Put the Motive in Motivation!!

I have been trying to find decent motivation for and attention to my work for the better part of this year. After I advanced to candidacy, I pretty much went on brain freeze. Oh sure, I had two good weeks right after advancing where I was all EXCITED and shit… but now I feel like I’m dragging my ass to the books, taping my eyelids open only to discover that at the end of the day, I’ve managed to half-heartedly read a chapter of something instead of finishing the book I meant to finish.

The isolation is getting to me. I think I need to plan more lunches or coffees – something to force a schedule, someone to be accountable to. “Did you finish those books you were reading”

Ultimately, I have to find the motive to motivate myself. WHY IN THE HELL AM I DOING THIS TO MYSELF?

I know the reasons: I love what I do. I read and think and talk about it for a living. I am actually committed to the idea of public higher education, to education at the undergrad – lower division, even – level. As I said before, I really do believe that my research has value and part of that value is my teaching… SO

GET OFF YOUR ASS, GET A COFFEE AND GET TO WORK!!

I just requested summer teaching, so maybe I’ll get to test out all my fucking brilliant teaching skills and ideas and come up with the perfect survey course.

Some more meaningful bogging is in the works, I just want to get through some work first. *sigh*

On Being Busy

It has certainly been a while since I last posted around here, and I wish that wasn’t the case. Here’s a brief update:

1. I got engaged in August. Long story short, he asked me “How’s next summer?” We’re getting married next summer back in Home County and are very excited, but a little bit stressed about the planning.

2. I love-hate my boobs. They’re enormous, but the Rack of Doom (thanks Kate Harding for this term) just doesn’t fit in and stupid store bought dress, and frankly, neither does my fat ass. Why? Because apparently fat girls don’t get to shop off the rack – and I am totally not about to put half down (non-refundable) to order a dress is a size I haven’t tried on. So I’m considering dressmakers.

3. As a result, dissertation research is going slow. I had hoped to have a chapter done by now and I don’t. Boooo!

4. My (university owned) apartment has a water leak in one of the closets, and termites in the ceiling trusses – or maybe HAD – the termite guy is coming today.

5. I once worked as a nanny for a Jewish family and had a discussion with the father about the smashing of a glass at a Jewish wedding. M- said almost nonchalantly that it served as a reminder of the destruction of the Temple and earthly suffering, and as a reminder to participate in Tikkun Olam, the healing or mending of the world. I like  these explanations, and as my dissertation is largely about the destruction of the Temple, I am considering adding this to our ceremony. I am not sure how my fiance will react to this proposition.

(NB although I am a scholar of religion, and even to a certain extent, of ancient Judaism, I am not actually familiar with the development of this tradition.)

6. I am struggling with another fellowship application. I’m trying to abstract my diss to 200 words (!!) THAT’S NOT FAIR and I’m trying to find the most eloquent way to express the relevance of my project to the study of religious values (which has not been required of any other application I’ve submitted so far).  **sigh**

7. In the event that any readers of In the Pink have clicked here after reading my comments, Hello!

And with, that, I’ll leave you again, until I have something more substantial to say.

OH.

8. PUBLIC OPTION NOW! Either it’s a moral imperative to provide health care to everyone, or it isn’t. I think it is.

9. Watch Zombieland!! If you’re lucky, it might still be out in theaters, but you might have to Netflix it

10. Also, Roman Polanski is an as ass nugget who deserves to be prosecuted.

Why be an academic asshole?

I found a stupid article* by a stupid scholar* about what I was planning on writing in my stupid dissertation. “SHITFUCK,” was, I believe, my actual response. And yes, it actually does generally what I was going to do in chapter 3. The good news is, (1) I haven’t actually started writing, (2) it’s a pretty good article, (3) it doesn’t have the same scope that my chapter will have, and (4) now I don’t have to do the work that she did, and I can build on it instead. In the end, I think I spent about 2 hours in a state of panic & fear, and then I realized that it’s really ok – in fact, it’s probably good for me to have someone who has published well-articulated thoughts that I can respond to and build on.

One colleague, another grad student, said, “It’s ok. Just find what she did wrong and tear her up.”

I personally find the idea that everyone else is wrong and must be destroyed to be disgusting and horrible and counter-productive to scholarly conversation in the humanities. In my area of studies, it’s totally possible to have different, but equally plausible interpretations or explanations of the primary source materials (the data). I prefer to think of scholarship as collaborative rather than competitive, as building and improving on the work other scholars have done, and as a discussion. I think setting out to “prove someone wrong” or “tear someone up” is unnecessarily combative. 

