A gross example of the ills of our society lies with its obsession over technology. In thinking about funding in universities and the knowledge mill that universities have become, is it any wonder that sciences have come to rule? I do not mean to imply that the sciences in no way deserve funding, but they do not receive funding because our society values science qua science - knowledge for the sake of pursuing knowledge or of becoming learned. Rather, science is valued, because of its direct influence on material production and our abilities to not only manipulate our material environment, but, as psychology has become the handmaiden of positivist research, to also manipulate our fellow human beings.
It is no surprise that university departments are funded largely by foundations. No different is the case of universities being driven in the direction of market forces, as is the case of medical research funded by a pharmaceutical company perpetually in favor of pharmaceutical research. The fact that the physical and biological sciences receive the most amount of funding in our university system is indicative of our societies bias toward those areas of research, or the value our society places on it. We must, though, be determined to maintain the distinction between scientific research and technological research. Most people care about new gadgets, a new pill to make their ailments disappear, or the ability to explain and thus manipulate their environment. The lack of funding for the social sciences and humanities in our society only demonstrates the poverty in our values. We value pseudo-objectivity of science rather than to the common-sense world of the humanities. We care less about wisdom and more about manipulation. We care less about learning and more about regurgitating, less about the pursuit of truth and more about the construction of it, less about finding the joy in life and more about maximizing pleasure. We clutter our lives with nonsense and gadgetry only to quickly become bored and find something new. This perpetual unease with stability and ourselves forces a longing into us that mandates an ever-flashier world. Instead of looking at what we have and dwelling in the meanings and objects of the day, we actively pursue temporary distractions from our pain and create new objects to obsess over. That obsession soon looses novelty, and we seek something new. This insatiable capricious curiosity demands the manufacture, materially or ideologically, of new distractions. This creates a market demand, or rather the market exploits this need, and produces technology to feed such hunger. This market requires constant knowledge production from scientists, it demands nothing of the meaning-makers and wisdom-seekers of the humanities.
The social sciences really differ little in their cow-towing to the masters of manipulation. Psychology and social theory only recently became "scientized" – a hundred years ago the philosophers were those who studies the psyche as well as society. Now both courses of study have become impoverished and limited to the use of mathematics and statistics under the pretense that these methods are grounded in some sort of permanent Platonic ideal. Math is created, people. Some guy makes up a few axioms and then starts writing theorems. Applying math to society might give us a means of looking at the psyche or society, but we must realize that math arises out of that which it claims to study – namely the psyche, which is formed in part by social bonds. The eyeball cannot see itself perfectly, the razor cannot cut itself, and scientific studies on the human are nothing more than an approximation.
How do we convince humanity that the study of humanity is important? How ironic that humanity is fascinated with the material world only in so far as it satiates their neurosis rather than facinated with study of the neurosis itself? This perhaps was the impetus behind's Plato's ideal of the philosopher kings ruling society – without the value of wisdom, we become thoughtless hedonists. The banality of Modern America is grounded in humanity's obsession with technology.
31 July 2005
30 July 2005
If you are thinking of going to graduate school (either for Master's or PhD) I recommend this book highly (it was recommended to me by a friend who had it recommended to him by a friend, and so it goes):
_Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student's Guide to Earning a Master's or Ph.D._, by Robert L. Peters, Ph.D.
If you are thinking of getting your Ph.D. to become an academic (especially in the social sciences or humanities), this is also an excellent book to read prior to embarking:
_We Scholars: Changing the Culture of the University_, by David Damrosch, Professor of English and Comp. Lit at Columbia University in NYC.
Here's a stat from the former book:
"A study by Ramiro Valdez at a northeastern school of social welfare found that, on a standardized scale where 100 equaled the amount of stress experienced by someone whose spouse had just died, doctoral students in their first year scored an average of 313 points."
_Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student's Guide to Earning a Master's or Ph.D._, by Robert L. Peters, Ph.D.
If you are thinking of getting your Ph.D. to become an academic (especially in the social sciences or humanities), this is also an excellent book to read prior to embarking:
_We Scholars: Changing the Culture of the University_, by David Damrosch, Professor of English and Comp. Lit at Columbia University in NYC.
Here's a stat from the former book:
"A study by Ramiro Valdez at a northeastern school of social welfare found that, on a standardized scale where 100 equaled the amount of stress experienced by someone whose spouse had just died, doctoral students in their first year scored an average of 313 points."
29 July 2005
President Bush: "I do not support the further destruction of human life" [but I'm fine killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, putting our own population at risk by reneging on environmental laws, maintaining a nuclear arsenal, destroying the quality of life of the working in poor in my own country, and murdering the integrity of my country, etc, etc]. What a jackass. Actually, I think anyone who supports this man or thinks he does any good for this country is a jackass. I have yet to hear a cogent argument supporting anything Bush does. Most of it is banal ideological rhetoric. Freedom! Yeah, we love freedom! If they paused for a moment to ask themselves what freedom is, exactly, I don't think they'd come up with a better definition (or lack thereof) than any of the most brilliant minds of our species have come up with since the beginning of out history. The most pernicious enemy of democracy is groupthink.
