In contrast, the work I do now has precious little space for "screwing off." In fact, if I'm not cogitating like mad while staring until my eyes cross at something I'm trying to teach, study or write about, I'm not really working. Academe allows you no illusions about that. 

However, even if I only spend 5 or 6 hours a day doing this, I make no apologies. I defy anyone to find any work that's more demanding and exhausting than the sort of sharply focused thinking and expression that are the norm in the academic workplace. Quality is "harder" than quantity, in other words, regardless of how hostile Joe Sixpack--who I have, in a former life, actually been--is towards anyone who work doesn't involve long, drab hours of compromised liberty and diminished dignity.

Writing and teaching especially are among the purest, most concentrated forms of intellectual work known to humankind. They're murderous, most of us do some almost every day, and they allow you no illusions about your productivity; nobody is going to pat you on the back and say "You've done your shift" if, unknown to them, instead of busting brain over some mind-twistingly esoteric intellectual problem, you've spent half the day playing computer solitaire and e-mailing friends. Yet the white collar worker bee who spends 10-15 hours a week doing exactly that scoffs at profs who "only" stand in front of a class nine hours a week. Teaching is really not that different from writing either: done well, it requires endless preparation and a level of focus, concentration and sheer presence of mind found hardly anywhere outside of an surgical operating room.

Anyone in academe who spends 40-50 hours a week at those levels of concentration is working about as hard as a human being can work and still expect to function well physically, emotionally, socially and mentally. I suspect that our sociopathic president is one of the casualties of the sort of intellectual overwork that's typical enough of the academy to have produced the stereotypes of the absent minded professor, the pocket protectored geek, and the socially crippled bookworm,  among others. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Enough said/I'm for bed . . .

What Work Is, Part II wrote:

---

In contrast, the work I do now has precious little space for "screwing off." In fact, if I'm not cogitating like mad while staring until my eyes cross at something I'm trying to teach, study or write about, I'm not really working. Academe allows you no illusions about that.  However, even if I only spend 5 or 6 hours a day doing this, I make no apologies. I defy anyone to find any work that's more demanding and exhausting than the sort of sharply focused thinking and expression that are the norm in the academic workplace. Quality is "harder" than quantity, in other words, regardless of how hostile Joe Sixpack--who I have, in a former life, actually been--is towards anyone who work doesn't involve long, drab hours of compromised liberty and diminished dignity. Writing and teaching especially are among the purest, most concentrated forms of intellectual work known to humankind. They're murderous, most of us do some almost every day, and they allow you no illusions about your productivity; nobody is going to pat you on the back and say "You've done your shift" if, unknown to them, instead of busting brain over some mind-twistingly esoteric intellectual problem, you've spent half the day playing computer solitaire and e-mailing friends. Yet the white collar worker bee who spends 10-15 hours a week doing exactly that scoffs at profs who "only" stand in front of a class nine hours a week. Teaching is really not that different from writing either: done well, it requires endless preparation and a level of focus, concentration and sheer presence of mind found hardly anywhere outside of an surgical operating room. Anyone in academe who spends 40-50 hours a week at those levels of concentration is working about as hard as a human being can work and still expect to function well physically, emotionally, socially and mentally. I suspect that our sociopathic president is one of the casualties of the sort of intellectual overwork that's typical enough of the academy to have produced the stereotypes of the absent minded professor, the pocket protectored geek, and the socially crippled bookworm,  among others. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

---

I'm convinced. An excellent presentation.

Cossack wrote:

---

While I agree with the posts that are testimony to what we do in academics, the approach is not useful in convincing the public of our value. Our value is determined in the academic market where faculty are bid away based on their accomplishments. The market has shown that many of USM faculty were more valuable to other universities than to USM. They have left for more money and usually to a more prestigious institution. They are valuable because they have produced an academic record that other institutions want. The other institutions are paying them more money and giving them even lighter loads. The universities that recruited them never asked them how many hours a week they worked. They looked at their record and work in progress and said, good enough. The value of what you produce is measured by what the market will pay, not based on hours worked. However, there usually is a work component involved and no surprisingly those bid away are hard workers.

