How To Fake Your Way Through Life: Non-Academic Job

Most of you, young PhDs, will not be able to secure gainful full-time academic (i.e. teaching college or university) employment and, sooner or later, you will be forced to consider and then accept full-time non-academic employment. While others will tell you all about what “alternative career” you should pursue, I will take your time and tell you how to get through it once you are there since I have some experience. Enjoy!

1) Your students will now be your colleagues (most likely your superiors).  

Sad but true. Those hapless, absent-minded, barely there, easily distracted, texting creatures that do not read books, do not answer your simple questions, write horrible papers, are rude in their emails, and all those other amazing things you hate about contemporary college kids, these students of yours will graduate and go into the workplace where they will do the same stuff they are doing now, only for money. They will quickly adopt to the workplace, and those who are not immediately fired, will succeed in understanding what it is they are doing at the said workplace and become mid-level managers by the time your sorry person realizes that there is no job for you in academia. They will be in their late twenties, having been through several workplaces by the time you encounter them. They will have gained some experience, learned some lingo, figured out how to survive. But do not be fooled, deep down they are still your very familiar college kids. They still do not think for themselves, do not know how to compose a simple email, do not read books, do not concern themselves with life or future. Sure, there are exceptions. But those exceptions are clearly visible against the background of general mediocrity.

If during the semester you can look forward to that fateful day when you give them their Cs and Ds and never see them again, then during your work life you will not have this timeline to give you hope. But do not despair, this is only the sort of thing that everyone encounters at their jobs, i.e. other people. Here is what you do:

a) Find the smart ones – there are a few since someone has to run the place, and it’s sure not the mediocre ones (unless it’s a start up and everyone is a former frat boy – in this case, run!), so you can probably find someone who understands what is going on – learn from them. They will be younger than you, but they will know more about the job. They don’t give a shit that you have a PhD (and you should stop giving a shit too – it’s tough but you can do it).

b) Understand your job – it shouldn’t be that hard, you managed to get through graduate school. Unlike most of the “advisers” I will tell you that graduate school does not prepare you for the workplace (either in academia or outside). You are spoiled (and in some sense also ruined), you cannot adjust to anything short of “life of contemplation” – but at least understand the job you are going to hate for a very long time. You owe this to yourself.

c) Find that deeply repressed emotion called “kindness to people” and try your hand at it. Think of it this way – these people you have learned to dismiss as “idiots” are just as confused about everything around them as you are but have no hope of ever having the fog clear, be kind to them, help them, teach them – you did that while in your temporary “academic” career as a TA or adjunct, you can do it here as well.

2) Your bosses will try their hand at “theory,” fail miserably (to your ultimate enjoyment and sadness).

The most strange thing that you will discover about the general state of “theory” at your new workplace is that everyone is horrible at it but does not think that they are. They will read books about “horizontal organization” or some random nonsense like that. Don’t read those books, they will kill your brain and they are full of trivialities and anecdotes (no one explained to the authors that you cannot make a case for an abstract theoretical principle based on a story). Here is how you deal with this (mostly unwanted, trust me) appearance of theoretical discussions at your workplace:

a) Do not engage your superiors in intellectual discussions – they don’t speak your language and you don’t speak theirs. You can easily learn their language but it means very little in terms of actual theoretical substance. Nod politely and learn the vocabulary – it will be useful to use some of the terms/ideas later to show you are in the “in-group” and are to be trusted. Basically do the same things you did in your first “Postmodernism 101” or your first “Derrida 101” class – pretend like you know what is going on and you’ll be just fine.

b) Don’t ignore corporate memos and updates – all the important company changes are coded in those messages. Learn to decipher them before everyone else and you’ll be on top of things. Assume they mean something because unlike vague and useless academic memos, these contain some attempt to figure out how to run the company better and make more money, i.e. these have some effect in “real life.”

c) Enjoy the intellectual shortcomings of others (and mourn the state of civilization) in the privacy of your cubicle/office. Do not bring it up – you will come across as an arrogant dick that you basically are. No matter what new corporate message you receive, learn the language, it’s not that hard. Remember, the bottom line is always efficiency (larger profit margins, lower costs) – the rest is bullshit.

3) You will be confused and disoriented for some time, but then you will “get it” and the proverbial Bob will be your uncle.

