
Why I'm walking away from one of the best jobs in academia - jhonovich
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/8/9261531/professor-quitting-job
======
seunosewa
He's leaving a well paid job that gives him considerable influence because
there are serious problems in academia that cant be solved easily. I find it
difficult to imagine that he will find a alternate career path without that
issue. Every profession/industry has serious systemic problems. I think the
author needs to either search his heart more deeply to find out the real
reason why he's leaving his job, or reconsider his decision to leave it if
it's not too late.

~~~
baby
Completely agree with you

> I think the author needs to either search his heart more deeply

That's the problem with graduating so early and following your initial
studying path. You didn't have time to think about what you were doing, was it
the right thing, was it what you wanted, etc...

I always wondered how that kind of case usually ends. The people who've been
doing one thing only in life, and ends up in a job right away. I guess your
world can crumble in your mid-life.

~~~
nashashmi
> That's the problem with graduating so early and following your initial
> studying path.

I don't think the choice of study path is a problem. After all, he was doing
this for 20 years and does not have a problem with what he was teaching. He
has a problem with the people that benefited or did not benefit from his work.
... "Why don't you do something more meaningful with your life?" ...

The real problem is he thought life would be perfect, that there would be no
problems he would have a hard time solving, that everything would be as
imagined.

And the early success did give him false visions of grandeur and an amazing
world. Early success just was not sustainable. In the end, the reality that
overcame was that life sucked and will continue to suck. Only little pockets
of joy exist here and there. Especially when you are a bleeding edge
researcher.

~~~
estefan
> In the end, the reality that overcame was that life sucked and will continue
> to suck. Only little pockets of joy exist here and there.

Ever considered a sideline as a motivational speaker?

------
fnordfnordfnord
I'm not quite as demoralized as the OP author; but I can say that now that I
have seen how the sausage is made, I have a lot less respect for the
institution and the process. These places are stuffed with lazy, unmotivated
(or perhaps demoralized) risk-averse people[1]. Crab mentality? Check. There
is also every kind of greedy shameful opportunist charlatan on the campus;
they can smell money from a mile away, and they will soak it up like a sponge
while they produce nothing (I'm talking mostly about gratuitous mid-level
administration). Industry is just as bad, companies will engage in so-called
"partnerships" which are mainly a way for the legislature to give tax money to
profitable businesses, using colleges to launder it. I'm embarrassed to admit
that I have seen it first hand, and could do nothing (nothing reasonable) to
stop it. I can also say that it will not help your career if you refuse to
participate. I can't wait for some of these people to retire or succumb to
entropy, of even better if some of them are jailed. I suppose it is naive to
hope that their replacements will be better.

I have a couple of words of advice for the guy though. Don't worry about the
jerk who watched breaking bad in class as long as he isn't bothering anyone
else. Also don't worry about the ones who sit behind and watch along. It's
their prerogative if they want to pay $50 bucks to have a place to check their
social media and watch reruns. They're doing a public service, subsidizing the
other students' education.

Re: Online Ed. Even though it currently sucks, it's here to stay. It's in beta
right now, and it may change a lot before some college actually gets it right,
but it isn't going away and that's a good thing. Colleges that are followers,
(ie: Blackboard customers) are going to lose big. The winners will be the ones
who continue to innovate until they nail it, the rest will be decimated and or
become testing centers.

As in every profession, there is a cohort who associate one's ability to find
dark trousers and a collared shirt with "professionalism". Whoever thought
that there was no conservatism at the Uni was wrong. Ignore them if you can,
placate them if you must. Spend your energy where it does the most good.

[1] - And also some very fine people.

~~~
willchang
I would love to read an account of the games that administrators play, or of
how businesses use universities to "launder money", if you know any. We've all
seen numerical analyses that suggest that administrator compensation is way
out of whack, but I've yet to read a good ground-level account of it.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Not sure how good it would be but maybe someday if I ragequit I'll post it.

------
prodmerc
> Online education isn't the solution

Eh, speak for yourself, it is the solution for millions of people who want to
_learn_ something, not only have the degree as an end goal...

~~~
ghaff
It's probably worth observing that he's specifically referring to his field:
history. The couple of times that I've dipped into liberal arts classes online
I've thought they were pretty horrible. I'm sure you can have captivating
lectures but with limited personal interactions and feedback--especially with
a MOOC--they don't really work as classes. Discussion boards don't scale that
well under the best of circumstances.

MOOCs can be reasonably effective as learning tools for things like
programming. They don't have a real business or certification model but that's
a somewhat separate discussion. But for history, literature, etc. I'd mostly
rather just read a good book.

