 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif) ccdean_feed | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://suburbdad.blogspot.com/2009/07/counteroffers.html I don’t do counteroffers. That’s not just a quirk of mine; my college doesn’t do them. It’s a policy I’m happy to follow. The question comes up whenever somebody respected on campus gets an offer elsewhere. People always seem a little surprised when the answer to “so-and-so got another offer – what are you going to do?” is something like “wish hir the best.” But it is, and that seems right to me. Admittedly, a position like this is easier to sustain at a community college than it would be at a Harvard. At the tippity-top of the prestige hierarchy, there may be good reasons to give Superstar Professor whatever she wants. Superstar Professor brings name value for recruitment, donor interest, and/or metric tons of grant money; a certain amount of groveling may make sense. But at this level, that’s not how the world works. While some professors here are more respected internally and in the local community than others, nobody really comes here to study under so-and-so. Our faculty don’t bring in the mega-grants, and for the most part, we wouldn’t have the infrastructure to support them if they did. That’s not our mission. (To be fair, the policy isn’t limited to faculty. We don’t do counteroffers for administrators or staff, either.) Good arguments exist for counteroffers. The one I find almost persuasive is the one that notes, correctly, that salary raises here are incremental and pretty much across-the-board. (The exception is promotion bumps -- going from Assistant to Associate Professor, say.) That means that if the salary you accepted when you took the job wasn’t much, then it may never be. Some people prove to be worth far more than the usual salary scale pays them, and they know it, but all else being equal, they’d rather not leave. In a system without counteroffers, their only option for a meaningful pay increase is to leave. That’s a problem, but it’s a problem with across-the-board salary increments. Introducing counteroffers trades a small problem for a much bigger problem. At a really basic level, you’re encouraging people to try to leave. Incentives matter. When you reward ‘disloyalty’ over ‘performance,’ it isn’t hard to figure out which way people’s energies will move. If you want to keep the best performers, pay for performance. That’s not the same thing. I’ve read that the average length of stay after accepting a counteroffer is 18 months. I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds right. In my own experience, job searches (other than coming out of grad school) haven’t been entirely about money. People will tolerate relatively low pay if they like the job. (If that weren’t true, the entire adjunct workforce would have quit years ago.) If somebody is looking, it’s because s/he wants out. I’m okay with that – sometimes ‘out’ is the best option all around. Although the academic blogosphere is quick to sniff sinister motives whenever somebody trots out the ‘f’ word, there really is such a thing as a bad fit. If someone wants to find a better fit for hirself, I say, go right ahead. Someone who never quite clicks at college A can succeed wildly at college B. Context matters. In my single days, I learned early on that there’s no point in trying to argue your way out of getting dumped. To me, that’s what a counteroffer amounts to. It’s an attempt to postpone the inevitable through a palliative that doesn’t address the real issues. At most, it’s a mutually-unsatisfying stall. But unlike the dating analogy, counteroffers affect more than the parties directly involved. When there’s a contractual pay scale, counteroffers can sabotage it. Other employees quickly get the message, and system-gaming becomes a full-time job. Loyalty is punished, performance ignored, and internal equity simply forgotten in the stampede. Not worth it. Is there an argument for counteroffers at the cc level that’s actually persuasive? Am I missing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ratingstudents | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/2009/07/if-we-had-dollar-for-every-post-we-got.html  In 4 years I've been moved 5 times into 4 different offices (yes, I've had the same one twice, with two others in between). Two of the offices were exclusively mine, the other two were shared. Oh, and when I need to teach at the satellite campuses, which is almost half the time, I have to camp out in the adjunct offices (usually a closet with a broken chair, a broken desk, and a broken computer -- no phone). I used to try to decorate and make the spaces my own, but I gave up and left my things packed after the last move, so my current decor is distinctly "stack of cardboard boxes." Space? Personal space? I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) wyld_dandelyon | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since I've started putting my fiction online, I've been thinking about the nature of crowdfunding, and it has occurred to me that this isn't the first time I've put my creative work before strangers, in the hopes that some of them would choose to become patrons of my art and support my efforts. So, here is the first part of what I expect will be an occasional series:
 Busking in Cyberland, Part One:
A Personal Retrospective
