freeorelse
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Foxnews has a controlling interest in MSNBC and decided they had too many Maddows on there already.
Olbermann fired by MSNBC
- Thread starter Trancendental
- Start date
[quote name='dmaul1114']I hadn't thought about it much until talking to my boss about how they go about faculty hiring decisions since I'll have to vote on them etc. eventually and he said the two qualifications they use are basically "1) They have to be productive. 2) They can't be an asshole."[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree with #2. It's more about reinforcing the status quo of entrenched faculty with influence. Higher education isn't immune from politics and productive non-assholes are denied tenure for semi-productive non-assholes all the time. Same applies to hiring. This shouldn't be news to you.
I strongly disagree with #2. It's more about reinforcing the status quo of entrenched faculty with influence. Higher education isn't immune from politics and productive non-assholes are denied tenure for semi-productive non-assholes all the time. Same applies to hiring. This shouldn't be news to you.
[quote name='dohdough']I strongly disagree with #2. It's more about reinforcing the status quo of entrenched faculty with influence. Higher education isn't immune from politics and productive non-assholes are denied tenure for semi-productive non-assholes all the time. Same applies to hiring. This shouldn't be news to you.[/QUOTE]
Sure. But it varies place to place. Politics matter.
For instance, we're trying to build the reputation of our department up more, so we need to hire some "impact" people who publish a lot, land big grants etc. as we're a young department with only 2 full professors currently.
But there's several people who are very productive who've been crossed of the list of people to try to recruit because their known assholes. Faculty meetings here are contentious enough already without adding assholes to the mix.
But otherwise, yes, there's lots of politics involved in hiring and tenure beyond just productivity as the most productive person doesn't always get hired of fired.
But it's also not always politics as sometimes its fit. i.e. you need someone who fills a particular topic area need, so you hire someone who wasn't the most productive of the applicants but because they can teach courses in an area that needs covered.
But being an asshole is a huge hindrance to your chance in any case. Academia is very competitive already, and departments only function well if people can try to get along, everyone is willing to do their share of the crappy service work etc. It doesn't matter how productive you are most of the time if you're known to be a trouble maker you aren't going to have many departments recruiting you.
So you're right that politics matter greatly. But they're not always the driving force. On hiring decisions all tenure track faculty have equal vote on the decision, so the entrenched faculty can't always get their way. Especially here where we have only 2 full professors. Tenure is another story, that's a lot more political many places and only a few people have power to make the decisions (those tenured faculty on the tenure and promotion committee that year--as well as the relevant people in the dean's office, the president and provost, and the relevant people for the state university system) rather than the full faculty.
By the way, do you work in higher ed?
Sure. But it varies place to place. Politics matter.
For instance, we're trying to build the reputation of our department up more, so we need to hire some "impact" people who publish a lot, land big grants etc. as we're a young department with only 2 full professors currently.
But there's several people who are very productive who've been crossed of the list of people to try to recruit because their known assholes. Faculty meetings here are contentious enough already without adding assholes to the mix.
But otherwise, yes, there's lots of politics involved in hiring and tenure beyond just productivity as the most productive person doesn't always get hired of fired.
But it's also not always politics as sometimes its fit. i.e. you need someone who fills a particular topic area need, so you hire someone who wasn't the most productive of the applicants but because they can teach courses in an area that needs covered.
But being an asshole is a huge hindrance to your chance in any case. Academia is very competitive already, and departments only function well if people can try to get along, everyone is willing to do their share of the crappy service work etc. It doesn't matter how productive you are most of the time if you're known to be a trouble maker you aren't going to have many departments recruiting you.
So you're right that politics matter greatly. But they're not always the driving force. On hiring decisions all tenure track faculty have equal vote on the decision, so the entrenched faculty can't always get their way. Especially here where we have only 2 full professors. Tenure is another story, that's a lot more political many places and only a few people have power to make the decisions (those tenured faculty on the tenure and promotion committee that year--as well as the relevant people in the dean's office, the president and provost, and the relevant people for the state university system) rather than the full faculty.
By the way, do you work in higher ed?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure. But it varies place to place. Politics matter.