I called TC, because my diploma was never mailed. Of course, the turn it around on me and say "well, we never got your paparework." Naturally, they never got the approriate paperwork becausew they never sent it to me to fill out in the first place. So I ask for the fax number so I can fax the necessary request. I type up a request, print it out, spend an hour trying to get it faxed, and following all natural laws of TC ability, the fax machine on thheir end never picked up. My God. Things ran better in the third world countries Ive been to. Seriously.
I just got hired as an adjunt math professor at the local community college. Math isn't really my passion, but it will be good experience. The job is half-time (2 classes per term) and pays 12k a year salary with no benifits. Fortunately, that's above norm salary for adjunt professors (believe it or not). There's room to become a full-time professor there after about a year, if I decide that's what I want to do. I would probably end up becomeing a full-time physics professor (as that was my major), but in order to be a full-time professor there, I would need 10-12 hours of graduate credit in my area. This means that I would once again have to get into a masters program, but this time in physics and at the local University. I'm still waiting to hear back from another part-time job at the local university, and I need to find a way to get medical insurance. God Bless Amerika.
27 July 2005
Unfortunately, the PhD does not make one a philosopher or theorist in this country; it makes one a scholar of the subject. Instead of going the ing of the subject, PhD's have become professional academics, i.e. they have become professional *commentators* on their fields. I never found people philosophizing in my philosophy classes. Rather I heard people talk about other philosophers and quoting someone who wrote something about someone else.
I think the case might vary in the hard sciences, where one must be a scientist in order to earn one's PhD (as far as I know). But you do not have to be a sociologist to get your PhD in Sociology or a philosopher to get a PhD in philosophy. Basically, it only means you can BS about your subject ad infinitum and ad nauseum and on cue. We must be cautious not to jump to a common logical error and assume that because the PhD only proves the above that one cannot *also* be an excellent intellectual as a sociologist or philosopher. But I make the distinction between academic and intellectual, between scholar, whose job it becomes to publish publish publish publish about commentary on other people's work, even if its crap, under the pressures of market forces and modern competitive marketplace of the universities; and the person who truly seeks knowledge, wisdom and wonderment in the world. Again, academic and intellectual not mutually exclusive, but also not necessarily coupled.
Time for The Daily Show with John Stewart. Now there's a sharp guy whose intellect can put anybody to shame.
I think the case might vary in the hard sciences, where one must be a scientist in order to earn one's PhD (as far as I know). But you do not have to be a sociologist to get your PhD in Sociology or a philosopher to get a PhD in philosophy. Basically, it only means you can BS about your subject ad infinitum and ad nauseum and on cue. We must be cautious not to jump to a common logical error and assume that because the PhD only proves the above that one cannot *also* be an excellent intellectual as a sociologist or philosopher. But I make the distinction between academic and intellectual, between scholar, whose job it becomes to publish publish publish publish about commentary on other people's work, even if its crap, under the pressures of market forces and modern competitive marketplace of the universities; and the person who truly seeks knowledge, wisdom and wonderment in the world. Again, academic and intellectual not mutually exclusive, but also not necessarily coupled.
Time for The Daily Show with John Stewart. Now there's a sharp guy whose intellect can put anybody to shame.
I just phoned TC, because I have yet to receive my diploma in the mail. As usual, they immediately started to blame me, "did you send back the form with the label? did you change your address?" I haven't heard from them since May except to beg me for money. Remember what I was saying about incompetence there? It's bad. One giant epitome of why people hate bureaucracy.
I read an article in Academe, the magazine of AAUP, about social class in elite universities and how it is completely ignored on the discourse on diversity:
http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2005/05ja/05jacase.htm
I was happy to read it (and happy it was written), because I made a similar argument (although not as eloquently) on a fellowship application I sent in. You see, neither of my parents ever earned their Bachelor's degree, and, although by the time I hit high school we were comfortably middle-class or even upper-middle-class, my most formative years were cut from the stalk of urban working class culture. In my summer (and winter and spring) job I worked with ex-cons and druggies, my father never lost his social class roots, no matter how much he tried to hide it in a big car and a country club membership, and I felt an awkwardness unlike any other when I ended up in graduate school at an Ivey League. People spoke differently, carried themselves differently, most had parents with graduate degrees . . . many even being academics themselves.
I felt like I had to act like a different person when I was there. There were large communication barriers between me and my advisors or colleagues, and it took all of my intelligence and many hours of focused self-consciousness to adjust my entire habitus to that of the social elite. It was somewhat relieving to leave there. I feel like I can wear my union and work gear without having to wonder whether others thought I was being "ironic", and I can let fly a cuss word every other utterance. I felt like my whole being was being ripped in two when I was there. Two of me living in one body – the slowly forming academic from a socially elite university, and the ingrained existential habits of someone whose been working since he was 14 (in school or not) and whose parents are part of the "uneducated".
