The first example in the Chronicle troubled me more: it wasn't even that the person's Microsoft hobby troubled the commitee for being especially salacious but because it revealed an interest other than Important Research Field which makes them a risk for... not taking his job seriously and leaving?
Not that non-academic hiring processes make any more sense, of course.
I'm going to start blogging under the name "Fontana Labs, Jr."
That article was ridiculous. "I can't believe he likes computers! His real passion must be that, despite the fact that he went through a grueling terminal degree program with slim chances of employment in order to pursue his academic field, implicitly rejecting a more secure and higher-paying possible career in computers." Absolutely idiotic.
I'm with ogged. It's time to out Ivan Tribble. (That pseudonym makes me think of dribble, which weirdly reminds me of drool. Clearly, I'm not a big basketball fan.)
I wasn't being serious either. I do think that it might be fun to do a cartoon of an imagined Ivan Tribble with drool running down his face. Do you think that the Chronicle would publish that?
The article did say that some of the candidates included their blogs in their resumes/cover letters. Prof. Shill, from the way he was talked about, was probably one of those. For those who provide their blog, it seems fair for the committee to investigate them. After all, Tribble says he expected to see scholarly writing. And there's this:
we did not disqualify any applicants based purely on their blogs. If the blog was a negative factor, it was one of many that killed a candidate's chances.
More often that not, however, the blog was a negative, and job seekers need to eliminate as many negatives as possible.
Before we leap to Fontana's conclusion ("don't blog under your own name if you plan on getting a job"), it should be asked whether it is possible to imagine a blog which would not be detrimental to being hired? Would, say, being a poster at Crooked Timber qualify? Or, Matt Y?
The issue is certainly trickier when it comes to those who didn't include their blogs in their resumes. Should there be a moratorium on googling potential hires? I don't feel qualified to answer that one, so I'll just leave it open.
The techno-geek thing made me think of Kieran Healy, in fact. It's easy to see how someone clueless could describe Healy's interest in his workflow as a distraction.
I'm pretty sure the non-anonymity of my blog was the fatal blow to my chances during the Papal Conclave last month. We were this close to Pope Ostropher I.
Taken seriously, that's an argument [the blogger might reveal the department's dirty laundry] that should lead to hiring no one.
I don't think that's true. We expect a certian respect, in the form of reticence, from adults who have issues with other adults. Perhaps the offended party may tell a few friends, talk it over. But that's a small party who understands the situation, and, moreover, probably also knows not to talk too much. We certainly don't expect an adult to go up to strangers and just start gabbing away about their issues.
Someone with a personal blog, however, is potantially different in two respects. First, such a person, depending on the blog, may demonstrate a greater propensity for talking about their problems. Secondly, this person has a wider, undiscriminating audience. It seems to me that the risk of spreading "dirty laundry" is significantly higher with the second sort of person. Further, such complaints are written down, in searchable format, ready for people with interest in that department to find out about. A manner of complaint which is quite different in kind, and more potentially damaging, than a mere gossip.
I think Fontana's conclusion is valid. It is unlikely that you are going to be as good a blogger as Matt Y.
Part of the problem in the humanities is that there are too many qualified applicants chasing too few slots. They can reject people for petty and/or absurd reasons and still find plenty of qualified applicants.
@19. I read Burke as saying not that having a blog can't be construed as a liability, but rather that there's nothing stopping someone who doesn't have a blog from creating one once they're hired and airing dirty laundry all over the internet. Granted, the risk is probably higher if a person is already prone to academic navel-gazing, but there seem to be a number of academic blogs that didn't get underway until after someone was hired.
@21 and earlier: I'm not sure even a blog of MY's quality would be counted as an asset in a job search. And why should it? It's well-written, but not scholarly or focused on a particular discipline.
Michael, but it's not scholarly or focused on a particular discipline. The Invisible Adjunct was a very good writer, but that doesn't tell a hiring committee much about her qualifications in history.
