17. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , ,

I consider myself someone who has a pretty broad knowledge base. By virtue of changing my undergraduate major 8 times and changing my dissertation topic and then going into a technology field related to education, I know a fair amount about a lot of different things. But I also know a lot in a few areas. One of the reasons I was leery of pursuing a purely academic career was the seeming requirement to focus on one narrow area of study. Certainly I know faculty who function this way. They know their area, usually a fairly narrow one, and very little else. Oh, sure, they can contextualize their area, say 19th century diaries, in a broader context of all diaries and of all literature. They know influences and antecedents. In smaller schools, faculty are more likely to have to venture out of their area in order to teach classes in related areas.

But I’m still often surprised by people who don’t venture much beyond their disciplines. They don’t care how history relates to science or vice versa. And forget popular culture. They don’t watch tv or listen to the radio. They don’t know that their students were obsessed with “The O.C.” and were sad to see it go. “Lost” is what they are when they venture into the wrong neighborhood. They know more about things that happened 50 years ago than what’s going on now. This isn’t all faculty, of course. I’ve run into many who share with me a general curiosity that extends to many areas, including popular culture. And I’m no cultural maven myself. I never really liked Lost and my tastes in tv lean toward reality shows, The Daily Show, and The Simpsons, not exactly the intellectual or coolest of fare. I don’t have a craving for mysteries the way many of my faculty friends do nor do I stick to reading “the classics.” I like nonfiction related to my field and in areas I used to study but no longer research–economics, history, cognitive science.

I can appreciate faculty who lament that students have no sense of history or context, no understanding of the complex world around them. But I also think that faculty should appreciate that some students understand their complex world in different ways than they do. Social networking, for example, complicates relationships and identity for students in ways that most of us never had to contend with as young people. TV shows and movies are often more complex commentaries on culture than the shows and movies we watched at their age was. A broad knowledge can provide students with even more ways to contextualize their experiences, but we shouldn’t dismiss certain ways of looking at the world just because it’s not our discipline. Disciplines can inform each other, always have, though we’re not always aware of it.

I can’t imagine not having a broad knowledge, not understanding science at all because it’s so different from English as a discipline or dismissing popular culture because it’s not “intellectual” enough. That seems, oddly, a shallow way of approaching the world.

15. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

I would love to have this conversation with my kids’ schools. Only mine would be about their crappy web sites.

15. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags:

I was going to write about the Chronicle article on frustrating grad students, but I was alternating between writing two articles and playing Civilization. Besides, New Kid did a stellar job. I couldn’t possibly top her.

I just want to throw in a few of my own comments, as a recent graduate student who had a lot of obstacles to success. New Kid mentioned that grad school often creates a culture the prevents students from being completely honest with their advisers. Are you really going to tell your adviser that you’re enjoying your research, but when you’re done, you think you might want to settle down and make apple pies or, god forbid, get a corporate job that has nothing to do with your work? I’m thinking that’s not going to go over well.

I think I was pretty honest with both of my advisers. The person I wasn’t honest with was myself. I should have followed my interests instead of following what I thought the market would be interested and what people told me I was good at. I liked and respected my first adviser very much and at first, I was interested in my topic, but my interest was not great enough to sustain a dissertation, much less a research agenda later on. I couldn’t get myself motivated enough to think about original ways into my topic. Throw in a relocation halfway across the country, two kids and a spouse on the tenure track and well, regular readers know how that turned out.

I’m sure I was frustrating in many ways. But life gets in the way and grad school isn’t really a culture that tolerates life events, pangs of doubt, and feelings of inferiority. So it’s hard to come clean about all of that and get the advice you need and deserve.

Both Gradgrand and some of New Kid’s commenters point out not just frustrating grad students, but unprofessional ones. Many of those may indeed put one off of advising, but it seems unfair to let the truly bad apples affect the ones who may, in fact, be pears.

12. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags:

I’m taking part in a series of conversations we’re having entitled “Risk-Taking in the Academy.” Our institution is going through a change in leadership. We have a new provost. We’re searching for a new president. So, the idea was to have some discussions about what that might mean for us in the context of taking risks. There have been three of these and they are attended by a variety of people–plenty of faculty, but also staff from many different areas.

