Jobs and Not Getting Them

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Christopher Pound: "Non-academic job announcement for ethnographers"
• Previous message: Anj Petto: "Academic Combat"

Matt Tomaso writes,
" Blame and fault, in our 'committee' are decided
by courts. The explanation industry is more interested in causality,
apparently. The effectiveness of the courts' decisions, in the evolution
of committee ideology, is clearly greater than that of the explanation
industry. It is perhaps ironic that the explanation industry resorts to
a jury-like model for decision making regarding the fate of its employ-
ment prospects. Does it not, then, become, the Obfuscation industry?"

Reading this remark and the earlier posts that prompted it arouses all sorts
of mixed feelings in me. Any help in sorting them out will be greatly
appreciated.

(1) I recall Finagle's law of committee intelligence: "To determine the
intelligence of a committee divide the _average_ IQ of its members by the
number of members on it."

(2) Then I think of my Japanese colleagues who often manage to do quite
fine things in groups. It occurs to me that one reason is a shared
commitment to the group and the projects $@Zz (Jr $@! (J

• Next message: Christopher Pound: "Non-academic job announcement for ethnographers"
• Previous message: Anj Petto: "Academic Combat"