The article I read also confirmed for me why it was I had such difficulty getting my parents to understand education for it's own sake. You see, that is something only the social elite could ever really afford as a luxury. To most working-class people, education is how you move up the social latter, it's how you get a high-paying job, it's where you go to learn job skills. I mean what the hell are you going to do with a graduate degree in the humanities????? I always had to frame my education goals in the context of a job and making money, otherwise there would be little understanding or even support from my family. Not that they cognitively decided to be unsupportive, rather they didn't truley understand in an empathetic way, because their lives provided them with a horizon that cannot understand education for-its-own-sake. I didn't come to really start understanding it until after 6 years of higher education. It's like asking someone to understand something you said in Cajun. Fat chance they're going to get it.
I just got a call from a community college for an interview for an adjunct position. Cross your appendages.
I read an article in Academe, the magazine of AAUP, about social class in elite universities and how it is completely ignored on the discourse on diversity:
http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2005/05ja/05jacase.htm
I was happy to read it (and happy it was written), because I made a similar argument (although not as eloquently) on a fellowship application I sent in. You see, neither of my parents ever earned their Bachelor's degree, and, although by the time I hit high school we were comfortably middle-class or even upper-middle-class, my most formative years were cut from the stalk of urban working class culture. In my summer (and winter and spring) job I worked with ex-cons and druggies, my father never lost his social class roots, no matter how much he tried to hide it in a big car and a country club membership, and I felt an awkwardness unlike any other when I ended up in graduate school at an Ivey League. People spoke differently, carried themselves differently, most had parents with graduate degrees . . . many even being academics themselves.
I felt like I had to act like a different person when I was there. There were large communication barriers between me and my advisors or colleagues, and it took all of my intelligence and many hours of focused self-consciousness to adjust my entire habitus to that of the social elite. It was somewhat relieving to leave there. I feel like I can wear my union and work gear without having to wonder whether others thought I was being "ironic", and I can let fly a cuss word every other utterance. I felt like my whole being was being ripped in two when I was there. Two of me living in one body – the slowly forming academic from a socially elite university, and the ingrained existential habits of someone whose been working since he was 14 (in school or not) and whose parents are part of the "uneducated".
The article I read also confirmed for me why it was I had such difficulty getting my parents to understand education for it's own sake. You see, that is something only the social elite could ever really afford as a luxury. To most working-class people, education is how you move up the social latter, it's how you get a high-paying job, it's where you go to learn job skills. I mean what the hell are you going to do with a graduate degree in the humanities????? I always had to frame my education goals in the context of a job and making money, otherwise there would be little understanding or even support from my family. Not that they cognitively decided to be unsupportive, rather they didn't truley understand in an empathetic way, because their lives provided them with a horizon that cannot understand education for-its-own-sake. I didn't come to really start understanding it until after 6 years of higher education. It's like asking someone to understand something you said in Cajun. Fat chance they're going to get it.
I just got a call from a community college for an interview for an adjunct position. Cross your appendages.
24 July 2005
The heat index here is currently 107 degrees! Raw temp is 95. India follows me!
I've been looking for jobs, but the labor market out here in Iowa isn't the most energetic. I've applied for an adjunct math position at the community college and as a labor educator for an outreach program through the local University. The latter job would be great, as I have experience and interest in labor organizing and I have a lot of experience and interest in education, so we'll see what happens. Unfortunately, I think jobs like these are often publicly advertised, but they often already have someone in mind through connections in-house. Only a couple of new jobs around there area are posted per week, so competition is stiff, I'm sure. I also applied to three jobs for a teasing agency, but I have yet to hear from them.
I thought now might be a good time to get involved with the IWW agin, so I volunteered to be a delegate.
Not much else going on out here.
I've been looking for jobs, but the labor market out here in Iowa isn't the most energetic. I've applied for an adjunct math position at the community college and as a labor educator for an outreach program through the local University. The latter job would be great, as I have experience and interest in labor organizing and I have a lot of experience and interest in education, so we'll see what happens. Unfortunately, I think jobs like these are often publicly advertised, but they often already have someone in mind through connections in-house. Only a couple of new jobs around there area are posted per week, so competition is stiff, I'm sure. I also applied to three jobs for a teasing agency, but I have yet to hear from them.
I thought now might be a good time to get involved with the IWW agin, so I volunteered to be a delegate.
Not much else going on out here.
22 July 2005
Gee whiz. You know, I started to withdraw from U-C, then I get an email telling me to wait, because some jobs might be opening up. So I put the job applications on hold, once agin shift existential gears to accpet the possibility that I might be moving, and wait. What do I get? A professor who tells me that a TA section is opening up, but never gets back to me about it in the time frame she gave, and others forward me job postings. Why ask me to wait? I've aready been applying for jobs on campus and haven't got any. That's why I decided that that given the lack of funding offers and the lack of job offers that it was most prudent for me to withdraw in the first place. Why ask me to hang on if there's nothing concrete to offer? I have a life. I have to worry about my medical insurance expiring in three weeks. Not only does this put me through the roller-coaster, but it also puts my girlfriend through it as well. And, to be honest, this all has probably been harder on her as me. Don't get someone's hopes up unless you have something to offer. I am human, you know? I'm not some object to be manipulated to one's desires. So, one week has passed, another week of being strung along on the intimation of a promise of a potential, and nothing. I'm not waiting any longer; this is rediculous. I emailed and formally requested to defer my enrollment until next fall. Maybe by then I will have paid off some debt and they will have found funding for me.
