schmevil

When a group with a longstanding, deeply entrenched systemic advantage — “privilege,” in the parlance of Women’s Studies and programs like it — speaks heatedly of its “rights” vis-à-vis a less privileged group, it’s usually seen as an expression of bigotry. “White rights” are generally invoked by white supremacists. The words “Jewish conspiracy” or “immigrant takeover” are surefire conversation stoppers. Heterosexuals who object to gay pride parades on the basis that no “straight parades” exist are, if not completely homophobic, not all that bright. In either case, the opinions expressed aren’t just stupid; they’re alarming. We don’t see why things should be any different when it comes to gender, and yet the “pendulum has swung” argument is somehow viable when women’s rights is the issue at stake.

It disturbs us that the Post — that any national publication — could consider such nonsense appropriate for publication. Disturbs, but doesn’t surprise. Somehow, sexism doesn’t register harshly; being a pig barely carries a stigma (in fact, you could argue that the inverse is true).

Feminists are used to responding to arguments against, and myths about, feminism with a litany of reasons why it’s still important: rape and sexual abuse; pay inequality; domestic violence; barriers to education and employment; the dearth of female representation in governments worldwide, in the professions, and in arts and letters (including, regrettably, in the pages of this magazine—we’re working on it). We shouldn’t have to; it should be generally accepted. That otherwise intelligent people need to be reminded of why the cause exists — that they find the pursuit of gender equality in any way objectionable, and feel comfortable stating as much to a national audience — is, in fact, a slam-dunk argument for the importance of Women’s Studies programs.

It may be that the increased time-to-degree, combined with the weakening job market for liberal arts Ph.D.s, is what is responsible for squeezing the profession into a single ideological box. It takes three years to become a lawyer. It takes four years to become a doctor. But it takes from six to nine years, and sometimes longer, to be eligible to teach college students for a living. Tightening up the oversight on student progress might reduce the time-to-degree by a little, but as long as the requirements remain, as long as students in most fields have general exams, field (or oral) exams, and monograph-length dissertations, it is not easy to see how the reduction will be significant. What is clear is that students who spend eight or nine years in graduate school are being seriously over-trained for the jobs that are available. The argument that they need the training to be qualified to teach undergraduates is belied by the fact that they are already teaching undergraduates. Undergraduate teaching is part of doctoral education; at many institutions, graduate students begin teaching classes the year they arrive. And the idea that the doctoral thesis is a rigorous requirement is belied by the quality of most doctoral theses. If every graduate student were required to publish a single peer-reviewed article instead of writing a thesis, the net result would probably be a plus for scholarship.

One pressure on universities to reduce radically the time-to-degree is simple humanitarianism. Lives are warped because of the length and uncertainty of the doctoral education process. Many people drop in and drop out and then drop in again; a large proportion of students never finish; and some people have to retool at relatively advanced ages. Put in less personal terms, there is a huge social inefficiency in taking people of high intelligence and devoting resources to training them in programs that half will never complete and for jobs that most will not get. Unfortunately, there is an institutional efficiency, which is that graduate students constitute a cheap labor force. There are not even search costs involved in appointing a graduate student to teach. The system works well from the institutional point of view not when it is producing Ph.D.s, but when it is producing ABDs. It is mainly ABDs who run sections for lecture courses and often offer courses of their own. The longer students remain in graduate school, the more people are available to staff undergraduate classes. Of course, overproduction of Ph.D.s also creates a buyer’s advantage in the market for academic labor. These circumstances explain the graduate-student union movement that has been going on in higher education since the mid 1990s.

دنیارابگوییدچطورآنهاانتخاباتمان دزدیده اند
Tell the world how they have stolen our election

- original article by one_hoopy_frood on LJ

ladycat777

ingrid_m

The Twitter hashtag is #iranelection. If corresponding with an Iranian protester, please remove their handles from your Reply To and replace with this tag instead for the sake of their safety as they are being monitored.

Argentina's Magellanic penguins are moving north, laying their eggs later than they used to, and struggling -- often unsuccessfully -- to feed their chicks, all as a result of climate change.

These findings suggest the need for a major shift in the way we think about protecting penguins, as well as other marine creatures, said conservation biologist Dee Boersma, of the University of Washington in Seattle. She presented the results of more than 25 years of research today in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"Penguins are incredible sentinels for our environment, particularly the ocean environment," Boersma said. "They're already telling us there are severe changes going on."

Fourteen of the world's 19 penguin species are threatened or endangered, with a few species in deep trouble. A major reason for their decline, Boersma said, is an increasingly variable climate, with more frequent El Nino and La Nina events that can drastically change water temperatures and nutrient levels from year to year. Climate models predict more of this type of variability to come.

Google believes consumers have a right to detailed information about their home energy use. After all, real-time energy information helps people make smarter choices so they can save energy and money. Studies show that people save 5-15% of their energy costs when they have access to information about their energy consumption.