For instance, we're trying to build the reputation of our department up more, so we need to hire some "impact" people who publish a lot, land big grants etc. as we're a young department with only 2 full professors currently.
But there's several people who are very productive who've been crossed of the list of people to try to recruit because their known assholes. Faculty meetings here are contentious enough already without adding assholes to the mix.
But otherwise, yes, there's lots of politics involved in hiring and tenure beyond just productivity as the most productive person doesn't always get hired of fired.
But it's also not always politics as sometimes its fit. i.e. you need someone who fills a particular topic area need, so you hire someone who wasn't the most productive of the applicants but because they can teach courses in an area that needs covered.
But being an asshole is a huge hindrance to your chance in any case. Academia is very competitive already, and departments only function well if people can try to get along, everyone is willing to do their share of the crappy service work etc. It doesn't matter how productive you are most of the time if you're known to be a trouble maker you aren't going to have many departments recruiting you.
So you're right that politics matter greatly. But they're not always the driving force. On hiring decisions all tenure track faculty have equal vote on the decision, so the entrenched faculty can't always get their way. Especially here where we have only 2 full professors. Tenure is another story, that's a lot more political many places and only a few people have power to make the decisions (those tenured faculty on the tenure and promotion committee that year--as well as the relevant people in the dean's office, the president and provost, and the relevant people for the state university system) rather than the full faculty.
By the way, do you work in higher ed?[/QUOTE]
Right, and my problem is with what defines a "trouble maker." From what I've seen, it has tons more to do with politics than just being an asshole or filling an academic gap. Don't get me wrong, I know some assholes and yes, they have a very difficult time breaking in, but they are most certainly the exceptions.
I'm not "in" higher-ed per se, but lets just say that I'm familiar enough with the process in one of the more narrower fields within higher-ed. I need a little anonymity cause it's a Very narrow field where everyone knows everyone, so I hope you'll excuse me for being a little vague.
To get back on topic: I'm a fan of Olbermann, but I'm not surprised he parted ways with MSNBC. Corporations are people too and they get butt hurt sometimes.
For instance, we're trying to build the reputation of our department up more, so we need to hire some "impact" people who publish a lot, land big grants etc. as we're a young department with only 2 full professors currently.
But there's several people who are very productive who've been crossed of the list of people to try to recruit because their known assholes. Faculty meetings here are contentious enough already without adding assholes to the mix.
But otherwise, yes, there's lots of politics involved in hiring and tenure beyond just productivity as the most productive person doesn't always get hired of fired.
But it's also not always politics as sometimes its fit. i.e. you need someone who fills a particular topic area need, so you hire someone who wasn't the most productive of the applicants but because they can teach courses in an area that needs covered.
But being an asshole is a huge hindrance to your chance in any case. Academia is very competitive already, and departments only function well if people can try to get along, everyone is willing to do their share of the crappy service work etc. It doesn't matter how productive you are most of the time if you're known to be a trouble maker you aren't going to have many departments recruiting you.
So you're right that politics matter greatly. But they're not always the driving force. On hiring decisions all tenure track faculty have equal vote on the decision, so the entrenched faculty can't always get their way. Especially here where we have only 2 full professors. Tenure is another story, that's a lot more political many places and only a few people have power to make the decisions (those tenured faculty on the tenure and promotion committee that year--as well as the relevant people in the dean's office, the president and provost, and the relevant people for the state university system) rather than the full faculty.
By the way, do you work in higher ed?[/QUOTE]
Right, and my problem is with what defines a "trouble maker." From what I've seen, it has tons more to do with politics than just being an asshole or filling an academic gap. Don't get me wrong, I know some assholes and yes, they have a very difficult time breaking in, but they are most certainly the exceptions.
I'm not "in" higher-ed per se, but lets just say that I'm familiar enough with the process in one of the more narrower fields within higher-ed. I need a little anonymity cause it's a Very narrow field where everyone knows everyone, so I hope you'll excuse me for being a little vague.
To get back on topic: I'm a fan of Olbermann, but I'm not surprised he parted ways with MSNBC. Corporations are people too and they get butt hurt sometimes.
