Filed under: The Academy | Tags: job market, letter of recommenation, negotation
Lately I have been obsessed with the ASA job boards. This is for one very solid reason–I must needs find a job. Between looking at postings, looking at the departmental websites, and being terrified that the only job offer I could possibly get would be at a teaching college in Texas (no offense Texans, just the one place I really REALLY don’t think I’d ever want to live), I’ve spent very little time thinking about what to do if I ever DO get a job offer. Thankfully, part of my fellowship includes taking part in seminars on the academy — including how to get a job. Today’s seminar was on Gender and the Academy. While there were several interesting points, there were two that I was most interested in.
1. Letter of Recommendation Writing:
Letters written for males and females differ greatly. As evidence, see this article, abstract below, by Trix and Psenka:
This study examines over 300 letters of recommendation for medical faculty at a large American medical school in the mid-1990s, using methods from corpus and discourse analysis, with the theoretical perspective of gender schema from cognitive psychology. Letters written for female applicants were found to differ systematically from those written for male applicants in the extremes of length, in the percentages lacking in basic features, in the percentages with doubt raisers (an extended category of negative language, often associated with apparent commendation), and in frequency of mention of status terms. Further, the most common semantically grouped possessive phrases referring to female and male applicants (`her teaching,’ `his research’) reinforce gender schema that tend to portray women as teachers and students, and men as researchers and professionals.
One of the speakers (a sociologist who studies inequality in organizations) suggested that in order to handle this occurrence, you should have a frank and open discussion with your letter writers about what you want them to include. Rather than just give them your vita and your statement for the job, give them talking points — the things you would like them to stress. Of course you can’t demand they address these things, but it is beneficial for two reasons: (1) You can get a better letter that includes the information that is most relevant to the job search; and (2) It makes it easier on the letter writer — especially those who are not intimately familiar with your work.
2. Job Negotiation:
Women tend not to negotiate like they should when they are offered a job. Keep in mind, if you ARE offered a job, the place REALLY WANTS YOU. It is a long process to pick a candidate, and if you are the candidate picked, they do have some investment in getting you to accept. This is highly important because of the Matthew Effect. Basically, if you start out with a lower wage or getting little, you will continue to get little as you advance. Women (and anyone, really) who do not negotiate a good and competitive starting salary, will continue NOT to get all they can as the years go on. This is one reason for the discrepancy between men and women in terms of salary (of course, it’s not the ONLY reason by far).
The speakers suggested the book, Women Don’t Ask. I haven’t read this yet, but feel I should in short order, as I am hopefully about to have to do some negotiation in the next few months.
Some pointers:
- Wages: Call the library and find out what recent hirers have gotten from the department that is trying to hire you. Adjust this for inflation. You should be asking for that much to start.
- If you get an offer, call everyone else that you have applied for and let them know that you have an offer on the table. Tell them you were excited about their job opportunity, and want to know where they are in their decision. This is important for many reasons. You may want a different job more. With more than one offer you can play them off each other. Remember THIS IS A NORMAL CONVERSATION TO HAVE with the chair of the department.
- If you can’t negotiate money (and even if you can), there are other things to negotiate for. Partner accommodation, Family Leave, teaching releases, sabbaticals, computers, tenure clock put on hold if you have children, and more. These are options to think about.
The important thing to remember about negotiation is that you can’t get it if you don’t ask. You are not a bitch for asking, but you are an idiot if you don’t. That was my favorite quote of the day.
Just keep telling yourself, they want me here. They WANT ME.
That’s right. I’m dropping out of grad school. Forget that I’m ABD with only one year of school left. I’m dropping out to join the team at National Geographic as a wilderness photographer:
Okay, so maybe I’m full of shit. But, I am absolutely in love with the Northwest. I don’t know how I’m going to return to the Midwest. If it wasn’t for Blue, I may just go renegade, learning sociology by stalking professors here… But, perhaps that’s not such a good idea.
How much of your professional dreams would you give up to live in the region you wanted to?
So, I’ve been gone for a while. I got to my fellowship, and they hadn’t arranged internet for us. So, it’s been spotty. I haven’t been able to write a post, much less read other people’s posts. But, I have done a lot of walking, and have to share this:
Imagine walking on your campus, all you can see is the normal buildings, and you make a turn and BAM you see the hills rolling into the distance. Damn, I love it here.
This campus is by far the most beautiful campus I’ve ever been on in my life. In fact, I’m hard pressed to remember any place I found more beautiful.
As I get settled in, I’ll post more. More to the point, I’ll start reading all of your posts more.
I’m not talking about the statistics*, of which there are many, that indicate that depression is common for graduate students. I’m not talking about the fact that we are in a profession where, according to Gary Alan Fine, 90% of our work will be judged unworthy. Our lack of lives outside of school, our inability to not feel guilty when we aren’t working constantly, our (often well founded) fears that we will not get the jobs we want… What I’m talking about are the unending leave takings that occur.