Jacob Neusner, for example, was out of line, unprofessional and downright mean in his review of Shaye Cohen’s book The Beginnings of Jewishness. I won’t even bother citing the review, because it was largely an ad-hominem attack of a younger scholar by a famous and important older scholar. Neusner’s review did not impress me at all. It made me think he’s unprofessional and mean. It did not make me want to read more of Neusner’s work. It did not make me want to talk to him. It caused me lose almost all respect for the man, as a scholar and a human being. To be fair, I have never met Jacob Neusner, and I’ve certainly not read all of his books, and he has made some very important contributions to scholarship.

Likewise, I am not impressed by in-person attacks at professional conferences. It just makes the attacker look like an asshole. In short: there are respectful and professional ways to speak to and about the work of other scholars while challenging, critiquing and even disagreeing with or disproving their conclusions or methods. It is simply unnecessary and unprofessional to be an asshole.

*where “stupid articele” means “a pretty good article about my own topic, therefore I hate it for no good reason” and “stupid scholar” means “a well-respected scholar who writes well about what I wanted to write about and therefore I hate her for no good reason”

Academy Schmacademy

** the following was composed in 3/14/09 **
Today is a day of disillusionment.

I work very hard at my own research projects. I work very hard to prepare to teach my classes and to help my students. I make an effort to participate in the larger academic community here at Beach U and through national/international scholarly societies. As already noted I believe that my scholarship and teaching contribute to something bigger than my area of study or my dissertation – I believe that my scholarship contributes to a greater understanding of human experience and meaning, and I believe that I can teach critical thinking, reading & writing skills to students who will, as a result, be better able to participate in society (as voters, as parents, as human beings).

But you know what? My university doesn’t think I (or most of my colleagues) are worth supporting. I have received the bare minimum of financial support from my department and my university. Now, I know it’s a little ridiculous to expect “free money” and I DON’T. All I’m talking about here is tuition remission and salary to work as a TA or teaching associate.

I proposed 3 summer classes, all of which are regularly taught by advanced graduate students in the summer. I didn’t get any of them.

The basic Western Civ class in my department is split into 3 terms. I proposed to teach the ancient portions (Western Civilization, Ancient). I am one of a few people in my department who is both a specialist in ancient religions of the Mediterranean and actually interested in teaching the first term, the “ancient” part of the Western Civ series. They offered the summer class to a recent graduate — because he graduated he’s no longer under union contract and therefore cheaper. THEN, they canceled the class for the fall term, so I won’t be teaching that one either. Jerks.

** end previous post, which was never finished **

Since writing the above post I have been offered a job teaching basic writing composition – a 3 term contract, decent pay, tuition/fee remission and only one class of 25 per term. It’s a freaking great deal and I think it would be a great experience…. HOWEVER

I was just offered a year long fellowship, which includes a stipend and tuition/fee remission!! This is great news, and now I feel much more appreciated by both my department (which nominated me for the fellowship) and graduate division (which awarded me the fellowship).

So, this makes me fell a little bit better, but doesn’t solve or answer all of my concerns about the way that the university treats graduate students – especially graduate students in the humanities.

RE: Mark C. Taylor’s NYT Op-Ed Piece

I read Mark C. Taylor’s NYT Op-Ed piece this morning. It kind of pissed me off.

I’m absolutely do not think that either abolishing tenure or enforcing mandatory retirement are going to solve the problems of the academy. In fact, I think it might be a really bad idea.

Prof. Taylor, do you really want the professorate to be a “7 year contract job”??? How will you get any commitment to or personal investment in an institution? Do you really want to look for a new job every 7 years? Do you really want professors to move & relocate their research every 7 years? That’s time & connections lost. Do you really want professors to uproot their families every 7 years? That’s probably 2 people looking for new jobs and kids in new schools, new scout troops, baseball teams, dance classes etc. I don’t want that. In fact, I think it SUCKS.

I for one, think we should be making the academy MORE family friendly, not less. I think we should be making it a better, happier & healthier place to work. I think universities & colleges should WANT faculty who are committed to their institution & students, and have a vested interest in it because it treats them well both as instructors/
researchers and as human beings instead of as brains on sticks. I think that’s actually the way to get professors to stay sharp at their jobs. If we expect a reasonable amount of work from professors rather than expecting them to cut out friends, family, sleep, etc. we might actually get professors who are better at their jobs overall.