Now at least I stop trying to live in two worlds at once and can focus on one world: my world in Iowa.
Now at least I stop trying to live in two worlds at once and can focus on one world: my world in Iowa.
21 July 2005
A friend of mine just emailed this to me. It's from the book _Getting What You Came For_ by Robert Peters, Ph.D., and it Seems to be pretty spot-on:
Lester H. Bodian (1987), a psychologist, did his PhD on factors that influence success at getting a PhD. Here's what he found was correlated with success (with explanations by the author of the book, Dr. Robert Peters, on further examination of Bodian's psychological studies):
Being married - Married students are less likely to drop out, probably because they receive more support and encouragement.
Being on schedule - People who take longer to finish their master's programs tend not to finish their Ph.D.s
Being in the hard/natural sciences - Physical scientists and biologists are most likely to finish, social scientists lie somewhere in the middle, and students in the humanities are most likely to drop out. This pattern reflects higher levels of both collaborative research and funding in the sciences.
Being financially secure - Financial support is particularly important in determining attrition, and students who work full-time, for example, have high attrition rates.
Having clarity of purpose - Studies show that students have a better chance of finishing if they have concrete career goals and their future jobs depend on attaining the degree. Thus, doctoral students headed for university teaching are more apt to get their Ph.D.s than are students who want to teach on lower levels where a master's degree would suffice.
Having a good relationship with your advisor.
Need I say more?
Lester H. Bodian (1987), a psychologist, did his PhD on factors that influence success at getting a PhD. Here's what he found was correlated with success (with explanations by the author of the book, Dr. Robert Peters, on further examination of Bodian's psychological studies):
Being married - Married students are less likely to drop out, probably because they receive more support and encouragement.
Being on schedule - People who take longer to finish their master's programs tend not to finish their Ph.D.s
Being in the hard/natural sciences - Physical scientists and biologists are most likely to finish, social scientists lie somewhere in the middle, and students in the humanities are most likely to drop out. This pattern reflects higher levels of both collaborative research and funding in the sciences.
Being financially secure - Financial support is particularly important in determining attrition, and students who work full-time, for example, have high attrition rates.
Having clarity of purpose - Studies show that students have a better chance of finishing if they have concrete career goals and their future jobs depend on attaining the degree. Thus, doctoral students headed for university teaching are more apt to get their Ph.D.s than are students who want to teach on lower levels where a master's degree would suffice.
Having a good relationship with your advisor.
Need I say more?
20 July 2005
So the offer is still tentative, as they are not sure whether of not the position will open. You know, this is really unfair, playing with peoples lives like this. Going into a doctorate program is a huge life decision. When I made the decision to withdraw, I started making other plans in my life, applying for jobs, connecting with old contacts for jobs and asking favors, telling friends and family that I was going to stay in Iowa, etc. I agonized over the decision, then made it swiftly and decisively. It was difficult enough for me to give up on my PhD at Columbia, because of funding issues. Do people have no idea that people have lives and commitments in their lives, and that they can't just switch gears every couple of weeks and expect people to give themselves existential whiplash over their whims and indecisiveness? And what happens if I do take the offer? Will it disappear next year in the same whimsical manner it appeared this year? How is one to trust what one is told about funding, when you've been mislead before? I don't feel like I can trust any answer I get from any university dept. regarding funding. This time I was told that the offer "usually" stands for 2 years. So does the "usually" give them a legal out if they decide they don't want to fund me the next year? Is their saying such a thing just said to play on my wishful thinking and get me to agree to something I would not otherwise agree to? I know that many departments can't afford to give every doc student funding. That's fine. That does seem to be confined by budget constraints. But some integrity and honesty has to be restored to this process, and in order to do so departments need to create concrete procedures for offering funding. This whole time I've felt like I've been dealing with used car salesmen that are trying to get me to spend the most money possible, and not telling me "how low they can go". You have to walk out the door for real before they come running after stating, "OK, OK, we'll give you the discount!" The grad student should say "this is what I need to survive" and the program says "we can" or "we can't" and that's then end of story. Putting people through the emotional ringer be keeping them strung along on un-guaranteed possibilities, wavering back and forth about what they can and cannot offer is unfair and cruel. I'm tired of this game already, and I haven't even started.
18 July 2005
For those of you thinking about getting a PhD, do so only under at least one of the following circumstances:
a) You will graduate and make lots of money (unlikely if you're going to be an academic).
b) You are full funded by the University (ask, and get it in writing!!).
c) You are independently wealthy.
d) You want your first act as doctor/professor to be filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
e) You're crazy.
Don't believe me? Play around with this site:
http://www.finaid.org/calculators/loanpayments.phtml
If unfunded, figure you will spend about $25,000 a year total costs (tuition, housing, books, etc.) for an in-state University and upwards of $50,000 a year for a place like Columbia University. VIVA AMERIKA - where we don't give a shit about the education or the health of the nation!
a) You will graduate and make lots of money (unlikely if you're going to be an academic).
b) You are full funded by the University (ask, and get it in writing!!).
c) You are independently wealthy.
d) You want your first act as doctor/professor to be filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
e) You're crazy.
