a flat $6000 in research support when hired. That may be low, but I am relatively certain that $4500 per year until tenure is excellent.
At R-1 in the East, I was offered $16,000, home and work computer, and $5000 in moving. Thus, I am sure that $4500 till tenure is one heck of a deal. Good job on landing that.
At a SLAC, I was offered $10K each of first 2 summers, $5K start-up each of first 2 years, and got a signing bonus for first summer of $5K. I also get a computer and moving expenses in addition. It was my impression (until now?) that this was very good. My superstar advisor told me to ask for $5K start up, and I was then offered $5K for each of first 2 years before I even asked. It's a lot that's front-loaded but there are "possibilities" for more later on, and I figure if I spread it out (in my head) it's about $6K each year until tenure.
I posted above that I was given a flat $6000 in research support. I should note that I defined research support narrowly. I was also given an office computer, software, and the like as well as $5000 for moving and 10% of my salary in summer support for the first 3 years. Still, both the $4500 per year and the $25k in summer money plus $10k in start-up sound excellent to me.
I am delighted to report that I just accepted a TT position at a State LAC and negotiated for moving expenses, computer, and $4000 for research support (this summer only). I had to bargain hard for all of this. (It is a 4/4 teaching load, so the expectation is for less research.) I am thrilled about this job (great school, faculty, location for me...) but reading other postings points out the disparities in our profession between the "value" placed on teaching and the (comparatively) higher value placed on research (read: "more money and other resources, plus the prestige"). All this talk about "moving up" to an R1 actually has me peeved (and I'm generally very calm about all this). I'm at a (top-5) R1 and I don't want to "move up," or move laterally for that matter (and reject the idea that I'm "moving down"). I have heard too many of our faculty lament "Why don't more of our grads go to R1s?" Sad that they don't realize that there are actually many of us who have prioritized teaching over research (I find myself itching to add, "But I plan to keep an active research agenda" since of course I have the skills and drive to do so - though perhaps it's assumed I'll "only" be a teacher -- says something about the value we place on teaching). I may not be as highly paid as I would be at an R1, but I'll be doing what I love, in an environment where my colleagues value what I value.
~Zen
Congratulations, Zen! What can I say, more power to you. I think it's great that you love teaching. I myself like teaching, but I like doing research even better. And so I know I will always be happier in a R1 environment even if it is a lower paying one. That is why I did not apply to any LACs even the most prestigious ones. For me, it's not a matter of what I value most (I do not kid myself that the best way to contribute is through teaching, very few will read or use my research) but what I can do best , i.e., what I am happiest doing. Yes, the system is skewed, yes, the R1 faculty (and I also come from a top 5 R1) are skewed also. No reason do be peeved though when you will be doing what you love to do. Again, congratulations.
Congratulations Zen. It's great that you got the kind of job you want. One comment on this statement, "I have heard too many of our faculty lament "Why don't more of our grads go to R1s?' Sad that they don't realize that there are actually many of us who have prioritized teaching over research..."
An irony here is that I think a focus on teaching is largely behind those concerns you hear. One criterion by which any PhD program is judged is whether the program is producing people who will train the next generation. That happens at R1's. So, those of us who are faculty members at R1's want to train people who will in turn train the next generation, and that means placing our students at R1's. It's in large part only indirectly about wanting our students to maintain active research agendas.
Good going, Zen! As someone who's at an R1 but doesn't want to teach at one, I can relate. It's terrific that you've gotten your dream job, and it gives me hope my own search will eventually bear fruit -- if not this year, then next.
C.
Congrats to Zen for following a passion for teaching and finding success! Everyone should be so lucky.
Not trying to stir the pot, here, but...
R1s are not the only place that train future professionals. Many students would not consider a career in the profession without encouragement and good undergraduate training at schools other than R1s. The idea that regional schools and SLACs play no part in this ignores the role of undergraduate education in professional development.
Perhaps more importantly, some of us have Ph.D.s from schools that are not R1 schools. My graduate advisors would be troubled to think that they had not helped train part of the next generation.
You're absolutely right anon. I made the comments above and should have phrased things differently. What I intended to say was that those of us in PhD granting departments would like to see at least some of our students go to PhD granting departments. This is as much because we want them training future PhD's as because we want them maintaining active research agendas.
If our profs at R1s want us to go to R1s so we can "train the next generation," perhaps they should be good work/family role models and not work 90-hour weeks. I can't accept that my life has to be that way if I want to be a mother and a professor. So instead of fighting the system for 6 years and then not getting tenure, I chose a different path.
--Sylvia, out of a top-5 R1 and now at an undergrad-focused school
Sylvia. I posted the training comments above. Do you really think the time demands on you will be less at an undergraduate-focused institution? I am a mother to three children, one of whom has very complex medical needs. They come way ahead of my career on my schedule of priorities, and I had all three before tenure. I work 4 days each week, from 9:30 to 3:30, and then usually at night after the kids go to bed. I feel the time crunch like any parent, but those hours are more than sufficient to do my job. My faculty position in a research-focused department has allowed me an ability to focus on my family that I wouldn't have been able to have in any other kind of job of which I am aware.
I'm one person, and I know the demands of research vary from person to person, but there are two things I think you should keep in mind. First, I suspect those mentors of yours may not work quite as many hours as they let on. Second, the time demands of a job focused on undergraduate instruction can be just as intense as those at an R1 school.
I need some advice. I just received a campus interview invitation for a specialized postdoc position over which I have salivated for a few months. However, the postdoc search has taken an inordinately long time. I am still considering my dream job, but if things fall through (God forbid) with the dream job, the postdoc would be an excellent opportunity. I don't want to reject the campus interview outright, but I need to stall for some time. I will be out of town for about a week investigating the housing market near the dream job, which gets me a little time. Those of you who have gone on campus interviews know that SCs want to bring everyone to campus as quickly as possible. I don't want to book a plane ticket (on my dime or theirs) only to have to back out of it.
Can anyone recommend how I can ask for more time? Should I mention the job offer when responding to the campus interview offer for the postdoc? I should note that a few days ago, an SC chair phoned to extend a campus interview (for a position I really didn't want) to me, and I politely explained my situation (job offer) and that I didn't want to waste the university's resources. I asked for more time before scheduling a campus unterview with Undesirable U, but the SC chair replied that he had to move down his list. I understand the SC chair's predicament, but I don't want to lose out on the postdoc opportunity in case the dream job falls through. (FYI: After beginning negotiations with the dream job, it has become clear that they would not let me accept a 2-year postdoc. If everything goes well with the dream job, I would accept it over the postdoc because I would have the resources at the dream job to jumpstart my next project--resources I wouldn't have at the postdoc.) I'm sorry that this is so convoluted.
When it rains, it pours. I truly hope that others are getting the interview requests they earnestly deserve.
Trixie
trixie--if this is your dream job, they have offered you the position, and you have turned down another TT interview because of it, why on earth would a postdoc be a consideration?
that said, given that the postdoc is a consideration for you, you could make something up (important meetings at work, family vacation), but I think it would be better to just be honest about the offer. Tell them you have real concerns about the offer not working out, and when it will all be decided. Assuming the decision timeframe isn't excessive, the postdoc people will probably be understanding.
i don't think it should come as any suprise to the post-doc folks that you have other irons firmly in the fire at this point in the job season. i'm not sure why the apprehension about "dream job" falling through, but if it is really your dream job it seems prudent to get there and get it wrapped up asap. it seems unlikely that the post-doc people would rescind their offer if you were up front and told them you needed a week before committing their resources to your trip. they have after all, taken months to get to this point in their search, and are probably experiencing the same type of situation with many of the candidates they have on their short list. maybe you can simply ask: "will i be removed from your list if i request a week to commit to the visit?" if the answer is no, you're all set. if the answer is yes, then they are choosing to move forward despite knowing your candidacy is tentative...
Thanks for the great advice, posters. I do hope to sign the paperwork for the dream job within the next 9-10 days after my partner checks out the location and job prospects. The postdoc is a back-up. (Undesirable U is located in a place where my partner was convinced hu couldn't obtain work after hu researched the area, making it an undesirable position.)
