Maybe it’s silly to get so upset over the death of a cat. But this one was around for eighteen years, which is very close to half my life. He had a good last day today.
Author Archives: ghw
blogs on amazon
Like Chuck, my blog is listed on Amazon.
on having a mentor
While at MLA 2004, I’ll meet with two of my professors from grad school (not at the blogger meet-up, mind you), people whose approach to their subject matter has had an important influence on my approach to my subject matter. They are, I would venture to say, my mentors. Saying that, however, causes me to feel a bit of embarrassment, like a grown-up who still sleeps with a security blanket: “Do you still need a mentor? Don’t you have your PhD, now? Aren’t you a professor, yourself?” Well, yes. But I still have my doubts and uncertainties, and I’m still not entirely sure how best to accomplish certain things in my career, like getting my book published.
On the one hand, we all develop into mostly self-sufficient individuals, but on the other hand, it’s still helpful to have someone say, “Yes, I went through what you’re going through, and here’s what I did.” On the third hand, I am not always comfortable admitting to my senior colleagues when I am having trouble with something because it sounds, in my own ears, like whining.
My questions for you, dear reader, are these (answer anonymously, if you like):
If you’re in academia…
- Are you still in grad school or are you finished, now?
- Do you have a mentor?
- What role does your mentor play?
- What role do you wish your mentor played?
- Are you a mentor to someone else? In what way?
If you’re not in academia…
- Do you have a mentor?
- What role does your mentor play?
- What role do you wish your mentor played?
- Are you a mentor to someone else? In what way?
the importance of peer review
Revisiting the FIPSE issue:
When politicians intervene in the awarding of grants for academic work, it’s never good news. Federal grant programs–which, in addition to FIPSE, include the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities–are usually competitive; grants are judged through a process called peer review (see Wikipedia entry) by volunteer scholars who are experts in the field. So if you submit a FIPSE application that is related to, say, environmental science, the program administrators try to get people who are experts in environmental science to review your proposal. These experts make their recommendation to the program administrators, who then make the decision on whether to fund your application.
You would think that someone with as much experience in the federal government as Ralph Regula (R-OH) would understand how the system works. But here’s what he says in the Chronicle of Higher Education article:
“Fipse doesn’t have all the knowledge in the world,” Mr. Regula said. “The bureaucracy in Washington doesn’t always have the last word on what is valuable to society.”
That’s right. That’s why FIPSE asks experts in the relevant field to review the applications. Regula is either ignorant or lying when he says he thinks “[t]he bureaucracy in Washington” is deciding whether to fund these projects.
This is where it gets really good: under the old system, bureaucrats in Washington did not judge the proposals. Under the new system, justified by Regula’s bureaucrat-bashing rhetoric, they do. Oh, irony, thy name is Republican Party!
This sets a dangerous precedent. FIPSE isn’t really that generously funded a program, but the NSF is, and the NEH is no small potatoes, either. Imagine what would happen if Congress gets used to the idea of taking over funding decisions–in other words, taking away the current, peer-reviewed process. Might we start to see funding dwindle even more for scientific research that contradicts conservative dogma regarding the origin of species or human sexual behavior? Perhaps the NEH will no longer support work on writers who don’t represent family values.
blah, blah, blah, or…
…gender and blogging, part 3. (See part 1 and part 2.)
Much gnashing of teeth is taking place in the comments section of this Crooked Timber entry.
The Little Professor asks, “[I]sn’t putting abstract speculation before data collection sort of like, oh, putting the cart before the horse?” My thoughts exactly. To put it another way, we cannot have a debate about the causes for X until we have established that X exists.
Some of the comments to this entry suggest that a drug is needed for the irony impaired.