It’s thoroughly disgusting when a University fires someone who has worked for them for more than 35 years. Their ‘crime’? Getting sick as a result of being abused at work. Despicable! (note: I am NOT talking about Mount Royal).

What will be done about it? Probably NOTHING. This is not new for this institution.

I quit a job there that I loved because the place is no longer safe for someone who is not willing to

1. lie
2. look the other way
3. be abused
4. admire the Emperor’s suit

I am teaching a course there this term as a favour. I really like the course. The students look like they will be interesting, and fun. The PLACE still makes me sick. Literally.

Why do they continue to do what they do? Because people let them. It REALLY is as simple as that.

The U of C is going through another round of DEEP cuts.

The primary reason for the cuts, says Weingarten, is poor market performance caused by the economic downturn which has adversely affected return on endowment funds used to support various programs and the Universities Academic Pension Fund.

The endowment fund has shrunk by $40.4 million, since hitting a high last year of $411 million.

Apparently it is in China – if you get caught.

Chinese academia ghost-writing ‘widespread’

This BBC article claims that “More than $100m (£63m) changes hands in China every year for ghost-written academic papers, according to research by a Chinese university.”

As I see it, the only thing that really distinguishes this crime from the all too common practice of claiming authorship for everything one’s own grad students do is that the grad students weren’t yours.

There are plenty of academics who routinely add their names to everything their grad students publish. I personally know a science department where a good number of the faculty get most of their publications without ever having to write a word. Yet THAT practice rarely gets questioned. WHY? They didn’t do the work. They merely paid to support the grad student. If I follow that same logic, does that mean any publication I get while being paid by the university must bear the name of the person who approves my paycheque?

I realize there is huge pressure to publish, but the truth is, if people stopped bowing to that pressure and actually claimed credit ONLY for the work they actually did, then the problem would sort itself out as most of the so-called “high fliers” do very little of their own work or writing.

Academia needs to get back to real, honest work. Honestly is supposed to be our most cherished value. Most academics these days are as corrupt as the students they claim to despise – you know those who cheat their way through school.

If Academics actually practiced what they preached, we’d be far better off.

Ranching, recreation collide in the great outdoors

The mountain biker was excited about her big race in Colorado’s wilderness. And nothing irked the sheepherder like the sports crowd. It was a disaster waiting to happen…

Working Dogs

Many people seem to believe that every natural place should be available for recreation, and that all other uses should defer to them.

People who try to raise animals ethically and naturally repeatedly come under fire, but I don’t see all of North America going vegan any time soon, so eventually, the ONLY way left to raise animals for meat will be through factory farms. That means all of our meat (and the billions and billions of other animals products that end up in almost everything we touch) will be ‘rendered’ by enormous corporations headquartered in urban centers who care primarily about the bottom line, and who have powerful lobbies that ensure that NO-ONE sees what they really do – only how cheap it is to buy a McNugget or a Big Mac, and how smoooooth their skin feels after using their creams.

Here’s another scenario:

1. The sheep rancher’s dogs will be put to death for doing their job.
2. The sheep rancher will go out of business because the local predators will eat too many of his sheep.
3. The wolves, coyotes, and cougars who have been keeping their distance because of the livestock guarding dogs will now move into the territory.
4. Some hapless tourist will get attacked and possibly killed by a cougar.
5. Trigger happy (dare I say it? bloodthirsty) hunters will demand the ‘freedom’ to go in and get rid of those terrible savage animals, and the urbanites will let them.
6. Top level predators will be wiped out from the area, but the tourists will have safe passage (for a time).
7. Prey animals will multiply until they either become diseased or starve due to overpopulation.
8. The entire district will get paved over to become a new residential neighbourhood, or become a  tightly controlled “ranchland” where cattle (owned by giant corporations) change the landscape forever. All remnants of what it used to be will be gone.

That’s better, isn’t it? Who cares about the prairie chicken anyways – ya can’t make McNuggets out of ‘em. The only things that REALLY matter is that we continue to be able to get cheap food, we get to recreate where ever and however we please (freedom and all that, right?) and that the NRA rules.

How different the story might have been if only someone had done the neighbourly thing and inform the ranger of the event.  His dogs (and probably his sheep) would have been confined for the day. No-one would have been hirt, and there would have been no story.

Too bad we don’t get to hear more about the non-stories – those that DON’T result in a trip to the hospital…..

My husband and I had dinner with a friend last night whom we both like and respect a great deal. He’s a decent, smart man and we thoroughly enjoyed spending time with him. We talked about many things, among them our attitudes about the human use of animals. My friend is a vegan, and we’re not. I had no intention of trying to convince my friend to change his ways, and I am pretty sure he had no intention of changing mine. We are all the sorts of people who think deeply about things and do not make lifestyle decisions like what to eat or not eat without thinking about what that might mean.

