Live data from Hacker News

The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

jamesgmartin.center

201–210 of 241 posts

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#201
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's not enough academic jobs because too many people try to obtain them. And the reason there's too many is because of false advertising of what academic life is really like. Who would really want to be a professor given what this professor is going through? And he probably didn't earn much. In the media, though, a professor is always presented with respect. It's a professor! So kids get the wrong idea. The…

AFAIK professors are routinely at the top of job satisfaction surveys.

I think this varies a bit from place to place and is misleading in some ways.

I was a tenured professor who left academics for two reasons, the administrative nightmares of the university and department (to put it one way), and unrelated family reasons.

The year before I left they did a survey of faculty satisfaction at the university I was at, and found that, although about 2/3-3/4 of faculty reported that they were generally satisfied with their jobs, about 1/2-2/3 seriously wanted to leave (following an actual trend of faculty leaving in exodus). So these satisfaction surveys can be misleading and paradoxical, because the stresses are like that: you're acutely aware of the freedom and security you have, but also have very little recourse if things go awry.

As jobs go there is a lot of flexibility in some ways as a tenured professor (time, schedule), but absolutely none in other ways. It's difficult to move (although not impossible) and if you do you have very little choice in terms of geography or location. If you have family, you might be asking them to make huge sacrifices for you if they have better opportunities elsewhere, or can't move to be near you. Increasingly you're at the whims of fads in the field and among students: if you step back from doing what everyone else is doing for a bit, you get labeled as decreasing in productivity (note that I'm not talking about doing nothing, just referring to the fact that it's easy to churn out more papers or grants on things that are currently part of a trend, and where you can share work and credit; as a result, if papers or grant counts are your products, you will necessarily be less productive if you try something off the beaten path); if you challenge students (as did the author of the piece did) you get pushback from them. Increasingly I felt like academics was/is becoming full of bullshit in a way that no one wants to admit. It's fine to work in a field full of bullshit; the problems are when people lie to themselves and the public about it. The incentives are not to produce good, solid, insightful, replicable work, it seems to be to attract attention and entertain the maximal number of students.

My sense as a senior professor was that people in the same field in the non-academic sector were making significantly more money, and had more flexibility. So although they had to worry more about losing their job, if a department starting falling apart, or other conflicts arose, it was much easier to leave and move on to somewhere else where they wanted to be. Tenure is great if you're at a good institution, or if it works out for your family. If you're at a bad institution, or things go sour, and it's not good for your family, it is horrible.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#202
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree and sympathize with Professor Charney's on one level, on another the real problem (IMHO) is the lack of legit opportunities in Higher Ed. In the corporate world people are fired or let go for silly reasons or non-reasons all the time: that's at-will employment. But for people in most fields they just find another job and move on; the problem here is there aren't many opportunities to teach at a prestigi…

The article is not about his contract not being renewed, but about the reason for that lack of renewal. Saying someone who consistently rates amongst your top performers as having unsatisfactory performance is clearly false. Which means that not only did Duke cave in to an amount of complaints far outshone by praise, it also tried to hide this fact (circumventing its own bylaws).

Yep. I'm not disputing the injustice (at least, as his essay lays it out -- some comments on the article tell a different story of him being difficult to work with).

But contracts not being renewed -- happens all the time in the "real" world. My point is just: good people don't get their contracts renewed all the time, often for silly or dumb reasons, and it's not some cosmic injustice because most people find another job.

The fact that finding one of these jobs is so difficult should not change the basic risk/reward stature of at-will employment.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#203
post #66
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the free speech front, I'll note that at the moment, the right seems to care more about it than the left, or at least it pays more respect to its dressings. Whether this changes once the power balance tips is a whole different story.