MY's a good writer. I enjoy his blog a lot. I think it demonstrates that he's a competent analyst. And maybe the MY counterpart applying for academic jobs will get hiring committees who will see the talent and will be suitably impressed. And maybe others will be offended by his politics and figure he's too much of a lightning rod. (Not all job offers are in blue states.)
I'm thinking that, regrettably, unless your blog is very discipline-oriented, it stands a much larger chance to harm than it does help.
Cala, but what is relevant to scholarship? There's research, and there's the ability to sort through it and make sense of it. Matt's blog doesn't show active research. It does show, I think, that he has the ability to do good analysis, and, moreover, that he is a vivacious reader. Those are two very important ingrediants to scholarship.
huh, i'm thinking of Matt applying for grad school, which is naturally where he'd apply to, and not to a job, which is basically what I indicated upthread. Nm.
Well, Matt and Ezra seem to be special cases. I think that journalists/ pundits are able to leverage their blogs to get employment in journalism. I think that Matt's blog probably impressed the Prospect editors more than his work at the Harvard Independent, although I doubt that the blog alone would have gotten him hired without the work at the newspaper.
Now Ezra worked for the Washington Monthly as an intern, but did he work for either the Santa Cruz or the UCLA newspapers?
Brian Weatherson has said (I think) that his main blog if anything has helped him in his career. This is something I've worried about myself; a few of the people I interviewed with this past year mentioned that they'd seen my blog, and that didn't seem to hurt me, but of course it's impossible to tell if anyone decided not to interview me because of the blog.
On the whole it seems like there are several people in the philosophy biz who know who I am because of my internet presence--commenting as much as blogging--and that helps me. But philosophers are way overrepresented in own-name blogging, especially in own-name scholarlyish blogging. So it may be a lot more acceptable than in other fields, and there are said to be some in the field who don't like philosophy blogs. And I've been posting a lot more on politics since I got the TT job. (Though I could see a committee deciding not to interview me over some of the jokes I used to post.)
Also, unless Tribble changed some details, there's no way in hell his colleagues won't be able to identify him. Nobody seems to have repeated Burke's or b****phd's point, approx. "Potentially airing dirty laundry in a blog: Bad! Airing dirty laundry in a pseudonymous CHE article: Good!" So I will.
I am all for punching academics in the face, but isn't Tribble's response depressingly rational? He's a purchaser of labor in a buyer's market, success in the job requires intense, and the position is such that he can't afford to make many (any?) hiring blunders.
In circumstances like this, most employers want a work-obsessed cyborg. They'd discriminate against people with families if they could legally. Word to the wise: when you apply for such a position, you *aren't* writing a novel, you *don't* have controversial and weird opinions, and you *don't* mention any passtime that isn't 80% likely to be shared by the senior people in the organization. This is a white lie area, of course, but blogs make these white lies impossible.
I seem to remember reading a joke cover letter somewhere that pretty much said, "I am entirely made up of potential" without hinting at any outside interests, but I can't seem to find it.
This is an awesome rejection of a rejection letter, though.
baa, that's not the case in academic hiring decisions. In academia you're particularly likely to spend a lot of social time with your colleagues--for one thing, practically everyone's coming in from out of town, so doesn't have much preexisting social network--and so you don't want to hire a bunch of work-obsessed cyborgs. I bet most committees would rather hire someone who spends 10% of the time doing stuff that makes them interesting to be around rather than spending that 10% on their research. Now you could argue that the tech geek's hobby doesn't make him interesting to be around, but that's another point.
Also, unless there's a lot of dissent that causes bad blood, a bad hiring decision isn't going to cost Tribble his job. Tribble has a lot more to lose from hiring someone who will be an unpleasant colleage or a jerk than from hiring someone whose research won't pan out. Which again militates against the work-obsessed cyborg.