Yesterday’s conversation was about two different models for an institution–the pyramid and the flock. We discussed the characteristics of both models and basically tried to draw analogies between the two models and an institution. Some pretty obvious characteristics were mentioned for each. For the pyramid, hierarchy, solidity, impenetrable. For the flock, fluid, adaptable. Although I definitely bristled against the idea of a pyramid serving as the model for our institution, I didn’t think the flock worked perfectly either.

At one point, while we were comparing the models and elaborating on how the applied or didn’t to our institution, a faculty member described how he imagined the pyramid model. He said he imagined he was in one of those boxes that made up the pyramid, running around doing his own thing, not able to move from one box to another but perfectly content because he didn’t have to worry about what was going on in the other boxes. I said I didn’t want to be in his pyramid. If I can’t move around more than that, I’ll be completely frustrated. Afterwards, we talked about this more and he said that he can go into his classroom and just do his thing and not have to think about institutional goals or even what and how the person in the next room is teaching. Someone pointed out that his teaching is in the service of the institutional goals so whether he’s thinking about that or not, it’s part of what he does. I told him to try being a staff member sometime. We can’t not think about institutional goals. That’s kind of all we do. We have to think about internal and external pressures on us to change. I explained that simultaneously I have to look at trends in technology and determine how they’re going to affect the institution and respond to internal pressures to add services or keep services. And that it’s a very complex dance that way. And he said, yeah, you don’t have a classroom where you can be protected from that.

The whole conversation, both the discussion as a whole and the brief side conversation I had at the end were really fascinating and they certainly revealed to me a lot about how people position themselves within an institution and what they think an institution should be for them. I think these conversations can go a long way in helping people to understand where different people are coming from, what they think their role is within the institution.

11. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,
Bryan blogs that his airport restaurant wiki got picked up by Aviation week: Infocult: Information, Culture, Policy, Education: Airport restaurant wiki gets blogged by Aviation Week

I never seem to have enough time to eat when I’m in an airport, so I haven’t been able to contribute to his wiki. In fact, most often I have an extra tight connection that causes my luggage to get lost. Bryan has been witness to one of these incidents. My last tight connection, however, was altogether different. I was flying United and was connecting in Chicago from Denver. We were late getting out of Denver because the original plane broke down and we had to take a different plane. We were kept informed the whole time. Once I got to Chicago, I bolted from the plane, since I had only 5 minutes until takeoff time. As I was searching for the screen with departure information, I heard myself paged over the loudspeaker, telling me to report to the gate immediately. I ran. At the end of the hall, a United clerk was standing there, and he said, “Are you Laura?” Yes, I panted. He sent me on my way. When we got to Philly, I went to baggage claim, fully expecting to walk away empty handed. But after about 10 minutes, my bag appeared. I honestly think that’s a first.
10. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,
I reduced my inbox by a magnitude. I feel like a huge weight has been lifted. Let the productivity and calm begin!
10. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

Although my life is much less hectic than it was a year ago, I still seem to have every hour filled. The only reason I’m writing this now is because I’m waiting for someone to show up for a meeting. I think that’s not going to happen and I have another meeting in 1/2 hour. Yesterday, I had exactly 2.5 non-meeting work hours. Today, I only have 2 hours. When I get home, I collapse. My TMJ is back again after being pretty much fine for months. It was still there, but not painful. Now it’s painful again. It hurts to eat.

In addition to having little time at work to do actual work, I have work-related, but not exactly work specific deadlines looming. These are good things–articles, book chapters, presentations–all related to my work, but which I have no time to work on at work. Those non-meeting work hours get eaten up with email and phone calls and people stopping by to ask questions. I’m unsure if any amount of extra efficiency would really help me here. I just need more hours in a day.

Tomorrow after work, I’m going to have a massage. I don’t feel that stressed despite the work load, but I know that’s why the TMJ has returned. I just can’t seem to relax on my own. No amount of deep breathing or bad reality tv is helping. I need someone else to help me let go.

