The REAL ShockProf

Well, another professor has made news for inappropriate behavior. One might think that perhaps this is another plagairism incident, or a professor who has fudged data, or even a (GASP) inappropriate sexual relationship with a student. None of the above, I'm afraid.

This professor, a faculty member at Fort Hays State University in Kansas, became upset when his debate team received a low score. He ranted and raved, and then concluded by mooning the crowd. Of course, it ended up on YouTube (and thus begins your 15 minutes of fame, Dr. Shanahan!).

Now, I can certainly understand getting angry when things don't go your way. And while this isn't part of my personality, I can see how ranting, raving, and other generally unprofessional behavior might occur during an argument. But I'm a little stumped as to how the act of "dropping trou" gets out there in a moment of passion. Is this some male thing I don't understand? I thought mooning was something guys--OK, and girls too--did when they were drunk and stupid, not angry...

P.S. Whatever you do, do NOT search Google images for "mooning". You can't ever unsee that.

Last Lecture

Many of you were probably already following this story. If you were, it is worth a refresher. If not, watch the YouTube video when you have an extra 75 minutes and it will inspire you. Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Randy Pausch gave his “Last Lecture” last fall after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The classroom was overflowing with faculty, staff, and community members, and the video has been viewed over 6 million times on YouTube alone. He also wrote a book about the experience. Sadly, Randy lost his battle with cancer on July 25^th.

Tips for Good Reviewing

This morning, the Chronicle covered a recent panel at the ASA meetings in Boston regarding the importance of peer review. Several suggestions were made to potential reviewers to improve the process (short of providing pay for review services, which I'm sure would improve them dramatically). They are:

1. Communicate clearly: avoid bulleted lists of strong & weak points. Present a thorough analysis of the paper instead.
2. Give careful thought about revisions: are the problems fixable?
3. Be civil: boy, have I ranted about this in the past. The one that still kills me: "This author obviously knows nothing about statistics." I suppose that means all of you to whom I have taught statistics know nothing as well. Sorry about that, guys.
4. Don't be selfish: I admit, I do look to see if the authors cite me if the topic is close to my own work. However, my own vanity won't have anything to do with whether it's a good paper. AND, if they don't cite me and they should have, I always include a list of recommended articles to review related to the topic. After all, I wouldn't want to be obvious about it...
5. Don't be lazy. This is something I wish more reviewers took under consideration. Of course, reviewing takes time. Of course, we aren't compensated for it. But--how will the quality of articles published improve if we don't take the time to help others? I read SO, SO, SO many bad articles--honestly, it can get rather depressing. When I'm writing those reviews, I always keep in mind that the manuscript may have been written by a student. Any and all helpful comments I can provide will only improve their work, as I hope those who read my work will also provide constructive comments.
   

And here's one of my own:

1. Check for plagiarism. You'd be suprised how many people recycle literature reviews (or sometimes entire manscripts). As I've written previously, some journals do routinely check for plagiarism, but most don't. I received an article to review last month (DAMN--gotta send that back) in the mail. Snail mail. A HARD COPY. Seriously, isn't everyone electronic these days? Obviously, that journal cannot check for plagiarism very easily, but you can! (http://www.articlechecker.com)

How about it? Anyone else have suggestions for reviewers?

Stick to Teaching

Stanley Fish has a new book out on teaching entitled Save the World on Your Own Time, and he has a nice interview in inside higher ed. Here is an excerpt from the book -

(Professors) They “can (legitimately) do two things: (1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge and traditions of inquiry that had not previously been part of their experience; and (2) equip those same students with the analytical skills — of
argument, statistical modeling, laboratory procedure — that will enable them to move confidently within those traditions and to engage in independent research after a course is over.”

And what should they not do? Everything else.

As suggested from the title, Fish discusses the importance of keeping teaching time focused on inquiry and training - not social advocacy.

While I, for the most part, agree, I have also had some success in service-learning approaches to class. In addition, it is difficult for me to show a film on the Innocence Project without engaging in some advocacy. It is a fine line. Thoughts?

What They Didn't Teach You in Graduate School

The newest edition of the Chronicle has a great article discussing things new grads should know, but probably aren't taught in school.

Of course, we try very hard to make sure our students understand some of these, such as "don't take a job without having completed your Ph.D.", but the rest really aren't discussed in much detail. I may have to post this on my door--most of the points made are very useful to doctoral students and new assistant professors.

There is one I must disagree with, however. The advice to "change your career or move every 7 years" may apply to some fields, but I don't see how it benefits people in our fields. In fact, if I knew someone who changed jobs every 7 years, I'd wonder why they don't just say put. Perhaps this is because there are a limited number of top-tier research jobs available in CJ.... thoughts on that one?

Bringing New Meaning to "Dr. Mom"

The other day I was browsing around one of my favorite local boutiques, Shine.

