A new paper came out in Higher Education that explores which professors get counteroffers, and who doesn’t. It’s as depressingly predictable as you might guess (with respect to gender and ethnicity), but the numbers are so stark it’s worth a look. White people are 65% more likely to get counteroffers from their current institution, men were about 80% more likely to.
The New York Times doesn’t cover college, just the Ivy League. I’ve been yammering about this for years in recommended reads, but here’s another good post about it. And the piece of journalism that the post is writing about is here.
Here’s a very well illustrated piece in The Washington Post about converting lawns to something better. (Please note that this is more designed for folks where green things tend to stay green unless they’re deciduous. If your climate is like mine in Pasadena, here’s a guide.)
Folks who insist on “data are” don’t know how language works
This month has a first new post at the EEB & Flow in in a year and half! (on how we can encourage ethical publishing). Is this piece of the ecology blogosphere back too? Hones
Pushing back on the DEI pushback
The term “stakeholder” is commonly used, but is so ambiguous that it means different things to different people, and is otherwise problematic too. But what terms to use instead? This paper is a really good guide to moving forward.
Points for participation are mostly bogus, but what about “engagement credit”? This looks promising, especially as so many of us are struggling to develop the level of engagement that we used to have five years ago.
Why students aren’t buying what universities are selling. In short prestigious institutions have been banking on their exclusivity to sell social capital and privilege that comes with being an alum, but is that working out like it always has been? Maybe people now are interested in getting, you know, an education?