Pretty unrelated, but I am amused by the fact that so many people refer to it as "playing politics" when, instead of picking the most qualified individual for a job, people make the choice based on unrelated or barely-related aspects of the person.
I wish we'd quit playing politics with our political system.
I wish we'd quit playing politics with our political system.
[quote name='UncleBob']Pretty unrelated, but I am amused by the fact that so many people refer to it as "playing politics" when, instead of picking the most qualified individual for a job, people make the choice based on unrelated or barely-related aspects of the person.
I wish we'd quit playing politics with our political system.[/QUOTE]
You're amused by the fact that we don't live in a meritocracy? There goes your teabagger cred right there. Not that it matters cause your infantile inconsistant ideology is pretty consistant.
I wish we'd quit playing politics with our political system.[/QUOTE]
You're amused by the fact that we don't live in a meritocracy? There goes your teabagger cred right there. Not that it matters cause your infantile inconsistant ideology is pretty consistant.
[quote name='dohdough']Right, and my problem is with what defines a "trouble maker." From what I've seen, it has tons more to do with politics than just being an asshole or filling an academic gap. Don't get me wrong, I know some assholes and yes, they have a very difficult time breaking in, but they are most certainly the exceptions.[/QUOTE]
It just varies in my experience. This is my first job search here, but I did sit in on a couple in grad school as grad students got one vote on faculty hiring decisions at my department.
That was a top program in my field and concerns there on hiring were always:
1. Is this person going to be productive and help keep us as the top program going forward? This means publication and success in getting grants (only the former for Assistant profs).
This is most important. If they don't think the person can improve the department's reputation and maintain or improve rankings, they aren't getting hired.
2. Do they fill a need? Can they offer graduate courses we need covered that current faculty don't cover. Need this to attract the best graduate students in all sub areas of our field. So this still matters a ton, don't need a bunch of people who are experts on the same niche.
3. Are they an asshole. This includes things ranging from reputations for sleeping with students, to knowing their current colleagues and hearing that they're a pain in the ass in faculty meetings, shirk committee work, slave drive their graduate assistants and piss them off etc.
4. Politics play a role for sure. Part of number 2 is current profs not wanting more competition in their niche within the department.
For example, I'd be opposed to hiring another policing expert, and chose this position over one at a higher tier department when I was on the market as the other place had a handful of policing scholars already.
That's a bad situation as I don't want to be in competition for getting local PDs to work on research projects, or to teach the graduate policing courses, or to have bright graduate students interested in policing assigned to me etc. against Assoc. and Full profs who are much more famous and established in my area.
So I'd support a candidate who was say a corrections researcher, even if they had a slightly less strong current record than a policing scholar. Both for my own self interest, and because we don't have anyone that's truly an expert on corrections IMO to teach our Ph D courses on that topic. That said they have to be qualified and be someone I think will help our program move up the rankings. If they're not, then I'll go with someone else, even the policing person if there isn't a qualified candidate in another area.
And there's also personal politics in that maybe one current faculty member doesn't like the person as they bashed their work at a conference etc., and thus that can play in to the "asshole" determination for the job.
So it's not always, or even most of the time, about who has the strongest record. But it's also not totally politics either.
The first thing is being successful and able to better the reputation of the department. You aren't getting hired most places if you can't offer that convincingly.
Then, to have a strong department matters of fit are very important. You've got to have experts in all the major sub areas of your field if you want to move up in the grad program rankings. You're going to limit your pool of top grad students interested in your Ph D program if you don't cover as many bases as possible in your field. And this will hurt you in program rankings.
And you've got to have personalities that match and can work together or you'll have departments that fall apart with a lot of top talent leaving when they get fed up which has happened to some top departments in my field in recent years.
Politics can be (and are) intertwined in all of this, but I don't find it to be a driving factor most of the time outside of the examples I listed above. But I only have a few years experience on this stuff, maybe my mind will change the more searches I'm privy to etc.!
It just varies in my experience. This is my first job search here, but I did sit in on a couple in grad school as grad students got one vote on faculty hiring decisions at my department.