It was the early 1990s, and I was going through a divorce, and trying very hard to be frugal. Still, getting out is important. I really needed to be doing something other than work and brooding on the life I’d been promised, and that wasn’t happening, wasn’t going to happen, and there was nothing I could do to salvage it. Traveling on the El one day (actually, I was in one of the large stations, walking from the El to transfer to a bus) I heard something—live music. The bright tones of the hammered dulcimer were not coming from anyone’s radio. Don’t ask me how I knew it was live, all I can say is that from the shape of the sound, it was obvious. It transformed the space. Never mind the dozens of people rushing by, ignoring it, I had to go find it. And when I did, there was a musician, with a hammered dulcimer, just as I’d been sure there would be. And though I couldn’t stay around long to listen, it transformed my day. A week or so later, I thought, “I could do that.” Well, not the hammered dulcimer part; I’ve never owned one of those, though I’d like to. But I play the autoharp. And so, after work, I went down into the subway, opened the autoharp case, and did my thing. Now, I’d been riding the El (which, in Chicago, is also at times a subway; the trains follow the tracks up and down) for years. I knew what it felt like, how people behaved toward me, and so on. It felt crowded and lonely, routine and risky all at once. You kept your eye or your arm on your purse, and kept it closed. But when I was standing there with my autoharp, and the case in front of me (with some seed money in it, laying there right out in the open), it all changed. Sure, there were teenage boys who laughed at my folk music, but there were also teenage boys who, when I complimented the beautiful, waist-long hair of one of the group, stopped, turned around, and all emptied their pockets, one even giving me his lucky 50-cent piece, to wish me luck. And the street people—their behavior changed too; not only did they stop and listen, and sometime throw me a precious dime or two, but they treated me differently. I felt welcomed, accepted—and safer than I have ever before or since in that setting. They were the first to retrieve the contents of my case if a careless commuter kicked it, and replace the cash safely inside, returning the coins to their position on top of the paper money to keep the wind of the trains from blowing my earnings away. And after a while, even if you aren’t good at reading people, when playing songs you have thoroughly memorized you realize that busking is very much a social interaction, and that playing for different people, though they are equally strangers, is different. It amazed me that one person, smiling and nodding and intent on the music could create a rush of harmonious energy, so the music got better—and easier!—like a force of nature. There were woman who came up with a small donation, assuring me they were praying for my safety. And there were lurkers too—you could tell were listening only by their head nodding slightly, in time, behind the book or newspaper that shielded them from the crowd. And I still wonder at the folks, usually in suits, who would stand off to the side or listen from behind a column, then toss in money when a train was pulling in, and they thought no one would notice. I didn’t get rich, busking, but I got a little bit less poor. And it transformed my world, made it bigger, and friendlier, and safer, in ways I didn’t expect and at a time when I really needed those things. Tags: autoharp, busking, crowdfunding, music
Current Location: Various Subway Platforms in Chicago
Current Mood:  contemplative
Current Music: Tom Paxton's Rambling Boy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sf_biology_blog | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://sciencefictionbiology.blogspot.com/2009/07/hollywood-science-and-unscientific.html   As those of you who are regular readers of The Intersection are aware, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's recently published book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, takes a look at how American culture influences science literacy (or the lack thereof). There has been a lot of controversy (at least in blogland) about some of the content, particularly in the authors' suggestions as to what scientists could and should do in promoting science to the public. Discussing the science in fiction is my whole reason for blogging here, so I was particularly interested in what Unscientific America had to say about science and Hollywood*. As the chapter points out, the way that Hollywood portrays science is often egregiously bad and the way it portrays scientists is almost always negative. Because most of the public has little exposure to either quality discussions of science** or interaction with actual scientists, what people see on the big or little screen negatively influences their perception. I can't argue with any of that. Mooney and Kirshenbaum point out that part of the problem is that many filmmakers consider scientific accuracy to get in the way of telling an entertaining story. But throughout the industry, there is certainly a sense that science is inimical to storytelling, that it quashes creativity, which must be allowed to breathe. As screenwriter and ScienceDebate2008 founder Matthew Chapman explained about some of his fellow writers; "among the less talented, there's I think a kind of inherent prejudice against science, because science means being rational, and being rational is considered the opposite of being creative –– whereas fantasy, superstition, magic, all of these more child-like ways of looking at life, are somehow thought to be what the creative process is about." I suspect that the large number of actors and Hollywood trend setters who embrace pseudoscience and New Age-style magical thinking adds to the problem. See, for example, quantum physics woo in What the (Bleep) Do We Know!, the quackery and pseudoscience promoted on the Hollywood-connected Huffington Post, stars drinking magical Kabbalah water, and so on. Of course not every screenwriter, actor, and director in the film and television industry is anti-science, but those who are make up at least a significant minority. But Mooney and Kirschenbaum go a step further and claim that part of the problem is that science and storytelling that is based on the laws of nature is inherantly boring to most people. The problem for science in this context is that the technical facts it furnishes can rarely hold the attention of non-scientists – and anyone who has watched presentations at a scientific conference knows why. and