In these cases the opinions of the senior people in the organization usually don't matter. The dean or whoever usually has little to no specific input into junior hires (this can vary). And probably isn't going to be personally googling individual candidates.
Tribble's reasoning may be rational at the level of his own individual behavior, but I think a larger rational realization would be that the system which leads to such conclusions is pernicious.
No, I would not conduct a search this way. I am not convinced, however, that my search would be superior to Mr. Tribble's. I fear, in darker moments, that it would be inferior.
Paul Graham has a line that when starting a company, you need to hire only people who could be described as "animals." I do not like "animals," but they certainly do seem to deliver.
But humanities departments at liberal arts colleges aren't startups.
But excellence is excellence. If my search was deigned to find a fun colleague, it might be different. A dean, trying to raise the prestige of his school, however, ight well default to the animal.
Now I think you're messing with us. The alternative to "animal" is not necessarily "fun;" it could be "tolerable." Which is just to say--and I don't believe that you, with your Aristotelian leanings, don't know this--that the excellence of an academic is not the same as the excellence of someone in a startup.
I'm not convinced that excellence in academia correlates to the same animalistic traits as excellence in commerce. It's not about profit, roughly. Also, bringing in someone whose work is individually excellent but who disrupts the life of the department won't necessarily increase its overall excellence--a fun colleague who makes people happy may help retention, overall spirit, etc. Also, this is a liberal arts college, they need people who can teach, and if you're teaching it helps to be a recognizable human being rather than a work-obsessed drone. You've got to talk to students who are not themselves work-obsessed drones.
A dean, trying to raise the prestige of his school, however, ight well default to the animal.
This could, of course, speak to perversity in how prestige is measured, and the question of whether one ought to try to increase it in the first place.
My first post was when I only knew that two or three people had also written about it; my second was when I found that essentially every academic blogger had done so, and that to some extent everything I'd said in the previous entry had been said again and again (including my title for the entry, but I suppose it was rather obvious.)
Dan Drezner in particular made many of the points I'd make, as did Bitch Ph.D, particularly the "what's to keep a blogger from revealing dirty laundry later?" The problem with that question is that it asserts a significantly increased chance that an academic who keeps a blog is going to do that. If we were talking about pseudonymous blogs, there might be some reason to say that increased chance is borne out. If we're talking academic blogs by bloggers under their own names, I'd say quite the opposite: most of them exhibit the same constraints and etiquette that generally function in academia. So if a candidate has an academic blog under his/her own name, I'd say it is no more or less an indicator that the person is inclined to breach academic norms than if the person writes letters, uses email, writes scholarly commentaries, appears at conferences, etcetera. And considerably less likely than if the person is inclined to write pseudonymous articles for the Chronicle of Higher Education.
There's nothing wrong with deciding based on an interview process that a candidate is going to be a difficult or unreliable colleague and arguing against him/her on that basis, and if a blog helps you make that judgement, so be it. The problem with Tribble in this context is that first, he gives plenty of evidence that he regards publication outside of academic norms, blogs or otherwise, as necessarily an indication of difficulty or unreliability in an academic, and second, that some of what he views as unreliability specifically revealed in a blog is just small-minded. Like his feeling that one of his potential colleagues is too interested in technological issues and might spend time with the computer scientists. It hardly makes you trust his representation of the other blogs, or his claims that they were only a limited factor in the decision.
Wolfson is correct that how we think about the "ought" of faculty hiring is one key point here.
Let's take as stipulated that there is some kind of excellence that really does correlate with being an "animal" -- being completely focused on the task at hand, living breathing work, etc. Now, I emphatically do *not* think this excellence is human excellence, but a person willing to spend seven years without vacation and without reading any fiction undoubtedly has a big advantage in work production.
Now, we may say "that guy who didn't read novels won't be creative and good and his work will suffer." That would be nice. I suspect it's simply not true.
