Pre-Storm

Today I woke up and went off to the old homestead to do some gardening. It was a quiet morning, and even the mosquitoes were doped, lazy, static. The flowers did perk up a bit when I watered them, but everything else wasn't up to much. Or mulch.

I got home and did some busy-work. Tinkered at the margins, mapped out stuff that would make my audience less bored tomorrow. Reframed my ideas, read through my writing, played with the weak ashy bits of my discontent.

I had two three four coffees. One had some chocolate in it. Another one had two kinds of ground mixed in. I had work to do, and yet there was nothing to be done.

Tonight, I am off to a dinner that is not of my own choosing, nor my own desiring. But tomorrow will be a better day. Or at least, there will be snakes to fight and crocodiles to wrestle in the mudpit of academia.

Gratitude Memetics (Part I)

For some time now, in the world of academia, some academics have taken to tracing their 'academic descent' — who their doctoral supervisor was, who their supervisor's supervisor was, and so on until you reach the earliest recorded node. The doctoral thesis is an interesting carrier of this memetic record because it is normally the defining moment of the typical academic life.

Strictly speaking, the doctoral dissertation is a meme. A really good one will propagate itself while evolving into a book, a roadshow, a seminar, a conference, and eventually perhaps an institution of its own. As it propagates itself through the citation/reference system, thorough the cells known as journals, in the wombs known as committees, they infect the human race for good or for ill.

Today however, I was just content to be looking at the master's thesis a former student of mine submitted, in the field of theatre. What really made my day was when this student told me how, when speaking to colleagues about goals and ambitions, memories of me would emerge. Those colleagues would then be treated to a short spiel on how my teaching was an eye-opener and something worthy of emulation.

I was speechless. And very, very grateful. We who are confident, positive personalities sometimes look as if we don't need kindness, or that nice words and memories are superfluous to our requirements. But we're human too, and I felt good, and I thanked this ex-student from the bottom of my miserable heart.

Heuristic Discipline-Based Approach to Academic Evaluation

I've always been rather irreverent with (dis)respect to academia. It comes from having too many academics in the family. It results in an accumulation of mental rules of thumb related to academic life, as well as a sort of facility for generating academic-sounding phrases that can be used to write academic-sounding pieces. Hence the title.

What this piece is about is perhaps not what you came here looking for, though, my dear Google-based researcher. It's actually about the rules of thumb I have for evaluating academic staff — researchers, lecturers. They are not serious prescriptive (or proscriptive) rules, but those which have been lurking in my head, and which by profound subjective introspection (as opposed to objective, using fMRI and suchlike) I have managed to elute (no, not elude; that would be terrible).

Without further ado, here are the rules. Note that they are based on discipline, and not on publications. Publication analysis is a whole other kettle of fishiness.

1. Determine subject's doctoral degree concentration (i.e. the main subject's main subject).

1a. If it is based on fictional narratives (e.g. literature, adminstration, business), then smile and back away. Dangerous to know, probably fascinating to listen to as long as you don't mind loud noises or meaningful looks, prolonged contact requires insanity check.

1b. If it is based on real narratives (e.g. history, economics, education), then consider seriously on case-by-case basis. Do not smile. This encourages them to wander out of their expertise and into speculation (if not already there). If subject smiles, run.

1c. If it is based on real narratives and invokes science or rules systems (e.g. law, sociology, anthropology, sports), then consider how real the science is, or how meaningful the rules are. This could lead to reclassification under 1a or 1b. Smile skeptically, you'll be mirroring the subject.

1d. If it is based on deliberate use of serious science or rules systems to conceal real narratives (e.g. medicine, cosmology, linguistics), then smile and prepare to have some fun. Steer conversation towards underlying narrative, add alcohol, and be entertained by wild speculation.

1e. If it is entirely based on serious science or rules systems, and has no real narrative apart from its own history (e.g. physics, philosophy, computer science, math), then try hard not to smile (you should succeed) and get out a paper napkin. Engage furious scribbling if unable to engage warp speed.

1f. If doctoral classification fails, then relax, this is not a serious academic and is thus probably harmless.

1g. For dual degrees, consider both possible responses.

-----

2. Examine subject's master's degree if present.

2a. Degree is from Cambridge or Oxford, required payment of fees but no other work. Ignore.

2b. Degree is from an American university, normally means subject failed to acquire doctorate. Feel sympathetic but do not show it. Classify according to 1.

2c. Degree is from Harvard or equivalent, but non-medical. Normally means subject has acquired degree in lieu of doctorate, medals, or other social achievements. Note this and proceed accordingly. Classify according to 1.

2d. Degree is from elsewhere, classify according to 1.