I was looking for a gift for a friend, and Shine has all kinds of cool, kitschy items that make perfect (and unique) gifts. Near the register I spied a display of small buttons emblazoned with various witty images and phrases. One in particular caught my attention, and I knew immediately that I had to have it:


Isn't that awesome?! I'm going to add it to the flair on my ASC name badge.

P.S. I picked one up for Velma and ShockProf, too. Unfortunately, the buttons do not appear on Shine's website, so fellow "Dr. Mom"s interested in getting one might consider contacting the store to inquire about ordering via phone.

Don't Call Yourself "Doctor" in Germany

The German authorities are laying down the law. It seems that academics in Germany are only allowed to use the title "Doctor" (or "Doktor") if they received their Ph.D. from a German institution. Three American Ph.D.s were charged with misuse of title by the German government. If convicted, the academics charged with this offense could face up to one year in prison.

One academic, DOCTOR Ian T. Baldwin was interviewed by the Chronicle. According to the German government:

Mr. Baldwin’s legally correct designation, as a subsequent letter from the Thuringian Culture Ministry spelled out, is “Professor Ian T. Baldwin, Ph.D., Cornell University (Ithaca, New York).” A professorship at Jena’s Friedrich Schiller University entitles him to call himself a professor.

Interesting that the title must include that his degree was received in the United States.

While we can certainly make jokes about the Nazi-like behavior of the German government here, this law really does date back to the Nazi era. It was designed to keep citizens from impersonating police officers and later expanded to include academics. But why would those holding degrees from German universities be allowed to use the title? Another example of German superiority?

From: Der Spiegel:

The laws on the books are based on legislation dating to 1939, when the Nazi government eyed all foreign degrees with suspicion and required that non-German doctors be authorized by the Reich Ministry of Science, Education and Culture.

After some consideration, the government will allow those holding doctorates from "selected" American universities to use the title. No word on whether any non-Americans were charged with this offense.

*Update: The Washington Post states that researchers who obtained Ph.D.s from EU institutions are allowed to use the title "Doctor" as of 2001. So, Germany is at least enlightened enough to consider other European degrees to be acceptable. Ph.D.s from other countries, however, will not be recognized.

**Another update: The German government is quite upset by this scandal, and they're trying to figure out why the charges were filed in the first place. Some claim that a disgruntled researcher at the Max Plank Instutite went to the authorities in order to make trouble for Dr. Baldwin et al.

Is There Still A Need for Women's Studies?

I ran across this article last night about the state of women's studies in the U.K. It seems there are few stand-alone WS departments there, and some are claiming that their goals have been accomplished and they are no longer needed.

I'm not sure this is true, but my perceptions are colored (or should I say coloured?) by the situation in the U.S. I've seen WS expanding in this country, and I would argue these programs are still relevant and timely.

Given that many criminal justice programs share faculty with women's studies, this seems like a relevant issue for criminologists, particularly people like me who study violence against women. I've also seen increased job opportunities for joint WS/CJ positions.

What do you think--are women's studies departments on their way out?

Tips for the first five will carry you all the way to full

Scatterplot has a great post by older woman containing advice for new assistant professors. The information included is priceless and I think it can be adapted for use during grad school, the job search, and well on the path to full professor. Here is the most important piece of advice:

Make sure you understand as soon as possible what kind of institution you are at and what it takes to get tenure.

I would also add that you should figure out what kind of scholar you are and what you want to produce before tenure. I like running on the academic treadmill - this choice is not for everyone. Meaning can come from a myriad of different academic products, so find a place that will appreciate you.

I am lucky to report that I made it over the first hurdle of tenure last week, so I thought I would add a few experiences and tips for success of my own. We have a unique tenure process in which the fulls must review your tenure packet and then vote to certify that you ready for the tenure application process. (Cranks notes that the process is much like Certiorari). Step one - done.

I now have to ask three faculty members to serve on my tenure committee. Each member is responsible for a part of my packet (teaching, service, research). I also have to give some suggestions for external reviewers.

You may be saying, it is only March, why is V getting all of this stuff together? This leads me to my point for today.

• The tenure process does not last six years - you really only have 4 years to get manuscripts completed so that they can be reviewed. Get at much done as you can, as early as you can.
• Take advantage of the third year review. We were required to put together a research, teaching, and service statement early on. It was such a relief to have those done. In the same light, start tracking citations NOW. It is a pain - why not start the process early?

I hope this helps. I will share more thoughts as I move along in the process. Remember (from older woman's post), when in doubt -

Don’t take anything personally, especially not at first. People will probably treat you as insignificant, not because they think ill of you, but because they are socially inept. HEE!

Typical Faculty Meeting?

Wish I could take credit for posting this, but it comes ala El Jefe in Texas. This gives you a good idea what our faculty meetings can be like:

http://glumbert.com/wii/view.php?name=baddayoffice