Don't believe me? Play around with this site:
http://www.finaid.org/calculators/loanpayments.phtml
If unfunded, figure you will spend about $25,000 a year total costs (tuition, housing, books, etc.) for an in-state University and upwards of $50,000 a year for a place like Columbia University. VIVA AMERIKA - where we don't give a shit about the education or the health of the nation!
17 July 2005
Sour Grapes. Yeah, yeah. Whatever. An amazing calm has come over me since making the decision to postpose my doctoral work. No more financial stress or the added existential stress of traveling back and forth to IA and being away from Stephanie and Roscoe for two years. So I don't get a six year study session. It wouldn't have been one anyway if I was working most of the time to pay the rent in some squalid roach-infested shithole I forced to live in because I had no money. Who in their right mind would PAY $25-50,000 to leave a home, loved one, and best dog in the world just to live at half the quality of living and read things they could read on one's own and write about on the weekends. C'mon, now.
As for my last spit of fire, I should say that I know plenty of people in the PhD world who are brilliant, excellent scholars, and good people. I just also know that plenty aren't, and having a PhD is no guarantee of any of the aforementioned qualities.
The dog gets a teeth-cleaning tomorrow. Now THAT'S excitement!
As for my last spit of fire, I should say that I know plenty of people in the PhD world who are brilliant, excellent scholars, and good people. I just also know that plenty aren't, and having a PhD is no guarantee of any of the aforementioned qualities.
The dog gets a teeth-cleaning tomorrow. Now THAT'S excitement!
CUDE, Wilfred, The Ph.D. Trap, West Bay (NS), Medicine Label Press, 1987, 136 p.
This critical appraisal of North American doctoral programs contends that the degree is a seriously flawed
academic institution. Recent scholarship and personal experiences are utilized to illustrate the contention that
doctoral programs are inflexible, cumbersome, restrictive and wasteful, and, in most fields, do more harm than
good. The history of the Ph.D. degree is traced, with an emphasis on the Canadian experience, and three major
problems are identified: the length of time such programs take, the paucity of successful candidates, and rewards
that are not commensurate with the time, energy and money involved in obtaining the degree. The crisis is
considered to be particularly acute in the social sciences and humanities, partly because of variant and imprecise
methodologies that delay doctoral committees and doctoral candidates. Because of the values and skills required to
succeed in such programs, they may, it is felt, be undermining scholarly excellence. Three appendices are
provided: a summary of the most recent findings (subsequent to the first printing of the book), "The Grad School
Numbers Game" (a comment on costs and enrollments), and "The Rejuvenated Mastership." References are
provided at the conclusion of each chapter.
Nietzsche even made the same argument. Being unnecessary for teaching in the universities until the late 1800s (and I don't think it is a coincidence that it coincides with the industrial revolution and the formalization of schooling), the PhD has really become a means for people to have PhD's to require other people to have PhD's, in order that they might keep their jobs producing more PhD's, a credential that's only use is to somehow prove you are capable of teaching at a university or college, especially for the humanities. You don't need a PhD to start a University or to write a book or become an inventor. Unless one is thinking of becoming a professor, then the PhD serves little purpose. Unless you are thinking of becoming a professional researcher or going into one of those odd trades that require a doctorate (medical practice or law), few other types of doctorate degrees is necessary. As a credential, they really don't prove anything more than a HS degree proves: time spent in an institution and the appropriate hoops jumped. You don't have to be bright to have a PhD (I've met some real dolts), just know how to play the obsequious game. And, of course, this game is reserved for the economically privileged in this country as an extended vacation to read books and pontificate in order to reinforce the sense of privilege they already harbor, rather than to promote good scholarship, or it is used to make sure that only the already wealthy are allowed into the jobs already possessed by the wealthy, such as economics research.
And if the State wants educationally qualified teachers in their schools, their going to have to shell out the cash to pay for it. If someone is going into a lifetime of teaching, they are likely not of high socio-economic status to begin with, and we all know that teachers' wages are paltry, so how is it that the State thinks it can force upon its teachers to pay from $40,000 to $100,000 just for a Masters degree? Like teachers can shell out that kind of cash.
Dear legislators: WAKE THE FUCK UP.
This critical appraisal of North American doctoral programs contends that the degree is a seriously flawed
academic institution. Recent scholarship and personal experiences are utilized to illustrate the contention that
doctoral programs are inflexible, cumbersome, restrictive and wasteful, and, in most fields, do more harm than
good. The history of the Ph.D. degree is traced, with an emphasis on the Canadian experience, and three major
problems are identified: the length of time such programs take, the paucity of successful candidates, and rewards
that are not commensurate with the time, energy and money involved in obtaining the degree. The crisis is
considered to be particularly acute in the social sciences and humanities, partly because of variant and imprecise
methodologies that delay doctoral committees and doctoral candidates. Because of the values and skills required to
succeed in such programs, they may, it is felt, be undermining scholarly excellence. Three appendices are
provided: a summary of the most recent findings (subsequent to the first printing of the book), "The Grad School
Numbers Game" (a comment on costs and enrollments), and "The Rejuvenated Mastership." References are
provided at the conclusion of each chapter.