I think you vastly overestimate how well we can predict ability by reference to ... anything. I'm actually surprised that you are taking this position. Almost every person I've ever known who acts as a manager will tell you that the biggest obstacle he faces is his inability to tell, through the hiring process, who is good and who is not. There are lots of studies indicating that interviewing people before hiring them, for example, is not at all helpful. It's certainly not particularly helpful (except at the margin) in determining who is merely competent and who is likely to be a superstar. What is troubling about the CHE article is that an academic, who should be particularly wary of false verities, apparently believes that trivial information found on a blog ("I met a nice guy," perhaps, or "I hate Windows") will help him make a better determination. That's laughable. And it speaks to the quality of the either the institution that hired him or the discipline that spawned him.
Some people who live and breathe their academic work for seven years do better work because of it. Some don't. Anyone in the humanities who takes the existence of a hobby to show insufficient dedication for tip-top academic research excellence is a tool. Richard Montague made a killing on the real estate market, didn't he? Jerry Fodor likes to go to the opera. John McDowell is a jazz fan.
Certainly. Senior faculty enjoy wine, food, travel, opera, birdwatching, painting, mountaineering, architecture, art, and... writing on blogs, at least in some cases. There's very little to suggest that the humanities generally encourages drones.
Which is what is remarkable about blogging. A philosophy graduate student may well think, "Well, Brian Leiter has a blog, surely it's a hobby academics will respect", and decide to post under his own name ("because posting as a pseudonym is wimpy... look at Juan Non-Volokh").... and now that's a downside, because it shows he has a non-philosophy side of himself?
I forgot to mention that John MacFarlane, one of the best under-40 philosophers, is a damn fine fiddler--and he posts about it on his website!
Cala, I wouldn't worry too much if you're thinking about that. I really do get the sense that blogging is considered OK among philosophers, if one doesn't make too much of an ass of oneself. But ask your faculty.
Clarinet it is. L to R: Ben Opie, Dave Long, Nate Peck (I think), Ben Hartlage, MacFarlane.
(It's only fair to point out that if you're as good at philosophy as John MacFarlane you can post pictures of yourself torturing puppies on your website and still get an excellent job.)
T. Burke has a post up beginning, "Well, so much for Tribble. Seriously.". Was there some kind of denouement I missed? A eucatastrophe of some sort?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:12 AM
I think Tim means that he needn't bother taking the thing apart, since it's been done by just about every academic.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:15 AM
Ah. I was confused because his very previous post was also about him. And the post title is suggestive, innit?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:16 AM
Burke's post demonstrates that Tribble is a petty goon. Not so much denouemental as denouncemental.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:17 AM
"denouncemental" is one of your poorer neologisms.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:27 AM
So sorry to disappoint you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:31 AM
For punishment, why don't you coldcock me with your flaccid alliteration?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:35 AM
The first example in the Chronicle troubled me more: it wasn't even that the person's Microsoft hobby troubled the commitee for being especially salacious but because it revealed an interest other than Important Research Field which makes them a risk for... not taking his job seriously and leaving?
Not that non-academic hiring processes make any more sense, of course.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 9:59 AM
I'm going to start blogging under the name "Fontana Labs, Jr."
That article was ridiculous. "I can't believe he likes computers! His real passion must be that, despite the fact that he went through a grueling terminal degree program with slim chances of employment in order to pursue his academic field, implicitly rejecting a more secure and higher-paying possible career in computers." Absolutely idiotic.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 10:18 AM
Let's out Ivan Tribble!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 10:20 AM
I'm with ogged. It's time to out Ivan Tribble. (That pseudonym makes me think of dribble, which weirdly reminds me of drool. Clearly, I'm not a big basketball fan.)
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 10:48 AM
To be clear, I wasn't serious, being a big fan of pseudonymity myself. But the guy does deserve what Fontana might describe as a "punch in the face."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 10:50 AM
I wasn't being serious either. I do think that it might be fun to do a cartoon of an imagined Ivan Tribble with drool running down his face. Do you think that the Chronicle would publish that?
