I'm sorry for your loss. And I can see how that is a moment to reflect on the bigger things in life.
As someone who left the academic rat race after a four year postdoc, I agree that the academic career path is "one size fits nobody". In literally any other line of work, you have much more freedom to tailor your career path to what you want and like to do, and to make it fit your strengths. On top of that, in the corporate environment where I worked, I could ask my manager to prioritize my tasks and decide to drop everything that wasn't a priority. For me it was the biggest eye opener when stepping out of academia: that you can craft a job that suits you, and make it fit in office hours. I'm glad you're finding a way to do that too inside academia, but I can see how hard that is.
I agree with so much of this! Especially resonant was the part about some people being able to do it all and do it well. These energizer bunnies set the bar so much higher than the rest of us can reach.
My TT job also includes being a part of the shared governance system - and we (here 'we' means my school, but probably others!) need to do a better job not shortchanging that when we talk about expectations, as early as the job interview stage. *Someone* needs to be willing to be on the curriculum committee, if we want to make the case that faculty should be in charge of curriculum, instead of the oft-maligned admin. Even if it isn't near the top of anyone's priority list. (Some schools do a better job than others at making sure that service work like this is evenly distributed and its importance is clear.)
I mention this here because I think often, when folks hear 'prioritize,' it's this service that often winds up dropped 'to protect time for research.' And as you say, who gets to do the dropping is certainly not equitable.
Thoughtful and insightful as always. This problem is not just in academia. This is a paraphrase from Star Wars… but I use it all the time: how are you going to get anything done if it always requires a committee vote, lol “this isn’t up for committee “ (most grunt work shouldn’t require a 10 hour value meeting, guaranteed only 2 needed to be there)
Hi Terry! This was such an affirming essay. This point in particular:
"We are expected to do a lot. I think it’s really wild, and it didn’t used to be like this. Yet I am not harkening for those “good” ol’ days, because I don’t want to return to the lack of standards for teaching effectiveness, or scientists who think that their work should not be responsive to the public good, or a lack of equity or accountability in student training. We have been moving higher ed most definitely in the right direction, but it turns out a lot of these changes are relying on professorial labor and it doesn’t feel sustainable."
As you clearly state, these changes are necessary because science and academia have been (and continue to be) inequitable, exclusive, classist, racist, ableist. But for people trying to fight against these structures, it creates havoc in our work lives. I've seen some of this shift happen just over my 15-year career in the CSU. These changes are necessary and important, AND our structures (esp human resources management, workload) are slow to adapt. Just considering our role as educators, there is a world of difference today compared to when I was an undergrad (late 90s, early 2000s). Just consider technology: back then, there was no LMS and minimal email. Everything "teaching-related" happened in the classroom or in office hours. No recording videos for a flipped classroom, no responding to student questions via email. Pedagogy: Teaching largely meant lecturing. No labor to learn about students' individual goals, backgrounds, challenges; no designing jigsaw activities with 5 different sets of handouts. Assessment was exclusively summative: midterms and finals. No effort to provide thoughtful feedback on learning goals, individualized support. All of these shifts have been necessary and important (well, some aspects of the LMS might be up for debate!). And yet, the workload for teaching a lecture class is the same 3 WTU as it was 30 years ago. At what point do faculty demand a re-calibration of workload and expectations? I admire your approach to this re-calibration in your own workload, and I am inspired to do the same. As you mention, this degree of re-calibration just isn't possible for a full-time lecturer teaching 5 classes each semester. We need a structural change that recognizes our workload has qualitatively shifted.
I'm sorry for your loss. And I can see how that is a moment to reflect on the bigger things in life.
As someone who left the academic rat race after a four year postdoc, I agree that the academic career path is "one size fits nobody". In literally any other line of work, you have much more freedom to tailor your career path to what you want and like to do, and to make it fit your strengths. On top of that, in the corporate environment where I worked, I could ask my manager to prioritize my tasks and decide to drop everything that wasn't a priority. For me it was the biggest eye opener when stepping out of academia: that you can craft a job that suits you, and make it fit in office hours. I'm glad you're finding a way to do that too inside academia, but I can see how hard that is.
I agree with so much of this! Especially resonant was the part about some people being able to do it all and do it well. These energizer bunnies set the bar so much higher than the rest of us can reach.
My TT job also includes being a part of the shared governance system - and we (here 'we' means my school, but probably others!) need to do a better job not shortchanging that when we talk about expectations, as early as the job interview stage. *Someone* needs to be willing to be on the curriculum committee, if we want to make the case that faculty should be in charge of curriculum, instead of the oft-maligned admin. Even if it isn't near the top of anyone's priority list. (Some schools do a better job than others at making sure that service work like this is evenly distributed and its importance is clear.)
I mention this here because I think often, when folks hear 'prioritize,' it's this service that often winds up dropped 'to protect time for research.' And as you say, who gets to do the dropping is certainly not equitable.
Thoughtful and insightful as always. This problem is not just in academia. This is a paraphrase from Star Wars… but I use it all the time: how are you going to get anything done if it always requires a committee vote, lol “this isn’t up for committee “ (most grunt work shouldn’t require a 10 hour value meeting, guaranteed only 2 needed to be there)
Hi Terry! This was such an affirming essay. This point in particular:
"We are expected to do a lot. I think it’s really wild, and it didn’t used to be like this. Yet I am not harkening for those “good” ol’ days, because I don’t want to return to the lack of standards for teaching effectiveness, or scientists who think that their work should not be responsive to the public good, or a lack of equity or accountability in student training. We have been moving higher ed most definitely in the right direction, but it turns out a lot of these changes are relying on professorial labor and it doesn’t feel sustainable."
As you clearly state, these changes are necessary because science and academia have been (and continue to be) inequitable, exclusive, classist, racist, ableist. But for people trying to fight against these structures, it creates havoc in our work lives. I've seen some of this shift happen just over my 15-year career in the CSU. These changes are necessary and important, AND our structures (esp human resources management, workload) are slow to adapt. Just considering our role as educators, there is a world of difference today compared to when I was an undergrad (late 90s, early 2000s). Just consider technology: back then, there was no LMS and minimal email. Everything "teaching-related" happened in the classroom or in office hours. No recording videos for a flipped classroom, no responding to student questions via email. Pedagogy: Teaching largely meant lecturing. No labor to learn about students' individual goals, backgrounds, challenges; no designing jigsaw activities with 5 different sets of handouts. Assessment was exclusively summative: midterms and finals. No effort to provide thoughtful feedback on learning goals, individualized support. All of these shifts have been necessary and important (well, some aspects of the LMS might be up for debate!). And yet, the workload for teaching a lecture class is the same 3 WTU as it was 30 years ago. At what point do faculty demand a re-calibration of workload and expectations? I admire your approach to this re-calibration in your own workload, and I am inspired to do the same. As you mention, this degree of re-calibration just isn't possible for a full-time lecturer teaching 5 classes each semester. We need a structural change that recognizes our workload has qualitatively shifted.