Nietzsche even made the same argument. Being unnecessary for teaching in the universities until the late 1800s (and I don't think it is a coincidence that it coincides with the industrial revolution and the formalization of schooling), the PhD has really become a means for people to have PhD's to require other people to have PhD's, in order that they might keep their jobs producing more PhD's, a credential that's only use is to somehow prove you are capable of teaching at a university or college, especially for the humanities. You don't need a PhD to start a University or to write a book or become an inventor. Unless one is thinking of becoming a professor, then the PhD serves little purpose. Unless you are thinking of becoming a professional researcher or going into one of those odd trades that require a doctorate (medical practice or law), few other types of doctorate degrees is necessary. As a credential, they really don't prove anything more than a HS degree proves: time spent in an institution and the appropriate hoops jumped. You don't have to be bright to have a PhD (I've met some real dolts), just know how to play the obsequious game. And, of course, this game is reserved for the economically privileged in this country as an extended vacation to read books and pontificate in order to reinforce the sense of privilege they already harbor, rather than to promote good scholarship, or it is used to make sure that only the already wealthy are allowed into the jobs already possessed by the wealthy, such as economics research.
And if the State wants educationally qualified teachers in their schools, their going to have to shell out the cash to pay for it. If someone is going into a lifetime of teaching, they are likely not of high socio-economic status to begin with, and we all know that teachers' wages are paltry, so how is it that the State thinks it can force upon its teachers to pay from $40,000 to $100,000 just for a Masters degree? Like teachers can shell out that kind of cash.
Dear legislators: WAKE THE FUCK UP.
16 July 2005
Stephanie and I went to U-C to check out housing. After we crunched some numbers regarding rent, utilities, the expense of traveling back and forth to Iowa, the cost of owning a car, and paying someone to look after the dog when she visits me, I decided that there is no way I can afford to attend without funding. What gets my goat is that I have a lot of accomplished experience in both educational leadership and teaching, I was in a doctoral program at Columbia that offered me $12,000 to stay, my GRE scores are exceptionally high, and yet my own state university couldn't find me a dime. . . and I know other students got funding. I'm not trying to be conceited, but I really can't image who else would be more qualified for funding than I. It really doesn't make any sense. There are MASTERS students there that have funding. What the crap? It all seems pretty fishy, doesn't it? Something makes me wonder if there some deal where programs don't want to seem eager to take doc students from other universities, so they don't offer them money or something. Regardless, I'm not willing to pull out another 25k in loans for a program that doesn't want to fund me. I'm a talented guy; I'll find sustenance and joy in life elsewhere. I can read Heidegger and Nietzsche and write on the weekends, if I want. I don't need to spend the next 6 years of my life struggling financially so I can have some privileged academic give my ego some sort of approval that I'm "smart" and can "do things", just because they hold some sort of arbitrary title of tutelage. ANGER! GRRRRRRR!
On a positive note, this means that Stephanie and I won't be separated, and we can finally live under the same roof after being apart for over a year. I also get to see my dog every day. A lot of talented and bright people never go into academia or leave it, for precisely this reason. It's too bad, really. So we're not only the only industrialied western nation that doesn't offer healthcare to all of it citizens, but post-secondary education is still reserved for the welath in this country (unlike every other western industrialized nation). Things that should not be for profit and subsidized by the state: health care and education (all of it).
On a positive note, this means that Stephanie and I won't be separated, and we can finally live under the same roof after being apart for over a year. I also get to see my dog every day. A lot of talented and bright people never go into academia or leave it, for precisely this reason. It's too bad, really. So we're not only the only industrialied western nation that doesn't offer healthcare to all of it citizens, but post-secondary education is still reserved for the welath in this country (unlike every other western industrialized nation). Things that should not be for profit and subsidized by the state: health care and education (all of it).
14 July 2005
I'm so glad that the American news is abuzz with the shuttle delay. I mean, what more important news could there be? Perhaps the Downing Street memo? Or the fact that Karl Rove, one of Bush's top men, leaked the name a CIA agency operative as political payback? The fact that Cheney's remark about the "last throes of the insurgency" is a far cry from what military commanders on the ground are saying [that the insurgency is just as strong as it was when we started the debacle]. No, no. That's old news. Let's talk about a busted fuel gauge in the shuttle! We had one day where the White House Press corps acted like "the press" instead of the lapdogs of the White House Department of Truth, and then we're back to bullocks as normal. Good job, everyone. What, did McLellan later threaten to take away the Christmas party if you kept being so rambunctious and questioning the wisdom of the WH Press Secretary? C'mon, it didn't hurt that bad to stick together and actually act like reporters for once. Although, to give them some credit, I think this WH crew is so full of lies the press doesn't even know where to start sometimes. By the time the real press starts hounding the administration on something, some other monstrosity of the admin. Comes out. Anyone seeking the truth is just kept on a perpetual hunt of BS acting as a decoy for other BS, and the switching takes place so rapidly, no one can actually get anywhere with any particular statement from the US Department of Truth. Ugh. This is why I hate watching "the news". One giant circus.