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 10:57 AM
The article did say that some of the candidates included their blogs in their resumes/cover letters. Prof. Shill, from the way he was talked about, was probably one of those. For those who provide their blog, it seems fair for the committee to investigate them. After all, Tribble says he expected to see scholarly writing. And there's this:
we did not disqualify any applicants based purely on their blogs. If the blog was a negative factor, it was one of many that killed a candidate's chances.
More often that not, however, the blog was a negative, and job seekers need to eliminate as many negatives as possible.
Before we leap to Fontana's conclusion ("don't blog under your own name if you plan on getting a job"), it should be asked whether it is possible to imagine a blog which would not be detrimental to being hired? Would, say, being a poster at Crooked Timber qualify? Or, Matt Y?
The issue is certainly trickier when it comes to those who didn't include their blogs in their resumes. Should there be a moratorium on googling potential hires? I don't feel qualified to answer that one, so I'll just leave it open.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:22 AM
In case it's not clear, the sentence, "more often than not..." should have been italicized.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:23 AM
The techno-geek thing made me think of Kieran Healy, in fact. It's easy to see how someone clueless could describe Healy's interest in his workflow as a distraction.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:26 AM
I'm pretty sure the non-anonymity of my blog was the fatal blow to my chances during the Papal Conclave last month. We were this close to Pope Ostropher I.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:36 AM
It was either that or that ridiculous "You gotta be Catholic" requirement.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:37 AM
From Burke's post:
Taken seriously, that's an argument [the blogger might reveal the department's dirty laundry] that should lead to hiring no one.
I don't think that's true. We expect a certian respect, in the form of reticence, from adults who have issues with other adults. Perhaps the offended party may tell a few friends, talk it over. But that's a small party who understands the situation, and, moreover, probably also knows not to talk too much. We certainly don't expect an adult to go up to strangers and just start gabbing away about their issues.
Someone with a personal blog, however, is potantially different in two respects. First, such a person, depending on the blog, may demonstrate a greater propensity for talking about their problems. Secondly, this person has a wider, undiscriminating audience. It seems to me that the risk of spreading "dirty laundry" is significantly higher with the second sort of person. Further, such complaints are written down, in searchable format, ready for people with interest in that department to find out about. A manner of complaint which is quite different in kind, and more potentially damaging, than a mere gossip.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:38 AM
I think Fontana's conclusion is valid. It is unlikely that you are going to be as good a blogger as Matt Y.
Part of the problem in the humanities is that there are too many qualified applicants chasing too few slots. They can reject people for petty and/or absurd reasons and still find plenty of qualified applicants.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:41 AM
@19. I read Burke as saying not that having a blog can't be construed as a liability, but rather that there's nothing stopping someone who doesn't have a blog from creating one once they're hired and airing dirty laundry all over the internet. Granted, the risk is probably higher if a person is already prone to academic navel-gazing, but there seem to be a number of academic blogs that didn't get underway until after someone was hired.
@21 and earlier: I'm not sure even a blog of MY's quality would be counted as an asset in a job search. And why should it? It's well-written, but not scholarly or focused on a particular discipline.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 11:57 AM
And why should it?
It demonstrates a better ability to read, analyze, and write than I've seen on many academics' blogs. Well, that counts in philosophy.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:02 PM
Fair criticism of my 19, though.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:04 PM
Michael, but it's not scholarly or focused on a particular discipline. The Invisible Adjunct was a very good writer, but that doesn't tell a hiring committee much about her qualifications in history.
MY's a good writer. I enjoy his blog a lot. I think it demonstrates that he's a competent analyst. And maybe the MY counterpart applying for academic jobs will get hiring committees who will see the talent and will be suitably impressed. And maybe others will be offended by his politics and figure he's too much of a lightning rod. (Not all job offers are in blue states.)
