Let me rewind. I walked into the bathroom about a week or so ago to find an upturned glass sitting on the little plastic wal*mart-esque dresser that contains toiletries.
"That's odd," I thought I neared the glass, "why on earth would someone upturn a glass in the bathrOOOOHHH MY GOD THAT IS THE BIGGEST DAMN SPIDER I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!" I'm not kidding, this spider inside the glass was so damn big we could have put a lamp on it used it as an end table. It was so large that it warranted a sign warning people not to feed it, lest it get any bigger and start demanding its own bedroom. A few days later I found that the glass (and massive spider) had disappeared. I'm hoping that someone released the fellow into the wild to wreak havoc on someone else's bathroom.
This episode isn't COMPLETELY unexpected, as we do have a number of spiders that tend to make a commute through the various rooms of our house. I don't know where they come from, but there's like some sort of perverse spidery highway running through our house. Usually I'm not big on killing things, but since our house became the set for Charlotte's Web VII: The Spidering, I've adapted my harm no living thing rule to: "Harm no living thing that doesn't have more than 7 limbs and is larger than your palm and is skittering across your floor." Thankfully the little devils have yet to make it into my room. It will become a guaranteed arachnocidal hotspot the minute they do.
Now that I've scared my girlfriend away from ever visiting me, let me tell you about my day. I went to a my first geography class of the year, and guess what? It was about geography! We talked about real, honest-to-goodness geography. Not statistics. Not interviews. Space! SPACE! How refreshing.
I am torn, however, because of one of the readings we had for the class. Some of you may know of the eminent Marxist geographer, David Harvey. And some of you may know of my general disdain for Marxist geography. (If you don't know what Marxist geography, wait for the bottom where I'll explain it.) Well, my first readings for todays class were David Harvey writings, the first of which was a piece that ripped into the RAE and the subsequent effect that it has on British Academia and the output of work.
Woah woah woah, Trenary, you didn't tell us you were going to go into academic mumbo jumbo. And what in the sam hill is an RAE?
Okay, I'll make this easy. RAE stands for Research Assessment Exercise. To make it even easier, it's like No Child Left Behind but for higher education. Essentially, this means that unless academics put out enough published research of a certain caliber, funding money can be withheld by the British government. And while we're at this, let get a few things straight. "A certain caliber" doesn't necessarily mean that the work is good. It just means that the committee of scholars that judges the works submitted from any department in whatever university have to approve of it. Oh, and even though geographers will oversee geographers, the specialties of the graders doesn't necessarily coincide with that of the work being submitted. A problem since geography is a widespread discipline (or undiscipline.) So you have these academics investing a shit tonne of energy into putting out as much research as possible so that they have a chance of getting money. What's more, according to David Harvey, is that the governments desire for certain types of work has led to a decrease in the actual quality of the scholarship. Once again, think No Child Left Behind.
And here I am thinking, "Hmmm... this makes sense."
So here I am, having an academic that is at the bottom of my list of favorites (Aside from one particular fellow at Nottingham who serves as my "absolute zero" against which all other professors may be gauged.) championing my assertion that many (but not all) British academics are in-the-box-thinking research drones. Not necessarily a bad thing to be if you like writing stuff more than you like disseminating knowledge. (These things aren't the same thing at all.)
Unsurprisingly the 3-professor panel that was hosting the class all argued against this, citing things like differences in how much American university costs and bringing up the protection that tenure brings about. But really it's all excuses. It wasn't acceptable for me to write about the wrong topic and it isn't alright for them to pawn off their academic and teaching failings on the Academic system. But I digress. The class is really good, and I'm looking forward to it.
And with that in mind, Imma retire and do some reading, cause that's what I pay the University lots of money to do.
You can dance if you want to, folks.
- Jonathan "Death From Above" Trenary
*Marxist geography is a subset of social and economic geography that basically looks for spaces of inequality concerning class and money. The most irritating thing about Marxist geography, though, is that there's always gotta be some conflict or crisis acting as an agent of change. Stuff can't just happen. Always gotta be something. Bah.
Was it someone's pet tarantula? I would have thought a few spiders wouldn't bother you, considering you grew up in woods. Also, a lot of the large US research universities are under pressure in order to receive gov't grants for research, so I'm not so sure that there's much difference there. Was that your point? Glad to hear you had a good first day!
ReplyDeleteSpiders don't bother me, but the one here are big and numerous, as the stinkbugs are back home. Killing them is a matter of not having them underfoot every time you move about the house. And my point was that in the US, the government grants don't dictate the topics of research. Basically I find fault with the UK's academic No Professor Left Behind crap. I can't speak for UMW professors, but I'm willing to bet their research is dictated more by personal interest and less by government desires. I'd also be willing to bet this is true of the Virginia Tech (a research university) geography department as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But if the government is paying the bill . . . I'm just sayin.
ReplyDelete