We enter into grad school, and through out our time as apprentices, we meet amazing professors, some truly inspiring undergraduates, and (perhaps most of all) fellow graduate students who will become our colleagues. And then, year by year, graduation by graduation, these people go away. Often, you are left behind — until, one day, you are the one who leaves.
Today I’m flying to my fellowship. When I get back, several people will be gone. One, at least, I didn’t get to know as well as I would like. The other, I have no words for how much I will miss him. And while I have no doubt we will still see these professors and graduate students at ASA and through travels, still contact them over email with questions and perhaps work together on projects, perhaps exchange cards and telephone calls, we will never again struggle through classes together. Or pass each other in the hallway and remark on how tired the other looks. We will never again be able to stop at each other’s desks and distract each other from getting work done.
Perhaps leave taking is just a part of life. Those of us who have lost loved ones, sometimes way too early and in circumstances that are almost more difficult than the losing itself, are constantly aware of this loss. Academia seems, to me, to heighten loss. It’s inevitable, year after year. And, I imagine it continues as we become professors and meet students who we will mentor and watch grow. Teach them all we can, and watch them leave. Not that there is not joy in this as well, but… it’s depressing.
In high school, I had a group of three friends who were incredibly important to me (not the only friends who were/are… but speaking of this one group in particular). Each was a different year in school (I was a freshman when the oldest was a senior). Each year, one of us left. In order to keep contact, we play Book of Questions over email. This has continued off and on now for around 11 years. We have gone through marriages (oddly, no kids), divorces, deaths of parents, graduations, new jobs — in short, from being 14 to being 29 (for me–add four years for the oldest). I think we’ve been through the book three times. It’s interesting to watch how our answers change. But, throughout all of this, it has highlighted to me as much as we try to stay in contact, our daily absence has made it impossible in any true nature. I wasn’t there when my friend went through her divorce. I wasn’t able to be there when her mother died (except via email), or when she married her wife. I wasn’t there when my oldest friend lost his mother. I could go on.
Friends we make in graduate school are perhaps a bit different than those we meet as children or teenagers. Yet, if we’re lucky, they are no less important. They challenge us mentally, teach us to think in new ways. My first year of my PhD program, I went through a horrible, life altering event — my mother committed suicide. For about a year, I barely held on to my own life. Thank God for Blue. I went to class, I did my homework, but all passion was gone. I was on autopilot. Enter Killa and Columbus — two graduate students in my program (my BrainTrust).
Killa is simply one of the most amazing people I’ve ever known. She’s kind, funny, and incredibly bright. She is my own personal cheerleader (even if I haven’t seen her in the outfit… yet). She has taught me about the kind of person you should try to be. While I could sing her praises for hours, it’s Columbus who is leaving, and he who inspired this post. To him I say:
Thank you. You are a constant inspiration to me to try to be better, to try to be more. You brought me back to sociology, to my passion just through being who you are. Through learning, you are constantly teaching me. To know you has given me constant surprise and joy. And, as much as I know we will continue to work together, my world will be less without having you here. Most of all, I wish you luck and happiness. I will miss you.
While academia is a constant source of loss, at least we know that we would not meet such people if this was not the circle in which we moved. The truly amazing, wonderful, intellects that sometimes we get to call friends.
*”Perhaps such figures help explain the recent finding that “depression and other forms of mental distress” were a serious problem in a study of more than 3,100 graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley. According to the study: “Nearly half of all survey respondents (45 percent) reported an emotional or stress-related problem that significantly impacted their academic performance or well-being.” Another 67 percent reported feeling hopeless at times, 95 percent felt overwhelmed in graduate school, and 54 percent said they had felt so “depressed that it was difficult to function.” About 10 percent had seriously considered suicide, and one in 200 had actually attempted suicide in the last year.” Also found here.
See website at end here.
While there are some successes in building communal knowledge, Wikipedia is a great example of this, at times all of this seems a little pie in the sky and idealistic. For example, the video says that the internet gives information to those who can’t afford to buy it. But, not everyone can afford internet. We can’t all participate in these online communities. Moreover, I’m wondering how successful most of these attempts are. As Aftersox writes:
I say it’s just a new way of thinking – not a better or worse way. So… I’ve hit my three paragraph limit here. I don’t expect anyone to read further than this.
I’ve noticed that sometimes, the posts in the socioblogopia (search on it here… thanks Anomie) that are the most complex, which often means they have the most ability to be developed into a communal idea, are not commented upon. I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the highly specialized nature of the knowledge we tend to share on these blogs.
For example, in a previous post I talk about affect control theory. While I know there are a few blogging social psychologists out there, that doesn’t mean they are familiar with that one particular theory. And, even if they are, that they would be able to answer a statistical question. And, for those that come with statistical or mathematical knowledge (like C.J.), may not understand enough by my admittedly overly simplistic description of the theory and research question to be able to give me input.*
So are some particular types of knowledge more eligible for this Utopian knowledge development? Or, perhaps it’s because millions of people do not read socioblogs, whereas they do Wikipedia? Perhaps this WILL get better as more people read blogs? As it becomes more common to be a part of this world? For example, if Heise was a blogger, maybe he would be full of comments on my idea.