2e. For medical degrees, subject is a specialist (unless it is a Master's in Public Health or suchlike). Treat with care, just in case you end up being treated by subject.

2f. If classification is different between step 1 and step 2, consider degree of difference. Severe difference may indicate brain trauma or equivalent. Approach with care, and if necessary, metal-studded gloves of the kind used to handle razor wire.

-----

3. Examine basic degree.

3a. Degree is B... anything except BA or BSc. Normally indicates desire to be overspecialised while not being specialised at all. Classify according to 1.

3b. Degree is MBBS. Special case of 3a. May stand for 'More Brains But Slower' or 'Much Booze But Smarter'. Is actually a medical degree.

3c. Degree is LLB. Special case of 3a. Ask candidate what it stands for, and if reply is 'Limited Liability Business' or equivalent, stay far, far away. Is actually a law degree.

3d. Degree is BA or BSc. Classify according to 1.

3e. If classification has changed between here and other stages, and difference is great, consider arming self with crossbow and approaching from distance. See 2f for other precautions. Some difference is to be expected, though — most people are too young to know what they're doing when they get their first degrees.

=====

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Nekrognomikon

And it came to pass, on the twenty-first day of the seventh month in the eighth year of the Dragon's rule over Atlantis, that the historians and scribes came together. And one among them said, "It is with sadness that we remember the Gnome and all he did." Then the people said, "Amen," although for diverse reasons both good and ill.

But it was at the third hour of the day that the scriptorium echoed with the sound of many voices, and the book that the Wolf had been writing was complete. And the title of that book was Atlantean Responses to the System of the World as Shown in the Case of the Wyvern Citadel. Then the people said, "Selah," although for diverse reasons both good and ill.

Woe

Wednesday's child is full of woe. I am not Wednesday's child, but Wednesday's child seemed to be woe as my day stretched to 29 hours and 10,000 words miraculously materialised from the dozing deeps of my coral brain. It is now done. I shall enshrine this post in its rightful day.

Over-Take

Doing a PhD is like passing a gallstone, then turning around to see whether you know it. Everyone else seems to assume you do, so you are forced to greet it. And it sticks to you after that.

Academic Exercises and Lazy Supervisors

I look back on my years as an academic supervisor with some fondness; I look back at some kinds of academic supervisors with a kind of visceral disgust. I once taught in a school where we had more than 350 graduates each year, each one having to do an academic exercise as part of their graduating requirements. It was interesting to see how supervisors attempted to manipulate the process.

To begin with, not all supervisors are educators. They are in academia for research funding, or to do their own stuff, or both. They think of students as cannon fodder, grunts who can do the work; they think of themselves as generals who shouldn't be getting their hands dirty, and of supervision as a chore because the 'best' students don't need any supervision.

It's that which arouses my disgust. If you're an educator, you shouldn't assume that just because a student is interested in something, he is automatically postgraduate material and needs no help from you. On the contrary, you should feed his interest just as you feed a flame — provide a bit of fuel (not so much that you smother the flame), some oxygen (not so much that the flame flares and burns out too quickly), and some sparks whenever the flame looks a little weak.

The current philosophy of some of these 'educators' at the old farm is that prospective candidates for their exalted assistance should have already done all the work. Basically, a lot of those academic sods who claim to be supervisors are a collectively lazy disgrace which couldn't even use the Internet to come up with a good reading list if their lives depended on it.

It's not that there aren't good supervisors. Some will even go out of their way to read up on the student's area of interest if they don't know it well. Some will point to likely starting points on the Web. Some will lend the student an out-of-print but important text from their own collections. But the rest are more interested in sucking on the institutional teat than in helping their students to learn something new.

These are the scum who will tell a candidate that his proposal is rejected because it lacks credibility or 'lustre' simply because they can't be bothered to help him come up with something, or because the project won't add to their own glamour. These are the scum who say they are not confident of a candidate's ability because they realise their own ability to supervise (or the time it would take) is insufficient. These are the bums who want proposals in (or even pre-drafts of research that hasn't even been carried out!) a month to three months before the actual deadline for proposals; if you were to submit one on the day of the deadline, I can imagine the sneering look and the venomous, "Not interested enough in your research to submit your proposal earlier?"

The problem is that there are too many incompetent supervisors out there who are being paid a lot to supervise, and too few competent supervisors, most of which are not paid as much as they're worth.

The solution is simple. Provide CVs for all the potential supervisors online. Then let the students ballot for their choice; for example, vote in preferential order for their choice of five supervisors. The supervisors ranked first may opt to accept or reject candidates up to half the maximum number they can supervise. This means that the most popular supervisors (probably the most effective and helpful — students aren't dumb) get to choose candidates for supervision first.

