As I mentioned a month or so ago, I have been
struggling with work issues. I really enjoy my job, and I can't imagine having to be in the office from 9-5. That said, I have had problems transitioning to a leadership role in the department. As I near tenure, my service commitments have increased (yes, I have volunteered for some of this). I was searching the blogs a bit this morning, and
I found this superb discussion of the challenges of gatekeeping in the discipline.
Here is a glimpse -
The one thing, however, that I was not emotionally prepared for was to sit in judgment of people’s futures.
Interesting, isn’t it? I might not have gotten into the very program for which I am now a gatekeeper.
It is worth a read. I think it blends well with
Dr. H's discussion of the academic job market. Off to read applications...............
3 comments:
Velma's post touches on a situation with which I've struggled, though more in the area of faculty search committees. I was selected for an interview at my present institution without an accepted journal article to my name (a piece or two under second review, but nothing more). I can only recall a few times when we've extended that level of consideration to other applicants, and usually it was because of some mitigating factors. In other words, no pubs pretty much equals summary dismissal in our process. That is partly driven by the shift in the last decade; most graduating students have pubs today and that was not as universally true when I was graduating.
I think the issue to keep in mind here is that we need to view this matter as empiricists. All else being equal, past performance is the best indicator of future performance. A good undergrad is most likely to excel and be a "good" grad student. A grad student who has published is more likely to publish in the future (a JCJE piece from around '00 actually offered some empirical validation to that assertion).
The author of this blog is right. Sometimes we are gatekeepers who would fail under the standards we are enforcing. I feel that way every time I'm on a search committee and perhaps always will. You read accounts of people feeling that way about tenure and promotion. I recall a discussion to that end with my dad some years back; he knew he would never have been hired or tenured at his university with his record had he been coming up in the 80s/90s versus the 60s. That's also a difference in eras, however.
My concern with the blog author's point is he presumes he would have been a successful grad student straight out of college just because he was successful later in life. He might have tanked as a 22 year old grad student; the maturation and life experiences he had might have been the difference.
Velma, I think you have to approach things the same way. I disagree with the blog a bit in the notion that we are "academic elitists" in these matters. That's in the mix, to be sure, but if you have limited slots and limited money, you play the odds most of the time and admit those most likely to succeed. You may try to bring some diversity of background and education into the mix, but all else being equal I think you have an obligation to ensure your program admits students most likely to succeed. To do otherwise just because someone has been through the school of hard knocks doesn't do the student any favors.
I think we've probably all be in that situation. Looking back, I know now that I came out WAY too early. I really should've stayed in graduate school another year. However, that experience has given me a lot of insight--I have agreed in past searches that candidates should be denied because they weren't ready. Is that a troublesome attitude? Not to me--I'd rather not see them go through the struggles that I did. At a research I university, you've got to be able to hit the ground running (look at our recent hires--they know what to do), and I really wasn't ready to do that.
Of course, had I waited I wouldn't be here at Moo-U and wouldn't have met all you fine folks. :)
Thanks for the link and the kind words, I appreciate it.
Re: Dr. Cranky's point above, there is no question that I would've succeeded as a grad student right out of undergrad. As it was, I went into another BA program in which I had no experience whatsoever -- after a year of straight As, I decided that it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life.
The point is that I was seen as a top student by my undergrad profs, but that I had some of the same red flags that now disqualify applicants from my program. Relatedly, I was at a small liberal arts college where profs might not have known how to write the picture-perfect letters of recommendation that my committee seemed to be looking for. As an applicant, I would've ranked high in grades and raw intelligence, and very low in cultural capital.
I see the decisions of others on my committee as elitist because they're not even willing to consider contextual factors -- somewhat ironic, given that it is what my discipline does best.
Thanks for including me in a good discussion. Cheers...
Post a Comment