Trixie
ahh...the partner issue. that makes much more sense.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about booking a flight and then backing out of it. I think schools always get refundable/changeable tickets.
I want to echo this sentiment, "the time demands of a job focused on undergraduate instruction can be just as intense as those at an R1 school." The difference is simply what occupies that time.
Like the previous poster, so far I'm navigating the waters okay, but it's tough to be an academic with children, and tougher for most women than men, and I think that's whether the school that you're at is oriented toward teaching or research.
As someone who has been at a non-R1 for a while, I can attest to the time demands. You work a lot, particularly as a junior person, but you balance your time between teaching, service, and research. More courses = more work. The big difference that I've found is that you don't have the same kind of pressure to attract grant money or publish a certain number of papers in particular journals. My colleagues appreciate that their publication count is not exceedingly scrutinized.
I'm another person trained at an R1, has never wanted a career of my own at an R1, and recently accepted a job at a SLAC with no grad students. Part of my preference is due to my passion for and strengths in teaching as opposed to research. But part of it is the time demands and stress-level of the environment as well. Being a faculty member anywhere is a lot of work, sure. I think we all get that. But everyone I've ever known at a R1 had to do everything, do everything well, and publish widely in top journals to get tenure. They also are all divorced, never-married, have no kids or a partner who chooses to forego their own career ambitions to be the primary caregiver for the kids.
At a non-R1, I expect to be busy with teaching but I won't have the constant pressure to publish 2-3 articles per year (or more). Instead, I'll write a book and get a few articles, and I've been assured that's enough to get tenure. In the meantime, I'll have kids, see my kids and my spouse, go to the movies once in a while, and feel good about the contribution I'm making.
I'd also like to say that tenure-track jobs anywhere are not plentiful these days. As tenured faculty members work longer and when they do retire are often unreplaced (as universities aim to cut costs by relying on adjuncts and graduate students to do the teaching), tenure-track jobs are disappearing. Universities continue to admit PhD students in larger numbers than the job market will bear. I truthfully see this as an escalating pyramid scheme. I personally have no desire to advise PhD students; can I honestly tell them to work hard, publish, and because they play by the rules they'll get good jobs? I simply do not believe that to be the case. Some of them will; some will get bad jobs, and some will get no academic jobs at all - which is fine, but is not what most of them think they're signing up for. And outside of academia, the PhD is less necessary and the opportunity costs of spending several years attaining a PhD will not typically be offset by the payoff in the end.
Claude
Claude,
I do not know what it is that makes you and Mills feel like you have to offer the final voice on topics, but it amusingly keeps leading to statements like "They also are all divorced, never-married, have no kids or a partner who chooses to forego their own career ambitions to be the primary caregiver for the kids." If that is the case, I am truly sorry that you know such a narrow, uninteresting slice of academia. But more realistically, I think that it's just a factor of your need to convince us all that you are right.
I think you consistently fail to recognize that there are those who disagree, come from other angles, and approach the world differently than you - and that that is OK. That's what the Zen seemed to be getting at. And while I have decidedly different career goals than Zen, I genuinely appreciated the input because it made me realize some things I was missing in the search process. And the dialogue that followed was genuinely interesting too - from both sides (and I think most readers would agree - regardless of their own preferences). Why try to shut that down - what purpose can that possibly serve?
Trixie - i think that actively pursuing other options can only help you in the long run. not delaying the postdoc interview might actually work in your favor. it allows you to play it cool while negotiating with dream job (who may or may not know that they are dream job).
anon13ptcliyu
Great news, Zen!
I have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion about the comparative difficulties of teaching- vs. research-oriented work, but I definitely understand your frustration with the lower regard in which teaching at SLACs often seems to be held in the R1 world. I have seen people pushed onto the R1 track when this was not what they wanted, and when they would likely have been happier going the SLAC route. Even when the pressure is not active (or more passive, as when people are not provided with advice on putting together application materials for teaching-oriented schools), I think a lot of people feel that they would be looked upon as having disappointed expectations if they don’t go the R1 route. So, congratulations both on landing the job that you want and on resisting the subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to go in a different direction. Knit yourself something celebratory!
Mills
5:58, Since when does participating in a discussion mean trying to shut it down? This makes no sense.
5:58 -
I wasn't trying to shut down any discussion.... I was just stating my opinion and my experience. When I said "they all..." I said, and was referring to "everyone I've ever known at an R1" - are you angry at me for sharing my own experience, which has, in turn, shaped my preference not to be at an R1? Why do you care what my personal opinion is anyway? Seems like you are the one trying to shut down discussion.
Claude
Anon-Mother of 3--it sounds like you are living the dream! I should say that I'm at a strange school--a teaching-oriented and research-oriented place--we all teach 2-1 here but don't experience huge pressures on publishing/grant-getting. So, I'm living my dream, too.
I wish you the best!
--Sylvia
This is totally off-topic, but it's really interesting to contrast the early heady days of the old blog with the sporadic and spiteful sniping of today. I guess the optimism has washed away and bitterness has set in.
btw, bitterness is part of the academic stereotype. why? on paper, we have the best jobs in the world: no bosses to speak of, we have the opportunity to help people, we are paid fairly well, we have lots of time off, we have relatively flexible hours, we get to work on (presumably) interesting projects of our own choosing, etc.
sorry--i'm just sipping my coffee and had these thoughts. it is the miscellaneous thread, after all.
Somewhat related to this week's discussion, this article came out last week about a faculty-satisfaction survey:
http://insidehighered.com/
news/2007/01/25/faculty
I miss the earlier days of the old blog.
I've been wanting to initiate a discussion about the ASA job bank - which I think should be publicly available - for a while now. I would love to hear others' thoughts on this (though maybe no one else cares), but fear that this too would devolve into the kind of thing happening here.
Mills, tired of winter but still stubbornly optimistic and keeping the bitterness at bay for now
8:56--interesting article. i'm abivalent about the asa job bank. on the one hand, anything free is nice (and they are competing with the chronicle, which is free). but on the other, if you are looking for a professor job, it makes sense to become a member of the ASA.
back to the bitterness question, I think some dissatisfaction (among R1's, at least) may stem from the following factors: a) the rewarded work has little "meaning" (i.e., few read or care about your research), while other work (teaching) is more meaningful, but unrewarded--or, you simply hate/suck at teaching; b) promotion is largely decided by people who are viewed as peers, not superiors; c) promotion does not really bring more administrative influence; d) unless you are at a big-name institution, you may have relatively little prestige outside academia; e) you work too many hours for too little money.
Claude and 7:53,
In this case, I may have been reading something into Claude's comments that wasn't there - and if so I apologize. It seemed to me to be consistent with past posts which were of the "if you don't agree with me, I don't want to hear it" variety. I may have injected a little more of the history of posts and other unrelated junk into my response to that particular post. (I have spent one too many years around fellow grad students who are convinced the teaching route is the "higher road" and are adamant evangelists of this point - with whom I disagree, but don't think they need to "convert" - and may have injected that here.) So, if that was not your intent in the post Claude, I am sorry for suggesting otherwise.
- 5:58
There's a story - an urban legend of sorts - at my R1 grad program about a star student who turned down great R1 jobs to work at a teaching school because she wanted "more" than she thought the female professors she had as mentors in grad school had. Turned out she got more - in the form of a lot more committee work, teaching, and commitments - and soon quit that job to go back to school. I think she's a veterinarian now and I'm not sure if she ever had time for the "more" she was hoping for.
I might be naive, but I made it though grad school with a child, a partner (who has a job and works more hours than I do), and a life, and I'm pretty confident that I'll make it to tenure at an R1 that way too. There are lots of examples of it in my sub-area, though, so maybe that helps - or I'm just an idealistic idiot.
"It seemed to me to be consistent with past posts which were of the "if you don't agree with me, I don't want to hear it" variety."
Which posts were these, exactly?
5:58,
7:53 was me. I'm glad to see that you can be more civil towards me when you are unaware of my identity. Perhaps I'll try more anonymity in my future posts. (I would hope that the attacks could cease without such a measure, but since you seem to get worked up into a lather at the mere sight of my pseudonym, I doubt this is possible.)