I'm thinking that, regrettably, unless your blog is very discipline-oriented, it stands a much larger chance to harm than it does help.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:17 PM
Cala, but what is relevant to scholarship? There's research, and there's the ability to sort through it and make sense of it. Matt's blog doesn't show active research. It does show, I think, that he has the ability to do good analysis, and, moreover, that he is a vivacious reader. Those are two very important ingrediants to scholarship.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:45 PM
that he is a vivacious reader
Let's savor this.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:49 PM
huh, i'm thinking of Matt applying for grad school, which is naturally where he'd apply to, and not to a job, which is basically what I indicated upthread. Nm.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:50 PM
vivacious?
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:52 PM
Hey, maybe he does read full of animation and spirit.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:52 PM
Oops, too slow.
Posted by annie | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:52 PM
yeah, yeah, I meant "voracious."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 12:54 PM
Or maybe voluptuous.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 1:08 PM
Well, Matt and Ezra seem to be special cases. I think that journalists/ pundits are able to leverage their blogs to get employment in journalism. I think that Matt's blog probably impressed the Prospect editors more than his work at the Harvard Independent, although I doubt that the blog alone would have gotten him hired without the work at the newspaper.
Now Ezra worked for the Washington Monthly as an intern, but did he work for either the Santa Cruz or the UCLA newspapers?
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 1:10 PM
Brian Weatherson has said (I think) that his main blog if anything has helped him in his career. This is something I've worried about myself; a few of the people I interviewed with this past year mentioned that they'd seen my blog, and that didn't seem to hurt me, but of course it's impossible to tell if anyone decided not to interview me because of the blog.
On the whole it seems like there are several people in the philosophy biz who know who I am because of my internet presence--commenting as much as blogging--and that helps me. But philosophers are way overrepresented in own-name blogging, especially in own-name scholarlyish blogging. So it may be a lot more acceptable than in other fields, and there are said to be some in the field who don't like philosophy blogs. And I've been posting a lot more on politics since I got the TT job. (Though I could see a committee deciding not to interview me over some of the jokes I used to post.)
Also, unless Tribble changed some details, there's no way in hell his colleagues won't be able to identify him. Nobody seems to have repeated Burke's or b****phd's point, approx. "Potentially airing dirty laundry in a blog: Bad! Airing dirty laundry in a pseudonymous CHE article: Good!" So I will.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 1:36 PM
I am all for punching academics in the face, but isn't Tribble's response depressingly rational? He's a purchaser of labor in a buyer's market, success in the job requires intense, and the position is such that he can't afford to make many (any?) hiring blunders.
In circumstances like this, most employers want a work-obsessed cyborg. They'd discriminate against people with families if they could legally. Word to the wise: when you apply for such a position, you *aren't* writing a novel, you *don't* have controversial and weird opinions, and you *don't* mention any passtime that isn't 80% likely to be shared by the senior people in the organization. This is a white lie area, of course, but blogs make these white lies impossible.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:13 PM
People have incorrect attitudes towards work and productivity.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:20 PM
I seem to remember reading a joke cover letter somewhere that pretty much said, "I am entirely made up of potential" without hinting at any outside interests, but I can't seem to find it.
This is an awesome rejection of a rejection letter, though.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:23 PM
isn't Tribble's response depressingly rational?
That seems like a strange question. Do you think he's right?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:28 PM
baa, that's not the case in academic hiring decisions. In academia you're particularly likely to spend a lot of social time with your colleagues--for one thing, practically everyone's coming in from out of town, so doesn't have much preexisting social network--and so you don't want to hire a bunch of work-obsessed cyborgs. I bet most committees would rather hire someone who spends 10% of the time doing stuff that makes them interesting to be around rather than spending that 10% on their research. Now you could argue that the tech geek's hobby doesn't make him interesting to be around, but that's another point.