It also means that highly specialised supervisors can also be picked by candidates who have unusual topics, knowing that these supervisors are less likely to be picked for anything else. Market forces can thus be brought to bear on bad supervisors; they're the ones who will end up having to do more work (and hopefully learn from it).

However, the remaining candidates should be randomly assigned to the supervisor pool. This is so that all supervisors will at least have some sort of range of candidature; nobody will end up living off his reputation forever in some sort of overly tight positive feedback loop.

The last part of the solution is the cull. Candidates should be allowed to evaluate their supervisors' competency. Supervisor bonuses should be raised or lowered depending on their consistent excellence or lack of it with regard to supervision of candidates. Really bad supervisors should have reduced funding and perhaps even be asked to leave; after all, if educational guidance is not a major function of academic institutions, what is it?

Academia

I used to think that all real academics ended up unpopular. If you never ended up unpopular, you never stepped on anyone's toes, you never burnt bridges or inflamed sensibilities, you were probably never an academic. Or at least you were an academic who became an administrator before you got caught.

But I'm beginning to think that some people see it the other way round. There are some academics out there whose idea of burnishing their academic credentials is to be a pain. Then, when some negative response is produced, they will say, "See, I'm a real academic. I have been persecuted. There are people out to get me."

It's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Apart from agreement, here are maybe three non-compliant responses to academic freedom (which in some circles is the freedom to say anything whether it is academic or not). One, you can ignore the noise. Two, you can attempt to educate the academic. Three, you can attempt to refute the academic.

In the first case, the academic may respond, "See? You are ignoring me. I am being persecuted!" In the second case, the academic may respond, "See? You are trying to brainwash me. I am being persecuted!" In the third case, the academic may respond, "See? You are trying to confuse the issue. I am being persecuted!" I think it may be possible that if you agree with the academic, he might respond, "See? You are merely humouring me. I am being persecuted!"

At this point, most people are already entertaining the thought that the academic ought to be persecuted, and some of them will put that thought into action.

To be sure, there are indeed at least two social forces that are dangers to real academic freedom. The Gnome, as I've repeated almost ad nauseam, identified them as the cult of obedience and the cult of secrecy. In academia, the first one manifests as unwillingness to contest a dominant narrative simply because it is asserted as dominant; it is also manifested when people defend a dominant narrative simply because that is what they were taught or conditioned to do. The second one manifests when people obstruct academic research either actively (by promoting secrecy and hiding information), or passively (by not saying things they know to be true), simply because they prefer things not to be known for the sake of keeping things unknown.

In that sense, academic work in the human domains, as opposed to work in domains which are less human-dependent (mathematics, science, engineering), is more difficult. It's not just nature and your peer community that you are up against, you are also up against Polyamnesia (the goddess of collective lack-of-memory) and other minor deities of the anti-academic persuasion.

=====

Note: I was raised a university brat. That means I have actually seen all kinds of academics in both their private and public personae. It's all true. But there are also good academics, unfairly-treated academics, and forces that make academics turn on each other and devour themselves. It's a mad world; the ivory towers are sometimes abattoirs and arenas.

Atlantean Standards (Part II)

In the mighty shadow of legendary Atlantis is a tiny residue named the City of Lions, Sñgapur in the tongue of the Ancients. Today, I sat in Sñgapur along the concrete orchard with Gnomus and we meditated on the perversity of local standards. The once-colonial residents of the residue still have it in their cash-besotted heads that an overseas education at an institute with a Greater Name is always going to be superior.

Sadly, that is a myth in all kinds of cases except perhaps three. The local universities (actually, there are now four of them) are more than adequate for a serviceable education that is of relevance to the region. The only reasons you might profitably 'go overseas' are a) because the life in the metropolis of your destination is significantly more interesting and you will therefore learn more of the kinds of things which interest you and are actually nothing to do with what you are studying; b) because the quality of intellectual stimulation from unusual people and professors is very high, and it actually trickles down (as is not always the case) to the undergraduate population; and c) because you intend to live and work and have your being there, so you are actually halfway through the export process and will only come back (I'm not saying 'come home', note) as an expatriate of your new country.

Even sadder, there is one major reason why people want to 'go overseas', and it has nothing to do with education. In Sñgapur, there is a sizeable proportion of wealthy people who have had the accumulation and/or retention of wealth as one of their main existential pillars. The problem is that if you choose this as an existential pillar, it makes you feel more secure when that pillar is showing. It is hard to live for it (or with it as a given) and not defend its display (or display it as a defence of your existence).