In many ways our lives are very different – my friend lives in New York City and I live on a farm nestled in the eastern foothills of the Canadian Rockies. I didn’t ask, but I don’t think my friend has any pets or other animals who share his life. I have many animals, most of which I use in one way or another. I adore my animals and would find a life without them impoverished indeed. However, (and here’s the rub) sometimes, I eat one of my animals.

I struggle with the moral issues involved and so I continued to think about this after dropping our friend off at his hotel. My husband and I talked about it on the way home. I thought about it while falling asleep and again in the morning. I try very hard to be logical and reasonable in my arguments. I like to think of myself as an ethical person (I gave up a 23 year career over principles). I suspect I may not have succeeded in being entirely logical on this one. But neither did my friend.

This morning, I found this in the New York Times, so I thought I’d respond. I suspect my friend subscribes to some of the arguments made below, but I don’t know if he subscribes to all of them. In any case this is not directed at him specifically. Rather it is an attempt to pull the camera back to show more of the picture. It ’s more complicated than people want to think. Unless you are prepared to live in the wilderness completely off the grid, being a vegan, even a strict ethical one, does not spare you from having animals killed on your behalf.  Fewer to be sure, but they still die for you.

permalink: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html

Read the rest of this entry »

Stanley Fish is really hit and miss for me: sometimes I agree with him, and other times really, really not. This is one of those times I agree:

I’ve always told people that they should assume that anything they put on the web should be considered public, whether it is on a public site or not. If you don’t want the information known, then don’t put it out there.

Thanks to modern data mining techniques, we can now predict whether or not you are gay by looking at your friends on Facebook.

That’s kind of interesting, though personally, I don’t really care if someone is gay or not. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) affect their ability to be a decent person.

On the other hand, I am FAR more interested in finding out whether they are honest or not;  loyal or not; bullies or not. THAT would be useful. I wonder if looking at someone’s FB friends can tell us that?

I have now lost track of how many people I *thought* were my friends, who have let me down by not standing up for honesty and integrity and for treating people decently and fairly. They always have an excuse, but the truth is, it is easier to lie than to be honest, and it is easier to be indifferent than decent. Cowardly, but definitely easier.

One thing I have learned is that people who defend someone who is dishonest or mean are a bad risk.

A righteous man is cautious in friendship, but the way of the wicked leads them astray. – Proverbs 12:26

At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy.

Working Sheepdogs

I don’t usually do this, but this is a response to another blog, found here.  The piece I am commenting on is part of a larger post about what Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan. It is in support of our Canadian Military and repeats a sheep and sheepdogs metaphor written by Dave Grossman. My own thoughts about the military (well, some of them) are below. The quote however, demonstrates Grossman’s ignorance once again. Having been in the military does not, in and of itself, qualify you as the last word on the subject. Not only does he have no real clue about videogames, but he now demonstrates he has no real clue about sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves. If you are going to use a metaphor, at least use one that doesn’t show off your lack of insight. That kind of defeats the purpose.

Read the rest of this entry »

By now almost everyone online is familiar with the wonderful story of Susan Doyle.

There are many interesting dimensions to this story, like the one discussed by Henry Jenkins having to do with how quickly the world came to know about her (in How Susan Spread and What It Means). Like most people I’m sure, I too am happy for her current good fortune. It always makes me happy when something nice happens to someone – all the sweeter if they appear to be decent, deserving people. And there’s the rub, isn’t it?  We (i.e. the great unwashed) were very quick to pass judgment on this lady and then changed our judgements when we discovered she really could sing.

Well, here’s an article that offers another way to think about it: What if Susan Boyle Couldn’t Sing? by Dennis Polumbo

How would the story be different if her voice had been unremarkable, or even ‘worse’ (interesting how that seems an appropriate adjective) flat or scratchy or off?

What does this say about us? It makes me ashamed. I was caught up in the hubub too. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being happy for her. The problem lies in how we judged her beforehand, AND with the fact that somehow it was OK to do that.

Think about it.

Net Gen kids cheat, they say….

OK, this annoys me.  Apparently, we learn very little through the millennia.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” ( Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato ~400BC)

Richly deserved: http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/05/university-of-calgary-in-alberta-canada.html

AND:

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/05/university-of-calgary-in-alberta-canada_21.html

 So much for the importance of team work in this modern world…..

From TheStar.com: ”

Study groups may be a virtual trademark of the Ivory Tower – but a virtual study group has been slammed as cheating by Ryerson University.

First-year student Chris Avenir is fighting charges of academic misconduct for helping run an online chemistry study group via Facebook last term, where 146 classmates swapped tips on homework questions that counted for 10 per cent of their mark.

The computer engineering student has been charged with one count of academic misconduct for helping run the group – called Dungeons/Mastering Chemistry Solutions after the popular Ryerson basement study room engineering students dub The Dungeon – and another 146 counts, one for each classmate who used the site.”

