Yes, it kills me… for quite a few years after working through my PhD program, I was not prepared to realize that most sociologists had received (or if they received it, resisted) the kind of critical, political, post-disciplinary, theory-driven and movement/change-focused training I had. I thought the people were taught both that sociology was born in the fire that destroyed the foundations of the utilitarian individualism that undergirds free markets, free ballots and free thought AND that the field necessitated auto-critical reflection and practice… could not have been more wrong. At the same time, because of the particulars of my background, training and proclivities, I had absolutely no idea how unbelievable radical just plain ol' boring mainstream descriptive sociology was to most Americans.
But I also think the "pull that shit" and "academia is largely a status game" view _can_ be too glib. Yes, they do that and it is that, where are knowledges no suborned and statuses not central?… but I also think that the work process is really important as well. Just like all sorts of people who are well aware that SATs correlate not one bit to native intelligence use SATs/GREs/MCATs as a first cut because to do otherwise is to 1) utterly wear yourself out and 2) staggeringly prolong the application/acceptance process, my sense is that many committees - all-but overwhelmed with other things to do - use short cuts they don't like, and colleagues semi-regularly argue against for particular cases. I've seen some egregious stuff done in such committees and, while more rare, I've also seen people really fight for individual applicants deserving of a fair - rather than efficient - shake. Of course, I am not arguing that idiocy and bureaucratic contradictions are not hegemonic.
A