That was a top program in my field and concerns there on hiring were always:
1. Is this person going to be productive and help keep us as the top program going forward? This means publication and success in getting grants (only the former for Assistant profs).
This is most important. If they don't think the person can improve the department's reputation and maintain or improve rankings, they aren't getting hired.
2. Do they fill a need? Can they offer graduate courses we need covered that current faculty don't cover. Need this to attract the best graduate students in all sub areas of our field. So this still matters a ton, don't need a bunch of people who are experts on the same niche.
3. Are they an asshole. This includes things ranging from reputations for sleeping with students, to knowing their current colleagues and hearing that they're a pain in the ass in faculty meetings, shirk committee work, slave drive their graduate assistants and piss them off etc.
4. Politics play a role for sure. Part of number 2 is current profs not wanting more competition in their niche within the department.
For example, I'd be opposed to hiring another policing expert, and chose this position over one at a higher tier department when I was on the market as the other place had a handful of policing scholars already.
That's a bad situation as I don't want to be in competition for getting local PDs to work on research projects, or to teach the graduate policing courses, or to have bright graduate students interested in policing assigned to me etc. against Assoc. and Full profs who are much more famous and established in my area.
So I'd support a candidate who was say a corrections researcher, even if they had a slightly less strong current record than a policing scholar. Both for my own self interest, and because we don't have anyone that's truly an expert on corrections IMO to teach our Ph D courses on that topic. That said they have to be qualified and be someone I think will help our program move up the rankings. If they're not, then I'll go with someone else, even the policing person if there isn't a qualified candidate in another area.
And there's also personal politics in that maybe one current faculty member doesn't like the person as they bashed their work at a conference etc., and thus that can play in to the "asshole" determination for the job.
So it's not always, or even most of the time, about who has the strongest record. But it's also not totally politics either.
The first thing is being successful and able to better the reputation of the department. You aren't getting hired most places if you can't offer that convincingly.
Then, to have a strong department matters of fit are very important. You've got to have experts in all the major sub areas of your field if you want to move up in the grad program rankings. You're going to limit your pool of top grad students interested in your Ph D program if you don't cover as many bases as possible in your field. And this will hurt you in program rankings.
And you've got to have personalities that match and can work together or you'll have departments that fall apart with a lot of top talent leaving when they get fed up which has happened to some top departments in my field in recent years.
Politics can be (and are) intertwined in all of this, but I don't find it to be a driving factor most of the time outside of the examples I listed above. But I only have a few years experience on this stuff, maybe my mind will change the more searches I'm privy to etc.!
Last edited by a moderator:
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']I'm not "in" higher-ed per se, but lets just say that I'm familiar enough with the process in one of the more narrower fields within higher-ed. I need a little anonymity cause it's a Very narrow field where everyone knows everyone, so I hope you'll excuse me for being a little vague. [/QUOTE]
Pimp? don't worry man we can keep a secret
[/QUOTE]Pimp? don't worry man we can keep a secret
One of the biggest issues with MSNBC and building a Liberal brand is creating the market for it.
I'm sure no one would've thought Alex Jones could get such backing but he's getting sponsors and making massive bank just selling his own things.
If MSNBC could create a product around that,
their low ratings, they're set. They should be advertising Hollistic healing products, Organic fabrics, Nature's Path cereal(Organic), Eden Foods(Organic as well), etc. You need to sell to that audience and no one has used or created that market.
Oh and the thing is Myke. From what I've heard the main shareholders of Comcast are very much Right wingers. Rupert Murdoch seems to be one of the few who is a right winger and cares more about the money you make for him then your politics. So don't be surprised if they get rid of Maddow too.
I'm sure no one would've thought Alex Jones could get such backing but he's getting sponsors and making massive bank just selling his own things.
If MSNBC could create a product around that,
their low ratings, they're set. They should be advertising Hollistic healing products, Organic fabrics, Nature's Path cereal(Organic), Eden Foods(Organic as well), etc. You need to sell to that audience and no one has used or created that market.Oh and the thing is Myke. From what I've heard the main shareholders of Comcast are very much Right wingers. Rupert Murdoch seems to be one of the few who is a right winger and cares more about the money you make for him then your politics. So don't be surprised if they get rid of Maddow too.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Sarang01']One of the biggest issues with MSNBC and building a Liberal brand is creating the market for it.