So, of course, I checked the university site to see what kind of pixy-dust they would try to throw on me if I were a prospective student. Well, I didn’t find any (granted, I didn’t look very hard, but most places who want to recruit students spend at least some time telling you how wonderful they are. Amongst other things, Ryerson says this: “If you’re looking for quality, career-ready learning – that combines academic rigour with relevant practical experience – you’ve come to the right place.”

Perhaps they meant to say “academic rigor mortis”?

One learns more from a good scholar in a rage than from a score of lucid and laborious drudges. - Rudyard Kipling

The University of Calgary says it cares about its students.

Let’s see,

“The U of C is pursuing the biggest single capital expansion in its history. Fuelled by Alberta’s nation-leading economic growth, the university has embarked upon a $1.5-billion plan to add capacity for 7,000 more students and a host of new teaching and research activities.”

From the U of Calgary website:

“Leading-edge teaching methods and technologies

A student-centred approach

The U of C’s high-quality undergraduate education is characterized by the synthesis of research, teaching and learning. We enhance our students’ experience by enabling them to take an inquiry-based approach through experiential learning — literally learning through experience. This leads to greater critical thinking skills, increased exposure to research methods, greater access to leading edge scholars, and it creates a more engaging, motivating learning environment for our students.” from http://www.ucalgary.ca/about

Sounds great, huh?

Say, have you EVER heard of a university that claims to be anything other than the bestest and most caringest?

And yet, instructors like Dr. Allison Dube don’t get paid enough to make ends meet, let alone prepare for retirement. Dr. Dube, one of the best teachers on campus, has won the Student’s Union Teaching Award THREE times in the last three years (which may be a first for anyone on campus, ever.). He is a Political Science sessional instructor who holds a PhD from the London School of Economics, and yet the university has steadfastly refused to recognize his value to the institution.

Hmmmm… what was that about “high-quality undergraduate education”? As someone who knows first hand what happens to faculty who try to stand up for students I would most strenuously advise people to NOT believe everything they read. This same institution that claims to espouse a student-centered approach criticized and then penalized me for such things as:

• allowing students to prove their competence through means other than high-stakes exams
• giving students choices about the assignments they did or flexible deadlines
• encouraging students to share, help each other and build a community of learners
• using performance-based assessments
• treating my students as individuals
  

Talk is cheap. So is webpage real estate – it is easy to post statements that people want to hear. Remember that just because they say it doesn’t make it true.

Here’s a way to get a feel for what the university is really about. Take a walk around campus sometime – do you see happy people? Excited students? A lively community? How many faculty offices do you pass where the people inside smile rather than scowl at you as you pass? For that matter, how many faculty keep their doors open? Are administrative staff friendly? How do they react when an error is pointed out? When was the last time you recall someone taking responsibility for something that is wrong and trying to fix it (instead of saying, “Too Bad, So sad.”, or trying to blame someone else)?

Although it is not new, I came across this today.
Corrosive Leadership (Or Bullying by Another Name): A Corollary of the Corporatised Academy?
by Margaret Thornton

The literature reveals that the incidence of bullying is increasing in corporate workplaces everywhere. While the data is scant, it suggests that bullying in universities is also on the increase. Interviews with Australian academics support this finding. It is argued that the trend has to be understood in light of the pathology of corporatisation, which is designed to make academics do more with less. The focus on productivity parallels the harassment to which workers in the private sector may be subjected in the hope that they will work harder and maximise profits. Avenues of redress are considered which show that dignitary harms remain inchoate as legal harms. While common law and anti-discrimination legislation regimes may occasionally offer a remedy to targeted individuals, it is averred that these avenues are incapable of addressing the causative political factors that induce corrosive leadership.

There were a few things that particularly resonated with me – sadly, I have first hand experience. It took them five years, but I finally had to leave a job I LOVED to save myself. From what I hear, if anything, the place I left is getting worse. Read the rest of this entry »

[My name is Katrin. And I am a scientist. ]

Note:  no disrespect is meant to any of the real 12-step programs.

1.        We admitted we were powerless over science—that our lives had become uncorrelated.

2.        Came to believe that an authority better published than ourselves could restore us to our senses.

3.        Made a decision to turn our data and our labs over to the care of professors emeriti /as we understood them/.

4.        Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our notes.

5.        Admitted to social constructivists, to ourselves, and to principal investigators of related projects the exact nature of our data.

6.        Were entirely ready to have journal referees remove all these defects of our submitted papers.

7.        Humbly asked those better funded than us to remove our shortcomings.

8.        Made a list of all persons we had corrected, and became willing to cite them in all our papers.

9.        Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure their annual reports.

10.    Continued to take personal inventory and when we were found out promptly corrected it.

11.    Sought through analysis and verification to improve our conscious contact with /real data/, asking only for validity in our sample and the power to publish it.

12.  Having had a rude awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to department heads and granting agencies, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.