And what is he writing?
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Old, but not in the Way
Today’s Boston Globe has this article on older college professors “clogging the pipeline,” that is, preventing younger faculty with new perspectives and fresh ideas from being hired at the elite schools. This is an interesting explanation for the lack of job opportunities in the academy, but it’s only part of the picture.
Bostonist responds, speculating that this issue may have serious implications for the economic future of the state. If you take a look at how the lack of hiring effects the state colleges and universities, you get a starker glimpse of what’s to come.
The lack of new hires is a problem that extends to all colleges at all levels. I’ve confronted it at all the schools I’ve worked at, which run the gambit from prominent four-year universities, to smaller state colleges down to the vital and woefully under funded community colleges.
While it is true that the some of the older members of a given faculty can stay on past their allotted forty years, many more do retire. And these retirements create openings, right?
Wrong.
Consider this: When I was part-time, I taught at a state college where it was mandated, by the state, that for every four full-time faculty that retire, the college could hire one new faculty member. One. That leaves three full-time slots unfilled, three full-time course-loads broken up and divvied out among adjunct faculty who are paid less per course than the full-timers, and who receive no benefits.
So there are fewer full-time members in any given department to handle the bulk of the tedious but necessary committee work and academic governance. This has a direct effect on the growth of an institution and the quality of education the students receive. And this will have an effect on our state in the long run, given that most students who graduate from state institutions remain in state to work and raise families.
What kind of future are we looking at if our state colleges and universities are forced to do more with less?
Bostonist responds, speculating that this issue may have serious implications for the economic future of the state. If you take a look at how the lack of hiring effects the state colleges and universities, you get a starker glimpse of what’s to come.
The lack of new hires is a problem that extends to all colleges at all levels. I’ve confronted it at all the schools I’ve worked at, which run the gambit from prominent four-year universities, to smaller state colleges down to the vital and woefully under funded community colleges.
While it is true that the some of the older members of a given faculty can stay on past their allotted forty years, many more do retire. And these retirements create openings, right?
Wrong.
Consider this: When I was part-time, I taught at a state college where it was mandated, by the state, that for every four full-time faculty that retire, the college could hire one new faculty member. One. That leaves three full-time slots unfilled, three full-time course-loads broken up and divvied out among adjunct faculty who are paid less per course than the full-timers, and who receive no benefits.
So there are fewer full-time members in any given department to handle the bulk of the tedious but necessary committee work and academic governance. This has a direct effect on the growth of an institution and the quality of education the students receive. And this will have an effect on our state in the long run, given that most students who graduate from state institutions remain in state to work and raise families.
What kind of future are we looking at if our state colleges and universities are forced to do more with less?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
A Good Move on Patrick's Part
Today's Globe has this article on Deval Patrick tapping BSC president, Dana Mohler-Faria as his education advisor.
Smart move.
Having worked at BSC for six years, I've witnessed Mohler-Faria's committment to state higher education. As far as college presidents go, I found him to be the most accessable and earnest. I've worked for too many colleges that had remote, silent leaders at the top and have witnessed the effect that has on the college as a whole. But under Mohler-Faria, BSC has a clear purpose and direction. The joint effort between BSC, UMass Dartmouth, Bristol CC, Massasoit CC and Cape Cod CC referenced in the article is called CONNECT - a project that points toward a positive future for the way state colleges will work in the future.
Of course, while the jury is still out on Patrick, I've been encouraged by the appointments that he has made so far.
Smart move.
Having worked at BSC for six years, I've witnessed Mohler-Faria's committment to state higher education. As far as college presidents go, I found him to be the most accessable and earnest. I've worked for too many colleges that had remote, silent leaders at the top and have witnessed the effect that has on the college as a whole. But under Mohler-Faria, BSC has a clear purpose and direction. The joint effort between BSC, UMass Dartmouth, Bristol CC, Massasoit CC and Cape Cod CC referenced in the article is called CONNECT - a project that points toward a positive future for the way state colleges will work in the future.
Of course, while the jury is still out on Patrick, I've been encouraged by the appointments that he has made so far.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Paul Nelson and Writer's Silence
In the latest issue of Rolling Stone , (1016/1017), Neil Strauss contributes an excellent profile of the writer and rock avatar, Paul Nelson. Nelson, who I first read in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, was arguably the genre’s greatest critic. To know Nelson’s work is to understand where Lester Bangs and Greil Marcus come from.
Nelson died this past July at the age of sixty-nine. Strauss gives us a clear portrait of a man who lived for art. But here’s the part of his life that fascinates me - as adamant and passionate a writer he was, for the last fifteen years of his life, Nelson produced almost no new writing. After leaving Rolling Stone in the early 1980s, he produced a handful of pieces before going to work at a Greenwich Village video store, opting for a job where he didn’t have to think. It’s this decision that puts him in line with another quagmire of a writer, Joseph Mitchell, who, after submitting “Joe Gould’s Secret,” never published another word in The New Yorker or elsewhere. And like Mitchell, Nelson often told friends that he was writing a screenplay, (in Mitchell’s case a novel) - a work that no one ever saw.
