This is the last one of these sorts of things at Estabrook since Will is one of the big kids now. I think my favorite is still when Will was one of the narrators– either the second or third grade– but this is best movie of one of these I’ve made.
Stupid Michigan Democrats…
I’m listening to NPR’s “Morning Edition” right now, and they were talking with Debbie Dingle (no, that’s not a made-up name), the wife of John Dingle and a mucky-muck in the Michigan Democratic party, and she just said that the Michigan decision to break the Democratic National Committee rules and have the primary sooner was an act of civil disobedience in protest of a broken system. WTF?! The party bosses in Michigan decide to disenfranchise millions of people because they don’t like the primary system? Even though if they had left things just the way they were, Michigan and Florida would both be hugely relevant right now?!?!
I agree with almost everything Mark is saying right here, and I agree with what I heard Howard Dean saying on the Sunday morning talk shows: changing the rules now is going to give the advantage to one candidate or the other. Senator Carl Levin is apparently talking about/floating a mail ballot system; I’m not sure who would come out on top of that one. And apparently the wisdom out there right now is that neither Michigan nor Florida is going to be enough to put Obama or Clinton over the top anyway.
But what I’d really like to hear someone in a position of power at the Michigan Democratic Party say– I don’t care if it’s Granholm, who is pretty much term-limited and Canadian-ized out of running for anything for the foreseeable future or Mrs. Dingle who isn’t elected to anything anyway– to admit that they screwed up and to apologize. We can argue that the primary system is screwed up and needs to be fixed, though, as a former Iowan, I personally can see the point of a place like Iowa or even New Hampshire going first. But the fact of the matter is these people took a gamble and they lost, and they ought to ‘fess up to that.
Does Bauerlein have a point, or is he just a jerk?
I’m leaning toward the “jerk” part, but before I get there, let me contemplate the post Mark Bauerlein has on his “blog” of sorts at CHE, “Stop Pushing Yourself.” He starts with a story about a professor speaking about the work week and claiming that she works over 60 hours a week. Then Bauerlein starts to wonder, “can this be true, 60+ hours?”
Let me quote and comment as I go:
Maybe for some segments, such as teachers with a 4-4 load that includes heavy writing assignments on the syllabus. And maybe for assistant professors struggling to get the book finished before tenure time, or researchers in the sciences working on a timetable because of funding.
In other words, “maybe this is true for some people who aren’t working at places like Emory or who aren’t full profs, but it ain’t true for me.” But of course, I would bet that 85% of people who work in higher education (and sorry Prof. Bauerlein, but places like EMU and community colleges and a whole bunch of other places that are not elite and overly privileged institutions still count as “higher education”) actually do have work loads similar to the “exceptions” he seems to be dismissing here.
But if we look at tenured professors in the humanities and in many other disciplines, it seems to me that much of the work they do is entirely self-generated. The conference papers that have to be written, the scholarly articles they want to complete, the book projects that hang over them . . . these are not required. They are elective. Yes, they can enhance a career, extend a CV, or even contribute to the historical record—sometimes.
There are plenty of tenured professors who have indeed “opted out” of this supposedly elective scholarly activity. At EMU, which is certainly not a “publish or perish” kind of school, the only way you can opt out of scholarship and still not be considered “dead wood” is if you make significant service contributions. So sure, you don’t have to do these things; if you are willing to be thought of as irrelevant by your peers, go ahead and check out of the scholarly thing.
But the fact is that the degree to which the vast majority of conference papers and articles in the humanities effectively change the working conditions of professors doesn’t come close to justifying the number of hours they spend on the projects. These projects fill their afternoons and evenings, and in my experience inside academia and out I have never heard any groups speak as loudly about how “busy” they are as professors do. Plainly, the situation makes many of them unhappy.