13 July 2005
London is now saying that the bombings there were suicide bombers and that they had "blown themselves up". If that's true, then the bombers would have been on the trains and busses when the things blew. Considering that two unexploded bombs were found, that would mean that the perps for those two bombs a) either left on the bus or train implying that they were NOT suicide bombers or b) they were sitting there right next to their bomb bag waiting for it to go when the cops showed up, which did not happen considering it took a few days to get an arrest. You know what I think? BULLSHIT propaganda. Too many holes in THAT story. Fear sells, people. And with the ratings on the war in Iraq along with Bush and Blair's popularity considering the action have been dropping drastically, why not blame Al-Queda (of course, they nonetheless STILL had nothing to do with our decision to invade Iraq)?
"People are much more susceptible to the big lie than to the small one, for they already tell little lies every day. They cannot imagine that someone would actually fabricate a colossal lie." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Let's take a few lessons from Goebbels, shall we?
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium. [news broadcasts]
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. [doesn't matter how factual it is]
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans. [liberal, evil-doers, attack on freedom, 9/11 etc.]
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses [fear, anxiety, anger]
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations [uhhhh, no comment]
d. They must be boomerang-proof [what? You don't love freedom?]
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. [Terrorist level is now at Orange]
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat [if we pull out of Iraq , "the terrorists" {you know them. . . uhhh, those guys, the eveil-doers, yeah, them, all of them} "win"] (whatever the hell that means). Winning an ideological war necessitates propaganda, now doesn't it?)
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves. [The economy is great, keep consuming so the terrorists don't win!]
Ah, yes. We've learned well, haven't we? The neocons might not be Nazis, but they are certainly, strictly speaking, fascists: advocates of the Corporate State.
From the Doctrine of Fascism, 1932:
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)"
"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)"
However, to the neocons the distiction between State and private enterprise becomes blurred, to them the state ought not idctate what is necessary for proper private economic development, but the private sphere ought to dictate to the state what it needs to maximize profits.
Boy, do we have a short-term memory problem in this country.
"People are much more susceptible to the big lie than to the small one, for they already tell little lies every day. They cannot imagine that someone would actually fabricate a colossal lie." - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
Let's take a few lessons from Goebbels, shall we?
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium. [news broadcasts]
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. [doesn't matter how factual it is]
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans. [liberal, evil-doers, attack on freedom, 9/11 etc.]
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses [fear, anxiety, anger]
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations [uhhhh, no comment]
d. They must be boomerang-proof [what? You don't love freedom?]
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. [Terrorist level is now at Orange]
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat [if we pull out of Iraq , "the terrorists" {you know them. . . uhhh, those guys, the eveil-doers, yeah, them, all of them} "win"] (whatever the hell that means). Winning an ideological war necessitates propaganda, now doesn't it?)
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves. [The economy is great, keep consuming so the terrorists don't win!]
Ah, yes. We've learned well, haven't we? The neocons might not be Nazis, but they are certainly, strictly speaking, fascists: advocates of the Corporate State.
From the Doctrine of Fascism, 1932:
"Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)"
"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)"
However, to the neocons the distiction between State and private enterprise becomes blurred, to them the state ought not idctate what is necessary for proper private economic development, but the private sphere ought to dictate to the state what it needs to maximize profits.
Boy, do we have a short-term memory problem in this country.
11 July 2005
You know what I love? No one has claimed responsibility for the bombings in London, but all the news idiots and talking heads have already pinned it on Al Queda. Now, I'm not saying it isn't highly probably that that's who's responsible, but if intelligence and police forces aren't willing to say that's who did it, why do the talking heads feel like they would know? Of course, the connection slowly leaks into the discourse and before you know it (just like the false Iraq-9/11 connection) people take it as truth. For all we know, the bombing could have been the IRA or the UVF or Timothy McVeigh's buddy.
What is interesting about this discourse is that now we hear of "Al-Queda inspired" bombings. What does that mean? Well, it makes it quite convincing to link ANY bombing to Al-Queda. I bet had McVeigh bombed after 9/11, he would be considered an Al-Queda operative, as it surely would then have been "Al-Queda inspired". It seems to me that people who were inspired by Al-Queda would blow themselves up in the process, sending themselves to heaven as martys; they would not have used timed bombs and tried to excape their own salvation and martyrdom! These diots who carried out these bombings are more likely copycat bombers than "Al-Queda inspired" bombers whio become inspired by the "bravery and martyrdom" of Al-Queda suicide bombers.
What is interesting about this discourse is that now we hear of "Al-Queda inspired" bombings. What does that mean? Well, it makes it quite convincing to link ANY bombing to Al-Queda. I bet had McVeigh bombed after 9/11, he would be considered an Al-Queda operative, as it surely would then have been "Al-Queda inspired". It seems to me that people who were inspired by Al-Queda would blow themselves up in the process, sending themselves to heaven as martys; they would not have used timed bombs and tried to excape their own salvation and martyrdom! These diots who carried out these bombings are more likely copycat bombers than "Al-Queda inspired" bombers whio become inspired by the "bravery and martyrdom" of Al-Queda suicide bombers.
The other night, Stephanie and I watched The Molly Maguires. It is a film based on a true story about one of the first successful unions in the USA. It was started by a group within a secret society of Irishmen that worked in the coal mines of Pen. It was a great film except there was this lame romance subplot runnning through the entire thing.