What is it that causes a writer to go silent? The cheap answer is that he has run out of things to say. For people who buy into that theory, suicide is often the next step, as Mishima demonstrated with impeccable theatricality. But unlike one former colleague, I do not find any nobility in taking one’s life. Mitchell mustn’t have either, since he lived into his nineties. Also, there is evidence that both continued to write…it’s just that they stopped submitting work for publication. Nelson kept on accepting offers to write for various magazines. Some pieces he finished others he didn’t. Perhaps he couldn’t bring himself to complete a project, or, like Orson Welles, he developed a deep-seated anxiety about how the new material would fare when compared to the great works that came before.
But this is all speculation on my part.
As someone who does not believe in writer’s block, I tend to search for a reason that is less Romantic. Strauss finds an apt metaphor of the gunslinger, the person who knows the world is changing and opts not to go along with the changes. As far a Nelson is concerned, the tipping point may well have been the editorial edict for shorter album reviews that became the standard form in the mid 80s. If that’s case, then it’s not a question of having nothing to say, it’s a matter of integrity. For Nelson, it seemed to be more about sticking to his principles than conforming to the latest trend. And while one can argue the self-destructive aspect of that action, you have to admire the guy for taking a stand.
You can read some samples of Nelson’s writing for Rolling Stone here.
Finally, in honor of Mr. Nelson, no semicolons were used in this post.
Nelson died this past July at the age of sixty-nine. Strauss gives us a clear portrait of a man who lived for art. But here’s the part of his life that fascinates me - as adamant and passionate a writer he was, for the last fifteen years of his life, Nelson produced almost no new writing. After leaving Rolling Stone in the early 1980s, he produced a handful of pieces before going to work at a Greenwich Village video store, opting for a job where he didn’t have to think. It’s this decision that puts him in line with another quagmire of a writer, Joseph Mitchell, who, after submitting “Joe Gould’s Secret,” never published another word in The New Yorker or elsewhere. And like Mitchell, Nelson often told friends that he was writing a screenplay, (in Mitchell’s case a novel) - a work that no one ever saw.
What is it that causes a writer to go silent? The cheap answer is that he has run out of things to say. For people who buy into that theory, suicide is often the next step, as Mishima demonstrated with impeccable theatricality. But unlike one former colleague, I do not find any nobility in taking one’s life. Mitchell mustn’t have either, since he lived into his nineties. Also, there is evidence that both continued to write…it’s just that they stopped submitting work for publication. Nelson kept on accepting offers to write for various magazines. Some pieces he finished others he didn’t. Perhaps he couldn’t bring himself to complete a project, or, like Orson Welles, he developed a deep-seated anxiety about how the new material would fare when compared to the great works that came before.
But this is all speculation on my part.
As someone who does not believe in writer’s block, I tend to search for a reason that is less Romantic. Strauss finds an apt metaphor of the gunslinger, the person who knows the world is changing and opts not to go along with the changes. As far a Nelson is concerned, the tipping point may well have been the editorial edict for shorter album reviews that became the standard form in the mid 80s. If that’s case, then it’s not a question of having nothing to say, it’s a matter of integrity. For Nelson, it seemed to be more about sticking to his principles than conforming to the latest trend. And while one can argue the self-destructive aspect of that action, you have to admire the guy for taking a stand.
You can read some samples of Nelson’s writing for Rolling Stone here.
Finally, in honor of Mr. Nelson, no semicolons were used in this post.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
War is over, if you want it
This time of year, there are plenty of trinkets and impulse items that I refuse to buy; most of which sit upon the shelves of my neighborhood Shaper Image. People have attempted to sell me on all kinds of devices and fad gadgets over the years, but when it comes to me and what’s in my wallet, let’s just say that it’s a bit of a trick to separate one from the other.
The same can be said for certain ideas that various people trundle out during the holiday season, ideas meant to provoke you and me into buying a round trip ticket on their bandwagon. The War on Christmas is one such idea. Over the past two years, too many people have offered me this idea at bargain basement prices. But I won’t go for it. Not last year, not this year, not next year, not ever. No way, no how.
When it comes to this War on Christmas, consent is not only manufactured, but the entire idea is pure invention. Other people, in other forums have covered this issue fairly well. Since this is my little corner of Blog World, I will add a brief comment.
Now, I confess that I am one of those people who use the phrase “Happy Holidays” from the end of November to the end of December. And I have used this phrase long before I ever heard of a war on Christmas or political correctness or the need to be respectful of other traditions. My reason for using “Happy Holidays” is simple: I say it to friends and colleagues who I see for the last time around December 20th and I won’t see again until, say, January 20th. By my count, two holidays will have come and gone by the time I see them again, hence, “Happy Holidays.”
Simple as that.
Besides, I can’t get that worked up over a little positive interaction with a fellow human being. I can’t download moral outrage for someone who wishes me happiness. There are too many people out in the world wishing all of us all sorts of mean and nasty things. I’ll take any moment of kindness, no matter how fleeting or half-hearted, I can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