Such science-centrism simply won't work for the broader, non-scientist population. It ignores their compelling need not to be bored. Successes like March of the Penguins notwithstanding, most of the time people need to see and hear stories about other people, or about animals that are given human attributes, as in Disney-Pixar films. Are scientists really all pushing for Hollywood to produce technical documentaries rather than fictional tales? I haven't heard or read such an arguments. Sure there is a lot of discussion of where the science in fiction goes wrong - right here among other places. But that's not a demand that Hollywood should stop making entertaining films - the vast majority of scientists that I know can both suspend disbelief and critique the silly science they've been watching. That's why the LSC movie series is such an institution at MIT: hard-core geeks and nerds enjoy watching summer blockbusters as much as they enjoy picking them apart (and shouting "LSC...sucks", of course). It's all part of the fun. Personally, I don't get particularly annoyed at bad science unless it either does nothing to serve the plot – for example, the scientist in Red Planet naming the DNA bases A, G, T, and P (rather than C) – or if the writer or director has made a big fuss about how science-based their movie. A couple of recent examples of the latter are the TV series Eleventh Hour and M. Knight Shayamalan's The Happening. If you claim you are basing your show on science, I'm going to hold it to a higher standard. On the other hand, the outrageous science on Fringe doesn't bother me because that's the whole point of the series. And sure, I'm going to write about where they get it wrong, but that doesn't mean I think they should be doing things differently. Anyway, the only example of a narrow minded entertainment-hating scientist that Unscientific America comes up is bioscience popularizer and unapologetic atheist Richard Dawkins: And some scientists will also have to get over the idea that everyone ought to be as captivated by the intricacies of science as they are. "The natural world is fascinating in its own right," Oxford's Richard Dawkins has stated. "It really doesn't need human drama to be fascinating." He even reported told the New York Times that he wondered why Jurassic Park required a cast that included human beings –– after all, it already had dinosaurs. Now, I looked up the 1998 New York Times story that that quote was pulled from, and from the way I read it, I would take what Dawkins is reported to have said with a big grain of salt. You see, the article is actually about a series of panel discussions hosted by the Sloan Foundation, which included Hollywood directors and producers and scientists. There was much disagreement and at one point the discussion "degenerated into a raucous name-calling exchange." It was at an interview after this meeting that Dawkins "wondered why ''Jurassic Park'' had to have any people in it at all when it had dinosaurs." I don't think it's far-fetched to think that he might have been speaking out of annoyance or less than completely seriously - something we can't judge because the article gives no context for Dawkins' paraphrased comment. And no matter what Dawkins did say, he certainly isn't the spokesman for all scientists, or even all biologists. I'm disappointed that Unscientifc America indulges in the same sort of negative stereotyping of scientists that pop culture does. And maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the suggestion seems to be that scientists should not comment on or complain about "minor" scientific inaccuracies, because, well, just because: Yet in marshaling scientific complaints against the entertainment industry, it's important to consider what really matters and what doesn't. Any specialist – a historian, say, or an anthropologist – is prone to get ticked off if a film or TV drama makes a mistake about his or her field. [ . . . ] So how worried should we really be if an inaccuracy or implausibility sips into a film to serve the plot or to satisfy audience expectations – if, say, Star Wars shows fiery explosions in space? Probably not very. Again, I don't really get it. It's not as if scientists aren't filing formal complaints with the movie studios or organizing boycotts because of science bloopers. Talking or writing about where the movies go wrong harms no one (except maybe thin-skinned filmmakers) and actually can be an entertaining way to start a discussion about real science. And I'm not convinced that having more realistic space battles in Star Wars would have made it less entertaining.*** Anyway, they do have some suggestions that the "scientific community" can take to try to improve the depiction of science and scientists in films and television: - First off, as noted above, scientists have to understand that people want to be entertained by the movies, which should include both drama and people. This is where scientists who are also science fiction writers can play a major role, since they are already familiar with the difficulties of balancing the science with the fiction to tell a compelling story. But as I noted above, there are many scientists who are great movie fans too, and who wouldn't have any trouble with the idea that telling a story requires some suspension of disbelief. - Next, get to know the right people in Hollywood, and know them well: Science consultants can have an impact on the scientific content in a film's script, on its set design, on its sound effects. In general, they are invited on board by those at the head of film projects –– directors, producers –– and their influence is proportionate to the closeness of their relationship to that leader. The key is developing "relationships with important players and learn how to serve them to further shared goals, rather than merely issuing criticism and denunciation." There are, in fact, already number of scientists who already act as advisors for movies and TV shows, so that's clearly doable. But I think criticism is important too, since bad science sometimes can't be helped – the superpowered "mutants" in X-Men, for example, aren't