Mills
8:56 - thanks for posting that article. i'm curious about how much variation by department there can be w/in a single university. i suspect lots. for example, the physics department might be great on all these measures while sociology maybe a disaster in terms of tenure clarity, work/life balance and numerous other dimensions. one thing is clear, though, while $ is nice, it's not the only thing.
i also agree w/ you that access to the asa job bank should be free. i nominate you to write a mind-numbingly long resolution on the subject:)
anon13
anon13,
I would take you up on that if I weren't still recovering from writing a mind-numbingly long dissertation. Alas, only so many long-winded things one sociologist can compose in a short time.
I'm also curious about the differences across departments and whether they tend to be relatively uniform within a given institution or some can be collegial and pleasant places and others total snakepits. It would also be interesting to see comparisons across R1/R2/SLAC along the lines of the discussion here, but since it's such a small, nonrandom sample that probably wouldn't tell us much anyway. I guess we should be happy anyone cares enough about faculty satisfaction to do a survey in the first place.
Mills
I've been curious why no one's ever mentioned community colleges or Not-very-select colleges in all these months. They are very important places to "make a difference."
Met someone at the ASA's in Montreal who was winding down her career at a unionized CC and had thrived there, raised kids as a single parent, etc. etc. Nothing but great things to say about work-family balance and such. Sounded great to me.
Anyone there now? Pursuing jobs like this? Avoiding and if so why?
To Mills and others: Thank you!! I feel like I owe everyone on this list a HUGE hug. I've been hanging around this blog for such a long time it seems, seeking support (I'll now admit that *I* was the one who posted the anxiety-filled 11/20 post re: Thanksgiving :) ... Now that the job-hunt is over, I'll just be sending out my positive energy to each of you (in my off-line life, I am *way* less ethereal than my postings make me seem, I swear.)
Abrazos,
Zen (who also misses the early "heady days" as anon put it, but doesn't miss the constant anxiety that had me glued to our blog...)
Congrats, Zen! That's great news.
The discussion about differences between types of schools could take up an entire blog of its own. That said, one thing that surprised me about my job market experience was how faculty attitudes about "job vs. career" varied by type of school.
At the R1 where I eventually landed, the faculty seem to enjoy being consumed by sociology, but in a healthy way, not a desperate workaholic way. At the MA-granting regional university, profs enjoyed talking sociology, but less so, and tended to be more in the "it's a pretty good job" camp. The farther down the research scale (in Carnegie ranking terms) I went, the more profs seemed to treat their work as "just a day job" vs. something that really consumed them.
This is based on a very small sample size, of course. And I also don't mean to sound like I'm putting down anyone who treats it like a day job vs. a career or vocation. It's just something I wasn't expecting.
Kyle
Re Community College and other less-selective schools -
I didn't include any CC's in my applications this year, but if I'm on the market again next year (likely at this point!) I plan to broaden my search and apply to CC's. This year I didn't because my faculty informed me that their students don't apply to teach at community colleges, but since neither of them is offering to pay me to be unemployed I'm thinking they may just have to get used to the idea that one of their students could end up at a CC! I've also been thinking that as someone who's an activist and into social justice issues, a community college with the diverse student population one tends to find there may just be the place to be. But I do think there's an elitism at play here (as the comments from my faculty would indicate) and for other folks there's also the issue of having money for research, and the fact is that CC's usually don't have those kinds of resources or pull in so many big grants.
~Felix~
if you like teaching, I would guess that a CC might be a far more rewarding experience than a lower tier SLAC. I would guess that more CC students are paying for their education themselves, and often are aspiring to get into a 4 year college. so they may be more enthusiastic and motivated. at a lower-tier SLAC, you may find that too many of the students are dumb rich kids who want to party, as one of my friends (at one of those schools) recently put it.
One qualifier to 8:49's post about the potential for interested students at CC's - because students are frequently using these as a means into a BA/S granting school, frequently the curriculum is incredibly constrained. The one in the same town as my large state university actually dictates the books, and majority of the topcis to be coved in class to meet the requirements of students being able to transfer the creidts out. So, you may lose a LOT of control over the content of your courses in such a setting, at least from what I have seen.
that's a good point. and it's probably true that even though the caliber of students at lower tier universities is pretty poor, they may still be brighter than most (but certainly not all) CC students.
-8:49
I think that like all other schools, there's a lot of variation within community college. One of the ones that I attended offers tenure. I'd look for something like that if I went that route.
I really enjoyed reading the posts since yesterday regarding different pros and cons and perspectives on SLACs, R1s and CCs.
5:58, I appreciate and accept your apology. And thanks to whoever else that was who jumped in on my behalf. I don't think I did any "if you don't agree with me, go away" stuff earlier in this blog. If I did, I didn't mean to. The only thing I never had patience for was the naming debate, because I knew we couldn't take a real vote on it and it seemed to get really nasty.
In terms of this current debate - it's absolutely the kind of thing I think is valuable for this blog and the kind of stuff we should be discussing. My personal preferences aside, I'm GLAD we differ on this (so we don't all want the same jobs...). It comes down to - what do you want? What do you enjoy? What kind of career do you want to have? What kind of sociologist do you want to be?....
The related issue I tried to raise in a previous post was about whether PhD-granting institutions are granting too many PhDs, given the gradual (or not-so-gradual) relative disappearance of tenure-track jobs.
Claude
Claude, I totally agree with your point that grad programs are over-admitting. I've raised that issue with a variety of folks. Grad students seem to agree, though (surprise, surprise) faculty don't seem to think it's much of a problem. I think (and I say this as a person with a TT job) that given the state of academia, the increase in hiring lecturers etc, that admitting these large cohorts and starting new grad soc programs (U Vic and U of Vermont to name two) is simply unethical.
As to the hierarchy and job satisfaction at a variety of institutions...it seems that, yes, R1 jobs are seen as the holy grail. That said, from my impressions of job satisfaction and lifestyle choices of faculty members when I was interviewing at a variety of schools (R1s, R2s and SLACs) it seems that people are most happy when their job demands fit their lifestyle. That is, for those who love an all encompassing job and live/eat/breath soc - competitive R1s must be very fulfilling. For those of us for whom sociology is a very fulfilling, but not all encompassing, part of our lives SLACs or CCs may be more fulfilling. I remember being thrilled when interviewing at SLACs and faculty talked about the time they spent on hobbies and interests outside of soc, freely and w/out guilt! I also recall that a study was discussed in the chronicle of higher ed demonstrating that CC profs had the highest job satisfaction rating.
All that said - it seems that the discussion on the "old" blog about sleeping with various members of a hiring committee and the subsequent thank-you note protocol is infinitely more interesting than our current discussion!
i agree that grad programs over-admit too. i don't think we need to go as far as the ama, but did you know that they admit only a certain number of students to medical school each year to make sure there is still a demand - particularly in certain specializations? they train FEWER physicians each year than the country needs. lawyers on the other hand.....
since we know more about statistics than the physicians & the lawyers, we (as a discipline) should probably aim to train *exactly* as many as institutions of higher education demand.
i feel another lengthy asa-resolution coming on....
It seems that jobs are harder to get now than ever--or is that just an incorrect perception? What was it like 20 or 30 years ago?
Are departments admitting the same number of students--but fewer are flaming out before finishing?
Jobs ARE harder to get now. 30 years ago students in most fields got full funding (there's always been attrition due to personal this-isn't-the-life-for-me factors, but attrition due to logistical difficulties such as lack of funding is on the rise), and there were tenure-track jobs awaiting them when they finished. In the postwar (WWII) era, there was a boom in college attendance rates due largely to the GI bill (plus more women and more people of color attending college in recent decades as legal discrimination has abated), and faculty were needed to teach the students. Today, many tenured faculty are waiting longer to retire (I know of one who just retired at 85+), so their jobs aren't opening up for new folks. More importantly, even as they do retire, universities are not necessarily replacing them. Universities are acting more and more like corporations (and many college presidents call themselves CEOs), aiming to increase revenues by increasing tuition and decrease costs by farming teaching out to adjuncts and grad students (as some faculty stars understandably demand smaller teaching loads, someone has to fill in and teach), who they pay poorly and who they don't provide health insurance. It is a spiraling problem.
