• May 31, 2016

Chronicle Forums

May 31, 2016, 10:19:25 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please Log In to participate in forums.
News: For all you tweeters, follow The Chronicle on Twitter.
 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 10:08:27 am 
Started by scum1409 - Last post by finding_balance
Congratulations!!   When we were looking to fill a one-year lecturer position w/ possibility of renewal, the search committee discussed the possibility of just picking the top applicant based on materials submitted.  There was no budget for on campus interviews.  The compromise was to do phone or Skype interviews with the top 3. 

Most likely, the paperwork will include a clause that does allow them the option of not renewing you if performance is not satisfactory.  Most likely, you have strong references and previous experience, and they're confident you'll do a great job.

 2 
 on: Today at 09:58:34 am 
Started by see_wolf - Last post by conn8173
steak fillet

 3 
 on: Today at 09:40:07 am 
Started by atalanta - Last post by proftowanda
I finally have one!

(No salutation)

"Can I get you to write me a letter of recommendation? I need it as soon as possible. I've been trying to get ahold of XXXXX since April for XXXXXXXX options and they just got back to me today saying the timeline may be up now but I could still try to apply for it. I need two letter of recommendation so I was hoping you could write one of them!"

(No signature)

Sigh. Where to start...

And, if you are in the US, sent on a holiday weekend.

Yep.  I received two last-minute requests for references RIGHT AWAY! over the holiday weekend -- while I was away to a wedding, either en route and on "airplane mode" or wrestling with wifi and other problems (lack of air conditioning, with temperatures in the nineties) and negotiating a move to another room or involved in family events or finally finding time to see the sights in a city I long had wanted to see.   By the time that I could reply, other references  somehow had been found.


 4 
 on: Today at 09:40:00 am 
Started by baphd1996 - Last post by baphd1996
I did one correspondence course initiated by the president of the university for the son of one of his friends.  I prepared all of the materials and mailed them off. Cue the crickets.  I never heard anything back.

 5 
 on: Today at 09:37:11 am 
Started by kaysixteen - Last post by tenured_feminist
If I were in charge, she would handle the serious, grey-eminency, substantive policy stuff, but her surrogates would mock him and needle the sh!t out of him, hopefully goading him into kindergarten antics. His need to have the last word could be very useful, and it's additionally helpful that his face tends to get so red when he gets agitated. She can sink him if her surrogates can provoke him into looking whiny, weak, and erratic. That will depress his base.

I don't really see anything obvious for Trump to add to his playbook. Racial and gender-based dogwhistles are good for him and he should also continue to try to get mileage out of the email stuff. However, I think the campaign should pick one or two scandal/mistrust issues and stick with them. Trying to throw too much sh!t at the fan will cause blowback and undermine the believability of all of them. It seems that the Trumpsters have backed away from Benghazi, and that was probably a wise choice on their part. The email stuff is confusing enough that it's unlikely to be sorted out completely by November, but the key for them is going to be getting it to become salient to people who aren't already true believers. I don't think the fake controversy over Obama's citizenship did much other than to reinforce opposition to and hatred of Obama among those already sitting in the locomotive of the anti-Obama train. One advantage for Trump is that he can and should launch his own attacks. He can thereby make  his own outrageousness the story alongside whatever he throws at Clinton. If he can do this and always appear strong and in control, he can be effective.

[On preview of Towanda's post] Best thing Hillary can do is release the Obama. The man has a wickedly sarcastic sense of humor and excellent timing. We've only seen hints of it because he's been being presidential for ten years. If he can provoke Trump into lashing back directly at him, that is some nice gravy for the Clinton campaign. The Republican bubble dwellers, I think, really cannot grasp how beloved Obama is. Trump cannot possibly win a game of quien es mas macho with Obama, and I don't think he will realize that the only way to win is not to play.

 6 
 on: Today at 09:30:52 am 
Started by kaysixteen - Last post by proftowanda
Some of you people who are bemoaning the lack of thrilling candidates are Democrats who are too young to remember Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

And I'm sure the Clinton campaign has plans afoot to use surrogates to go after Trump viciously once the general campaign gets underway. No point in doing it yet. Why bother showing her hand before the convention? As I said upthread, if she's as smart as I think she is, she already has a call in to James Carville. Trump will be portrayed relentlessly as a buffoon, a bully, and a loser. Many have made the observation that watching him is like watching a reality show. I think that could be readily mobilized to go after him. If people are laughing at him and seeing him as pathetic, his calculated efforts to play on hypermasculinity will collapse.

