I always explain my time in the Azores, where it is perfectly acceptable to offer your arm to shake instead of a hand. Really handy in flu season - just extend your forearm or upper arm and tell 'em it's an Azorean custom, and you're good to go!
I'm starting to see exactly why so many academics are ****ing looney. The tenure track is seriously one of the most stressful positions to be in, and ppl literally lose their sh!t and never recover. It's hard enough to comply with the publishing, teaching and service components, but then you throw in dealing w/ the looneys, the cold-hearted snakes, the back-stabbers, the cliques... Oh boy.
Well,jeez,they and every other employed person in America has to deal with that crap.How is it specifically worse in academia than any other job?
"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." — Wallace S. Sayre
1. B/c it's tenure, i.e. a job for life; 2. there's a clock (5-7 years) 3. said clock has "specific-ish" guidelines for what is considered satisfactory many ppl get denied tenure despite fulfilling the nebulous requirements set forth, further casting doubt on said guidelines like minor threat pointed out, ppl let their petty BS cloud their objectivity being an assistant prof is really just a step above being a grad student, only w/ a "full" (hah!) paycheck. In few other professions are you infantalized to the same degree. (Not at every institution, but many.) Granted, the pros are that you have job stability for 3 years until your mid-tenure review and then for life after tenure. But damn... pre-tenure on the tenure track is brutally stressful.
I have a strange position in that I have an Non-Faculty Exempt position (at UI, a more or less administrative and professional category between classified personnel and faculty) but as department chair I sit on promotion and tenure committees and third year reviews. I can confirm that they make people loony, absolutely. And they reflect that looniness back on me as if I am their enemy, when all of that anxiety could be channeled waaaaay more productively - it's nuts.
Last week of classes, piled 3 feet deep in essays and looming social obligations the next few days that I can't get out of. I hate the end of the semester. But then I'll have nearly weeks off. Which is aiight...
Two summers ago, I spent some time at the Folger library. Some of the results are starting to show up online. Two of my lesson plans are up on the Folger Website as the featured lesson plans for December! http://www.folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=846 http://www.folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=845
Every child should be safe and protected while in school. But a recent investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found hundreds of allegations that children have been abused, and some even died, as a result of misuses of restraint and seclusion in public and private schools, often at the hands of untrained staff. Many of these interventions were used disproportionately on some of our most vulnerable students -- children with disabilities. Unlike in hospitals and other facilities that receive federal funding, there are no federal laws that address how and when restraint or seclusion can be used in schools. State regulations and oversight vary greatly and have often failed to protect children. It is also impossible to determine the full extent to which these interventions are used because there is currently no consistent reporting of data. The Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act (H.R. 4247) is the first national effort to address this problem and ensure the safety of everyone involved – both students and school staff. Specifically the legislation would: Prevent and reduce inappropriate restraint and seclusion by establishing minimum safety standards in schools, similar to protections already in place in hospitals and non-medical community-based facilities http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/12/preventing-harmful-restraint-a.shtml
Horrifying stuff-hopefully equal time is being given to the danger of putting children on multiple medications to "treat behaviors" (i.e.,sedate the the poor kid into immobility).
Specifically the legislation would: .... Prohibit chemical restraint, meaning medications used to control behavior that are not administered consistent with a physician’s prescription;
Right-I'm talking about prescribed medications given daily to children with disabilities for the sole purpose of controlling behavior. You wouldn't believe what some kids on the spectrum wind up on.
I am all for the medications. If we have to let the little monsters in the classroom with the good kids, we should at least be able to keep them from going crazy.
The problem lies in what constitutes "monster" and hence a case for medication. Far too many parents are taking the easy way out and putting their kids on meds when in reality the kids are being kids.
Yup. There are legit cases of kids who need medication. There are not nearly as many of those legit cases as there are kids with prescriptions. Parents spawn child. Parents don't know how to "parent" child. Parent lives in denial that child's behaviors are their (either child or parent) fault. Parent spends time blaming everyone else for child's behavior (peers, teachers, television, etc) Parent consults with parade of doctors. One of the doctors in that parade will eventually tell the parent that they are perfect and the child needs medication. Over and over again I've seen this pattern play out.
I agree with you, but there are a lot of kids with major problems that are now expected to sit next to the kids who are there to actually pay attention and learn. As someone who works in a public school, it makes me want to homeschool my own children. There are some really bad kids in the system who would have been kicked out of school not too long ago.
BTW, you guys might be surprised about how many children who have major issues are not on medication because their parents refuse to go that route. It eventually becomes the court's call to put the kids on medication.
http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm Findings The Congress finds that (1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers; (2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem
I am assuming that you guys think I hate some of these kids, and my words may have not been perfectly chosen, but we all know that there are some mentally ill students in our public schools who most certainly pose a danger to society. My only point is that medicating these children isn't the horrible thing some people make it out to be.
Is a child responsible for their mental illness (or developmental disability)? Who defines which child is mentally ill? What are the observable and measureable actions which lead to a diagnosis of mental illness? Is the purpose of identifying children who have a mental illness to treat their illness or to sedate or otherwise coerce obedience by the child? I really would like some examples. P.S. I'm not trying to be a dick,I just know what happened in the past to kids with disabilities,because I deal with them as adults.
I'm sure you're right, but I suspect they're a very small (if dangerous) minority compared to the population of kids who are being treated with medication they really don't need.
Enjoying, really enjoying, violence.... ...but for these that are medicated this medication isn't a solution, it's a stopgap measure to allow them to sit stupefied through school until they reach an age appropriate to really enjoy violence on an adult level.