Personally, I don't think the solution lies only in admitting fewer PhD students; I think it lies in preserving tenure-track jobs and, where that's not feasible, full-time, multi-year contract appointments (after several years pursuing a PhD we at least want some kind of job security and minimum pay....)
My 2 cents today...
Claude
It's been a while since I've been on this site (I left it for dead a month ago), but this is an interesting new thread, and one my friends & i discuss often.
to the topic at hand: another factor in the general sense of decline among sociology PhDs, IMO, is that sociology had its heyday in the 50's and 60's. Sociologists acted as special advisors to the President, there was lots of research funding, etc. That's why sociology is so often housed in the ugliest buildings on campus--our heyday coincided with an architectural nadir. Then, vietnam and the corresponding activist (and to some extent, pomo) sociology of the 70's-80's (and through today) has discredited the field and is partly responsible for the shift of federal grant money (for projects that would have gone to sociology in the past) over to separate demography departments, criminology departments, schools of public health and other multi-disciplinary research centers. These places use our theories and take our money. We need to be better at defending our disciplinary borders.
(This is just idle bullshit though--I haven't actually looked at sociology's share of social science research funding or anything.)
That said, I think the future is bright for sociology. It's a good sign that the hot sexy research in economics and psychology trespasses on sociological turf.
-nick
that's an interesting point, Nick. It makes sense as an additional factor. I don't think people are always aware (I know I'm not) of the significance of sociology historically v. today in political terms. Thanks for pointing it out.
Claude
Nick - Same story, different spin:
Sociology's funding 'heyday' in the 1950s and 1960s owed to the fact that many sociologists were willing to serve as tame corporate and government lapdogs, producing research that would serve powerful interests. Activist sociology in later decades did not discredit the discipline except in the eyes of corporations and the state, who had no use for anyone with a critical perspective who believed that sociology had a purpose other than bolstering their power. Right wing political interests then began a calculated campaign to push critical or activist academics -- including sociologists but not limited to them -- out of the academy. This has coincided with the general shift that Claude talked about towards the corporatization of the university, with all its varied and sundry effects (the assault on tenure, job security and academic freedom, the decline in faculty and student role in university governance, the increase in university research directly sponsored by corporations). There are ongoing political efforts to reduce or curtail NSF or DOE funding to disciplines or programs that are associated with critical perspectives. Some sociologists, though, happily for them, can still hope to get fat grants if they produce work that is ideologically useful to the state or corporations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Add Health study is the largest sociology research grant (or if not the largest, pretty damn big). I'm not seeing how it serves corporate or right wing interests, but I may not be as attuned to "corporate ideology" as you are.
Personally, I'm a good liberal, but I don't think an overt association between sociology and the political left is good for either. If we want sociology to be relevant beyond a narrow academic circle, if we want greater prestige and funding, then sociologists need to behave as if they are scientists (even if we aren't actually doing science). If limp rhetorical activism prevails (at the ASA and elsewhere), sociology will be easily dismissed by an increasingly conservative public and the leftist causes it has tried to serve will be no better off either.
Nick (if that's who you are): So your explanation for why the job market has been particularly hard the last few years is because of a 1970s based right wing conspiracy to rid the academy of critical perspectives? One could make the argument that sociology has largely been discredited (rightly or wrongly) in many camps, which has let to the gradual loss of university funds for soc programs. But a right-wing ploy? C'mon man.
no--I never made any claims about conspiracies, right wing or otherwise. I actually suggested the opposite--12:03 was my post, which i forgot to sign.
-nick
oh--I should clarify another point: I'd never suggest that any recent spike in sociology unemployment is due to a long term decline of the discipline (though the excess PhD labor problem is probably exacerbated by this apparent decline). I was talking about long term trends.
-nick
"no--I never made any claims about conspiracies, right wing or otherwise. I actually suggested the opposite"
Really?
"Right wing political interests then began a calculated campaign"
What was the opposing argument?
I don’t have the data on the exact sources or amounts of funding for sociological research, but I don’t doubt that the Add study is a large individual grant. It’s a useful case to discuss. I admit that some of my phrases were probably too vague and misleading. I didn’t mean to suggest that all the people whose research gets this kind of funding are lap dogs, now or in the 1950s. I think in most cases it is more a question of not appreciating the political implications of their work (this isn’t therefore more scientific, just less attentive to its own politics).
The basic design of the Add study itself, a longitudinal survey of adolescents that does not transcend the level of ‘community’, already depoliticizes adolescent health, locating its causes in individuals themselves and their immediate contexts and away from macro social, economic, and political factors. The study’s web site offers: “Add Health postulates that families, friends, schools, and communities play roles in the lives of adolescents that may encourage healthy choices or may lead to unhealthy, self-destructive behavior...As a group, adolescents are healthy people. Threats to their health stem primarily from their behavior. As they direct their energies toward achieving popularity, autonomy from adults, success in school or sports, satisfying romantic and platonic relationships, and confidence in themselves, they make choices that have health consequences.”
Really? Threats to their health stem PRIMARILY from their behavior? Is this a finding or a starting assumption? I guess people who think major threats to their health lie in a profit-based health care system that leaves millions of them without health insurance or access to proper medical care; pollution and toxic-waste dumping in their communities; the pushing of processed and chemically altered fast food on them from birth, including in their schools, and the lack of availability of healthy options; the poverty and job loss that isolates many in dangerous environments and forecloses their opportunities; cuts in funding for physical education and few public facilities for exercise; meager or nonexistent sex education and no access to free or low-cost pregnancy or STD protection... are wrongheaded. While the role of institutional race/class discrimination in determining health disparities among adolescents may be addressed in some of the individual studies, the project as a whole doesn’t present it as a significant question. The research brackets off major social forces that are of great importance in adolescent health outcomes but cannot be captured within their framework. The stress on individual behavior, or ‘choice’, is entirely consistent with a right-wing conservative framing of the issue.
Studies that want to examine those structural factors and the politics of adolescent health from a critical perspective, especially if done in conjunction with radical scientists, unions of health-care professionals or community activists working for social change, are unlikely to be handed grants like this. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions, but they are not the rule. People like the critical medical anthropologist Paul Farmer have to walk a fine line if they want to retain funding even for less political research.
Most radical or activist research is inspired not by “causes” but by a commitment to a set of values, such as democracy, equality, freedom, justice, and human rights, including the rights of adolescents not to have their health imperiled by private, profit-seeking interests or the government officials in bed with them. Theirs is not “limp, rhetorical activism” but often a committed (resisting the temptation to say “erect”) critical public sociology. You think the public for this work is small and shrinking. I disagree, but its public does have less money and less of a part in determining prestige than powerful corporations. So you are probably right that more critical scholarship would lead to decreased funding and a resulting loss of prestige in some circles. But funding and prestige are not the same as relevance or social value, and under present circumstances may be in inverse proportion to them. And for some there are things more important than the status of our discipline.
Two bills proposed in recent years, both aimed to limit academic freedom especially on the Left, are illustrative. HR3077 sought to increase government control over Title VI funding, and S2802 sought to deny NSF funding to the social/behavioral sciences and also increase government review powers. The impetus and support for these initiatives, like the ongoing campaign against tenure and other supports for academic freedom, was provided by conservative think tanks. In this last case, the proponents don’t even bother to hide the fact that their intent is to get rid of Leftist academics, although they tend to denigrate all academics in the process. It is not a ploy, but a concerted campaign to force critical scholars from academe, which belies their insistence that Leftist academics are unthreatening, irrelevant losers.
What Nick is trying to point out is that those comments were made not by him but in response to his.
I always thought "health" was a codeword for sexual health in the Add Health propaganda. When funding was up in the air because conservatives weren't sure about the study's goals and thought it was all about sex someone said, "Add health," and it worked to get it funded (hence the name). I thought the aim of the study was to communicate to conservatives, and others, that something needs to be done in this domain because the policies we have now aren't cutting it.
12:03,
i LOVE the term "limp rhetorical activism" - will be adding it to my personal lexicon and would credit you if i could....