The critics of faculty that point to hours worked are using the Marxist socialist model of output and reward which has been proven flawed over and over. If the critics were truly interested in the quality of USM faculty, they would ditch the Marxian model of evaluation (hours worked) and look at the high market value of faculty as evidenced by the exodus of valuable faculty. Also, the critics should be thankful that some faculty would require a premium to move that is too high for the market to pay. That premium is being asked by some faculty because of varying reasons; family considerations, locked into a retirement system for a few more years, or geographical preferences to name a few.

The only people that look at USM as a success are SFT, the Board, and some goofy alumni who want to punish faculty. Ole Miss and State know that what is going on at USM is a loser situation, but will only work to protect themselves, and hire away someone that is valuable. As an aside for all the sports fans of USM, a badly run university cannot sustain athletic success. The Athletic side of the University is beginning to unravel and it will continue to go down hill for some time.

---

Cossack,

I like your post - as I tell my students, ultimately you will be evaluated on your results not how "hard" you work. This fluffy mentality that having an employee work "hard" equates with getting your money's worth from that employee is fantasy. Only results matter. However hard you need to work in order to achieve superior results is your problem, all anyone else should care about is the results achieved. On this score, USM more than gets its money out of its faculty as near-miracles are achieved almost daily given the scarce resources, poor benefits and low pay that we are given in return.

I don't know where all this 9-5 B.S. is coming from. What's at issue here is the fact that a unit (psych) with a 2/2 teaching load had a faculty member (Mitch) come on this board and say that a 2/2 was a heavy load for comparable programs in that area.

Subsequent to that remark, we have learned that psych uses relatively few graduate students to teach courses as instructor of record. GAs are used as TAs but not as instructors.

It still seems to me that psych is making an attempt to fully staff its department under the current 2/2 scheme while not utilizing the resources it currently possesses.

First, I would like to challenge the idea that a 2/2 is a heavy load for psych programs at schools comparable to USM. A question that has not been answered: What is the teaching load at psych doctoral programs in 4th Tier institutions? This has been raised but not answered. Honest discussion can begin with a truthful answer to that question. If the psych department refuses to answer or insists that it (the psych department) is not 4th Tier, then that response begs a series of questions: How do we determine which programs on campus are 4th Tier and which are not? Should the 4th Tier programs receive less funding?

Second, I have found from students' perspectives (through my own and others' experiences) that it is better to have a GA teach a course that he or she is excited to teach than to have a terminally qualified faculty member who doesn't want to be there. If you have doc students who want to teach, then let them teach lower-level courses.

Third, nobody's arguing that CISE didn't get favoritism. I would like someone to name a unit that, when going head to head with CISE for funds, would NOT get the shaft. Point is, CISE is special. It will be special until Thames is out of office. While illegal and unprofessional, it's the course the Thameses have chosen. Psych did not get to fill its lines while CISE got many lines filled. Would the outcome have been different if the comparison had been CISE vs. Chemistry? CISE vs. History? CISE vs. Dance? The idea that the money in question is CoEP money only is incorrect. Suppose CoEP had been denied all hiring from the start. Do you not think Thames would have not cancelled a Theater search and grabbed the money to help Dana out if she claimed a need for more lines?

Fourth, those who are calling the psych faculty who got in Thames face heroes are ignoring reality. As I posted before, anyone should have seen his reaction coming. Did the nepotism issue need to be raised again? Probably not. It has been raised several times. The IHL apparently does not care about the Thames/Thames issue, as it has refused to do anything about it. Why, then, do you go to the man's office, pick a fight, and then cry foul when he snaps back at you? Does the psych unit expect to get better treatment post-PUC meeting? I hope not. if they do, then I have to wonder about them more than I already do.

