Of Blogs, Boks, and Academia: A Screening Model

My first quarter as a junior professor is in the books. I did not post here once in the entire quarter!

I offer two possible explanations. Perhaps I lack the ability to produce lucid, satirical prose when my mind is tired, my energy depleted by new responsibilities. On the other hand, perhaps I only pretend to lack this ability. Perhaps I’m a very clever fellow with a game theorist’s temperament, and despite having boundless intellectual energy, I have intentionally made myself appear a wearier, slower, and less energetic blogger than I am (or could be) in order to send the right signal to academia.

Object lesson: During my long absence, University of Chicago denied tenure to political scientist and influential blogger Dan Dreizner. Is it possible that this was due to his consistent habit of posting thoughtful entries to a high-profile blog? One wonders. His publication record in scholarly journals was impressive, by all accounts.  But here’s the rub (and I’m trying to trance-channel some petty, curmudgeonly senior academic at this point): If he produced a high volume of excellent work while “wasting” countless hours on his blog, how much more could he have produced had he been singularly devoted to scholarly writing?

But wait a minute, you say to the curmudgeon. It may well be that engaging in public debate keeps an academic energized and connected to the real world, that an informed and practical perspective raises the quality of scholarly research, that to be out of touch with the perspectives of people outside the ivory towers is a bad thing. If a young researcher produces a high volume of high quality work, you say, we should not criticize him for the way he spends his leisure time, particularly if this activity could actually improve his research.

Not so, says my senior colleague, Dr. Edgeworth Boks. To impress academia, says Edgie, you must have no life outside of academia. Not only that, insists the good Doctor, you should appear to have no interest in ever having a life outside of academia. Why? Because if you care about something other than academia, if the real world matters to you in any way, shape, or form, then you are something of a flight risk. Departments screen for people who enjoy academia so much (and have so little talent for anything else) that they would never think to spend time on any activity outside of it. The narrower and shallower you are, the better. Dr. Boks proudly attributes his own academic success to having been, in his own words, “the narrowest, shallowest, and least interesting person at large in North America--with the possible exception of Paris Hilton.”

Consider a man with a fiance, says Edgie. She is perfect for him. She meets all his physical and emotional needs, loves him, showers attention on him. She is beyond reproach as a potential mate. She produces as much for him as he could hope for. However, she only sleeps 3 hours a night, whereas he sleeps 8 hours a night. She uses the 5 additional hours to entertain other men at the neighborhood bar. If he judges her strictly on output, he should choose to marry her. These 5 hours are a surplus. He could not expect anything more from a “normal” mate during those 5 hours, as a normal mate would be sleeping.

But this is to ignore the signal! Her behavior suggests that she is more likely to leave him. She has demonstrated a taste for the outside option.

The behavior of a junior professor is also a signal, Edgeworth proclaims. Academics perform many onerous duties such as reading and critiquing each other’s work, attending seminars and faculty meetings, recruiting new faculty, serving on committees. These behaviors may benefit the department more than they benefit the individual providing them. They are public goods. A department is wise, then, to screen for people with few outside tastes and even fewer outside abilities. Such a person will be more reliable as a provider of the public goods. This person will show up at every seminar, well prepared, perky and punctual, because this person has no outside life. (Moreover, this person would not even know where to look for a life if he or she wanted one.) 

But what if you suffer the misfortune of having been born with more than one rigidly defined talent? What if you care about the world around you? What if you rely on a wide-ranging curiosity to fuel your research? You could be mistaken for a person of depth and versatility, thoroughly unsuited for academia!

Never fear, says Edgie. You play the violin? Your talent is world class? This is a problem, but not insurmountable: Amputate a few fingers.

You are a brilliant chess player? Again, there is a simple solution: Cheat in a tournament and get yourself banned for life from any and all chess organizations.

You have children and you love them? No big deal. Make a show of being a negligent parent. Leave a seminar in panic, say, and explain that your 2-year-old was found wandering alone at the local Food-mart, mumbling something about being thirsty and needing milk.

You write cogently and are recruited to pen a column for a popular magazine or newspaper? Edgie has a solution for you. Produce columns so sloppily written and unbalanced that no one could mistake them for something you put thought into. (Yet another proof of the cleverness of a certain NY Times columnist, says Edgie).

I do not agree with Dr. Boks. In fact, we have had many arguments on the issue. Most recently, he chided me for knowing the name of the Prime Minister of England. (How do you expect to become a tenured academic if you actually know something? he said.)  We have agreed to disagree.

