The Coalition on the Academic Workforce is running a survey to gather data on the working conditions of what they’re calling contingent faculty: people who teach at the college level but aren’t tenured or tenure track. If you’re one of those unfortunate slaves of the system, help them out and take the survey.
As I’ve mentioned, I have my upper division classes write openly on the web about the subject of the course. It’s good practice for being comfortable with discussing the world of ideas outside this little sheltered realm of academia, but I’ve always had one reservation: the internet is a cruel place, and I feel a bit protective of my students, so I send them off with lots of warnings and reassurances that I will defend their open expression of ideas and they don’t have to worry about differences of opinion affecting their grades. I’ve had students with whom I greatly disagree get online and make arguments I think are horribly wrong…but it’s all OK, because the purpose of this exercise is to generate discussion and debate.
So I put them to work urging them to be brave and bold and don’t worry about what other people say. And I’ve been all wrong. I didn’t have to worry about them…I had to worry about you.
Yesterday, I’d reviewed their blogs and the comments people had left there, and noticed they were getting a lot of not-at-all-helpful advice, fussing over style and telling them how to write their entries, and in class I started by telling them to ignore all that, I wanted them to find their own voices, when the class chuckled and pointed at the white board. A chill went down my spine.
The students had gotten annoyed at the condescending tone of a few of the comments, and had decided to deal with it. On the whiteboard was written the complete personal data of one person who had irritated them: they’d traced back his posting info and had gotten his real name, home address, employment history, phone number, etc., and were sharing that information. Before I interrupted them by starting the class, they were debating whether to teach him a lesson themselves or just to post all of that to 4chan.
Whoa. They’ve already got their own cyberpistols.
Don’t panic, I held them off and suggested they do nothing now, and that maybe there are less drastic ways to deal with obnoxious commenters, but still, it was a bit of a reversal and I learned something that you should all learn, too. These are adults in the 21st century, and they know how to take care of themselves on the internet — so don’t get all patronizing with them, and learn to talk with them as equals. Or else.
I feel like I’ve been taking the leashes off a fierce pack of wolves. I’m so proud.
The UMM biology program is looking to replace a recent retiree, and we need someone who is an excellent teacher, competent to teach cell biology and a basic genetics course, and with some interesting expertise that can be used for upper level electives in your specialty and can provide undergraduate research opportunities. We will need this wonderful person by Fall of 2011, so if you think you fit the bill and want to be involved in an excellent undergraduate teaching program, send an application in soon! The committee here is champing at the bit to find out who our future tenure track colleague will be, so even though it says our screening period is open-ended, we’re going to get into action in mid-January and late applications will enter an applicant pool where we’re already interviewing people. Don’t delay!
Full Time Tenure Track Position in Biology
Required/Preferred Qualifications:
Required: Applicants must hold or expect to receive a Ph.D. in cell biology or a related field by August 15, 2011. Two years experience teaching undergraduate biology is required. (Graduate TA experience is acceptable).Preferred: Preference will be given to applicants who have an area of expertise relevant to our pre-health professional students and complementary to existing faculty interests. These might include, but are not limited to: immunology, cancer biology, bioinformatics, and cell signaling.
Duties/Responsibilities: Teaching undergraduate biology courses including a sophomore-level cell biology course, an upper-level genetics elective course, an elective in the applicant’s area of expertise, and other courses that support the biology program; advising undergraduates; conducting research that could involve undergraduates; and sharing in the governance and advancement of the biology program, the division, and the campus.
Program/Unit Description:
The University of Minnesota, Morris (UMM) is one of the top public liberal arts colleges in the nation. As one of five campuses of the University of Minnesota, UMM has a unique mission and offers the best of both in the world of higher education–a small, close-knit campus complemented by the power of a world-renowned research University system. UMM is located 160 miles WNW of Minneapolis in a small (5000) rural community. Our student body is diverse (19% students of color) and academically well-prepared, with 55% earning an ACT comprehensive score of 25 or higher and over 50% drawn from the top 20% of their high school classes. Our current faculty have received 18 of the University system’s highest teaching award and are very active in research and publication. To learn more about the University of Minnesota, Morris visit our website at http://www.morris.umn.edu.This tenure-track position carries all of the privileges and responsibilities of University of Minnesota faculty appointments. A sound retirement plan, excellent fringe benefits and a collegial atmosphere are among the benefits that accompany the position. Appointment will be at the Assistant Professor level for those having the Ph.D. in hand and at the Instructor level for those whose Ph.D. is pending. The standard teaching load is twenty credit hours per year.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. We are committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. To request disability accommodations, please contact Sarah Mattson at 320-589-6021.
