next »

[bluetrenchcoat]

Hello.

I've certainly profited from tracking various threads here, but, from what I've seen, the more in-depth those threads become, the more it tends to matter what the discussants' fields are. Some disputes or tediously long discussions would seem to stem from the fact that a biologist is lecturing a historian on, e.g., how many applications one ought to submit a given a job cycle. In such cases, one emerges with the distinct impression that (a) neither the historian nor the biologist was particularly well-served by the exchange, and that (b) either or both might have been had they been talking with members of their own tribe.

Mind you, I'm cognizant of worries about anonymity. I'm also grateful, in some circumstances, for the wider perspective one gains from discussion with a cross-section of folks. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it might be useful to introduce subject-specific sub-fora.

Thoughts?

BBMariah

[infopri]

I see your point, bbmariah, but I'd argue against subject-specific sub-fora.  First, that kind of compartmentalization would lead to even more redundancy than there is now (how many threads are there already on such things as SC time frames, for instance?).  Second, some fields are so underrepresented on the fora that there wouldn't be many participants on a given subject-specific thread.  Finally, some of us do try not to specify our fields for anonymity reasons; especially in the very small fields, there aren't many degrees of separation between field members, making forumites more easily identifiable if the field is known.

To address the issue you raise, I think it's far more useful to proceed with our current structure, but for individual posts to specify the field it comes from, with whatever level of detail the poster feels comfortable with, e.g., "In anthropology, we do X" or even "In my area of social sciences, we do X."  And, for the most part, this is what people have been doing, as necessary.

[trabb]

I suggested a few months back that we have the option of putting our discipline in our profile and that it would show next to (or below) our monikers.  The moderators said they'd check into it, but I haven't heard anything since.

I'm going to agree with infopri.  The problem usually isn't that biologists are giving historians advice about job market practices; it's that someone poses a question and the rest of us have no idea what field they're in.  Then biologists and historians both respond, and debate ensues.

In any case, I like the debates since I learn a lot about how other fields handle the job search.  It's interesting, and I think people in English could probably make their own hiring practices better by paying attention to other disciplines.

[yellowtractor]

I'll third, for all the reasons Infopri and Trabb enumerate.  Sorry, OP.

[larryc]

I want a subforum for people in my exact specialty, as no one else really understands me.  And no left-handed folks either--those freaks can get their own subforum.

I see your point OP, but it doesn't sound workable to me. I do wish however that people would mention their discipline in their questions, and that we had a place for our disciplines in our profiles.

[fiona]

Well, there have been some Fiona Worship threads, and that's a growing field, but even I wouldn't expect a whole forum on the subject.

I am curious, and I like to know what the rest of the world is doing.

The Fiona

[bluetrenchcoat]

UNCLE! I surrender. But a few ripostes before dying ...

First of all, for the record, I didn't suggest replacing the existing "Job-seeking experiences" forum, but only supplementing it with additional, subject-specific outlets for those discussions that might warrant subject-specific attention.

Second, I agree that it's interesting and edifying to learn how other disciplines operate. But most of us are here because we're trying to get jobs in our own specific disciplines (or because we're trying to help others get jobs in specific disciplines). This is not a compelling reason not to add new fora.

Finally, while concerns about anonymity are both genuine and justified, I can't see how they would be any more pressing in subject-specific fora than they are now. No one would be forced (any more than now) to divulge more about themselves than they should and/or feel comfortable doing.

Ah, well.

BBMariah

[yellowtractor]

Finally, while concerns about anonymity are both genuine and justified, I can't see how they would be any more pressing in subject-specific fora than they are now. No one would be forced (any more than now) to divulge more about themselves than they should and/or feel comfortable doing.

Sorry--didn't mean to gang up on what remains a reasonable suggestion.

As regards this last bit, though, some fields (or subfields) are quite small, and anonymity more an issue than you might think.  To be honest, I would almost certainly ignore threads that were defined by a discipline very different from my own (life is short, etc.), but I would also almost certainly refrain from posting in threads that were advertised as specific to my primary discipline.

Of course, some might see this as a good thing.

I do like the idea of having a(n optional) place on our profiles for us to display our disciplines, if we like.

I think the real and more workable answer to the problem (if it be a problem) is for posters to flag the focus of their threads in the initiating subject line.  If you only want input from biologists on hiring issues relating to biology, make sure you title your thread "Biologists Only:  <Staple or Paperclip? or whatever>."

[science_expat]

Sorry, OP, but I also agree with all of the above - and like YT's last suggestion.

A big part of the attraction of the fora for me is that I learn a LOT about how other disciplines work. I hadn't previously appreciated the vast differences between fields and I think this recognition will help me greatly as I progress up the academic food chain. (At least this is my story and I'm sticking to it to justify the time I spend here!)

[bluetrenchcoat]

Fair enough! Thanks for the discussion.

BBMariah

[daurousseau]

I wonder whether it might be useful to introduce subject-specific sub-fora.

Sure, so we can avoid the ones in our own fields. No point in talking to those people.

[fiona]

I wonder whether it might be useful to introduce subject-specific sub-fora.

Sure, so we can avoid the ones in our own fields. No point in talking to those people.

Argh. How very true. I might wind up inadvertently talking to my evil colleague. Argh! Argh! Cooties!

The Fiona

[trabb]

I wonder whether it might be useful to introduce subject-specific sub-fora.

Sure, so we can avoid the ones in our own fields. No point in talking to those people.

Avoid?  How about sabotage?  Yes, yes, it's a GREAT idea to call the department chair at home every evening to request an update on the search!

[yellowtractor]

Also, you really should print your c.v. on multicolored papers, in an exciting array of non-traditional fonts.  This will get the SC's attention.  They will be impressed with both your ability to think outside of the proverbial box and your obvious enthusiasm for the position.

...But we digress.