The kind of frustrating thing about all of this is I’m in a moment where I don’t feel like I’m accomplishing anything. I feel like I’m spinning my wheels instead of moving forward and that’s driving me crazy. I have motivation, but no momentum. I just wish I could feel like I was on top of everything, just for a little while.

I’m in the airport, waiting for a flight to Denver. By the time you read this, of course, I’ll be in Denver. Because I can’t access the Internet in the air and I have to pay an outrageous amount for it in the airport. I used Google Gears to download my feeds, which is mostly useful since most of my feeds are full feeds. But if I want to hop on for 15 minutes to download some things to read on my 4-hour flight, I can’t. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could pay by the minute or something? The pricing structures for most airports/hotels/etc. are daily rates, usually around 10 bucks for 24 hours. I’m usually in an airport for less than an hour so it doesn’t make sense to pay for a full day. And it’s much more efficient to download some items to read offline than to read everything online. We used to do that in the days of dialup, but now not so much. Wireless and broadband are ubiquitous and mostly inexpensive (as a subscriber) so we just stay online all the time. But there are still these situations where momentary access would be useful. And honestly, in some cases, it might save money, energy and time.

Oh, I know I could have one of those wireless cards offered by the telecoms, but they’re pretty pricey too. Most don’t have a “pay-as-you-go” feature and require you to sign up for a plan at around $30/month. Considering I’m not in this situation that often, it doesn’t make sense to pay for something I’d use 2-3 times a year. Most of these products are geared toward the frequent traveler or business person not the casual user. It’s a shame. They’re missing out on a few bucks from me and I’m looking around at several hundred people who would probably have chipped in a buck or two to do a quick email check or check the weather at their destination. If you want to go in on a business plan with me, call. No email, of course cause I’m off the grid.
02. October 2007 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: , ,

On Friday, I had the great pleasure of having lunch with Martha Burtis. It was a rare opportunity to talk to someone doing similar things and having similar challenges and dreams. I’ve been thinking about a lot of what we talked about. Yesterday as I was walking across campus, I was thinking about my favorite topic–the faculty-staff divide. I was thinking about what I do, comparing it to my colleagues’ work and to faculty work and I had a flash of thought. Martha had said that she thinks of what she and her team does as R&D. I’ve thought that about myself and I’ve even been told that a lot of my work is considered R&D. If I were a faculty member, I’d be in pretty good shape. But I’m not. If a staff member’s work were divided in similar ways to a faculty member’s, most would list service as being nearly 100% of their job. That’s what’s valued on the staff side of things.

For most positions, teaching and scholarship don’t exist. And yet there are a few positions where they do, and I started to think about how work might be divided differently for some people. What if service were only 60% of the job and the other 40% were divided between teaching and scholarship, both defined broadly. Teaching could be sessions on best practices for using certain software or discussions about copyright and its effect on curriculum and research. In some cases, it might mean teaching a class of students (as I do). Those classes could be credit courses or non-credit ones. Scholarship could be of the more traditional variety of writing articles for peer-review or it could be researching emerging trends and presenting a report for the campus. It could be developing new software. Service, too, might be expanded. Instead of its traditional definition on the staff side of supporting faculty and students, it could entail serving on committees (departmental or college-wide) so that one gets credit for spending time in meetings and working toward larger goals as well as day-to-day support.

Though it makes sense to look at the traditional academic breakdown of work, one could also turn to corporations such as Google, where workers are encouraged to spend 20% of their time working on their own projects. What if that were encouraged of staff and what if it were rewarded? I think that would help retention a great deal. The academic market just can’t pay what someone is really worth. There are other benefits to working at an educational institution, but sometimes the work load gets to a breaking point and the benefits no longer seem worth it. If you’re a creative, smart person (which a lot of staff are; that’s why they’re there in the first place), then you’re motivated by getting to show off your creativity and smarts, which you don’t get to do if you’re only doing service–grunt work kind of service like showing people what buttons to press, making copies, answering the phone, etc. Add the opportunity to work on a pet project that might get used by the institution and you’re likely to keep people around. Some people pursue this anyway, even if it’s not written into policy, but if they’re not rewarded for that and if, in fact, they’re punished for taking away time from service, they too may leave.