No one likes to change jobs, but most of your colleagues will never have had the experience of changing careers. Most will think you wasted 10 years of your life instead of getting ahead and making money. Don’t try to win them over, don’t explain your decision to go to graduate school. Keep your head down and learn to adopt – it’s easier with every passing week and month. Then you’ll be where everyone else is – hating your job most of the days, but also liking it more than you hate it. Yes, it’s sad that such things must be said to an entire segment of population that will only experience their first real job in their late 20s or early 30s but it must be said nonetheless – most people don’t care for their jobs, but they do it anyway.

a) I know you think this is a tragedy that you cannot spend your time reading the books you like and writing obscure texts that no one will read, but this is the reality of life for most people around you. Unless you win the lottery or you are already rich, you’ll just have to get used to this and be fine. Stop being so dramatic about it, it’s not the end of the world.

b) The higher up the work ladder you get the more freedom to organize your time you will have. Yes, you will have more responsibility but you will also do less repetitive stupid work, and your work might actually benefit from your intellectual input. Unlike academia, most of the workplaces are built around meritocracy – show yourself capable of “smarter” positions and you will get them.

c) Get a hobby – or better yet, convert your former academic interest into a hobby. And if it is impossible, then think about how stupid your former academic interest actually is – if you wouldn’t do it in your free time, why did you think anyone would want to pay you to do it?

4) You will make more money than you will know what to do with (no, you will not be rich, but you will have decent income in comparison with your current life of poverty and privation).

This is a fairly simple point – even entry-level non-academic jobs will pay better than your part-time teaching or whatever other crap jobs you had during your graduate school. Do you know why? Because most people go to work to make money, so if they don’t make enough, they leave and go somewhere else. Here’s your plan of action:

a) Pay off your credit cards (especially ones with higher rates).

b) Get on income-based repayment plan so that your student loan payments are adjusted.

c) Buy some boring outfits for work so that you can look your part in a shirt and some decent pants – no one care for your collection of t-shirts with quotes from Nietzsche on them.

5) You will still do academic work (read, write, publish) but eventually you will do it without any hope of somehow securing academic employment – you will let go of the dream.

Stop thinking of this as a temporary solution (unless, of course, everything is temporary and then you die at the end). See the part about hobby above. Read and write in your spare time. Publish if it makes you feel good about yourself.

a) Since you will not have much time left, you will tend to concentrate only on the most interesting parts of your newly rebranded “research hobby” – so you won’t have to read and write about the most recent academic fads like all the other losers.

b) Don’t dream of future academic jobs, do not keep updating letters of recommendation, do not check job postings. You are a new person now – embrace your new self or die. If you are not ready to enter the adult world of non-academic employment, do not.

c) If you feel like it, do continue to teach a class here and there. Now that you have a normal life and you don’t have to worry about your future (and your bills) you might actually enjoy it.

Impossible Professions

I must say with regret that none of these books seems to me quite worthy of its subject—with the exception of Nussbaum’s, a book that needs to be read and heeded, but may not make much headway against the critical consensus. To me, the university is a precious and fragile institution, one that lives with crisis—since education, like psychoanalysis, is an “impossible profession”—but at its best thrives on it. It has endured through many transformations of ideology and purpose, but at its best remained faithful to a vision of disinterested pursuit and transmission of knowledge. Research and teaching have always cohabited: anyone who teaches a subject well wants to know more about it, and when she knows more, to impart that knowledge. Universities when true to themselves have always been places that harbor recondite subjects of little immediate utility—places where you can study hieroglyphics and Coptic as well as string theory and the habits of lemmings—places half in and half out of the world. No country needs that more than the US, where the pragmatic has always dominated.

An excerpt from an NYRB article on Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa,  Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids—And What We Can Do About It by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming Our Colleges and Universities by Mark C. Taylor  and Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities by Martha C. Nussbaum.

A question…

I found myself updating the cv today and ended up debating whether to include an “under review” and “works in progress” heading. I’ve never included such headings, and have often found an “under review” section presumptuous, if not slightly pretentious. Nonetheless, I’ve been thinking about it. What say you readers?

Beyond the Divide (one view of the intellecutal payoff)

I came across this interesting account of analytic – continental divide,” Before and Beyond the Analytic Divide” (pdf), by Matthew Sharpe, wherein he suggests:

…a rapprochement between analytic and continental philosophers is a good we might at least pray for, as the ancients would have said. Why?
First, because both sides, as well as harboring virtues, also do harbor the type of vices and limits the others’ prejudices typically pick out. Continental philosophy often does verge into anti-realistic, unfalsifiable, and nonsensical formulations…Analytic philosophy, for its part, does not allow itself to raise many questions which are ‘philosophical’, certainly in the sense in which philosophy was understood until the seventeenth century, and is still understood by laypeople today: what is the meaning of being, or of our being? Can the sense of “truth” be reduced to something internal to propositions, rather than attitudes, systems of understanding, beliefs, ways of life, or certain experiences? What is the best way of life or regime? What is the relationship between ethics, politics, religion, art, and philosophy? Is our modern or postmodern age any better than previous societies? And if so, in what respects, and with what costs? It is legitimate to long for Heidegger or Hans Blumenberg, when asked to consider for too long, in a time of fast tracked social change, what it is like to be a bat, or to have a lead role in the prisoners’ dilemma.

