I had the good fortune, as a freshman in college, to have had sense enough
to take two five-unit (lecture/lab) courses in botany/ecology (as electives;
they were not required or even recommended for my "major," landscape
architecture to which the guidance counselor guided me) from the best
professor I ever had, Lee Haines. He taught in a little country "cow
college" where I had been routed by The Authorities. What LUCK!
My "major" coursework was total bs, but Haines' courses changed my life--set
such high standards for professorial performance that nobody else ever quite
measured up after that (though less than a handful came close). Haines
taught us UNDERSTANDING, not knowledge. He showed us how to think, not
believe, and he made us independent; he gave us the freedom to place
understanding above "knowing," to question (always beginning with
questioning ourselves), to explore, and to stick it out in adversity. An
honest man or woman must, by definition, ALWAYS buck the tide and suffer the
slings and arrows of outrageous persecution--it comes with the territory of
a free and open mind.
He was exceptional, of course, but without his example, I would not have
ever been able to purge my mind of the bad intellectual habits I learned
from academia and to start off on my own, without support of any kind, and
with the hue and cry all (almost entirely all) upon the other side, where
the well-trodden paths to knowledge lay.
This is not to say that I got nothing else from academia, only to say that
more than half of what I did get was more damaging than intellectually
uplifting.
So it pains me to read that my situation was not novel; I had long assumed
that such experiences were rare.
WT
PS: Eric and others: For what it's worth, I was able to find a way
eventually, to do much of what I wanted to do, but I had to make some
serious sacrifices along the way. Much of my life experience has consisted
of luck rather than well-planned successes and unfortunate happenstance, and
most of my experience has been in the form of failure. But I do not regret
the course I took; even though I did have to resort to "jobs," and being a
pawn for others and institutions, I finally was able to make a "decent"
living by "consulting." But I was, to the greatest extent I could be, true
to myself. That, for me, is worth the material advantages that I had to give
up--at least I was able to live the last half of my life out of the clutches
of institutions.
NOTE TO ERIC: If this doesn't show up on Ecolog, kindly copy them on your
reply; for some reason I'm having trouble getting through.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric North" <xcs...@hotmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics of spousal hires (was Re: [ECOLOG-L] Job
Announcement: US Forest Service Ecologist)
Honestly, with all due respect to Mr. Dossey, do you believe in economics?
It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that universities exist to MAKE
MONEY. They take cuts of grants received, pay grad students a fairly minimal
wage for teaching responsibilities, and often try to "cater" to different
areas of student interest; the subjects often in the highest demand and/or
the highest paying in the job markets. As we know, not all Biology
departments are created equal, which is not to say that they are "selected
against" as "not fit" but may not necessarily be the focal department in a
university as a whole. Even if it is the focal department, the University
may not have the name recognition as others with no less intelligent and
gifted faculty. This is where the "star power" (not my phrase) comes in. Big
names draw more kids ready to spend bigger dollars to study or be affiliated
with said "big shot".
It's not readily apparent that you need to be a "star" to qualify to have
your spouse considered for a position. Maybe just a good fit for what
they're looking for in a candidate. My guess is that a hiring committee
wouldn't dare hire with out knowing that it was a good investment. And that
includes "taking a chance" on a lesser name. Doesn't it stand to reason that
a hiring committe of biology department heads and faculty stand to gain by
hiring someone who is going to positively effect enrollment of Biology
Majors and potentially increase tuition revenues?
I find it ironic that this discussion stemmed from a thread about a FEDERAL
position hiring practices. Nope...no spousal hiring there! Take it from
someone with NO interest in academia, 15 years experience in multiple
disciplines having worked in dozens of US states and Canada, there's not
much happening out here either. I've applied for untold number of positions
and have come close ONCE last year....I was one of two candidates given an
interview for a wetland ecologist position and the DIDN'T FILL the position.
It may be time for a career change. It's capitalism. I'm not needed here, so
it's retool and go elsewhere.
Best of luck and peace to all of you...
Eric
Eric North
All Things Wild Consulting
P.O. Box 254
Cable, WI 54821
928.607.3098
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:23:33 -0400
From: k...@kimvdlinde.com
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics of spousal hires (was Re: [ECOLOG-L] Job
Announcement: US Forest Service Ecologist)
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
On 8/20/2011 11:32 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote:
> Personal interests like "but my wife/child/friend wants a job too!"
> should not be a consideration of any hiring entity.
I think it should be. You do not want your new faculty member leave
after two years for a place closer to her partner. After she spend most
of the setup money and forcing you to go through a new hiring round (any
idea how expensive they are money and time wise?).
> Where does it end? Is it ok for a chair and group of faculty to
> decide only to hire members of their church or their own religion,
> or only hire other atheists? Is it ok for them to only hire their
> friends to the exclusion of all other applicants regardless of
> QUANTITATIVE qualification/skill/talent? Maybe a department wishes to
> be all white, or all Chinese, or all Jewish? Kosher?
You seem to miss the point. A spousal hire is not a prerequisite set by
the university before they can hire someone; it is a added issue that
needs to be resolved before someone is willing to come. It is not a
university set requirement but an applicant set requirement. Having a
specific religion etc are university set requirements.
> Spousal hiring is not benign, it is not a victimless crime. It is an
> unethical tragedy which is leading to many very good hard working
> scientists to leave the field and their dreams, some of us who have
> worked hard all our lives toward this goal of starting our own lab
> one day, and were the first in our families to even go to graduate
> school (and second to college at all).
I would argue that the opposite takes place. Many highly qualified
scientists left and still leave the field when forced to choose between
love and passion.
But really, when you apply without a spouse needing a job, and you are
passed by for a guy who also demands a job for his wife, I think you
better start thinking about the quality difference between you and that
person. The problem with this discussion is that this is a non-issue.
Universities do not ALWAYS hire a spouse. No, they weigh that on a
case-by-case basis.
> The "American Dream" has been dead in the private sector for many
> years, is it dead in Academia too?
No, you can still make it. The illusion is that you would have MORE
changes if there were no spousal hires. Because if a university is
willing to pay for a spousal hire, it means that the person they intent
to hire is a lot better than the person who does not require a spousal
hire. That most likely also means that there are a lot of candidates
between you and the top choice.
Kim
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3847 - Release Date: 08/20/11