Okay, here I actually think Bauerlein has a point. There are BOATLOADS of papers, articles, and books produced by academic-types that are probably not worth it in all kinds of different ways. And yes, there are many professor-types who are constantly busy. But I have to say that some of the folks I’ve worked with over the years who claim to be constantly busy don’t seem to get that much stuff done.
So why do they do it? Is it really worth sweating all those months getting that manuscript in order—which upon publication will sell only a few hundred copies—just to boost your annual raise a few hundred dollars?
Caught! It’s all about the money! Yes, I went to school for a decade to earn the salary and benefits of an experienced GM factory worker– that is, I’m not complaining about my lifestyle, but I’m not getting rich for doing nothing either.
To be honest, I don’t really know how many hours a week I work, and it clearly varies from week to week. No meetings and a week of in-class work on web sites or essays? Probably not 40 hours. Three meetings, 5 student appointments, a report on a new writing major, a big batch of essays and web sites to comment on? Probably over 70.
But it seems to me that all of this “just how much do you professors work” stuff is problematized by two realities of the work that is inherent for nearly every academic, happy or otherwise. First, we all work weird hours and in weird spaces. I’m in my office for about six hours a week, but that’s because I do almost all of my work at home, in coffee shops, in the library, etc. I work during the day one day and at night another, often on Saturdays, sometimes not at all on Thursdays. Even academic-types who are more tied to a particular place– most science folks, I imagine– get to work weird hours and in environments like laboratories or in other facilities or “in the field” or whatever. Given that the vast majority of Americans live in a Dilbert-like world and see work as a “place” they go to (e.g., the office, the factory, the fast food restaurant) on a very particular schedule, it is no wonder that they don’t get it when a professor says they work so many hours (“But you’re never in your office! How could you be working?!”).
Second, academics have really strange and fuzzy lines between “work” and “aspiration.” Never mind that it’s hard to define just what exactly this “work” is in the first place. I mean, is this blog post academic work or just something “for fun?” What’s the difference?
So the suggestion that professors write or give conference presentations or whatever for the money is goofy, and Bauerlein has to know that. Sure, professors do these things to earn and maintain cred in their discipline, but the main reason why they do these things is because they want to. And again, that’s another thing that is foreign to most non-academic types: after all, why would you do something for “work” just because you think it’s interesting?
Very cool Canadian Computers in the classroom course
Via this entry on elearnspace, I came across a link to a very cool course taught by Alec Couros called Computers in the Classroom. He’s making use of some really cool resources for synchronous live video things for the class and just has a ton of links. I really like this collection of videos about technology, learning, and education. I might very well just assign that link as something for 516 when we start talking about YouTube in a couple weeks.
Shaving cream in a vacuum
If science had been this cool when I was in high school, I wouldn’t have gotten that D in chemistry.
“Professors strike back”
I rarely check Ratemyprofessors.com for all kinds of reasons: a) there aren’t a lot of rating for me; b) the ratings for me are not very good; and c) no chili peppers. What’s up with that?
But I did find this (relatively?) new feature appealing, Professors strike back. I think these are hill-arious. I especially like this response to the critique “I’d rather poke my eyes out with needles.”
I have said similar things in my weaker moments….
“Local Bloggers Write Ypsi’s Kick-Ass Anthem”
I don’t know how much anthem writing I’m doing exactly, but via a comment on another post (which I just decided to make into a new post in itself) comes this piece from MiLife MiTimes, “Local Bloggers Write Ypsi’s Kick-Ass Anthem.” This here site is mentioned, along with EMUTalk.org and many fine and local Ypsi-Arbor blogs.
FAQ on Krause sabbatical lite
Not that anyone is asking, but Deb Hawhee got me to thinking about it. For those unfamiliar with what I mean by “sabbatical lite:” see this post and this category on my previous official blog. In brief, I am splitting a half-year sabbatical up over a full academic year.
Q. Was the sabbatical lite a good idea?
A. In hindsight, no. Now, I still think, given the situation at the time I asked my department head if this was a possibility, the sabbatical lite was a good idea. But for those faculty-types out there thinking about doing the same thing as me: don’t do it.