I've seen lots of IWW stuff around lately, which is a good sighn. S bought me "Woblies! A Graphic History of the Industrial Workers of the World" (highly recommended) - it has a work in there by Harvey Pekar! Yesterday I bought a recent biographical novel by Wallace Stenger about Joe Hill, the famous IWW bard.
My dog Roscoe has been really diobedient lately. I don't know what it is, but he's really being irritating. We normally let him run off leash in this huge field behind S's house so he can chase rabbits and birds and sprint around. He usually comes when called, but last night he was too busy doin his own thing, and when I opened the door last night as we were leaving, instead of waiting for a command, he just took off after nothing and almost got hit by a car.
Anyone who has an IRA and wants to put their money in socially responsible mutual funds should read this article:
http://news.morningstar.com/doc/article/1,,135405,00.html?pgid=pfnewsbt
One fund that isn't mentioned, but should have been in my opinion (only because SRI funds are few and far between) is Parnassus Equity Income Fund: PRBLX
I've seen lots of IWW stuff around lately, which is a good sighn. S bought me "Woblies! A Graphic History of the Industrial Workers of the World" (highly recommended) - it has a work in there by Harvey Pekar! Yesterday I bought a recent biographical novel by Wallace Stenger about Joe Hill, the famous IWW bard.
My dog Roscoe has been really diobedient lately. I don't know what it is, but he's really being irritating. We normally let him run off leash in this huge field behind S's house so he can chase rabbits and birds and sprint around. He usually comes when called, but last night he was too busy doin his own thing, and when I opened the door last night as we were leaving, instead of waiting for a command, he just took off after nothing and almost got hit by a car.
Anyone who has an IRA and wants to put their money in socially responsible mutual funds should read this article:
http://news.morningstar.com/doc/article/1,,135405,00.html?pgid=pfnewsbt
One fund that isn't mentioned, but should have been in my opinion (only because SRI funds are few and far between) is Parnassus Equity Income Fund: PRBLX
10 July 2005
Stephanie and I are back in Iowa after out trip to Sedona and the Grand Canyon with her family. We also got to visit my parents in Chicago, which was nice. I've had serious bloating issues for a long time. I've been to doctors and Chinese herbalists. I've tried diets and supplements. The two things that helped the most: Garden of Life Primary Defense HMO Probiotics:
http://www.gardenoflife.com/detail_primal_defense.shtml
and a DNFT Chiropractor. Mine is Dr. Mark Will in Deerfield, IL:
http://www.drlighttouch.com/
I ended up throwing my back out in Sedona while I was climbing into bed, which, although extremely painful at the time, is now hilarious. It wasn't like I was engaged in some serious manly physical activity - I was climbing into bed. Now that's a way for your body to scream "Happy 31st!" I went to the chiropractor to deal with that, and it seemed to also help with the inflammation in my gut. Could be coincidence, though.
The corn is now at about 7 feet in Iowa. Stephanie is working on her book prospectus, and she is nearing the finish line. I am getting this set up for U-C. I've registered for classes already, and this weekend, Stephanie and I will be heading down there to look at apartments. Class schedule: Contemporary Philosophies of Education; Topics in Educational Policy; and Philosophy of Language and Education. I've been able to get all of my classes in on just Tuesday and Wednesday, which will give me greater freedom to come and go as I please, and for Stephanie and I to better coordinate our schedules.
The best thing about all of this is that instead of holding a full-time job, a part-time job, and trying to be a full-time doctoral student, as I was at Columbia, I can now afford to *be a student* and *study*, to spend time learning well and knowing what the hell it is I am doing, rather than just checking off requirements in a perfunctory manner and not learning a thing, because I have no time to study material.
http://www.gardenoflife.com/detail_primal_defense.shtml
and a DNFT Chiropractor. Mine is Dr. Mark Will in Deerfield, IL:
http://www.drlighttouch.com/
I ended up throwing my back out in Sedona while I was climbing into bed, which, although extremely painful at the time, is now hilarious. It wasn't like I was engaged in some serious manly physical activity - I was climbing into bed. Now that's a way for your body to scream "Happy 31st!" I went to the chiropractor to deal with that, and it seemed to also help with the inflammation in my gut. Could be coincidence, though.
The corn is now at about 7 feet in Iowa. Stephanie is working on her book prospectus, and she is nearing the finish line. I am getting this set up for U-C. I've registered for classes already, and this weekend, Stephanie and I will be heading down there to look at apartments. Class schedule: Contemporary Philosophies of Education; Topics in Educational Policy; and Philosophy of Language and Education. I've been able to get all of my classes in on just Tuesday and Wednesday, which will give me greater freedom to come and go as I please, and for Stephanie and I to better coordinate our schedules.
The best thing about all of this is that instead of holding a full-time job, a part-time job, and trying to be a full-time doctoral student, as I was at Columbia, I can now afford to *be a student* and *study*, to spend time learning well and knowing what the hell it is I am doing, rather than just checking off requirements in a perfunctory manner and not learning a thing, because I have no time to study material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