Meanwhile, Dan Dreizner appears to have landed on his feet (at Tufts, no less—though Edgie insists that Tufts erred in hiring him: Dreizner is not shallow enough to become a model academic.)  As for myself, dear readers, I confess that I am not the game theorist Edgie is. My meager blogging output is not a clever means of signaling my type. I simply lack the talent to blog frequently while teaching, attending seminars, and trying to produce a high volume of scholarly research. My postings will be less frequent. I cannot do both things at once and do them well. Research will take precedence.

(I can only thank my lucky stars that I’m not as versatile as Dan...)

-p.s.babcock

Comments

[UK]

PM of England??? someone should inform Tony Blair.

[zogg]

Your prose being lucider than lucid, I thought you might enjoy a translation of your postings into a language far more accessible to those you punditize unto (courtesy of www.gizoogle.com):

Of Blogs, Bizzay n Academia: A Clockin' Model

My first gangsta as a junior professor is in tha books . Ill slap tha taste out yo mouf. I did not pizzay here once in tha entire quarta!

I rappa two possible explanations. Perhaps I lack tha ability ta produce lucid, satirizzles prose wizzle mah mind is tired, mah energy depleted by new responsibilizzles like old skool shit. On tha otha hand, perhaps I only pretend ta lack this ability . Snoop dogg is in this bitch. Perhaps I’m a very gangsta fellow wit a game theorist’s temperizzles n despite mobbin' boundless intellectual energy, I hizzy intentionally mizzle me appear a wearia, cracka n less energetic pusha than I am (or could be) in orda ta send tha right signal ta academia.

Object lesson mah nizzle: Weed-smokin' mah long absence, University of Chicago denied tenure ta politizzle scientist n influential blogga Dan Rappa like this and like that and like this and uh. Is it possible tizzle this was due ta his consistent habit of blingin' thoughtful entries ta a high-profile blizzog? One wanna be gangsta paper'd up. His publicizzles record in scholarly journals was impressive, by all accounts. But here’s tha rub (and I’m blingin' ta trance-chizzles some petty, curmudgeonly senior academic at this point) thats off tha hook yo: If he produced a high volume of excellent work while Bustin' countless hours on his blog, how mizzuch mizzy could he hizzy produced had he been singularly devoted ta scholarly writ'n?

But wait a minute, you say ta tha curmudgeon . Ya fuck with us, we gots to fuck you up. It may wizzy be that saggin' in public debate keeps an academic energized n connected ta tha real world, thizzay an informed n practical perspective raises tha quality of scholarly research, thizzay ta be out of touch wit tha perspectizzles of thugz outside tha ivory towa is a bad ballin' aww nah. If a young researcha produces a high volume of hizzle quality work, you say, we should not criticize him fo` tha way he spends his leisure time, particularly if this activity could actually improve his research , niggaz, better recognize.

Not so, sez mah senior colleague, Dr , niggaz, better recognize. Edgeworth Boks. To impress academia, sez Edgie, you M-to-tha-izzust have no life outside of academia . I started yo shit and i'll end yo' shit. Not only thizzay insists tha good Doctor, you should appear ta have no interest in ever hav'n a life outside of academia ridin' in mah double R. Why? Coz if you care `bout sum-m sum-m otha than academia, if tha real world rappa ta you in any way, shape, or form, then you is sum-m sum-m of a flight R-to-tha-izzisk. Departments screen fo` thugz who enjoy academia so much (and hizzy so shawty mad skillz fo` anyth'n else) thiznat tizzle would neva thizzay ta spend time on any activity outside of it . Real niggas recognize the realness.. The gangsta n shallowa you are, tha nigga fo' rizeal. Dr. Boks proudly attributes his own academic success ta blunt-rollin' been, in his own words, “the narrowest, shallowest, n least interest'n person at large in Nizzorth America--wit tha possible exception of Paris Hilton.”

Hustla a dawg wit a fiance, sez Edgie ya feelin' me?. She is perfect fo` him with my hoes on my side, and my strap on my back. She meets all his physical n emotional needs, loves H-to-tha-izzim, showa attention on him. She is beyond reproach as a potential mizzy . Hollaz to the East Side. She produces as much fo` him as he could hizzy for. Drug Deala she only sleeps 3 hours a night, whereas he sleeps 8 hours a night. She uses tha 5 additional hours ta entertain otha men at tha neighborhood bar . Dogg House Records in the motha fuckin house. If he judges her strictly on output, he should choose ta marry her. These 5 hours is a surplus thats off tha hook yo. He could not expect anyth'n mizzle fizzle a “normal” mate dur'n those 5 hours, as a normal mate would be sleep'n.