"Right wing political interests then began a calculated campaign"
What was the opposing argument?
jesus christ! that was not me!
-nick
5:14: Thanks for your input. Googled it again and came up with an article giving some of its political history
http://www.guttmacher.org/
pubs/tgr/04/3/gr040310.html
Wow.
12:03 was me--thanks, 7:07.
While add health does not consider issues of environmental degradation and the health care system (although I believe people have linked some of those factors into the geocodes), it does have a strong emphasis on contextual influences on health, and is hardly limited to evaluating individual choices. In fact, I would bet that the vast majority of add health research points to contextual and genetic influences on health. Blaming the social environment for an individual's behavior is hardly a conservative approach. Social conservatives also tend to resist the collection of any data on premarital sex, and I'm sure would be outraged to learn that the federal government has funded research on the distribution of blowjobs (even though they were pretty interested in one particular blowjob). In my judgement, add health is hardly a "critical" project, but its sympathies lie on the left side of the spectrum. It hardly serves any corporate interest, as far as I can tell.
-nick
regarding "committed critical public sociology" i am reminded of andy abbott's words (from an after-dinner speech a few years ago):
"Politics and Controversies in Sociology
SRA Dinner
ASA 2000, Washington
13 August 2000
When I chose the topic Politics and Controversies in Sociology, I was
not yet aware of the topic of the annual ASA meeting itself. President Feagin's title of oppression, domination, and liberation underscored the degree to which politicization has come to dominate the Association's life and indeed to crowd other concerns from the Association's agenda.
Many people in the SRA dissent from this strong politicization and
indeed there has been talk about activating the SRA as a possible
alternative organization to the ASA, an organization focused on
sociology as an intellectual enterprise rather than a political one. I am of two minds about this project. I am also, as it happens, of two minds about after dinner speeches. It is one thing to give them, it is quite another to attempt to listen to them. Much, then, as I hate to disappoint those of you who have come to hear me say something blunt and outrageous about the follies of the ASA, and much, indeed, as I would like to say something blunt and outrageous about the follies of the ASA, I have chosen instead a milder course, and that is to argue
that we have taken the ASA's political shenanigans far too seriously.
We have therefore missed the fact that the spectacle of a bunch of
reasonably well-heeled, sinecured academics parading around a pair of
fancy hotels and talking about Oppression, domination, and liberation is fundamentally and delightfully silly. Here we are trading students and manuscripts like so many yard-sale fanatics while we bustle importantly from the oppression of women here to the oppression of Puerto Ricans there and the oppression of short people somewhere else. Can anyone in the world take this seriously as political action? Is it not the very epitome of absurdity? If we ask what would be the response
of the oppressed masses to a typical sociological paper about
oppression, a moment's reflection gives the answer.The oppressed masses would tell us at once, that like them, the sociologists are just trying to get by and feel good. Getting by in a fancy hotel is great, if you can manage. Beats working..."
-nick
"an organization focused on
sociology as an intellectual enterprise rather than a political one"
This is an impossible distinction. All intellectual work is political. All sociological work is political. All scientific work is political.
You can ignore the intrinsic politics of scholarship or try to sweep it aside rhetorically, but this will never alter the fundamental empirical reality.
Andrew Abbott has met the oppressed masses, they speak with one voice, and it is his. One of the most glib references to oppression I've heard. Has a real Rush Limbaugh quality to it. That's not a compliment.
I think some of you take yourselves and your research too seriously.
-nick
If the trends Claude called attention to continue uncontested, the number of "well-heeled, sinecured" sociologists will continue to decline. Adjuncts and graduate assistants with no job security, no protected freedom of speech, no health care and no child care will probably have a lot to say about these issues irrespective of the conference theme. But they probably won't be able to afford to go to conferences anyway, so the ASA should be 'safe'.
And I think you're complacent and smug. I couldn't care less what you think about me.
"One of the most glib references to oppression I've heard. Has a real Rush Limbaugh quality to it."
I don't think abbott said anything that trivialized oppression itself, only the sociological responses to it.
statements like, "All sociological work is political" simultaneously overstate the significance of research and trivialize politics. It's a natural to want to believe your work is "political," when in fact it's about as politcally meaningful as a round of golf. your work may *reflect* your politics, but that does not make it political.
That said, I am referring to typical research--there are occasions when research does become politically meaningful (e.g., that add health article on virginity pledging a couple years ago).
-nick
"This is an impossible distinction. All intellectual work is political. All sociological work is political. All scientific work is political."
i may be piling on here, but you probably also believe that trees make sounds when they fall in the forest.
I don't know that things are as dismal as some of these posts make it sound.
There are good quality programs that fully fund all their students who are making reasonable progress and the vast majority of those students find tenure-track (or some other type we're looking for) work in a year or two on the market or after a visiting job.
As far as farming out to adjuncts, like other sectors of work who are hiring temporary workers, it's happening in academia, but I've actually heard that there's a slow starting, but increasing, trend to hire tenure-track teaching faculty at the big research schools. This lets the research-oriented folks focus on research, but the universities still get good teachers who have job security, benefits, and are committed to the department and university. I think that both Northwestern and UC-Irvine advertised for this this year, and others are considering it.
Nick: I don’t think you responded to a lot of what anon above was saying. The language of individual ‘choice’ is theirs. ‘Contextual and genetic [!] influences’ or ‘the social environment’ have a limited and specific meaning that doesnt include the issues anon raised. While the study doesn’t explicitly tow the corporate line, it sure doesnt raise any questions about the role of corporations in threatening adolescent health-- the food and beverage industry, the pharmaceutical and health care industries, the corp elites that fight public health and social welfare programs, and more generally the role of corporations in generating poverty, which has probably the most significant influence on health outcomes. That a study is about sexuality doesnt make it critical or oppositional or ‘Left’, even if ultraconservatives like Jesse Helms find it intolerable. The point is that researchers had to present it as research that would not question conservative ideology about teen sexuality in order to get funding. Adding health only made this worse because then, like the website shows, they were forced to suggest that adolescent sexuality was not only a serious cause for concern on its own but posed a major if not the most important threat to adolescent health.
I definitely agree that add health is a compromise, and that they may have tailored the language of the proposal in order to get past conservative watchdogs. but that's just good grantsmanship--it doesn't mean the study itself is essentially conservative or corporate. and I also said that I agreed that it wasn't explicitly critical or overtly leftist. But if I had to put it on the political spectrum, I'd say it is slightly left of center.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, sort of like the peace corps--conservatives say it's a waste of money to send hippies to foreign ratholes, (some) lefties say it's a vehicle of capitalist imperialism.
"the vast majority of those students find tenure-track (or some other type we're looking for) work in a year or two on the market or after a visiting job."
Any data to back this up?
From the NEA Higher Ed Journal Thought & Action (vol 22, fall 2006, if anyone wants the full cite I'll provide it): "First and foremost among these developments is the tidal change in academic staffing patterns that is moving, seemingly inexorably, toward creating a predominantly contingent workforce. More specifically, nearly two in five of all full-time instructional staff now hold term-limited appointments subject to renewal. While 2005 figures are not yet available, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Syatem (IPEDS) Fall Staff Survey for 2003 shows that among about 630,000 *full*-time faculty, some 34.8 percent, or approximately 219,000, are appointed off the tenure track on term contracts. In addition, there are some 128,000 full-time tenure-track (but yet untenured faculty) probationary faculty; they may come to obtain a secure appointment (via tenure) but, for now, their appointment contracts are subject to not being extended. As of 2003, a whopping 55.1 percent of full-time faculty hold time-limited appointments: the 20.3 percent of faculty who are probationary on-track (tenurable) faculty plus the contingent full-time but off-track faculty.
Here is the most astonishing (we think disturbing) datum: from 1993 to the present, the proportion of all newly hired full-time faculty appointed *off* the tenure track increased *each* year from slightly more than 50 percent to very nearly three in five (58.6 percent) in 2003 (the year of the most recent data). Every indication suggests that the number and proportion of contingent (non-probationary) full-time appointees has continued to expand, and thus it is likely that their proportion of all *full*-time faculty will cumulatively exceed one half in the foreseeable future.