It seems that such a structure would benefit the institution. Higher retention levels, some good ideas put into the institution, happy employees. IHE today has an article about shifting scholarship into new areas, many of which make sense for staff people. They say it’s about time that faculty got out of the 19th century and I think the same should be true for staff. It might go a long way to getting rid of the upstairs/downstairs culture that exists at many colleges and universities.

There’s a good discussion brewing at 11D and Megan McArdle about whether we middle and upper-class people should feel guilty about hiring help to clean our houses. We have a cleaning woman. We’ve had the same cleaning woman for 6 years. I suspect we’re her cheapest clients. The first time she came to our apartment, she looked around and said, “Yeah, you need help.” And we’d cleaned up before she came over.

One of the main reasons we hired a cleaning woman is articulated nicely by one of 11D’s commenters:

I sense that, in hiring a cleaning lady, I’m not really buying back my own time as much as I’m avoiding a HUGE, life-long argument with my husband about him actually doing his share. 

Honestly, I suck at housekeeping. I hate it. I have a kind of ideal desire for a clean house, but lose motivation very quickly. And since I’ve had kids, I’m mostly just overwhelmed by the complete mess they leave in their wake. Mr. Geeky feels much the same way, but has even less time to devote to housekeeping. We were honestly having the same argument over and over about who should do what and we were keeping score and all that crap. And it wasn’t fun and even though we couldn’t really afford it, we hired a housekeeper to end that argument. We still have it every once in a while, but we don’t live in squalor for at least a few days every week.

In the comments to both posts, some commenters are really talking about cleaning services as opposed to hiring an individual. One commenter at Megan’s, for example, claims that we hire people to do things for us when they are better or more efficient than we are.

But a cleaning lady does not perform the function any better than you or I could. They are not faster, and if they are, it is often to the detriment of the quality of the work. In other words, you pay them because your opportunity cost is greater than the savings you would accumulate by not paying these people. . . . 

Hey, we have all in a pinch used a service or function that we may have objections to. But I know my fiancé and I go out of our way to not use the cleaning services because they are nothing but exploitive businesses, and thus, you the customer are an extension of that very model.

I read Nickeled and Dimed. I know Merry Maids and its ilk pay minimum wage and no insurance, etc. That’s why I hired an independent contractor who works for herself. She sets her own fees. I also happen to know that she has health insurance through her husband’s job and that the money she earns from cleaning houses is going to pay for her kids’ college education. I’m really okay with that if she is. I don’t think she would have put the ad in the paper if she weren’t. And if she wants to quit, that’s okay with me too. And if I let her go, I know she will find another client quickly in this market.

It’s true that they may be housecleaners their whole lives, but they may not be either. Laura explains in her post that some of her guilt comes from this issue to which some people said, “What about bussers at restaurants?” She responds in a comment:

House cleaners are different from people who bus tables in a restaurant. The table bussers have the opportunity to move up the ranks of restaurant workers to waiters to maitre d’s. They progressively work up to fancier restaurants where they make more money and have more job satisfaction. 

Not that I’ve seen. We must dine in different restaurants. I was a waitress for years and bussers and dishwashers almost never moved up the ranks. A dishwasher might move to bussing and a busser might move to being bar back or get better shifts and more tips, but I never saw a busser become a waiter. I have no idea if that’s what they wanted to do and so were thwarted in their goals. It’s just what I’ve observed. In the restaurants I’ve worked in, bartending is the top of the ladder (aside from management) and that’s where the good tips are. Like housekeeping, bussing and dishwashing is largely invisible work done by the less educated.

There’s also some talk about what class we are really in. A while back, when the NYTimes printed that series on class, I was shocked to find myself in the top 5%. I’ve never considered myself rich, because I think we’re shown so many images of the truly rich (and I drive by their houses every day) that I just assumed I was somewhere just above the midpoint. That gap between the top 1% and top 5% is huge.

The whole conversation is really interesting on many levels.