That means, as Gnomus and I have found out to mixed sensations of hilarity and sober melancholy, that people spend money for ostentation's sake. If your education takes place somewhere which requires you to spend 200,000 local thalers, it is far more demonstrative of status than if it takes place here and costs you a tenth of that. Education is one of the few ways that a person can spend ostentatiously and still feel good about it, as well as defend the practice in any of the social circles that 'matter'. (Oddly, giving the same amount — for example, the 180,000 thalers saved — to charity feels wrong to most people here.)

But defences of practice are very strongly and quickly erected. Talk to any of the young people who are victims of this particular ostentation, and they will say, "Overseas education is good for you. You will be less narrow-minded and you will become a more effective human being, able to appreciate more things and understand more about life!"

Bollocks, really. Take a moment to reflect on the logical and empirical reality.

If overseas education (in general principle) is good for you, then the people at your destination should come down to the various states in this region for their education. If they don't, then they are narrow-minded. Hence you will be surrounded by narrow-minded people. Of course, if they all come here, and your friends all go there, then you will be surrounded by the same people that you have been with all along, which is hardly a recipe for learning something new about people.

More to the point, if you believe that people educated in local universities are narrow-minded, then this blog must be written by a singularly narrow-minded person who hangs out with other narrow-minded people (like the Policeman and my own Lady) who have all been educated here. I would love to see a student walk up to Gnomus and accuse him of having too narrow an education. And I would genuinely be glad if a student, after reading every post in this blog, came up to me and said, "Findings-writer, I think your education is narrower than mine." I would learn something new, then.

Why then are people in Sñgapur seen as narrow-minded? Is the writer of this blog an exceptional case?

Let me try to answer these questions in the context of higher education.

In general (and I must stress, IN GENERAL), Sñgapurians are very focussed individuals who don't realise that even when we are being (or trying to be) avant-garde, artistic, creative, iconoclastic (etc, etc), we are still chained by their colonial past and our mercantile ancestry.

When it comes to education, the former makes us tend to rank other cultures tacitly in this order: 1) Western because of the Enlightenment, with Anglo-Americans first because they speak English, the colonial Master-Tongue, and with special dispensations for other Europeans in various areas of snob appeal; 2) Asian because all major civilisations and religions spring from the zone between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Pacific Ocean; 3) others because they are 'other than'. Some will dispute this, but it's quite clear from university choices that we are overwhelmingly Anglophone in higher education because of our common colonial legacy of language. Most often, people here are just bored and want something new. Anything will do.

The latter, our mercantile ancestry and related familial culture makes us tend to evaluate everything in terms of economic factors — the consequent mental ranking does not normally conflict with the other ranking. This is why Sñgapurians are often narrow-minded. A lot of us can't escape our chains. Especially if we are chained by economics (such as government bonds, personal wealth and the need to display it, and the idea of financial value).

Am I an exceptional case? Actually, we are all exceptional cases if we choose to be. It only takes a bit of effort to stop living life as if analysis consists of polling your relatives and friends and favourite websites, and start thinking about who you really are and what you intend to do with your life.

In this post, I have only outlined a general situation. It is not true that all Sñgapurians are like this, or that those who go overseas have no legitimate reason for doing so. Some have very good reasons for doing so; some of them have excellent reasons without even knowing what these might be. Some will gain a lot from an overseas education, even if you exclude the bonuses that a Greater Name education can bring because of the associated memetic payload. It is also true that Sñgapurians can be narrow-minded for many other reasons, sometimes to do with religion or mental capacity.

All that Gnomus and I want is for the students who we taught and who we still teach to be able to choose their course based on firm principles (whether materialist or spiritual or otherwise) and be honest about those principles. If you are bored with being a resident in a residue, say so. If you want the status associated with a Greater Name, say so. That's the least that anyone can ask of you.

Getting Out

Sometimes you have to stop doing serious work and go out and meet people and enjoy life a bit. So today I will be more idle than usual and do things that have no academic value at all. So there!

Kakodaimon

It's amazing to see what kind of racket has taken the place of the old gangsters and pirates. Nowadays, it's something like this, which is as evil as it sounds. What you do is submit your own papers, and whenever someone purchases a copy of it (at a price of something like US$30 and up), the 'information facilitator' takes 50% and you take 50%.

I can see how someone else's term paper might be useful to me if I needed one in a hurry. What really boggles the mind is how bad the US$30 papers (and even the US$50 papers) really are. I would say that trawling through this blog will get you better stuff for free. In fact, I know that I can write 24 pages of stuff and earn about US$800 for it, which makes it US$100 for 3 pages.

This means that the paper mill is actually pretty cheap. And that is what you get; cheap American (well, mostly) swill with bad grammar, bad spelling, bad ideas — all palmed off on an unsuspecting but desperate public.