In other words, contingent or term appointments became during the past decade the *modal* form of new *full*-time faculty appointments. Still another dimension of contingency is the greatly expanding number of part-time appointments: roughly 543,000 part-time faculty (leaving aside the challenges of accurately counting part-timers and the inevitablity of multiple counting of persons who teach at more than one postsecondary institution). Thus, while the relentless rise of part-time appointments over the past three decades to constitute (by head-count) nearly half the academic workforce may be 'old news', when considered alongside the dramatic redistribution of full-time appointments, it is clear that the academic profession has endured a massive makeover."
It would be nice to think that sociology is the exception to these changes and that the efforts you mention portend a real turnaround, but I doubt it. Hate to be a wet blanket, but stats are stats.
You say tomato,.... You say 'compromise', I say being pummeled into ideological submission in a culture of fear. It would be 'just' good grantsmanship if the funding process were completely unpolitical. This was not the case with the Add study. That sociologists need to design and present their projects to appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests in order to secure funding was exactly my point.
"But if I had to put it on the political spectrum, I'd say it is slightly left of center."
on what basis?
for two main reasons:
1. it collects data on the sexual behavior of adolescents. this wouldn't seem to be inherently political, but conservatives have made even the collection of data on sex a partisan issue. they are afraid that teenagers may be having it, and they want to keep their heads in the sand. they also worry that if large numbers of teens are having sex, this will justify condom campaigns and erode support for abstinence.
2. I've never worked with it, but I believe the study is designed in large part to understand the social ecological factors that influence health behaviors. The proposal language notwithstanding, this implies that teens are influenced by their peers, by their school climates, by their neighborhoods, etc., and as such, they are not completely responsible for the health "choices" they make.
I think those two factors put it slightly left of center. But this is just my perspective, and there are valid reasons to see it differently.
-nick
When I said that research was inherently political, I did not mean that it was all self-consciously performed as a form of political action, or relevant, or any of this. What I meant was that the people and issues that concern us, the questions we ask, the funding of our research, the way we design our studies and the way this is influenced by political and economic pressures, and how and to whom we present our work are all inherently political. No research is more political or less political. Its practicioners are just more or less politically reflexive.
"You say 'compromise', I say being pummeled into ideological submission in a culture of fear. It would be 'just' good grantsmanship if the funding process were completely unpolitical. This was not the case with the Add study. That sociologists need to design and present their projects to appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests in order to secure funding was exactly my point."
I think it is good granstmanship if you are able to sell the proposal to a hostile audience without changing its core elements. I really doubt that there were any changes to the core project based on ideological opposition. It's true that it was nixed a couple times, but I don't think they abandoned anything for the final proposal--they essentially added a bunch of other health outcomes so that it wasn't a "sex study." but the sex questions are all in there, in at times excruciating detail.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on how they sold the project, rather than what it is. It may not be a critical leftist study, but it's really not conservative or corporate either.
-nick
And, further, it seems like Add Health is achieving its purpose (what it set out to do) and it's producing useful and important research. It's not addressing other important aspects of adolescent health, but it doesn't make it meaningless or suggest that it's catering to anybody else's whims.
I'm not just talking about the presentation of the study but its design and the questions it asks (and doesn't ask) when I say it's consistent with a conservative frame. I consider these core elements.
Regarding how it is 'sold', it would be slightly different if they presented it one way to funders and differently to the public, but the public presentation of research is a very important aspect of its political meaning. I want to reiterate that I'm not saying anything about the sociologists involved or their political views, about which I know nothing. And some of the studies within it may go in independent directions, although this would threaten future funding.
You're probably right, though. The American political spectrum is so skewed to the right that it may qualify as left of center here for the reasons you mention. I'm sure our opinions about that differ too. ;)
"And, further, it seems like Add Health is achieving its purpose (what it set out to do) and it's producing useful and important research. It's not addressing other important aspects of adolescent health, but it doesn't make it meaningless or suggest that it's catering to anybody else's whims."
I don't think anyone has made the claims you're contesting.
"I'm not just talking about the presentation of the study but its design and the questions it asks (and doesn't ask) when I say it's consistent with a conservative frame. I consider these core elements."
I think actual conservatives would strongly disagree with you. but if you are far enough toward one end of the political spectrum, the difference between the other extreme and the middle can appear small (witness Nader's claim that Gore and Bush are essentially the same).
"Regarding how it is 'sold', it would be slightly different if they presented it one way to funders and differently to the public, but the public presentation of research is a very important aspect of its political meaning."
I've read quite a few add health papers and attended a number of talks on it, and I haven't noticed anything particularly conservative about them. quite the opposite, usually.
"You're probably right, though. The American political spectrum is so skewed to the right that it may qualify as left of center here for the reasons you mention. I'm sure our opinions about that differ too. ;)"
It's possible, but I consider myself a solid liberal (with exceptions on some issues). I definitely had a post-celebration hangover after the election this year. and more pertinent to this discussion, I hate the fact that researchers even have to think about how their proposals are going to be viewed by these awful conservative think tanks.
-nick
Well, it's lookin' like my proposal "Factors Influencing the Frequency of Oral Sex Among Guantanamo Military Personnel" doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Damn - I knew I should've gone with different subfields.
Mills
My point, way back when, was that there has been an effort on the part of conservatives not just to demolish faculty sovereignty but to drive out critical, radical or activist academics and to punish the disciplines they associate with them. I said that people could still get big research grants if their research supported corporate-conservative interests or views. I should have added ‘or does nothing to challenge them’. Critical, left research on adolescent health would look very different from the Add survey, and the questions it would raise and make central would be threatening to right wing interests. It would almost certainly not get a grant, and the mere fact that sociologists were doing it would put the discipline in conservative crosshairs.
Again, I don’t think, seen from a perspective other than the far right, there’s anything essentially Left about doing research on sexuality. Left of Jesse Helms is not Left. The Add study does not make political power, economic inequality, and injustice central in determining adolescent health outcomes. Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative, and the focus on family, peer, or ‘community’ influences does not make it less so. When I talked about critical or radical sociologists being under attack I said nothing of liberal scholarship, which I’m sure under most circumstances, if not in the Add case, conservatives are willing to tolerate and sometimes even find useful. So far.
"The Add study does not make political power, economic inequality, and injustice central in determining adolescent health outcomes."
no disputing that. but ideally, you don't "make" anything determine outcomes. no point bothering to collect data otherwise.
"Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative, and the focus on family, peer, or ‘community’ influences does not make it less so."
Actually, it does. No doubt there are many contextual or systemic risk factors that add health ignores, but to locate health risks in the broader social environment is to remove them from the sphere of individual choices.
12:38,
"Critical, left research on adolescent health would look very different from the Add survey, and the questions it would raise and make central would be threatening to right wing interests."
Can you provide some examples of what types of questions your ideal Add-Health would offer?
Okay, lazy writing on my part. That was shorthand for: The Add study does not make the issues of political power, economic inequality, and injustice in central in [its analysis of the important factors] determining adolescent health outcomes. It ignores them. In fact it does exactly what you say, and I agree, should not be done. It begins from the questionable postulate that the risks to adolescent health stem primarily from their behavior, and proceeds to collect data about that behavior and its influences. I'm sure existing medical sociological literature has shown poverty, a lack of access to health care, and other politically and economically structured conditions to be key factors in health outcomes.
"to locate health risks in the broader social environment is to remove them from the sphere of individual choices." Locating health risks in the broader social environment is exactly what the study does not do. It locates them in individual behaviors and then looks at the immediate influences on these behaviors. I don't think conservatives argue that people's behavior is not shaped by their social environment or social influences. They seem to believe, after all, that teenagers being asked questions about sex by sociologists is going to lead them to start having sex, and apparently become gay in the bargain. The essence is the claim that our health outcomes are determined by our individual behaviors and not by forces acting upon us that affect our health directly, or indirectly by shaping our living conditions or sharply limiting our options.
I think it may be on the breadth and nature, and possibly the meaning, of the 'broader social environment' that we disagree, which is fine. I'm pretty tired of this discussion and will be getting back to my irrelevant, meaningless work soon, so I'll let you have the last word.
