Friday, May 30, 2008

Shockingly, things aren't nearly so bad for football coaches.

From a recent commenter:
I thought [this] might interest readers of this blog, assuming they haven't already read about it. It's the "2007-08 Report on the Economic Status of the Profession". For those who don't want to pore thru the whole thing, here are the "highlights". Enjoy!
An even shorter version of the highlights for you: the profession's fucked.


(ps. Hi, folks at the Feminist Philosophers blog! We love you!)


Anonymous said...

To repost some comments related to this topic:


Anonymous said...
Re: the AAUP economic report...interesting, but not things we didn't really already know; also too whiny and the authors sound like they have an agenda; sounds like a piece written by the UAW or Teamsters or NRA.

Indignation and outrage and protests won't fix the problem. Time will fix the problem; the labor market will correct itself. Of course, the first step is to educate others that academics is more important than football or any one sport so coaches wouldn't be over-valued than they (allegedly) are.

The 'academy' isn't even really the academy anymore; it has been corrupted by money (local and federal funding issues, corporate research ties, a glut and desperation of applicants that enables the academy to rely more on less-well-paid adjuncts.

Of course it sounds grossly unfair that a football coach would make 10x more than a full professer. But by creating a financial relationship with and revenue stream directly from the public to the academy remind us that academy's must run as a business in the final analysis. They cannot survive withour revenue to pay for employees, property, etc. So financials will ALWAYS take priority over academics. I don't like it, but it's an acceptable answer in a pragmatic world.

May 29, 2008 11:10 PM


Anonymous said...
Anonymous 11:10pm: "...sounds like a piece written by the UAW or Teamsters or NRA."

Right. What we need more of nowadays is suspicion of labor organizations! And more faith in the slow but steady Invisible Hand of our lovely free market!

But wait... Isn't that suspicion what got us into this mess - i.e. basically corporate-takeover - in the first place?

The labor market would "correct itself" only if we lived in a free market system, which we don't of course.

May 30, 2008 8:53 AM


Anonymous said...
"Of course, the first step is to educate others that academics is more important than football or any one sport..."

Nonsense like this could only be tauted by an academic. There is nothing more important than college football. (Unless we're talking about the fate of one's immortal soul, I guess. And that's only a mere 'maybe')

May 30, 2008 1:33 PM

Anonymous said...

Okay, I too have read "stuffwhitepeoplelike", and so I now know that my concern with grammar is bougie and to be mocked. But seriously, "academy's" where there ought to be a plural? (In the reposted anon @ 11:10). I am constantly dismayed by the undergrads who can't wield apostrophes appropriately, but from someone I would assume is most likely a graduate student in a writing-intensive discipline?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 5:35, good catch on the (what's likely just a humble) typo. But how about some substantive remarks?

Picking on grammar, errors, etc. is clearly a fun pasttime, especially for us "intellectuals" who like to look down on others. But it's a poor substitute for argument.

For instance, in 5:35's post, we could point out that the period here properly should be contained inside the parentheses: (In the reposted anon @ 11:10). Does that say anything substantive about the author? Perhaps, but more likely not. Sometimes a typo is a typo is a typo...

ma-mama said...

Foosball is the devil!

Jender said...

Awww....Thanks! We love you too!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:09-

It's pastime, not pasttime.

Anonymous said...

Re: pastime,

Thank you for correcting my English (which is not my mother tongue; Farsi is). English, both UK and American versions, are funny. 'Pastime', which seems to be a mash-up between 'past time', loses a letter; but 'misspelling' is not 'mispelling'...and other (apparently) paradoxical examples.

Anonymous said...

I am one of those people that are always accused of incorrect grammar rather than a typo, it sucks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:52 -

You should have left a space between "Anon 9:09" and the dash.

Anonymous said...

emmm... does anyone else feel the perhaps the quality of the comment threads on this blog is going downhill?

Anonymous said...

And, Anon 9:52 -

You should have used quotation marks around the word in question, since you are referring to it, not using it to mean what you think it means ("inconceivable!").

Anonymous said...

pastime = pass+ time. Past + time makes no sense at all given the meaning of the word.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7:14,

That's not a dash. It's a hyphen. A dash looks like this: —. Or this: –.

Anonymous said...