~~~
mercer
There's no reason why MOOCs can't be effective in the humanities. I think the
problem is that there's much less overlap between those who are skilled at
teaching, say, history and those who are skilled at creating good online
courses.

I've noticed this same lack of overlap in the field of journalism. I know
quite a few people who are really good (and successful) in their field, but
despite being in their late twenties or early thirties, they're shockingly
inept at operating computers.

This is a problem, in my opinion, because much of what (specialist) journalist
do is find the story in high volumes of data. And computers are great for
that: RSS readers, DEVONthink (or other personal databases), good google
searches, collaboration through, at the very least google docs, etc.

And yet they settle for ordering books, reading huge stacks of newspapers,
cuting out the good articles and writing in their paper notebooks, and
composing word documents that they send around via email with -2 added to the
filename.

But I digress. My point is that there's significant low-hanging fruit in
combining technology with the 'stuffy' areas of academia or fields like
journalism, but relatively few people from either side collaborate in this
area.

In part, I think this is because of a fundamentally different
personality/temperament and social surroundings, and in part I suppose it's
because this 'low-hanging fruit' is not low-hanging when it comes to profit.
That saddens me.

But the fact remains that if I as a data/tech/web geek were to 'fuse' with one
of my journalist friends, great things could happen. While such a 'fusion' is
unlikely, I'm still trying to find a good starting point for collaboration.

~~~
ghaff
I concur to some degree with your points about data journalism--which are
highlighted by the relatively few good examples that are out there. (OTOH, a
lot of journalism also legitimately involves getting out from behind a desk,
talking with people, and writing in paper notebooks.)

>There's no reason why MOOCs can't be effective in the humanities. I think the
problem is that there's much less overlap between those who are skilled at
teaching, say, history and those who are skilled at creating good online
courses.

One fundamental question is what a MOOC can bring to a literature or a history
class and I'm not sure I have a good answer. It's certainly not interaction
with my peers--given the interaction mechanisms don't scale and there's such a
wide disparity of background. It's not interaction with the professor; that
certainly doesn't scale. It's not peer grading. It's not powerpoints. It's not
video of a professor on a webcam. It's not multiple choice questions.

Is it engaging video/multimedia/high quality lecture? Well, maybe but how is
this now different from a quality PBS or History Channel series (or iTunes
University or one of those Great Courses DVDs you can order)? Broadcast is a
solved problem. Want to learn about the Civil War? Watch the Ken Burns series.

~~~
mercer
> One fundamental question is what a MOOC can bring to a literature or a
> history class and I'm not sure I have a good answer.

[...]

> Is it engaging video/multimedia/high quality lecture? Well, maybe but how is
> this now different from a quality PBS or History Channel series (or iTunes
> University or one of those Great Courses DVDs you can order)? Broadcast is a
> solved problem. Want to learn about the Civil War? Watch the Ken Burns
> series.

To some degree yes, the advantage of MOOCs can be precisely that on a bigger
scale we can use higher quality approaches. Local 'meet-ups' with professors
or the like could be used in combination. Why not outsource the lecture part,
or at least a significant amount of it? At the very least this could take care
of all the <topic> 101 classes that I suspect are pretty similar across
universities.

But more importantly, I think there's a _ton_ of stuff that computers can do
in this area other than broadcast. Think of classics like the "Encarta
Encyclopedia", or "The Way Things Work", or consider how games like Assassin's
Creed result in tons of gamers learning a lot about certain periods in
history.

Or consider this recent post on HN, "The Pixel
Factory"([http://acko.net/files/gltalks/pixelfactory/online.html#0](http://acko.net/files/gltalks/pixelfactory/online.html#0)).

The problems are cost and ability. A single teacher or university is not going
to create interactive visualizations, 3D environments to explore, or 'games'
(place-events-or-persons-on-the-timeline?). He doesn't have the
time/interest/money, and unlike someone already working in IT he might not
have a clue as to what's possible (or how to do it).

With MOOCs, it should be possible to scale these efforts and bring together
some of the best teachers with some of the best tech folk and create something
that can be vastly superior to regular classes, and something that has a wider
reach.

------
JackFr
> When I started out, I believed that government regulation could solve every
> problem with relatively simple intervention.

You don't have to be a tea-partying libertarian to see that such an idea is
shockingly naive.

~~~
lighthawk
> You don't have to be a tea-partying libertarian to see that such an idea is
> shockingly naive.

But, it is a viewpoint deeply held. I've spoken with people over 30 and even
over 50 years old that still bought into the idea that government is the
solution to all problems.

On the other hand, the view that capitalism and privatization fixes all
problems is just as flawed.

There is no one-system-fits-all and it can't even be said that one system is
necessarily a better choice in any given situation. Status-quo is usually a
good choice though, if it is working.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
For a thousand generations we did without both (govt and capitalism). SO a lot
of systems are possible. Problem is, we need a system that scales, and village
life doesn't scale. SnowCrash had a solution, sort of - walled communities
with little interaction (except for the Pizza Guy).