As a matter of fact, I’m not so sure that the one semester sabbatical in general is that good of an idea either. At least one senior colleague told me that the one year sabbatical is the way to go because it can take a good three months to unplug from all that is involved with the day-to-day world of a faculty person and it takes about that long to get a good start on a research project of some sort. The tricky thing though is that full year sabbatical comes with a 50% salary cut, and not a lot of people can afford that.
So the next time I do this, which I guess will be in another 7 or so years, I’ll try to figure out a way to take the full year. Assuming that they’re still offering sabbaticals in 7 or so years….
Q. Have you got any writing and research done?
A. Sure. I mean, haven’t been able to get as much done as I had hoped/planned, but I probably had overly grand visions of what I would be able to get done in the first place. My blog survey is going well, I am back to actually writing stuff (how useful it will be remains to be seen), and I am starting to once again think that my main goal of having enough of a project done to circulate a proposal to publishers by the beginning of the next school year is not out of the question. Plus I think I’ve done some other little side projects that I don’t think I would have been able to do had I not been on quasi-sabbatical.
Q. Any fun stuff? Any Steve time?
A. Not as much if I had taken the half year, but yes, absolutely. My recent Alabama trip wouldn’t have been possible without sabbatical lite. In the fall term, I hit the gym quite a bit– not as much this term, unfortunately.
One thing that I didn’t do (because I just didn’t think I’d have time) that I would recommend that anyone on a sabbatical try to do is to learn something/take a class about something completely new and different. I thought about doing something like taking an art class or guitar lessons or something, and if I were to do it over again, this would be part of the formula.
And now, back to the work I’m supposed to be doing on sabbatical….
A draft of a letter to the editor in response to Jenni Zimmer
The Ann Arbor News ran an “other voices” column the other day titled “Concerned about school violence? Then turn off the screens” by Jenni Zimmer, who is identified in the piece as a school psychologist for the Ann Arbor Schools. I’ve got some major problems with it, so I thought I’d try to spend at least a little time drafting a response. Feel free to take a look at the article and offer any constructive criticism you might have; what’s here is probably too long to actually send to the paper, but it gives you an idea.
To the editors:
I am writing to respond to Jenni Zimmer’s “Other Voices” column, “Concerned about school violence? Then turn off the screens.” I believe that Zimmer is making several inaccurate and misleading claims based more on popular and generational fear than anything that resembles “the facts.”
Zimmer suggests that school shootings, bullying, disrespect for adults, and other bad behavior of today’s youth can be traced to computer and video screens. She writes “First, the increasingly violent and antisocial content in all forms of media; and second, our young people’s increasing amount of time interacting with screens, with phantom characters, rather than interacting with real people, face to face. They are simply not getting enough experience and enough practice learning prosocial skills such as compassion and empathy.”
Of course, violence, bullying, disrespect for adults, and other bad behavior of the youth existed long before the internet or video games, and the pattern for blaming new arts or technologies for these problems has a long history. As the author and historian Tom Standage wrote in the April 2006 issue of WIRED magazine, video games and the internet join such previously ill-reputed trends as novels, the waltz, movies, the telephone, comic books, and rock and roll. All at their time were thought to be the source of perversions, violence, disrespect, bad manners, and bad thinking. Given what has come of these other previous deviant behaviors, I believe video games are in good company.
But beyond this distant history, I would like to point Zimmer and your readers to a December 2007 study by the Pew/Internet and American Life Project titled “Teens and Social Media.” This can be easily found on the Internet with a simple key word search. Among other things, the study found 64% of online teens between the ages of 12 and 17 have created content on the Internet in the form of writings, photos, videos, music etc.– that is, they are not merely passive consumers online; teens are much more savvy than adults when it comes to sharing and interacting with the content they produce; face to face contact still matters to online teens; and the teens who are active online are also highly active offline.
