Alan writes: ----- Original Message ----- 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. ------------------
I've done my time both in academia and in professional (mostly IT) circles. Now, in IT, performance matters. The program has to work; the documentation has to be accurate and complete. If you really are an idiot, it will show, and you will be fired. Unless you're in the upper levels of management, where it doesn't matter. In academia, performance matters less in terms of quality. What matters is fitting in, citing the right people, inscribing yourself in the ongoing narrative in a non-threatening, mutually supportive kind of way. As a very successful friend in academia put it: "You must be bloated but humble." Yes, there is outstanding scholarship and critical thinking going on, but it is a small and isolated part of the self satisfaction, self congratulation, and general cluelessness.
I've noticed more and more that most (non-technical) communication that takes place both in academia and in IT is pathic or position seeking. One is continually establishing one's right to be in a certain place and one's relative position to others. Never directly of course. Never directly. The most horrible party I've ever attended, in this way, was one of Harvard academics. U.C. Berkeley was pretty bad too.
Maybe this is just to say that everybody is "people," but that doesn't get us very far, does it? Because some "people" do claim to have a greater claim to truth and control over what truth is than others.
This is "badmouthing"? I don't know. Perhaps I am naively assuming that smart, educated people have a greater responsibility than "people." If they don't, maybe they shouldn't get the kind of credit and status they claim by rights.
Joanna