As for the public perception of a 2/2, why is the 2/2 a public issue? Who made it public? Do we know what the hours-per-week requirement is for a flagman on a road crew? How many hours (proportionally) does a road crew worker spend holding that stop sign vs. driving a vehicle vs. flagging motorists around work areas? I honestly don't know. I've never seen a road crew worker quoted in the HA as saying that 20 hours holding the "Stop/Slow" sign was too many hours and that they needed more time devoted to some other area of their job. When the psych department went nasty on Thames in the presence of the HA reporter and when they mentioned the 2/2, they took their own issues public. Now that the information's out, it's out.

Cossack wrote:

---

While I agree with the posts that are testimony to what we do in academics, the approach is not useful in convincing the public of our value

---

Cossack, you're a good poster and your comments are well received. But for the life of me I don't understand where you're coming from on this one. Let me ask you a question: how is it that other universities don't have to "convince the public"? Is there something contaminated in Hattiesburg's water supply that makes the public think in a manner different than those in other university communities? The members of oter university communities in which I've lived seem to assume their universities know what the universities are doing. Why is this such a problem in Hattiesburg? Is Hatteisburg not a suitable location for a university?

Dust My Broom wrote:

---

First, I would like to challenge the idea that a 2/2 is a heavy load for psych programs at schools comparable to USM. A question that has not been answered: What is the teaching load at psych doctoral programs in 4th Tier institutions?

---

Dust Broom, it would be unusual for a 4th tier school to even offer a doctoral program. The very things that makes a school 4th tier would prevent the school from receiving or maintaining APA accreditation. You seem to be content with USM's Tier rating. There must be a reason. I have my hypotheses. Comment?

Public View wrote:

---

She responded, "Oh, you're new to town.  Where do you work or do you teach at Southern?" It seems the attitude of this community concerning higher education has existed a very long time. 

---

Great story, Public View. I could relate a couple of similar stories that go back even further than the 60's (but I won't on this message board). Nonetheless, I thought things had changed over the decades. Maybe I'm wrong.

LSFT wrote:

---

Dust Broom, it would be unusual for a 4th tier school to even offer a doctoral program. The very things that makes a school 4th tier would prevent the school from receiving or maintaining APA accreditation. You seem to be content with USM's Tier rating. There must be a reason. I have my hypotheses. Comment?

---

I am not content with our 4th Tier status. Notice I said "our." My program is now treated like a 4th Tier program as are many on campus. Our unit has a long-standing committment to research, and we have made our very best effort not to compromise any of that committment. Regardless, we have to realize that we have been forceably shifted to this lower Tier and that the entire University community (less CISE, Polymer Science, and Economic Development) has suffered because of it.

As for the 4th Tier doc program in psych, USM has one. Apparently APA is not in question, because that was not an issue raised by Greer, Olmi, Berman, or others as yet.

I don't want others to suffer just because I'm suffering. I want a somewhat equitable distribution of resources for the rest of us, given that CISE, Polymer Science, and ED are the favored children.

Accountability 101 wrote:

---

Your colleague that said that I sounded like a pompous ass, that his or her percecption, that's reality to that person. ....Likewise, if professors really care what the general public perceives about them, they should do something to try to change that perception.

---

Dear Sir or Madam:

The poster to whom my colleague referred was not you,  but rather Mr. Wizard.  I apologize for the misunderstanding.  In the main  I, and I believe the rest of us who met this morning, agree with most everything you've said in your thoughtful posts.

Yours truly,
Stephen

Human capital specialist wrote:

---

I know a few of you will get all worked up by what you will perceive as an insult, but its just the plain truth. Lets look at the KIA situation. Mississippi was offering one billion (yes, that's with a "B") in incentives, plus the additional tax breaks that the recently enacted Gulf Opportunity Zone offered. The company chose Georgia--a state that offered inducements valued at 1/3 what Mississippi put on the table. Why? because the labor force is so poorly educated in Mississippi that they wouldn't be able to staff the place. Nissan's well-known troubles in finding suitable labor have scared them off.