From where I see it the right has leapt to the defence of certain kinds of speech, but absolutely not all speech, and certainly not all kinds of employer-speech interaction. I don't think the right is really going to stand up for "you can't fire your employees for their public statements", is it? In fact, the right is more likely to be in favour of "employers should be able to fire their employees at any time for any…

> The right is also more likely to conflate free speech with some kind of "unchallenge privilege" - the idea that people using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad. The giveaway for this is people going on television and writing in the national newspapers to complain about how they are "silenced".

Are you sure you didn't you mean "left" here? Though I don't think either party has a monopoly on this behavior.

Specifically the "using their speech to complain about your speech is somehow bad". The left seems to constantly describe opposing speech as violence/bigoted/racist/hateful and claims any criticism is "silencing" them, while asserting anyone who isn't in the intersectionality disadvantaged groups has no right to speak on those issues.

For example, when Chelsea Clinton (on the left) criticized Ilhan Omar's statements about Israel, others on the left accused her of anti-muslim sentiment, and said she was responsible for the New Zealand terrorist attacks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-...

Similarly, when Ilhan Omar made her recent comments that included describing 9/11 as "some people did something" (yes, that wasn't her main point, etc.) and was roundly criticized by the right for minimizing the terrorist attack, the left rallied 'round to defend her, saying anyone who criticized her comment was driven by anti-muslim bigotry.

Rashida Tlaib even invoked the complaint about being silenced by not being defended enough - so the Democrats are silencing these prominent new minority congresswomen by not defending them enough:

"They put us in photos when they want to show our party is diverse. However, when we ask to be at the table, or speak up about issues that impact who we are, what we fight for & why we ran in the first place, we are ignored. To truly honor our diversity is to never silence us."

Read all about it in the national press...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/ilhan-omar-de... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rashida-tlaib-democrats-silen...

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#204
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there's not enough academic jobs because too many people try to obtain them. And the reason there's too many is because of false advertising of what academic life is really like. Who would really want to be a professor given what this professor is going through? And he probably didn't earn much. In the media, though, a professor is always presented with respect. It's a professor! So kids get the wrong idea. The…

AFAIK professors are routinely at the top of job satisfaction surveys.

Does that include adjuncts?

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#205
post #193
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a brag, but here goes anyway: this is University of Waterloo in a nutshell. I'm entering third year, studying math, and every single one of my friends has gone from high 90s in high school (multiple valedictorians) to struggling to keep an average in the 70s-80s range. Anecdotally, one of my friends did a work term for the Dean of Science (and pure mathematics pro…

Aaaand you are shooting yourself in the foot. Those Harvard/Stanford/MIT graduates will have both higher GPA and prestige, which is all that matters in the beginning (and via networking) throughout your career. You might feel good about getting an A in some impossible class, but nevertheless you are already seriously disadvantaged when competing for high-end jobs comparing to grade-inflated schools. Nobody cares that…

Waterloo has 5 times the number of undergrads as Harvard. Heck, it has twice as many as Harvard, Stanford, and MIT combined. This, in a country with 1/10th the population of the United States, should give you some perspective. I doubt there are many, if any, at my school who turned down offers from Harvard/Stanford/MIT.

Anyone who can get into Harvard/Stanford/MIT is already in the tiniest elite of the elite in this hemisphere. That's all anyone that goes to those schools is signalling to their future employers.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#206
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaaand you are shooting yourself in the foot. Those Harvard/Stanford/MIT graduates will have both higher GPA and prestige, which is all that matters in the beginning (and via networking) throughout your career. You might feel good about getting an A in some impossible class, but nevertheless you are already seriously disadvantaged when competing for high-end jobs comparing to grade-inflated schools. Nobody cares that…

Waterloo has 5 times the number of undergrads as Harvard. Heck, it has twice as many as Harvard, Stanford, and MIT combined. This, in a country with 1/10th the population of the United States, should give you some perspective. I doubt there are many, if any, at my school who turned down offers from Harvard/Stanford/MIT. Anyone who can get into Harvard/Stanford/MIT is already in the tiniest elite of the elite in this…