I'm sure no one would've thought Alex Jones could get such backing but he's getting sponsors and making massive bank just selling his own things.
If MSNBC could create a product around that, their low ratings, they're set. They should be advertising Hollistic healing products, Organic fabrics, Nature's Path cereal(Organic), Eden Foods(Organic as well), etc. You need to sell to that audience and no one has used or created that market.[/QUOTE]
Morning Joe brewed by Starbucks.
They became corporate hos a long time ago. The difference is that they're the 'classier' escorts you find in high-end hotels as opposed to the street walkers over at Fox. And CNN is kinda like dating a stripper.
I'm sure no one would've thought Alex Jones could get such backing but he's getting sponsors and making massive bank just selling his own things.
If MSNBC could create a product around that,
their low ratings, they're set. They should be advertising Hollistic healing products, Organic fabrics, Nature's Path cereal(Organic), Eden Foods(Organic as well), etc. You need to sell to that audience and no one has used or created that market.[/QUOTE]Morning Joe brewed by Starbucks.
They became corporate hos a long time ago. The difference is that they're the 'classier' escorts you find in high-end hotels as opposed to the street walkers over at Fox. And CNN is kinda like dating a stripper.
[quote name='dohdough']Says the person that asserts that the black experience in the US is equal to the white experience.[/QUOTE]
Never said such a thing, ever. On this board or otherwise.
But that's such a typical tactic here. Take what someone said, completely change it, then insult the person for saying what they didn't say. Stay classy, bro.
Never said such a thing, ever. On this board or otherwise.
But that's such a typical tactic here. Take what someone said, completely change it, then insult the person for saying what they didn't say. Stay classy, bro.
[quote name='UncleBob']Never said such a thing, ever. On this board or otherwise.
But that's such a typical tactic here. Take what someone said, completely change it, then insult the person for saying what they didn't say. Stay classy, bro.[/QUOTE]
Right...your posts about hard work, personal responsibility, and your edit of clak's quote in the other thread state otherwise.
It's not like you don't leave a slimey trail whenever you post garbage.
Spin me another tall tale Paul Bunyan.
But that's such a typical tactic here. Take what someone said, completely change it, then insult the person for saying what they didn't say. Stay classy, bro.[/QUOTE]
Right...your posts about hard work, personal responsibility, and your edit of clak's quote in the other thread state otherwise.
It's not like you don't leave a slimey trail whenever you post garbage.
Spin me another tall tale Paul Bunyan.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='nasum']Looks like Olbermann got hired at Al Gore TV. That ought to be a treat...[/QUOTE]
There's an Al Gore TV? Jesus.
Maybe it was just the way the clips were put together (I've never seen Olbermann's show) but damn. I saw some pretty ugly clips. I didn't think "the left" had a type like that. He seemed like a first class asshole a la Hannity.
There's an Al Gore TV? Jesus.
Maybe it was just the way the clips were put together (I've never seen Olbermann's show) but damn. I saw some pretty ugly clips. I didn't think "the left" had a type like that. He seemed like a first class asshole a la Hannity.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Progressives deserve better than a massive phony.[/QUOTE]
Anyone that takes money for political opinion is a phony. Look at all these guys before they got where they are now. Olbermann, Miller, and Beck all came from different parts of the entertainment world. These guys are entertainers period. They will change their schtick to satisfy the people that cut the checks.
Anyone that takes money for political opinion is a phony. Look at all these guys before they got where they are now. Olbermann, Miller, and Beck all came from different parts of the entertainment world. These guys are entertainers period. They will change their schtick to satisfy the people that cut the checks.
And lets not forget where O'Reilly came from..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
that still gets me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
that still gets me.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']And lets not forget where O'Reilly came from..
that still gets me.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-DkRuXzx94
that still gets me.
[/QUOTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-DkRuXzx94
bread's done