But this is ta ignore tha signal . Bow wow wow yippee yo yipee yay! Her behavior suggests tizzy she is more likely ta leave him gangsta style. She has demonstrated a taste fo` tha outside option cuz I'm fresh out the pen.

The behavior of a junior professor is also a signal, Edgeworth proclaims puttin tha smack down. Academics perform many onerous duties such as read'n n saggin' each otha’s work, hatin' seminars n faculty sippin' recruit'n new faculty, serv'n on committees. These behaviors may benefit tha department more than they benefit tha individual provid'n thizzay fo' sho'. Tizzle is public goods. A department is wise, then, ta screen fo` thugz wit few outside tastes n even pimp outside abilities. S-to-tha-izzuch a person will be mizzy reliable as a pimp of tha public goods n shit. This person will shiznow up at every seminar, well prepared, perky n punctual, coz this person has no outside life. (Moreova, this person would not even know where ta look fo` a life if he or she wanted one.)

But what if you cracka tha misfortune of hav'n been born wit mizzle tizzy one rigidly defined talent? What if you care `bout tha world around you? Whizzay if you rely on a cruisin' curiosity ta fizzy yo research? You could be mistaken fo` a person of depth n versatilizzle thoroughly unsuited fo` academia!

Neva fear, sez Edgie. You play tha violin? Yo mad skillz is world class? This is a problem, but not insurmountable: Amputate a few finga.

You is a brilliant chess playa? Again, there is a simple solution . Listen to how a motherfucker flow shit: Cheat in a tournament n git yoself banned fo` life frizzom any n all chess organizzles.

You have children n you love them? No big dizzy. Makes a S-H-to-tha-izzow of being a negligent parent so bow down to the bow wow. Leave a seminar in panic, say, n explain that yo 2-year-old was found wander'n alone at tha local Food-mart, mumbl'n sum-m sum-m `bout being thirsty n need'n mizzle to increase tha peace.

You write cogently n is recruited ta pen a column fo` a popular magazine or newspapa? Edgie has a solution fo` you. Produce columns so sloppily written n unbalanced that no one could mistakes thiznem fo` sum-m sum-m you put thought into . Boo-Yaa!. (Yizzay wanna be gangsta proof of tha cleverness of a certain NY Times columnist, sez Edgie) sho nuff.

I do not agree wit Dr. Boks. In fiznact, we have had many arguments on tha issue. M-to-tha-izzost recently, he chided me fo` trippin' tha nizzy of tha Prime Killa of England fo yo bitch ass. (How do you expect ta become a tenured academic if you actually knizzow sum-m sum-m? he said.) We hizzle agreed ta disagree.

Meanwhile, Dan Dreizna appears ta have landed on his feet (at Tufts, no less—though Edgie insists that Tufts erred in hir'n him wit da big Bo$$ Dogg: Dreizna is not shallow enough ta become a model academic.) As fo` myself, dear reada, I confess T-H-to-tha-izzat I am not tha game theorist Edgie is . Death row 187 4 life. My meaga blogg'n output is not a cleva means of clockin' mah tizzy. I simply lack tha mad skillz ta bliznog frequently while teach'n, attend'n seminars, n mackin' ta produce a high volume of scholarly research. My ridin' will be less frequent. I cannot do bizzle hatin' at once n do tizzy well like a motha fucka. Research will takes precedence . Freak y'all, into the beat y'all.

(I can only thizzay mah lucky stars T-H-to-tha-izzat I’m not as versatile as Dan...)

-p.s.babcock

Decemba 25, 2005 |Permalink|Comments (1) |TrackBack (0)

Baller 27, 2005

[Curiousabouteconomics]

I have a question about economic papers. My niece left some lying around the house and I picked one up and it was interesting but those tables and charts are confusing.

For example, in the tables, there's always two numbers, -

like how one value will predict another.

Say if you're happily married, will you have more savings.

So I think I understand that if it's a positive number, then it's positively related. That is if you are happily married then you will have more saved.

let's say the number is something like

0.125.

I assume this means you are 12.5% more likely to have savings.

But I don't understand what the other number below it means.

say
0.125
(0.067)

What does this number in brackets mean and how does it impact the number above it? Is a high number good or bad? Does it make the result better?

Thanks