The idea of finding a new job every 7 year and potentially moving to a new state every 7 years is particularly detrimental to women, especially those with children. 1. In hetero families, it is still typically the man’s job that determines family location and every time a hetero family has to move it is likely that the woman will be the one to take whatever job she can find. 2. Women are more frequently the family care-givers, still, which makes it likely that the woman will be the one managing more of move and making childcare arrangements (yes, I am aware that this is a generalization and that many of the fathers I know don’t like it any more than I do). 3. These 2 factors combine to make it likely that a woman’s earning potential falls, which is bad for the family, but also bad for her in the event of divorce or death of her spouse (God forbid).

However, I agree that it’s time to start training graduate students with skills and experience that are relevant outside of the university – but also that it’s time to stop treating graduate students as monkey-slaves who can do so much of the dirty work that is ESSENTIAL to the functioning of a univeristy (i.e. running lab research, teaching sections, grading papers, meeting with students and lecturing/adjuncting to teach courses as instructors of record for crappy pay, without good support (that is, offices etc.) and without benefits).

Taylor is right, something has to change. Nobody likes being treated like a brain on a stick, and we are producing PhDs faster than we can employ them in the academy, but I don’t think that abolishing tenure, enforcing mandatory retirement or shifting to 7 years contract exclusively are good ideas.

Livia Augusta, C.Phil.

The Arch of Titus, Rome

I am officially a doctoral candidate!

The oral exam was virtually painless – I wasn’t asked to talk about questions that I didn’t answer on my written exams, the whole thing was mostly a conversation about my prospectus. I was asked to clarify some points in my exams that relate to my dissertation project (points about the usefulness of theoretical approaches, significance of some prior scholarship).

I was asked to define Hellenization and to describe the Hellenization of the Jews… you know, nothing hard.

The only question that really threw me was something about Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue – which I didn’t remember and had to ask about before I could go on (it’s the one that “predicts” the golden age and Augustus).

I was mostly showered with praise for the exams and the prospectus, and asked how I would tie things together. I got comments on my bibliography, and some reading recommendations. They even helped me decide which chapter to start with when I start my research – which is good since I don’t know how the hell to write a dissertation!!

So, now I have to come up with a working title and get started. I don’t really have a title yet, and I’d like to have one handy!

I am really surprised how painless the oral exam was. First, I was sent out for about 10 minutes while the professors discussed what they wanted to cover in the exam. Then in the first hour we talked about my exams and how the things I wrote are related to my dissertation, how to tie different things together. Then in the next hour and a half we talked about my dissertation, what my questions really are, and how my work will contribute to the larger scholarly conversation. After about the first 15 minutes of talking with the professors I felt ok, and it didn’t really feel like an exam or a defense. It felt like a very supportive and constructive conversation and critique of  my project. I’m kind of stunned at how easy it was in the end, how not scary it was, and how much praise I received.  It was kind of anti-climactic, like my written exams were.

So, I’m Livia Augusta, C.Phil.

Finally.

Beach U. SMACKDOWN: Livia vs. Three Professors

The madness ensues as Livia Augusta steps into the ring with not one, not two, but THREE tenured professors and fights for her life (or the life of her academic & professional career, anyway) for three long hours, while wearing appropriate professional attire and trying not to twitch from the combination of sleep deprivation and too much coffee. Livia takes on The Advisor, The Roman History Guy, and the Ancient Judaism Guy at 10am Beach University time, TOMORROW. Will she defeat the trio of academic hotshots or will she be sent back to the library to try another day? WILL SHE ADVANCE TO CANDIDACY? WILL SHE SOON BE KNOW AS LIVIA AUGUSTA, C.Phil.?? Tune in tomorrow to find out.

(That’s right folks, Livia is finally having her oral exam and defending her dissertation proposal. Livia now returns to her regularly scheduled reviewing & panicking.)

Institutionalized Hazing

There’s got to be a better way to advise students through the exam and prospectus parts of a doctoral program. It’s fucking brutal out there.

Now, this is not to suggest that my advisors are bad advisors. In fact, my advisors all pretty much rocks and my issues are more about the processes of doctoral exams, deciding on a dissertation topic and writing a prospectus. Let’s face it, the process is pretty much institutionalized hazing, a professional gauntlet to run that leaves us bruised, bloodied and broken on the inside and exhausted, pudgy and pale on the outside. There has got to be a way to guide students through the process of reading 3-5 books a week (or a book a day if you’re a sick, sick bastard) that doesn’t leave them numb to the world and in a perpetual state of panic. In retrospect, there are a number of things I would have done differently.