~~~
meatysnapper
Pizzanomics

------
mcguire
" _The quickest and most painful solution to the crisis would involve greatly
reducing the amount of money that students can borrow to attend college._ "

I suddenly think I agree. But I don't expect it to happen.

The major downside, of course, is that a significant fraction of young
Americans _won 't be able to go to college_. (The corollary, that they won't
be able to find jobs, is pretty much taking care of itself: they won't be able
to find jobs anyway.) By and large, going to college is a good thing in
itself: being exposed to challenging ideas and different people is good for an
individual and for a democratic populace, even if _I_ (or you) don't agree
with the opinions someone ends up having. But in an environment like this,
_that_ isn't really going to happen.

The other downside is that some people (a small minority?) with limited
financial means won't be able to reach their full potential. Take someone who
could have gone to MIT and invented brilliant new things after being exposed
to the full range of difficult ideas. Instead, they go into a job training
program and come out excellent at a limited range of very marketable skills.
(In the article's situation, essentially all computer science, software
engineering, information systems, and so on _are_ job training programs,
so....) Perhaps that's actually a positive, as far as the individual is
concerned, but it's certainly an opportunity cost overall.

------
irln
Education today puts way too much emphasis on the education as the end instead
of it being a means to an end. Students are, understandably, so caught up in
achieving a grade to "level up" instead of a) really learning the material
and/or b) reflecting on whether the material is interesting enough to spend
their life pursuing.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I think maybe it's a way for the institutions to avoid responsibility for the
result.

------
Mz
Well, I wonder what he plans to do next. My mother always said "It's easy to
criticize (or destroy) something. It's hard to create."

I agree there is a lot wrong with the world currently. But I also wonder at
the wisdom of his decision. I walked away from a job at a Fortune 500 company
for health reasons. This seems like someone who is extremely privileged,
doesn't really appreciate how privileged they are, and is throwing away a
position not easily gotten back if the decision to go turns out to be one he
regrets. Perhaps he won't. He has been published in various venues and done a
lot of different things. Perhaps he will readily land on his feet. But I
wonder if he will discover that it isn't any better anywhere else and regret
this choice.

------
Balgair
I hear the guy, but it rings hollow. His life has been nothing but success,
reading through his piece does not reveal any true failures career-wise. I
fear this decision is going to be taken back in a few years and he will become
faculty again as he realizes that he really was that one very lucky person, an
afford not given in other circles. Best of luck to the guy as he figures out
life in not roses and that taking a stand can be very stupid and not nobel,
something I think he thinks he is doing here.

~~~
bachmeier
> I fear this decision is going to be taken back in a few years and he will
> become faculty again as he realizes that he really was that one very lucky
> person, an afford not given in other circles.

There is a very good chance that he will never get another tenure track offer
if he changes his mind. The job market in history is very, very tough.

~~~
Mz
He is also probably burning bridges by writing this scathing article. That
alone may make it impossible.

~~~
Balgair
I'm not talking Harvard or Temple for job prospects for him coming back, but
rather a tenure track job at a C- level school. Something that is secure and
muddles along at above the poverty line. His record, though tarnished, will be
more than enough for many places that will take him. Does he have a family or
children? I suppose not, as fathers are (anecdotally) more risk adverse. If he
chooses to have a family, I suppose that his decisions may change.

~~~
bachmeier
> His record, though tarnished, will be more than enough for many places that
> will take him.

The job market in history is more competitive than you could ever imagine. The
competition for a tenure track position at a D- level school is insane. Many
strong candidates are unable to get any tenure track offers, even at a
community college.

------
davidp
The author is completely spot-on that the problem arises with the funding
system. It's a classic case of policymakers confusing correlation and
causation, and subsequently cause and effect: They have assumed, and continue
to assume, that getting a college degree _causes_ higher
employability/earnings/etc., even though the data only indicates
_correlation_; consequently they said "more must be better" and tried to push
as many people into college as possible in a misguided attempt to cause higher
wages.

The truth is more along the lines that high employability for abstract (and
disproportionately high-paying) professions is highly correlated with academic
ability, and it is the latter that accounts for more of the overall success
than the degree itself. In other words, many high-earning people would have
some of those higher earnings even if they didn't go to college at all. The
fact that many of those people choose to go to college is an _effect_ of that
ability, not a cause.