The Republicans didn't take Trump seriously early on, and they never fielded a candidate who could get a handle on him. He was like a bar of soap to most of the field during the winnowing process, and I think a lot of that had to do with the aura of inevitability that Jeb! had swirling about him. Clinton won't make that mistake. He's directly in her sights and the campaign will probe relentlessly until it finds the weak spot. I don't underestimate Trump at all, but I also think he has not yet seen a truly well designed negative campaign unleashed on him. It's starting now but the main themes needn't be settled until after the R convention.

Yes, with the Dem convention, the major surrogates can campaign for Clinton -- and imagine the impact of both Obamas, Biden, and more.   They will bring out the crowds to appease the media, which have been mystified by the Clinton campaign's  approach to this point, without massive (and massively expensive) rallies.  The lack of spectacle mystifies media, which deems it as meaning lack of "excitement" . . . while millions more voters have found their excitement in going to the polls for Clinton.

Whether massive Trump rallies are the reason that his voters have gone to the polls is unclear, but I suspect that he likes them as much as does Sanders, so Trump will continue with that approach -- but with his surrogates from the Duck dynasty?  We will see if the lack of political-powerhouse surrogates and support continues, too, and can compete for media attention. 
Possibly so, though, since we repeatedly have seen tv media prefer to ignore a Clinton speech while broadcasting an empty podium awaiting Trump.   

As for the negative campaign ahead for Trump, some of the Clinton commercials to date (not seen in most states, as that campaign appears to have carefully managed its monies for the general campaign ahead) are good.   But again, that's the reaction of a middle-class, middle-aged woman voter -- the demographic that most goes to the polls -- for whom the appeal of rock-concert-style rallies waned many decades ago. 

 7 
 on: Today at 08:42:01 am 
Started by zpost - Last post by cgfunmathguy
Bookmarking so that I have some references for my upcoming fall course online.

 8 
 on: Today at 08:20:04 am 
Started by prytania3 - Last post by cgfunmathguy
I've been on a bit of a dating frenzy lately.  It's made me think of this thread, and of course, Pry.
Details? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

 9 
 on: Today at 08:15:36 am 
Started by kaysixteen - Last post by protoplasm
Some of you people who are bemoaning the lack of thrilling candidates are Democrats who are too young to remember Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

And I'm sure the Clinton campaign has plans afoot to use surrogates to go after Trump viciously once the general campaign gets underway. No point in doing it yet. Why bother showing her hand before the convention? As I said upthread, if she's as smart as I think she is, she already has a call in to James Carville. Trump will be portrayed relentlessly as a buffoon, a bully, and a loser. Many have made the observation that watching him is like watching a reality show. I think that could be readily mobilized to go after him. If people are laughing at him and seeing him as pathetic, his calculated efforts to play on hypermasculinity will collapse.

The Republicans didn't take Trump seriously early on, and they never fielded a candidate who could get a handle on him. He was like a bar of soap to most of the field during the winnowing process, and I think a lot of that had to do with the aura of inevitability that Jeb! had swirling about him. Clinton won't make that mistake. He's directly in her sights and the campaign will probe relentlessly until it finds the weak spot. I don't underestimate Trump at all, but I also think he has not yet seen a truly well designed negative campaign unleashed on him. It's starting now but the main themes needn't be settled until after the R convention.

I hope you're right but I think if Hillary doesn't come out swinging she's finished. This is no time to let a surrogate do the sparring. Dangerous Don is vulnerable but people have to be goaded (reminded) into voting against the candidate who's the most scary.

 10 
 on: Today at 08:12:52 am 
Started by mouseman - Last post by cgfunmathguy
Thanks for the perspectives, all.

Yes, I know that some nonprofit/government agencies can be deeply dysfunctional, just as private sector jobs can. What spooks me about other sectors is how quickly working conditions can change. A "good" job can turn into a nightmare overnight under new management, and in talking to people, it seems like a lot of personnel changes are more about office politics than merit. The same things can happen in academia, but the rhythm of the semester system means that faculty at least get some time to plan for a soft landing if things aren't working out.

The same is true for academia. Your chancellor, dean, or department head can change, and the new one can destroy everything good. You can be in a wonderful state school, and have the governor destroy the entire system, etc. Look at how quickly things are changing for the worse in Wisconsin. Very few workplaces can compete in toxicity with a really toxic academic department. There are few other places in which you can deal with decades-long battles, and people who will try and destroy your entire career just because you side with another faculty member with whom they have been feuding for the past twenty years. I've worked in some really messed-up non-academic work places, but nothing I have seen or heard matches the stories I've heard in academia.
I've got stories from my navy time that beat everything I've ever seen or heard in academia. And if the ship/duty station is toxic, you're there for two years or more with no chance to change jobs. As much as I miss some parts of my navy days, I'll take academia over them any day in terms of toxic environments and the chance to get out.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.