First, I would like more accountability for me and for my examiners. For me that means meeting weekly with someone to talk about what I read that week – even if it’s a friend who doesn’t know what I study. Just someone asking, “So, what did you read this week?” For my examiners it means they need to keep track of my reading list and periodically check to be sure we’re on the same page about what’s going to be on the exam, what’s necessary etc. You see, I, and a number of people I know, ended up with a “surprise” list of 20-40 items to read in the last month or two of preparation. That shouldn’t happen when an examiner has a copy of an exam reading list early in the process.

Second, having a discussion about what exactly they think a “field exam” is would be very helpful. What kind of scope do they except? It’s also very important to know what is realistic – can a human actually read 800 pages in a day? What kind of reading is required? Can it be skimming or must it be analytical, critical reading? Do I need to know the details or just the big picture? How many of the books on a given list should the student be expected to know and how many should the student be expected to know about?

So, the process could be made so much easier if 1) the examiner and the student have a clear conversation about what the examiner means when s/he says “field exam,” 2) the examiner has a reasonable expectation for the time frame in which said number of books should be read, 3) the examiner actually sets and reviews the exam reading list with enough time for the student to get through it (or mostly through it) by the exam date – that is, the examiner should not add an exorbitant number of books in the last month or two before the exam date because s/he should have set the list early on and should have reviewed the list with the student. While I am fully aware that graduate students need to take responsibility for a lot of this, many of us really have no idea what the process is like or what we’re expected to do in the process of changing from a student to a professional scholar – but our advisors, examiners and committee members do know what it’s like, and it’s something they can teach us and advise us on.

All I’m getting at is that there’s got a better way to do these things, and that both students and examiners need to know what’s going on and be accountable to each other. So, how we do find better ways to advise and supervise our own students through these processes?

My White Privilege is showing.

In my drive to take myself more seriously and present a more professional image so that I will be taken seriously, I came across numerous references to an incident at a law firm. Glamour Magazine editors giving a presentation on “Professional Image” at Cleary Gottleib proclaimed that afros and dreadlocks are not appropriate for the workplace because they are “too political.” In other words, people of African descent are expected to use chemicals on their hair and scalp and spend time & money forcing their hair to look straighter, smoother and, let’s face it, more white, in order to present a professional image in the workplace.

Now, there are very few times when my white privilege is apparent to me. I can’t help it. I’m white, so it never occurred to me that black hair still carried that kind of baggage in the work place and it never occurred to me to think about the ways hair might carry such different meaning for black women than it does for me. A few recent blogs piqued my interest and sparked reflection on my own professional image & hair dilemma.

In some ways I felt like cutting my hair was giving in to a patriarchal, established ideal about how women are supposed to be and look. Pretty women aren’t supposed to be intelligent and capable and they certainly can’t count on being taken seriously in the academic world. I felt like keeping my hair a stance against such sexist bullshit, but you know what? I often wore it up when teaching or presenting a paper – because it wasn’t professional. So I was giving in already. And really, I do want to be taken seriously and a hair cut wasn’t that big a deal for me. It didn’t occur to me that women of different race, cultures or religions might have a different relationship with their hair.

But I’m lucky enough to benefit from white privilege. The black women whose blogs I linked to above don’t have that privilege. Adriel Arocha wasn’t so lucky – and he’s a male kindergartener! My friend Kosher Academic is a modern Orthodox Jew and a Ph.D. student and she’s written a number of posts about her feelings & experience with hair covering, and although I read them, I never really thought about the difference between her experience with her hair and mine or how her religion or religious ideas about her hair might run up against a standard idea of professional image. I mean, it’s not in my daily experience to think about the affects of being an Orthodox Jew on anyone’s academic or professional image. Maybe she’ll find time (between school, marriage and kids – heh) to write a little bit about her experiences in academia as a woman and a Jew. (Hint = request for something I’d like to read on your blog or talk about at Big Professional Conference).

At any rate I don’t know how to express my outrage about the varieties of prejudice against black women (or men, for that matter) wearing their hair in a natural style in a way that isn’t condescending or that doesn’t presume to understand an experience I can simply never have, but I want to try to be more attentive to these kinds of issues in the academic and professional world. People should not be expected to change the natural states of their hair or body and they should be allowed to wear culturally and religiously significant clothes, head coverings and hair without being told it’s unprofessional. I guess the best thing I can do is call attention to the issue and call people on it when they express prejudicial attitudes.