I understand that, I did my undergrad at a super demanding university that was always scoring high in ACM ICPC competitions, beating top 10 often, but average GPA was under 2.5 due to no grade inflation, super demanding classes (A grades were singularities, most grades clustered around the lowest passing ones), and that didn't do anyone any favor when applying to prestigious schools or jobs afterwards unless one had a gold medal from olympiad or similar (even when rocking FAANG interviews, the "unknown" factor was too strong). Then doing top 10 masters was much easier and much more rewarding job-wise. I know Waterloo is top 2 in Canada, but when top schools go through grade inflation, the hard, honest universities without grade inflation put their graduates at a disadvantage.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech and violence are both expressive intentional action, therefore they are the same? This seems a very basic sort of logical error. (Perhaps affirming the consequent?)

No. You've misread the argument; she is only enumerating what she has deduced, and the first deduction is that speech and physical assault are both expressive intentional action. This premise was in doubt in the paper she was responding to. She never claims that speech and physical assault are at all the same, but rather, that speech does not merit a special category when differentiated from other actions.

"Special category"? This implies that all is forbidden unless specifically allowed. That is a recipe for an authoritarian hellscape. We don't live in that world. Violence is the special category, because some is allowed and some is not.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#208
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waterloo has 5 times the number of undergrads as Harvard. Heck, it has twice as many as Harvard, Stanford, and MIT combined. This, in a country with 1/10th the population of the United States, should give you some perspective. I doubt there are many, if any, at my school who turned down offers from Harvard/Stanford/MIT. Anyone who can get into Harvard/Stanford/MIT is already in the tiniest elite of the elite in this…

I understand that, I did my undergrad at a super demanding university that was always scoring high in ACM ICPC competitions, beating top 10 often, but average GPA was under 2.5 due to no grade inflation, super demanding classes (A grades were singularities, most grades clustered around the lowest passing ones), and that didn't do anyone any favor when applying to prestigious schools or jobs afterwards unless one had…

The math faculty at Waterloo has a number of crusaders against grade inflation. They track the high school of every person who applies and see how their grades correlate between high school and university. Schools that consistently show large drops get penalized in future applications.

I am learning a lot and enjoying the challenging course work so far. As I get closer to graduation, I'll see whether my GPA improves enough to consider grad school. Otherwise, I'll be relying on Waterloo's excellent co-op program to get my foot in the door with employers.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You've misread the argument; she is only enumerating what she has deduced, and the first deduction is that speech and physical assault are both expressive intentional action. This premise was in doubt in the paper she was responding to. She never claims that speech and physical assault are at all the same, but rather, that speech does not merit a special category when differentiated from other actions.

"Special category"? This implies that all is forbidden unless specifically allowed. That is a recipe for an authoritarian hellscape. We don't live in that world. Violence is the special category, because some is allowed and some is not.

That's not the case; if speech is considered an action like any other, it can be regulated like any other action. The implication is not that actions are forbidden unless they are specifically allowed. You aren't specifically allowed to eat fries or post comments on HN - yet you do so anyway. And you would, rightly, resist a law which says you can't, just as you'd resist a law which contravenes a constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Re: The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

#210
post #91

Who is raising these kids to believe that hearing something they disagree is equivalent to "harm"? It must be my filter bubble, but I only ever hear about people decrying this practice and never anyone supporting it. Where is it coming from?

Did you read the article? From what I understand there’s not enough evidence to make this conclusion.

The final conclusion is he was fired on the basis that someone _said_ they were harmed.

It's interesting to discuss wither they were actually harmed and felt that way and what kind of upbringing or circumstances might lead to that. Or, that they saw an opportunity to get a ahead and exert power over someone by pretending they were harmed.

It can be a gray area as well. They might have felt uncomfortable say a 5 on a 1-10 scale. But then also realized they could turn it around and fire this person.

I tried expound on that a bit in another comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745288

Post reply on HN