next »

[uiucenglish]

STFU bracelet: heh. I couldn't fit my whole reply on this forum, so I blogged it: http://dhawhee.blogs.com/d_hawhee/2007/04/httpchronicleco.html

I can't believe <i>The Chronicle</i> would publish such garbarge. 

[srednivashtar]

Here's the line that most infuriated me:

First some gratuitous but time-tested advice: Love is grand but if you are a graduate student, don't marry or become attached to someone in your field.

In fairness, I've seen this kind of "advice" elsewhere.  It usually suggests that you not date, sleep with, or marry anyone that you might meet at school, work, church or equivalent, your favorite political or hobbyist group, or anywhere else you might find a person whose company you enjoy and with whom you share interests and values.

Yeah, there's a prescription for a good marriage.  Don't get into a serious relationship with anyone who shares your interests.  As Bugs Bunny said:  Whadda maroon!

--SV
Who wouldn't be here if the folks hadn't met at work, and would probably have never met the wonderful spouse if the two of them hadn't been working in the same place.

[dundee]

Yep, the author of the column is full of crap and obviously reacting to a situation with an academic couple or two that effected him negatively. I should bring his column into English 101 as an example of how not to make an argument: his lack of logic is appallling.

As part of an academic couple myself, I also dislike the term "trailing spouse" and the implication that one partner is a star and the other is a loser. I know lots of academic couples, some working together, some living apart, and the are all about equal in terms of their talents/accomplishments. In other words, in all of the academic couples I know, both partners are very, very good and neither is riding the other's coat-tails. Anyway, why would a star put up with a loser?

[reluctantblogger]

I’m a little surprised by all the vitriol directed against JK: granted, his argument may have been clumsy at times, but I’d give him the benefit of the doubt in that he’s trying to start a discussion about an important issue.
Conducting a search is a delicate and crucial process for a department – a process, not a simple decision: it’s part of the necessary cohesive work that a department does, because it involves a collaborative effort to identify the area of disciplinary need, draft the ad, think through the long-term consequences for the curriculum and vision for the department.  The evaluation of candidates itself is a process that helps the department define its priorities and sort through internal conflict.  Any decision to make an offer comes only as the result of careful process; if all goes well, the process is incredibly useful for the department’s vision of its work.  A spousal hire skips all that important process work: usually, the decision to hire a spouse comes from the dean, not the department, and at the last minute, so it in fact works against the department’s attempt to build a cohesive vision.  It’s rarely a “free” line, and usually means that the department’s long-term decisions about which areas need building up are overridden.  It’s often imposed from without, so feels top-down and undercuts the department’s attempts to work collaboratively.  It’s usually a decision made quickly, without adequate time to weigh the pros and cons.  In that sense, it can be seriously destructive to a department’s attempts to define goals and work toward them.  One of JK’s points is that departments should decide ahead of time whether a spousal hire is possible or desirable, if that issue suddenly gets raised when the job offer’s made – because let’s face it, there are so many great people out there that if it doesn’t want to make a spousal hire, the department can just say no and move down the list to the next candidate. The thing is not to make a rush decision.

[case_insensitive]

reluctantblogger,

I'm a little surprise that you didn't break up that exceedingly long paragraph into shorter ones to help readability. :o)

[malcha]

My brother, also an academic (my family is one big Darwin award contender) had a theory that over time academe would evolve into a clan structure, so instead of institutions worrying about whether they could hire x's spouse, we would have matriarchs and patriarchs plotting to marry their charming scions to needed fields.  I see these university-clans as having a sort of permanent winter quarters where they would settle for most of the year and teach, and then a festive summer conference circuit, where the marriages/partnerships (no need to be heterosexual, monogamous, or necessarily permanent -- they could have term marriages, or give marriages tenure at a certain point) would be arranged and celebrated.  Then there could be grand, operatic tragedies when y, betrothed by family to a philosopher of physics, falls for witty lit crit type. 
                                                       m

[helpful]

I’m a little surprised by all the vitriol directed against JK: granted, his argument may have been clumsy at times, but I’d give him the benefit of the doubt in that he’s trying to start a discussion about an important issue.

Agreed. My initial point was I was amazed at how badly written it was. I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that professors in English were good writers! Not only was it 'clumsy', it was poorly argued.

If he was going to start a discussion, the best thing he could have done is write something more open to discussion, rather than closing off discussion by making gross generalizations and ad hominem attacks.

[au_fait]

I’m a little surprised by all the vitriol directed against JK: granted, his argument may have been clumsy at times, but I’d give him the benefit of the doubt in that he’s trying to start a discussion about an important issue.

Agreed. My initial point was I was amazed at how badly written it was. I assumed (perhaps wrongly?) that professors in English were good writers! Not only was it 'clumsy', it was poorly argued.

If he was going to start a discussion, the best thing he could have done is write something more open to discussion, rather than closing off discussion by making gross generalizations and ad hominem attacks.

We all make mistakes; often we correct those mistakes before being published. Furthermore, there will always be those who do not represent the field well.

[aglaura]

Agreed that the argument is poorly made. 

But here's my friend's situation.  Friend is an untenured faculty member who's tenure package has just gone up.  Friend's spouse is a tenured faculty member in the same department--fairly high profile and important to the program.  Friend's tenure package is not a slam-dunk (among other weaknesses, many of Friend's journal articles are co-authored with tenured spouse).  Spouse is holding job offer from other uni over department's and uni's head--essentially saying "give Friend tenure, we both stay; don't give Friend tenure, we both go."

I like Friend, but I don't like this situation.

[castafiore]

Did yall see today's rebuttal from a "trailing spouse"? It makes some similar points to all the above.

[helpful]

One of the reasons I raised this issue was not the content, but the incredibly bad writing that the Chronicle accepted from the initial writer. Maybe I should be more accepting of bad writing, but to have the chair of an English department (which I assumes teaches writing skills) makes the column even worse. It left me to wonder whether an editor ever worked with the original column to improve it, and whether the Chronicle as standards of excellence for writing.