------
Shivetya
I have always believe we didn't have a student loan debt problem but a student
loan loaning problem. Not everyone deserves let alone needs to go to college.

The idea that the government will loan money to people regardless of major is
just wrong. Worse, since the government is paying a schools are accepting of
such federally guaranteed money then why cannot the government dictate costs
as it does with medical care? Why cannot it state, in your area one hour
credit is worth X. We will not loan more than that. Textbooks cost Y.

Schools, both public and private, are mills to take in effectively free money
to pay out in seriously overpaid positions as football coaches and
administrators (college Presidents and such) all the while many rest of very
fat endowments.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Not everyone deserves let alone needs to go to college.

Not every degree plan deserves/needs subsidization in this manner. But, be
careful or we may end up with a very utilitarian college system (assuming
that's a bad thing).

------
dctoedt
The Vox article lists his name as Oliver Lee. From his bio at the bottom plus
an Atlantic article [1], it appears his full name might be Oliver Lee Bateman,
an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington [2].

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/the-
cas...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-
grade-inflation/373251/)

[2]
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverleebateman](https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverleebateman)

~~~
bbulkow
He has apparently written about Justin Beiber's bulge. It's an entertaining
romp worth reading.

[http://www.mademan.com/justin-bieber-and-the-battle-of-
the-b...](http://www.mademan.com/justin-bieber-and-the-battle-of-the-bulge/)

------
ClassyHacker
>The quickest and most painful solution to the crisis would involve greatly
reducing the amount of money that students can borrow to attend college.

Ya that won't happen. The fed wants their share of the pie as well, and since
you can't get out of your student loan, even through bankruptcy, the
government will eventually get their money back plus interest. There's no
incentive for the government to reduce it. If anything they'll increase the
funding so they'll get more interest out of future generations. Also college
being the de facto next step after high school it'll be like this for at least
decades to come.

You'll have to be like the Japanese tsunami stone markers: "beware of tsunami
and don't build below this point", and tell your kids "beware of easy money
and make sure it's worthwhile" but it's gonna be pretty hard to go against the
government system.

------
mcguire
A great quote (that I've said a few times myself, but I'm humble and don't
need my name associated with it) from an article[1] linked by an article[2]
linked by the post:

" _I bring up my own experiences as a reminder that if the plural of anecdote
isn 't data, the singular of it sure as hell isn't, either._"

[1] [http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-
identi...](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity)

[2] [http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-
afraid](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid)

------
chrisra
Seems like there should have been 100 footnotes: *in the university I worked
at, not all of academia.

------
andrewclunn
> I was a cultural historian, in command of critical theory and immersed in
> the latest and best work on gender and sexuality...

So is the real reason you're giving it up because you've realized that
critical theory is a load of crap? No? It's "the institution"'s fault? Suuure
it is.

~~~
throwaway1967
Nice catch! He must have realized the real motivations behind Critical Theory
(a torch that was passed from Psychoanalysis to the Frankfurt School) and once
you know this stuff you can't un-know it, and all of the will you once had for
teaching goes away with the realization one has been utterly duped.

EDIT: Now that I've read the piece, the author seems unaware he was duped. He
says "Activism informed my teaching" which would be a very damning quote had
he known the motivations of those behind Critical Theory. He must have really
just drunk the kool-aid without questioning, as they're taught to do
(otherwise they're "authoritarian"!).

------
dghf
> Finally, I realized not even students were too invested. When my best friend
> visited my campus to give a talk, he observed one of my lectures. I've got
> many shortcomings as an academic, but lecturing isn't one of them. I've been
> on TV, radio, podcasts — you name it. By professor standards, which
> admittedly aren't that high, I could rock the mic. But while my friend sat
> there, semi-engrossed in the lecture, he found himself increasingly
> distracted by the student in front of him. That student, who like all in-
> state students was paying $50 per lecture to hear me talk, was watching
> season one of Breaking Bad.

Well, a lack of investment by students is a plausible interpretation. Another
is that the OP isn't as good at lecturing as he likes to think.

~~~
bko
But why did the student even bother showing up?

~~~
mkozlows
Because you can get stuff from lectures without paying full attention. I
download those Open Yale Courses lectures, and listen to them while driving to
work. Driving, obviously, takes up some fraction of my brain, but I find that
I still have plenty left over for listening.

Would I get more out of it if I listened while sitting at a desk and taking
notes? Probably. But I'm getting a lot more than nothing out of it.

And obviously TV-watching is harder to combine with lecturing (among other
things, the student presumably had to have closed-captioning on), but
fundamentally the idea of doing two things at once when neither of them
demands your complete attention isn't that weird.