Application Instructions:
Applications must include a letter of application, resume, transcripts, a teaching statement (with evidence of teaching effectiveness), a research statement (proposing a research program that is viable at a small liberal arts college and accessible to undergraduates) and three letters of reference. Send applications to:Biology Search Committee Chair
Division of Science and Mathematics
University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN 56267-2128Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Screening begins January 5, 2011. Inquiries can be made to Ann Kolden, Executive Office and Administrative Specialist, at (320) 589-6301 or koldenal@morris.umn.edu.
I know, it says we’re small and far away in the hinterland, but don’t let that scare you. This really is a great good place to work if teaching is your passion. And if it isn’t, we probably don’t want you.
I told you I’ve got my development class blogging, and here’s the update for this week.
Hannah’s blog discusses recent observations in blind cavefish.
Lisa’s Ledger is about a new Alzheimer-associated gene.
Development from a naiad is on a brief break while the author does some extracurricular traveling.
Kele’s Science Blog goes above and beyond the call of duty to describe a classic paper on digit reduction in amphibian evo-devo.
Rev. Frost goes all neuro and describes experiments exploring cerebral palsy.
Weekly Developmental Biology Updates needs updating.
Developmental Biology visits the work of Tyrone Hayes and describes the plasticity of sex determination in frogs.
Don’t be shy. They’ve been told to welcome comments and to brace themselves for possible criticisms.
(via Greg Laden)
SciAm has a nice report on a survey of people’s trust of authority figures. On a scale of one to five, with five being the most trustworthy, they were asked who would provide accurate information on a range of scientific issues. Look at these results: scientists are highly regarded, while religious authorities are deeply distrusted.
Before you get too happy about this, though, check out the source of the survey: this was taken of readers of Nature and Scientific American. Can you say sampling bias, boys and girls? That’s disappointing; I’d rather see how the general public views these authorities, since we can already assume that fans of science would rate scientists most highly. It’s rather like posting a poll about the greatest musician of the age on a Justin Bieber fan site…you couldn’t really rely on the results for much of anything.
I notice that the views of scientists on evolution get the highest trust scores, and I can explain that. No matter what you hear from church pulpits, evolution is settled science — any debate on that matter has been resolved for almost a century. This is entirely why the evolution ‘debate’ today is so hot and furious, because it takes remarkable ignorance and fanaticism to disagree with it anymore. It’s also the case that of all the topics listed, evolution actually has the oldest, most firmly established answer among the bunch, so yes, informed people are comfortable with the views of pro-evolution scientists. It’s only the denialists who have to be crazy.
The rest of the article discusses more details of international views on various issues, and mostly they are positive. Just keep in mind — these data are from a well-educated and science-friendly audience, and probably aren’t representative of the citizenry as a whole.
Those must have been some interesting meetings: the University of Minnesota administration was trying to suppress an environmentalist documentary about abuses of the Mississippi river, but every faculty member I’ve heard from on this issue was a bit outraged by the censorship…and now, the university has backed off, and the movie will be screened on 3 October at the Bell Museum. If you’re in the area, stop by and watch it!
I’m back to teaching developmental biology this term, and one of the things I do in my upper level classes is have students write blog entries on the themes of the course. In the past, I’ve given them space right here to do that, which I’ve found to be a parlous course of action — the commentariat here is savage and brutal, and infested with trollish nitwits who can derail threads spectacularly, so I’m doing it a little differently this time around. I’ve had them create their very own blogs on their own spaces, which has the additional benefit that maybe they can keep them going after they graduate.
So here’s the list of student blogs from my course. Feel free to visit, criticize, comment, etc., but do remember that they’re just now learning, so constructive discussion is far better than our usual ravaging ferocity. They’ve also been warned to be thick-skinned, though, so you don’t have to be too gentle.
Developmental Biology blogs
There isn’t much there yet in most cases, since they’ve just set them up, but I’ll be making weekly links to relevant articles in the future.
While I’m at it, I’ll mention that a former student, Levi Simonson, has a blog from his perspective as an ex-UMM student, now a graduate student at the wonderful University of Oregon. People do leave here to go on to interesting work!
I will have you know that I never experienced the red pattern in the diagram.
It does remind me that I need to get a haircut this week, though.
Universities are supposed to be places where students are free to think and argue…but too often, if a student says something that contradicts the religious dogma of the institution, it’s an excuse to be censored. Here’s an example: a Mormon student at BYU wrote a letter for the school newspaper criticizing the LDS position on gay rights while still supporting Mormonism as a religious belief.
It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
It got pulled. Why? I don’t know. It’s still crazy pro-mormon gushy baloney, but it is simply saying that everyone should be honest about their motivations.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Honesty is one of those sins in these goofy cults.