"Can you provide some examples of what types of questions your ideal Add-Health would offer?"
Sure, tomorrow, if you're still interested.
well, I don't need to have the last word, and agree that we are wearing out this topic, but I must respond to a couple points.
Your "immediate influences," actually include peer networks, school variables, neighborhood variables, and even state-level policy factors, and they are included in the add-health study. If obesity, drug use, tobacco addiction, mental health, or risky sex are influenced by these contextual factors, then it removes some of the adolescent's responsibility for these consequences, which is decidedly contrary to the conservative mantra of individual choice and personal responsibility.
"I don't think conservatives argue that people's behavior is not shaped by their social environment or social influences."
I think you give too much credit to conservatives. when the outcome is something bad, like crime, you won't hear conservatives blaming it on the neighborhood. and I don't think they worry about the consequences of asking survey questions on the adolescents' behavior--they worry about its consequences in the political sphere.
and for the record, I don't think research is irrelevant, it's just not a good vehicle for activism.
another thought: if add health was truly a conservative study, instead of all those questions about anal sex, they would be asking more about religious beliefs and (on the corporate side) brand-awareness.
wow - this is what happens when I don't check the blog for a few hours?! what an interesting discussion. And thank you to whoever posted at 10:06 today - can I have the full cite?
Claude
Good morning. I don't need the last word either, but find myself compelled to answer.
"I don't think abbott said anything that trivialized oppression itself, only the sociological responses to it."
Maybe that was his primary intent, but he trivialized oppression. Would his dinner companions have chuckled quite so loudly over their desserts if instead of "the oppression of women here to the oppression of Puerto Ricans there and the oppression of short people somewhere else" he had said "the oppression of women in Afghanistan, the oppression of undocumented immigrants in the US and the oppression of indigenous peoples in Central and South America," probably closer to an accurate portrayal of the actual content of the papers presented?
There are academics who vastly overestimate the political impact of their academic work, and they make easy targets. But what about the sociologists who additionally work for or with hotel workers' unions, for instance, contributing their research and communication skills to struggles for social justice? Is that political action? What about sociologists joining their efforts with Hurricane Katrina survivors? Is this "the very epitome of absurdity"? What about the ASA's current effort to challenge the State Department's denial of entry to Adam Habib (preventing him from attending the 2007 meeting)? Mere "political shenanigans"?
"if add health was truly a conservative study"
C'mon. No one has said that. I certainly didn't. What I said was, well, what I said, over several posts. I don't think we need to dig up all of those bones of contention again. After reading the article about Add's history, I had great sympathy for the researchers. It was not my example. It wouldn't have even been on my radar of examples of how the right wing shapes the sociological research agenda and forces out critical research--not least because I know so little about it--but since it was raised as evidence AGAINST that claim I felt obligated to respond. I don't doubt it has produced significant findings and useful knowledge. While I didn't point to specific examples of research that actvely supports corporate interests since I didn't want this to get personal, I did suggest other evidence in support of my claim.
Well, then who said Add Health is "consistent with a conservative frame" and "Locating the risks to adolescent health their in individual behaviors is essentially conservative" and that it was designed to "appease or appeal to conservative or corporate interests"?
-nick
regarding abbott--it's true that it would not have been very funny if he had used the cases you mentioned. I've only met the guy once, so I have no idea whether he tends to trivialize oppression, but I'd guess that he does sympathize. In any case, I'm pretty sure his point was about the ASA and not the oppression itself, so his crime is no worse than any other person trying to get a laugh.
regarding sociologists who get involved with hotel unions, etc.--I think that's wonderful. Totally commendable. I just think there should be a distinction between activism & advocacy and scholarly research. We may not be doing science, but I think we should pretend to be.
Given that the ASA is advocating on behalf of one of its members, I think it's fine to petition the state department. But I'm totally against the ASA taking official positions on partisan issues (even though I would probably agree with all of the statements).
-nick
None of these is the same as calling it a "truly conservative study." That is a misleading oversimplification of a more complex argument. I don't think it's possible to state my case with any more clarity than I have already, so I won't try. Of course I can't stop you or anyone else from thinking that's what I've been saying, but for the record it isn't.
7:58: In the interest of extending an olive branch, if I could delete my last post, I would--in retrospect, it was a little juvenile. We probably don't completely agree on Add Health's political implcations, but we probably don't disagree as much as it would appear here. But the conversation has brought up some interesting issues, so thanks.
-nick
Oh--I wasn't trying to suggest you claimed it was "truly conservative"--I was just imagining what it might look like if the heritage foundation had designed it.
I've never met him, and he may be deeply concerned about people who are oppressed. That concern was not reflected in his remarks at that dinner, which trivialized oppression, as you put it, to get a laugh. If his intent was to trivialize research on oppression, he did that too. What he tends to do in general is not really relevant.
"I just think there should be a distinction between activism & advocacy and scholarly research. We may not be doing science, but I think we should pretend to be."
As I said before, I think it is impossible to make a distinction between research and political action, because all scholarship is political. Retreating into a 'scientific' posture or claiming that we are merely engaged in nonpolitical intellectual pursuits or the 'objective' search for knowledge does not erase this basic fact. It just puts us in greater danger of serving political interests without realizing it.
"Oh--I wasn't trying to suggest you claimed it was "truly conservative"--I was just imagining what it might look like if the heritage foundation had designed it."
Please--don't give them any ideas!
"7:58: In the interest of extending an olive branch, if I could delete my last post, I would--in retrospect, it was a little juvenile. We probably don't completely agree on Add Health's political implcations, but we probably don't disagree as much as it would appear here. But the conversation has brought up some interesting issues, so thanks."
Oh--just got this. Olive branches all around. I agree wholeheartedly, and enjoyed the conversation more than my last few posts yesterday implied. It has raised some interesting issues, so thank you.
If you think that sociology has a problem with adjunting and part-timers, think of how hard it would be to get a job in english or linguistics or other areas. Of all the people I met in other fields in grad school, the sociologists at my school definitely had one of the best markets, but maybe that's not true across the board and it's not to say that it's not getting worse with every passing year.
I'd like to see an article that breaks down the statistics that 10:06 posted, and to know not only how it varies by field, but what impact the growing number of for-profit colleges that often employ professionals or people with "day jobs" to teach their classes have on those numbers and trends.
And I'll add that we're probably not as far apart as it might seem on the ASA and the amount of limp, rhetorical and even hypocritical 'activism' that flourishes therein either.
--9:06
I totally agree that sociologists have it better than some. I wasn't actually talking about sociology alone, or specifically, in my post about rising adjuncts and fewer tenure-track jobs. I think it's a problem in most fields, as it has to do with the corporatization of the university as a whole.
Claude
"As I said before, I think it is impossible to make a distinction between research and political action, because all scholarship is political."
Here is where I think we *might* have a fundamental difference. I concede that research is biased, that it is imperfect, and that it may reflect the personal politics of the researcher. But I do believe that distanced objectivity is something to strive for in research (though I realize it is unattainable--I'm not that old-fashioned).
I am uncomfortable with research that pushes a priori answers for any reason, political or personal. My research may reflect my politics, but I honestly try to minimize the impact of my own biases. I don't decide the outcomes in advance, and I don't use my research to push any political agenda.
Now, it may be that my researh has implications that support one political position more than another--I accept that. But that isn't decided in advance, which is the crucial distinction.
This is where I would distinguish research from political action. Political positions are established in advance, when in fact, my own findings would probably be more consistent with a conservative interpretation than a liberal one (and I'm a very solid liberal). If my research is political action, it is a near-sighted and clumsy political action that supports my opponents as much as it does my allies.
That said--I am not suggesting that you do any of these things. We may agree on this issue as well.
-nick
p.s. Would you consider using a moniker? yesterday I think it was just the two of us, but today it might avoid some confusion.
oh, concerning my unwitting servitude to political interests, I would take this critique more seriously if politics took research more seriously.