More Philosophical Tribalism

Crispin Wright discussing McDowell’s Mind and World:

…if analytical philosophy demands self-consciousness about unexplained or only partially explained terms of art, formality and explicitness in the setting out of argument, and the clearest possible sign-posting and formulation of assumptions, targets, and goals, etc, then this is not a work of analytical philosophy (“Human Nature? in Reading McDowell, 157-158)

Commonplaces of Academic Life: NDPR Review of Levinasian Meditations

Since I wasn’t all that interested in reading it to begin with, I completely forgot Richard Cohen’s  Levinasian Meditations had already been published until I saw this review by Martin Kavka in the NDPR just now.  The review certainly  makes for some interesting reading.   While Kavka admits Cohen broaches some important, if not crucial topics in Levinasian scholarship (and beyond), there seems to be a defensive tone that runs through the whole book:

Levinasian Meditations, in its structure, embodies a claim frequently found in scholarship on Levinas, namely that Judaism and its other-centered ethics, through its countercultural stance, can play a role in saving the modern West from the historical evils that have resulted from the West’s tendency either to create social commonalities through political violence or to erase social difference through genocide and ethnic cleansing. Those who read these essays seriatim will quickly infer that many of them are, at least in part, responses to unnamed others who have offered dismissive responses either to Cohen’s approach to Levinas or to Levinas’s philosophy tout court. It strikes me as very possible that readers of Levinasian Meditations will misinterpret it as a result.

Kierkegaard (and the APA)

I read this and couldn’t help but think of this year’s Eastern APA meeting.  However, it’s probably better to be fair and simply substitute ‘academics’ for ‘busy man of affairs.’

Of all the ridiculous things it seems to me the most ridiculous is to be a busy man of affairs, prompt to meals and to work… Who could not help laughing at these hustlers? What do they accomplish? Are they not like the housewife, when her house was on fire, who in her excitement saved the fire-extinguisher? What more do they save from the great fire of life?” (Either/Or)

Advice…

Now here’s some advice that’s actually useful:

You probably associate fads with fashion and junior high school, but fads are very much a part of modern academic culture. Whole disciplines and sub-disciplines rise and fall in popularity, as do certain ideas and personalities, the influence of which will often cross disciplinary boundaries. The pernicious effects of this faddishness are most often felt by those who study something that is out-of-fashion at the time they enter the job market. The most savvy (if un-idealistic) graduate students will choose their programs of study and dissertation topics with an eye to what is fashionable. Just hope that your choice is still fashionable a decade hence.

via 100 reasons not to go to graduate school.

 

SUNY-Albany: in the 9th Bolgia,8th Circle of the Inferno?

Gregory A. Petsko, Gyula and Katica Tauber Professor of Biochemistry & Chemistry at Brandeis University,wrote an open letter to George Phillip, President of SUNY Albany in his column in Genome Biology.  While there is much to quote, I found this passage particularly amusing:

It seems to me that the way you went about [announcing the closure of the departments in a Friday afternoon meeting] couldn’t have been more likely to alienate just about everybody on campus. In your position, I would have done everything possible to avoid that. I wouldn’t want to end up in the 9th Bolgia (ditch of stone) of the 8th Circle of the Inferno, where the great 14th century Italian poet Dante Alighieri put the sowers of discord. There, as they struggle in that pit for all eternity, a demon continually hacks their limbs apart, just as in life they divided others.

The Inferno is the first book of Dante’s Divine Comedy, one of the great works of the human imagination. There’s so much to learn from it about human weakness and folly. The faculty in your Italian department would be delighted to introduce you to its many wonders — if only you had an Italian department, which now, of course, you don’t.

Zing.  Read the complete article here

Accountability Regimes and Academic Life

Great article by Gaye Tuchman in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, “The Future of Wannabe U,” in which she continues her analysis of the accountability regime that drives the academic life:

Annually, other job and tenure candidates list how many articles and books they have published, how many talks they have delivered (including how many to which they were invited, and by whom), how many students they have advised and taught. Now and again, senior professors, writing letters to evaluate a candidate’s suitability to get or keep a job, provide their own lists. Sometimes they, too, are so intent on constructing them that they forget to discuss a candidate’s intellectual contributions. Last year, when presenting a distinguished-research award, a top Wannabe administrator noted that the recipient had published well more than 100 articles. He never said why those articles mattered.