going to called anything different. The scientific community is not monolithic, and so it makes that some will be included to work with Hollywood from the inside, while others will be more comfortable critiquing Hollywood from the outside. There's no reason why there can't be doing scientists doing both, unless producers and directors are so sensitive to negative comments that any criticism will turn them away from attempting to accurately portray the functioning of the universe. - Finally, scientists must realize, they may be called for advice on too late to make any substansive changes: By the time a science consultant arrives on the scene to work on a project, many things such as plotline, cast, and budget are usually already agreed upon, and a script has likely been written, at least in draft form. Given all of this, any effective science consultant or adviser will be acutely aware of the realities and constraints of filmmaking and will work with them, rather than trying to overturn them. And "factual accuracy" is the first thing to go when a movie is being made: Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount –– that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot. Either science will align itself with these overweening objectives or it will literally get flattened by the drive for profit. I find it a bit disturbing that they are suggesting that scientists should ignore "mere factual accuracy" to get an "in" in Hollywood. Science consultants shouldn't be the ones worrying about profit - that's the job of the filmmakers. I don't think anyone should be surprised if their suggestions for scientific accuracy are sometimes ignored, but that doesn't mean that those suggestions shouldn't be made. If factual accuracy is completely off the table, what's the point in being a science advisor? It all sounds a bit hopeless, at least from the perspective of an individual who doesn't have any Hollywood connections or much spare time to build personal relationships with filmmakers. That's where The Science and Entertainment Exchange comes in - it should be a useful mediator between scientists interested in Hollywood and filmmakers interested in science. So overall, I think Unscientific America does make useful points about how science is portrayed by Hollywood. However, I don't think it's helpful that the book portrays most scientists as clueless joykillers who can't enjoy a less-than-documentarian movie, or that it suggests scientists should stop criticizing science in the movies. And yes, I took it a bit personally, because discussing bad science in science fiction is much of what this blog is about. I think it's worthwhile, not in small part because I've gotten comments from people who stumbled in here looking for information about whether the science in their favorite movie or TV show is "real". I'm glad I could give them the information they were looking for. And if you are still reading, you might want to check out some of the other posts that have discussed the "Hollywood and the Mad Scientists" chapter of Unscientific America: - Stephanie Zvan @ Quiche Moraine has an excellent post: "Mere Factual Accuracy"
"Setting up story and accuracy as a dichotomy also ignores the richness that accuracy can add to a story. In fact, whole stories can be built from closely observed detail."
- Janet Stemwedel @ Adventures in Ethics and Science: "Book review: Unscientific America"
"It struck me, while reading this book, that the root problem here is no fundamental flaw in the American character, but a capitalist system that squeezes out spaces for things that are not expected to sell widely for the lowest costs to produce. Science is brimming with complexities. Explaining it, understanding it, takes time and effort. But if the news media and Hollywood (and politics, too) are harbingers of doom for a scientific America, it makes it seem just as likely to me that a long term solution will involve replacing extreme capitalism with something different. Show me the alternative and the plan to implement it, and I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and help."
- PZ Myers @ Pharyngula has a scathing review: "Unscientific America: How Scientiric Illiteracy Threatens Our Future"
(Note that PZ and Chris don't agree on anything, PZ was called out in the book, and there's a fair amount of animosity between them, so the comments reflect that.)
I think all the Scienceblogs.com bloggers got review copies, so there are lots of reviews of the book as a whole over there. -------- * The chapter titled "Hollywood and the Mad Scientists" is the only one I've read so far, so I can't comment on the rest of the book.
** It's unfortunately true that a lot of the reporting of science in the news media is really reallyreally bad (click the links for examples just from this month).
*** But then I'm one of those freaks who thinks showing women having a conversation about something other than than boys, weddings or babies can be entertaining too, so what do I know?
Tags:science fiction, Unscientific America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oursin | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following my Not Me, Squire response to the dubious publishing enterprise:
Dear [first name - hello, I was not under the impression that we had been introduced],
I am sorry for the inconvenience. However, everything happens for a
reason, since LAP does publish academic pieces in different fields.
Please let me know if you are interested in publishing your work with us
and I can send you further information on LAP. According to company
policy, we publish works, which are at least 52 pages long.
I am looking forward to hearing from you. MI NUMEROUS PUBLICAYSHUNS WIV REPEWTABEL AKADEMYK PUBLISHAZ, LET ME SHOW U THEM. Sigh. Though somehow the 'at least 52 pages long' amuses me somewhat. (Why 52?)
This entry was originally posted at http://oursin.dreamwidth.org/1059876.html. Please comment there using OpenID. Tags: exploitation, publishers, scams, spam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