-nick
Claude,
Schuster, Jack H., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 2006. "On the Brink: Assessing the Status of the American Faculty." Thought & Action 22 (fall 2006): 51-61.
here's an interesting piece that argues something like what nick was saying:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110009615
Thanks for the cite 6:43
Claude
Does anyone have a good sense of why searches fail or if/when SCs stop going back to the applicant pool to bring in more candidates to interview?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the top-tier schools don't generally go back to the applicant pool--which belies all those rejection letters about all the "promising" and "qualified" applicants...
Could we start a collection of response times from journals? Here, or maybe on the Wiki? Seems like it might be a valuable use of collective information. Of course, there are multiple variables involved, but maybe we can create an average if we get enough data points. I'll start.
Time to first reviews from journal:
AJS: 6.5 months
SSM: 2.5 months
JMF: 2 months
SSM=Social Science and Medicine?
JMF=? (I could have great fun with this one.)
Could you please define the journal acronyms? I get AJS, but the other two I don't follow. Please define acronyms from now on so that those in different subfields can play along.
My contribution:
The Sociological Quarterly (TSQ): 2.25 months
SSM=Social Science and Medicine
JMF=Journal of Marriage and Family
If anyone has submitted an article to Gender and Society I'd be very curious to hear about what their response time is like.
I'll play: JMF (Journal of Marriage and Family) 2.5 months
I was contacted last year by a top tier school who went back to their pool. Other people had gotten rejection letters from them, but I hadn't, and sure enough, they emailed right after I'd accepted another job.
ouch. it still doesn't invalidate the generalization, but...ouch. that sucks.
It didn't hurt too much. I guess it's because I probably wouldn't have taken the job anyhow. For personal reasons, where I ended up was much better for me and hopefully will pay off in dividend in the long run. The experience made me feel like some upward movement's possible in the future rather than I blew it this time.
The best part was actually that years ago the DGS of that top-tier department recommended that I not apply for grad school there, thinking it was out of my league. I wish he'd remembered that as well as I did when he (as part of the search committee) was interested in me last year.
So, no real harm done.
On G&S - I found them to be relatively quick. I don't remember exactly how long, but I know it wasn't longer than 6-8 weeks. The thing to keep in mind on these estimates though is editorship turnovers (ASR, G&S and others recently having gone through one).
On SCs going back down their list - every university has their own policies on how this works, and from what I have gathered from a pretty wide range of universities - there seems to be NO rhyme or reason across "tiers" on how these are set up. I know of several places across levels that are "one and done" and of several across levels that have restarted their search even after a first round of campus invites - both because of rejections and not finding a suitable candidate.
Demography: over 6 months
Sex Roles: almost 6 months
Journal of Family Issues (JFI): 6 months and counting (I've sent an email, no response)
Clearly, I could benefit from this forum; I seem to have a knack for choosing journals with lengthy review times! I'd love to hear from more of you on journal response times. Also, what about publication rates? I know it's very low (around 10%, right?) for the top journals, but what about more specialized or lower-ranked journals? Thanks!
Re: Publication rates
The following website has some information about top- and lower-tier sociological journals' publication rates:
http://ww2.hs.iastate.edu/rge/research/compendiumWEBpage.asp
tried the link, but it didn't work...
http://ww2.hs.iastate.edu/rge/research/compendiumWEBpage.asp
Let's see if I can insert the link correctly. Sorry!
I'm unable to post the entire link here. This is what I did to find the link:
1. At google.com, enter "sociology journals publication rates."
2. Click on the 3rd entry, titled "UNT Libraries."
3. Next click on "Sociology and Social Work" in the table at the top of the page.
4. Click on the click under "A Compendium of Journals."
Demography: 6+
International Migration Review: 6+
I've had quick turnaround with JMF (Journal of Marriage and Family)--less than 3 months--although it just changed editors so that might change, too. And with ASR, 5+.
I have had pretty quick review times at Social Science Research and Social Science Quarterly.
Social Science Research: 3-4 months
My experience at Social Science Quarterly however was unusually quick -- the editor wrote to say this was the fastest R&R in SSQ history.
Maternal and Child Health: 4 months
Social Forces: 6 months and counting
Journal review time
Population Studies = 6+
Population Research and Policy Review - 3 months
Demography - 6+
Any advice about what to do (or not to do) on the first year of the tenure track?
Hermia
Social Movement Studies: 5.5 months and counting (despite my gentle prodding)
Arrgh!
Social Movement Studies does take a loonngg time. I think the problem has more to do with the reviewers than the editor.
8:57: Bless you for providing info about this maddening process. I appreciate it!
JHSB (journal of health and social behavior) 4 months to first review, but they said that was unusually long. the R&R was 12 weeks on the nose
Following up on Hermia's question, does anyone have any insight into the publishing books or journal articles debate for tenure? I understand that some research is better suited for journals. For those readers who could go either way, have you been advised to publish articles or revise your research into a book manuscript with getting tenure in mind?
Dear 10:07,
Check out:
Clemens, Elisabeth S., Walter W. Powell, Kris McIlwaine, and Dina Okamoto. 1995. "Careers in Print: Books, Journals, and Scholarly Reputations." AJS, 101(2): 433-94.
What's the best strategy for those us whose job search is unfortunately over for the year? (Hard not to feel like a loser here, folks, despite everything that's been posted about randomness and luck...I wasn't desirable to anyone (!), even for an interview. That says SOMETHING about me and my standing among future peers. Oy...)
Should I try to get a local teaching gig as an adjunct to show next year's employers that I am serious about academia. I don't want to do this because of the pay, and because I need better-paying employment. What do ya think?
To the March 10th anonymous, don't give up. I went on half a dozen interviews early last year, and ended up second six times. I had one more interview pop up in March, and I almost didn't go because I was so tired of the process. I was just going to stay in school for another year. I went, got the job, and am enjoying myself. It is not what I expected to do (I was looking either for a Ph.D. or MA/research focused type of job). I'm at a lib arts college, and I don't know if I will stay here 'forever,' but I like it thus far. There are still jobs popping up!! Keep applying and do the best to keep a positive attitude (I KNOW it is tough). Good luck!
Don't give up hope yet. I just got two calls for interviews.
George
My advice to March 10: Yes, you may hear something (unless you actually have received a rejection letter from every place you applied). If not, I wouldn't make the decision to adjunct at this point, if the goal is to make yourself look serious about academia to next year's employers, as you put it. A full-time one-year appointment looks way better than just adjuncting. And there are usually several one- or two-year appointments advertised around this time. I, for, one applied for one last year in late March and was hired in late April. It has served me well this year on the market - showing potential employers that I can handle a very full, full-time teaching load (though I didn't have much time for research or publishing), and I got a handful of interviews - and a tenure-track offer - this year. I also feel soooo much more confident about my teaching, as I really got a lot of experience this year.
So - look for temporary, visiting, or other full-time lecturer/instructor appointments. If you don't get one of those, THEN adjunct (and if that route, then teach more than one course, even if it means being at more than one location).
Good luck!
Claude
I second Claude's advice. A one or two year appointment is much more of an indication of your committment to the profession. It will also give you a new set of "colleagues" who can speak to your work as such (and not as a grad student). Lots of these spots popping up these days... and the business of hunting these down will keep you from staring at the phone.... Good Luck!!!!
Temple University is hiring one year lecturers. I don't know where the job is posted, but Julia Ericksen is the chair of the department.
You can find several advertised lecturer positions, including at Temple, on the ASA job bank. Search for "lecturer" or "instructor" or "other" and you'll find some. Also check the Chronicle.
Claude
So now that the 2007-2008 job search is pretty much wrapped up, anyone have any advance info for fall 2008? I would guess departments are figuring out right now what positions will be opening up.
we should also figure out how to organize the website and the wiki, so people don't get confused between the years. How should we do this?
Yes, let's start a new thread for '08 jobs
I second that motion! Let's start a new '08 thread!
are the powers that be who started this blog still around?
Do publications in grad school count toward tenure?
I've set up the 2007-2008 sociology rumor mill blog.
http://socrumormil2007.blogspot.com/
How do I publicize this?
I'll post it on the wiki and the old, old list
I realized that there is a misspelling in the original URL. Here is the new link:
http://socrumormill2007.blogspot.com/
Cat, can you make the changes on the wiki link and wherever else you posted? Thank you!
Post a Comment