---

Columbus officials, for example, had touted a $1 billion incentive package to lure Kia to its Crossroads site. But MDA chief Leland Speed said only his agency was authorized to make such offers "and we have never discussed with any company state incentives approaching anything close to the $1 billion mark."

Kia's decision was based more on its desire to stay close to home, so to speak, said Mike Randle, editor of Southern Business & Development.

Hyundai Motor holds a 38.7 percent stake in Kia and has a plant in Montgomery, Ala., about 75 miles southwest of the proposed Kia site. The companies also would share suppliers, Randle said.

"By being close to Hyundai, if they have a problem, they're just an hour away. The economies of scale already exist, and they can use it to cut costs, monitor quality control ... it just made sense."
 

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=214866&pub=1&div=News

So much for HCS's "plain truth." I know this is a little off track from the thread but when I read HCS's comments I just could not ket them stand. HCS, I do not know if you live in Mississippi but if you do and feel this way, please move to another state.

Balance Agriculture with Industry wrote:

---

  The history of Mississippi explains much of the anti-intellectualism of the local area. The social and economic elites of Mississippi have their roots on the river and in the delta. For much of the last 150 years some of those folks traveled widely and sent their children to elite schools in the north. Because of its poor soil and lack of transportation, the piney woods region was an economic and social backwater of subsistence farming and pulp wood hauling. Even today counties like Perry, Greene, Lamar and George aren't far removed from that history. This area never really had an aristocracy. It's much like northern Arkansas, east Tennessee, and eastern Kentucky. Hattiesburg and Oxford are very different. For most of the locals the university is where you go to get trained for a job. While that is a common American view, other regions have a substantial number of people who have been to good schools, and who can appreciate some of the more esoteric aspects of higher education.

---

Oxford and Starkville were not exactly meccas of culture when those two schools were iinitially established. Yet, they became solid universities. How is it that they escaped the forces you describe?

Stephen Hawking wrote:

---

Stephen Hawking wrote: I've scored above 160 on a succession of IQ tests since the first one was administered in the third grade and I've never felt it necessary or appropriate to crow about it . . .

I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I'm adept at taking standardized tests.

---

It's amusing that you use the name of a man who has achieved so much, in spite of so much, when you openly speculate that you have failed to live up to your potential.

You claim to have an IQ "above 160" but demonstrate deficits in reading comprehension, and you seem to have trouble expressing yourself. For example, are you trying to say that your (putative) ability to do well on "standardized tests" has led you to believe that you are no better than anyone else? Or do you mean that in spite of your abilities, you do not feel that you are better than anyone else? I suspect you mean the latter. I doubt that either is true.

At any rate, it seems I've hit a nerve.

Stephen Hawking wrote:

---

 I've scored above 160 on a succession of IQ tests since the first one was administered in the third grade

---

Practice makes perfect

Southern Fried wrote:

---

Mr. Wizard wrote: It's amusing that you use the name of a man who has achieved so much, in spite of so much, when you openly speculate that you have failed to live up to your potential. You claim to have an IQ "above 160" but demonstrate deficits in reading comprehension, and you seem to have trouble expressing yourself. For example, are you trying to say that your (putative) ability to do well on "standardized tests" has led you to believe that you are no better than anyone else? Or do you mean that in spite of your abilities, you do not feel that you are better than anyone else? I suspect you mean the latter. I doubt that either is true.

I'm the colleague who commented at Javawerks that you come across as a pompous ass.  Nothing you've said has changed that opinion.  If you manifest this attitude in public it's little wonder that many locals see us as a bunch of elitist jerks. 

---

For Pete's sake,  you sound like 5 year olds arguing in the schoolyard.  Let me guess--you're members of the perpetually feuding COB faculty.  Or is it COB vs. Psychology this time? I'm hoping this is the place where LVN  will surface to tell you children to rein in your giant intellects and cool it?  She's probably engaged in some more meaningful pursuit at the moment, but it appears to be high time for reason and good sense to intervene and put the quietus to your bickering.