*I know I just put the original ACT post up, so may still get comments. It’s just an example.
Filed under: crazy research ideas | Tags: affect control theory, identity, self
I’ve written and discussed before about my doubt of the position that there is no unified self. I’m wondering, however, how much it even matters if we do or we don’t. As I’ve argued before, even if we don’t have a unified self, most people believe that they do. And, if we believe something to be true, it’s true in its consequences. In other words, people will attempt to behave if there is some unification, will be stressed if different “selves” come into conflict with one another — negative emotions. I bring this up because I find myself wondering if we can predict identity adoption based on current identities. In other words, are individuals more likely to choose identities that are “closer” in meanings to identities they already have.
More concretely: Identities can be defined as the meanings one has for oneself in a particular role, group, etc. (ala Burke and Identity Theory). While IT doesn’t really strongly indicated where these meanings come from (Burke in his Mead/Cooley address says it’s cultural), other self theories (particularly affect control theory) more strongly indicate what these meanings are. In fact, ACT gives you a numerical value for each identity based on three dimensions of meaning: evaluation (how good or bad the identity is), potency (how strong or weak), and activity (how fast or slow) — all together called EPA. Let’s say you have a waitress. Her EPA is 1.46 0.25 1.63.* A teammate is 2.00 1.79 1.65. So, a teammate is somewhat better, more powerful, and a tiny bit more active than a waitress. Compare this to a nobody who is -1.01 -1.71 -1.89. Much worse, weaker, and much more passive than either a waitress or a teammate.
What I’m wondering is if identities will cluster in three dimensional space. In other words, are people more likely to be a waitress and a teammate (have those two identities) than to be a teammate and a nobody — because the first two would be closer together in the universal dimensions of meaning? I think you could make a case for this within ACT’s theoretical framework. I’m just not exactly sure how to test it. Any ideas?
*Go play with Interact, the ACT dictionaries website and applet, here.
This is just great.
Jeff Oliver sets up a “Meet a Black Guy” booth at an Oregon Farmer’s Market.
Found this over at Stuff White People Like.
I’ve mentioned before that I have lost someone to suicide. To memorialize this person, I got a tattoo on my wrist. The spot? Well, I can cover it with a watch if must needs and, in the area of coverage, this is not my only tattoo… so I’m running out of hidden areas to tat. Also, I like to be able to see it all the time.
Who knew that this was a fairly common occurrence? Getting a memorial tattoo? Well, it turns out it is. As I turn everything into sociology, I began a qualitative study interviewing individuals with memorial tattoos. The following is a picture of a tattoo a Vietnam Vet got to memorialize a fallen friend (killed by the kind of tank pictured).
I have spoken to people who have gotten tattoos to memorialize their mothers, fathers, children, friends, several military buddies, those who died on 9/11, and even a roommate that the tattooed person barely knew.
I have done a total of 17 interviews, and have come up against the wall. I NEED MORE. I am asking you, oh kind readers, to ask anyone you know with memorial tattoos to email me at pitselehsbackstage@gmail.com. If they do, I will send them more information about the study and arrange to do an interview (can do them over the phone) and a way to fill out the IRB.
Filed under: Random
J.K. Rowling’s speech at Harvard.
Posting this here for my perhaps two or three readers who do not read orgtheory.net.
At lot of this was stellar. But, at the point I’m at (trying to get a job), I liked this the best:
Your qualifications, your CV, are not your life, though you will meet many people of my age and older who confuse the two. Life is difficult, and complicated, and beyond anyone’s total control, and the humility to know that will enable you to survive its vicissitudes.
As a human, and a social psychologist, I loved this:
Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s minds, imagine themselves into other people’s places.
Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.
And, as a teacher, we have this:
And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.
I don’t have a great post planned, but since Columbus introduced me to paint.net, I’ve been wanting to share this:
Coleman explains The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism via macro-micro interaction.* While we can debate about there being double arrows or not, it’s an interesting explanation about how individual level beliefs and behaviors affect the social structure (and vice versa).
Quick explanation of chart: In order for the macro level to undergo the change (that the newly dominate Protestant religion resulted in the change of the structure to a capitalist economy) could only occur because of changes that concurrently occurred at the individual level. In this way, beliefs and attitudes created by the new culture caused a change in economic behaviors (behaviors that suggested that accumulating wealth indicated that an individual has a state of grace) led to the change to the capitalist economy at the macro level.
I was introduced to the Coleman boat my first semester in graduate school. I have since used this to explain the micro-macro connection to others, to myself, and in my prelim question (What’s social about social psychology? In your answer trace the history of the field… or something to that affect). It’s a clear case of keeping notes from your very first class.