Also, unless there's a lot of dissent that causes bad blood, a bad hiring decision isn't going to cost Tribble his job. Tribble has a lot more to lose from hiring someone who will be an unpleasant colleage or a jerk than from hiring someone whose research won't pan out. Which again militates against the work-obsessed cyborg.
In these cases the opinions of the senior people in the organization usually don't matter. The dean or whoever usually has little to no specific input into junior hires (this can vary). And probably isn't going to be personally googling individual candidates.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:28 PM
I think there's something to it, yes.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:32 PM
The incentive is to make a hire that won't discuss previous and future bad hires publicly, not to avoid making a bad hire at all.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:32 PM
I think there's something to it, yes.
So you think hiring committees should look for work-obsessed drones? What I really mean to ask is, is this how you would conduct a search?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:39 PM
Tribble's reasoning may be rational at the level of his own individual behavior, but I think a larger rational realization would be that the system which leads to such conclusions is pernicious.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:40 PM
No, I would not conduct a search this way. I am not convinced, however, that my search would be superior to Mr. Tribble's. I fear, in darker moments, that it would be inferior.
Paul Graham has a line that when starting a company, you need to hire only people who could be described as "animals." I do not like "animals," but they certainly do seem to deliver.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 2:59 PM
But humanities departments at liberal arts colleges aren't startups.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 3:01 PM
I am all for punching academics in the face
With whom would you like to start?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 3:05 PM
But humanities departments at liberal arts colleges aren't startups.
But excellence is excellence. If my search was deigned to find a fun colleague, it might be different. A dean, trying to raise the prestige of his school, however, ight well default to the animal.
With whom would you like to start?
That Paul Farmer guy .... thinks he's so big...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 3:48 PM
Now I think you're messing with us. The alternative to "animal" is not necessarily "fun;" it could be "tolerable." Which is just to say--and I don't believe that you, with your Aristotelian leanings, don't know this--that the excellence of an academic is not the same as the excellence of someone in a startup.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 3:58 PM
I'm not convinced that excellence in academia correlates to the same animalistic traits as excellence in commerce. It's not about profit, roughly. Also, bringing in someone whose work is individually excellent but who disrupts the life of the department won't necessarily increase its overall excellence--a fun colleague who makes people happy may help retention, overall spirit, etc. Also, this is a liberal arts college, they need people who can teach, and if you're teaching it helps to be a recognizable human being rather than a work-obsessed drone. You've got to talk to students who are not themselves work-obsessed drones.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:00 PM
That's right, Ogged. Smack him down with The Big Aristotle.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:01 PM
ogged's blogging is like the Pythagorean theorem.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:06 PM
A dean, trying to raise the prestige of his school, however, ight well default to the animal.
This could, of course, speak to perversity in how prestige is measured, and the question of whether one ought to try to increase it in the first place.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:44 PM
My first post was when I only knew that two or three people had also written about it; my second was when I found that essentially every academic blogger had done so, and that to some extent everything I'd said in the previous entry had been said again and again (including my title for the entry, but I suppose it was rather obvious.)
Dan Drezner in particular made many of the points I'd make, as did Bitch Ph.D, particularly the "what's to keep a blogger from revealing dirty laundry later?" The problem with that question is that it asserts a significantly increased chance that an academic who keeps a blog is going to do that. If we were talking about pseudonymous blogs, there might be some reason to say that increased chance is borne out. If we're talking academic blogs by bloggers under their own names, I'd say quite the opposite: most of them exhibit the same constraints and etiquette that generally function in academia. So if a candidate has an academic blog under his/her own name, I'd say it is no more or less an indicator that the person is inclined to breach academic norms than if the person writes letters, uses email, writes scholarly commentaries, appears at conferences, etcetera. And considerably less likely than if the person is inclined to write pseudonymous articles for the Chronicle of Higher Education.