Zimmer asserts “while our young people are spending hour after hour playing video or computer games, they are spending less time relating to others, less time learning how to express their feelings, how to care for others, how to feel for others,” and that young people’s engagement in violent video games, false “friends,” and other online activity promote sociopathic behavior. Yet, according to the researchers involved with the “Teens and Social Media” study, there is no “compelling evidence that these highly wired teens are abandoning offline engagement with extracurricular activities in favor of having more screen time. In fact, in many cases, those who are the most active online with social media applications like blogging and social networking also tend to be the most involved with offline activities like sports, music, or part-time employment.” While I do respect Zimmer’s personal experiences as a school psychologist, I believe the Pew study, which was based on a survey sample meant to represent all teens ages 12 and 17 in the U.S., is more valid.
Besides these unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of screens, I am troubled by the connection that Zimmer is trying to make to the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University and video games. Zimmer writes “One student in the lecture hall at Northern Illinois University said the scene of the shooter jumping out from behind the stage curtain reminded him of one he had seen in a video game.” There is a fundamental problem of perspective here: this interpretation of the scene being like a video game is not coming from the shooter; rather, it is coming from one of the students who was in the lecture hall at the time of the shooting. While I have seen news reports that have described the shooter Stephen Kazmierczak as a “fairly normal” person with no criminal record, as a graduate student, and as someone who, when in high school, was in the band, studied Japanese, and was in the chess club, I have not heard reports that he played video games.
However, the media reports have indicated that Kazmierczak had been been prescribed (and had stopped taking) some kind of psychotropic drug or drugs– Prozac, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, etc. These are the same sort of drugs that now require a so-called “Black Box Warning” indicating that they have been known to cause violent and suicidal tendencies, especially in young users.
To the best of my knowledge, no specific cause for these shootings has been identified, and we may never know. However, given what has been reported, I think it is fair to say that the cause probably has more to do with these medications than a first person shooter game.
I join Zimmer in urging parents and caregivers to spend time with your kids, to read with them, to talk with them. I also agree with Zimmer that we need stricter gun control laws and fewer guns in households in this country. I simply would suggest that it’s also a good idea to play video games with your kids, understand what they’re doing on the Internet, and it’s okay to watch TV with them, too.
Snow day memory
For what seems like the thousandth time this winter, we have snow. Lots of snow– well, lots of snow for this part of Michigan, but probably not much by UP or Buffalo, NY standards. So I am home with Will, also home from school. We are about to go shoveling, but for some reason, I am thinking back many years ago to a less significant snow day.
In 1988, after I had graduated from the University of Iowa, I moved to Richmond, Virginia to start the MFA program in creative writing at Virginia Commonwealth University. For the first time, I was living far from the midwest and alone in a pretty sketchy part of town near campus. My apartment was on Franklin on the first floor and in the back, right on the alley. I don’t know what it’s like there now, but at the time, that was a really good spot to find drunks and bums if you were looking. I used to hear them back there all the time. My apartment consisted of one main room, a kitchen, and a bathroom, all laid out in a row. My typical way of getting the day started was I would stumble out of bed, go through the kitchen, and into the bathroom to look out the window at something that wasn’t the alley before doing my business and getting in the shower.
One day in late November or early December, I got up, did my usual walk, and when I opened the window, I saw snow flakes. Just flurries, but big and giant white flakes. And, I don’t know, I had a moment of real home sickness and missing the chill of Iowa and the real snowfall we would have had there by now. Anyway, I closed the window and went through my usual routine, and by the time I looked out the window again, the snow had stopped. I started the coffee and while it was making, I turned on the radio to hear some semi-hysterical disk jokey going off about the snow, about being “real careful” out there, etc. What weather babies, and most of my time in Richmond just confirmed that impression.
Anyway, I don’t know what this has to do with much more than a few flakes of snow right now or not, but it’s what came to mind. And now to the shovels….