Here's another poorly written rejection letter, for those of you who enjoy such things:

"I am writing to inform you that regrettably the search . . . has resulted in a failed search. We are in the process of re-writing the position description and will be re-advertising very soon. . . . I hope you will reconsider your application when we re-open the search."

Now, I'm wondering. If the search failed because none of the candidates was judged good enough, then why should I apply again (or why should they encourage me to reapply)? If they liked my candidacy, or other applicants, then why have a failed search that requires redefining the position? I met the minimum requirements, at least. There's a third option.

Maybe the last sentence means "yes, we'll readvertise, but we hope you'll reconsider your decision to apply, because, quite frankly, you both suck and blow, and we don't want to have to read your CV again before we figure out what a looser you are." Pragmatics of the search process indicate that the third option is the most likely, and it's at least as compatible with their language as any other reading.

Anonymous said...

Why does 'pass + time' make more sense than 'past + time'? The word isn't spelled 'passtime.' (And why is the second 's' dropped? What other cases are similar or different?)

Further 'past + time' might make prima facie sense, if you think of it as meaning 'how you spent time in the past' as an indication of a proven hobby.

Anonymous said...

*sigh* Get a "pastime," Anon. 1:42. It's an English word, first of all, and like many English words the spelling is illogical. The same is not true, however, of the etymology. For fuck's sake, the word literally means "something one does to pass the time," i.e., a diversion or a hobby. I'm sorry, but "past time" is completely nonsensical in light of this definition, and your apology for it is, frankly, obnoxious.

Anonymous said...

Parsing the English language IS my spentime, for fuck's sake. Fucking fuck. Fuck. (See how much more persuasive my post is when I use profanity? Fuckin-A!)

Anonymous said...

I propose an indefinite moratorium on the use of the term "parse" and all derivatives. While we're add it, how about "prima facie" and "ceteris paribus" as well? I'm sure we can agree that these words/phrases are overused (chiefly, though not excusively, by philosophers) to the point of being comical.

As for "profanity," I for one do not believe it contributes one way or another to the "persuasiveness" of online writing. Does anyone with a penchant for swearing, such as myself, honestly believes that liberal or even excessive use of "fuck," et al., contributes in any way to argumentative force? At best it is is rhetorical flourish - one which, unlike the tedious use of words like "parse" - doesn't seem to get old. Maybe I'm simply immature, but I rather enjoy "fuck" in its various permutations, and I have a native distrust for people who are put off by "cursing," "profanity," etc.

Here's an idea: let's simply substitute "fuck" for "parse" - e.g., "Could someone fuck this sentence for me?" or "Fucking the English language IS my spentime." While we're at it, how about "prima fuckya" (or just p. fuckya) for "prime facie" and "cuntis penis" (or cunt-peen) for "ceteris paribus"?

A priori/posteriori can stay, for now.

Anonymous said...

Parse you! I'm a-gonna kick your parsin' a posteriori after school at 3p. Be there or be square. Burn!

Anonymous said...

I once described philosophy as sucking the life blood out of words. (The only description my family has remembered - thanks guys!). But "fucking the English language" has a far more exciting feel to it.

On the other hand, I think that phrase more accurately describes critical theory than most English language philosophy...

Anonymous said...

"Would you parsing motherparsers shut the parse up? While you're at it, parseface, you can parse off, parse yourself, parse your mother, and kiss my motherparsing ass. Parsing-A! This is pretty parsing awesome!"

Cunt-peen, "parse" is an amusing substitute for "fuck," but obviously cuntis is not penis, because "parse" is obviously not a peer to "fuck." I believe it was Billy Connolly who suggested, in "Fuck" (the movie), that "fuck" was the sound uttered by the first humanoid beings as they pulled themselves out of the primordial gunk. Clearly "fuck" possesses a certain force - an ineffable power - that "parse" lacks. Perhaps this is why (some) philosophers, lacking anything even remotely resembling power, are wont to overuse words like "parse" and to complain about "profane" words like "fuck."

I'd say the latter claim is at least prima fuckya warranted.

I'm gonna go get parsed up now

Anonymous said...

1. Is already taken?

2. Re: parse, what say we stipulate that it's a contraction of "pokey arse"?

3. I just parsed your mother. She says hi.