There's nothing wrong with deciding based on an interview process that a candidate is going to be a difficult or unreliable colleague and arguing against him/her on that basis, and if a blog helps you make that judgement, so be it. The problem with Tribble in this context is that first, he gives plenty of evidence that he regards publication outside of academic norms, blogs or otherwise, as necessarily an indication of difficulty or unreliability in an academic, and second, that some of what he views as unreliability specifically revealed in a blog is just small-minded. Like his feeling that one of his potential colleagues is too interested in technological issues and might spend time with the computer scientists. It hardly makes you trust his representation of the other blogs, or his claims that they were only a limited factor in the decision.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:56 PM
Wolfson is correct that how we think about the "ought" of faculty hiring is one key point here.
Let's take as stipulated that there is some kind of excellence that really does correlate with being an "animal" -- being completely focused on the task at hand, living breathing work, etc. Now, I emphatically do *not* think this excellence is human excellence, but a person willing to spend seven years without vacation and without reading any fiction undoubtedly has a big advantage in work production.
Now, we may say "that guy who didn't read novels won't be creative and good and his work will suffer." That would be nice. I suspect it's simply not true.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 4:58 PM
baa:
I think you vastly overestimate how well we can predict ability by reference to ... anything. I'm actually surprised that you are taking this position. Almost every person I've ever known who acts as a manager will tell you that the biggest obstacle he faces is his inability to tell, through the hiring process, who is good and who is not. There are lots of studies indicating that interviewing people before hiring them, for example, is not at all helpful. It's certainly not particularly helpful (except at the margin) in determining who is merely competent and who is likely to be a superstar. What is troubling about the CHE article is that an academic, who should be particularly wary of false verities, apparently believes that trivial information found on a blog ("I met a nice guy," perhaps, or "I hate Windows") will help him make a better determination. That's laughable. And it speaks to the quality of the either the institution that hired him or the discipline that spawned him.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 5:11 PM
Some people who live and breathe their academic work for seven years do better work because of it. Some don't. Anyone in the humanities who takes the existence of a hobby to show insufficient dedication for tip-top academic research excellence is a tool. Richard Montague made a killing on the real estate market, didn't he? Jerry Fodor likes to go to the opera. John McDowell is a jazz fan.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 5:11 PM
Certainly. Senior faculty enjoy wine, food, travel, opera, birdwatching, painting, mountaineering, architecture, art, and... writing on blogs, at least in some cases. There's very little to suggest that the humanities generally encourages drones.
Which is what is remarkable about blogging. A philosophy graduate student may well think, "Well, Brian Leiter has a blog, surely it's a hobby academics will respect", and decide to post under his own name ("because posting as a pseudonym is wimpy... look at Juan Non-Volokh").... and now that's a downside, because it shows he has a non-philosophy side of himself?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 5:27 PM
I forgot to mention that John MacFarlane, one of the best under-40 philosophers, is a damn fine fiddler--and he posts about it on his website!
Cala, I wouldn't worry too much if you're thinking about that. I really do get the sense that blogging is considered OK among philosophers, if one doesn't make too much of an ass of oneself. But ask your faculty.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:21 PM
Is that a clarinet playing with that string band?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:26 PM
And he generates his page from reST, thereby demonstrating an interest in, like, computers'n'shit.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:34 PM
Clarinet it is. L to R: Ben Opie, Dave Long, Nate Peck (I think), Ben Hartlage, MacFarlane.
(It's only fair to point out that if you're as good at philosophy as John MacFarlane you can post pictures of yourself torturing puppies on your website and still get an excellent job.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:39 PM
And he knows ML.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:51 PM
And he knows ML.
*swoon*
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-12-05 11:33 AM
Say, this provides evidence that blogging can make you seem much more prominent in the profession than you really are.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-14-05 11:13 AM
To bloggers outside the profession, at any rate.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-15-05 4:14 PM
http://www.i5net.net/~i5pages/i5pagesnonaccount/ilosaki/incestmovies/satanic.html enduredprincessteenage
Posted by plead | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 1:24 PM