Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And I'm glad to hear itLots get decent jobs that are tangentially related to their subject. We get the odd mathematician and whatnot at my place.
And I'm glad to hear itLots get decent jobs that are tangentially related to their subject. We get the odd mathematician and whatnot at my place.
What do you mean by tenure? My understanding is that tenure is pretty much a US/Canadian thing these days, it certainly is no longer present in the UK or Australia HE sectors. I'm arguing for continuing/permanent jobs, not in favour of tenure.Tenure? That's an old boys club if ever I saw one. Very hard for anyone to get into. I know one woman that's done it, but she had to move universities to do so, and not the same country at that. Many women have a story like mine, for example. Did PhD, supervisor wouldn't support them for a postdoc. Got a job in industry and left academia. I wasn't heartbroken as such, as I do not have an attitude suitable for academia (I'm too outspoken) but he said he would support me and then didn't.
I know other women who got sick of endless short term postdocs, and didn't get a tenured position, or who at some point had to make a choice between having a family or pursuing tenure. I know women who've moved to the academic support side of things because they were sick of getting grant applications rejected.
Academia needs an overhaul.
There was a huge push to increase the number of PhD places a while back. Which is great apart from the fact that there was not the same increase in postdoc or tenured positions.It's not a popular view in academia but I've long thought that there's far too many PhD students compared to the number of viable postdoc opportunities available.
Postdocs are often on fixed term contracts as they are tied to certain projects. So in many cases, the uni can't guarantee funding for a permanent position.What do you mean by tenure? My understanding is that tenure is pretty much a US/Canadian thing these days, it certainly is no longer present in the UK or Australia HE sectors. I'm arguing for continuing/permanent jobs, not in favour of tenure.
I agree with you that academia needs an overhaul but that overhaul should be an increase in the number of continuing positions (as thus more job security) not a decrease. Why are PDRAs on fixed term contracts rather than continuing? Because it suits university management and grant councils to ingrain job insecurity.
Well this is the part I don't accept. Why don't HEIs employ PDRAs/support staff in permanent positions? Why don't research councils insist on job security measures for PDRAs? Because it suits them to have an insecure workforce.Postdocs are often on fixed term contracts as they are tied to certain projects. So in many cases, the uni can't guarantee funding for a permanent position.\
...
Some of the admin support staff may also not be funded on a permanent basis - I had to apply for grants for my job and I was on a fixed term contract.
Absolutely. Which is why I'm skeptical about the new programme at Eindhoven, without tackling issues like casualisation and job insecurity achieving gender equity is not going to happen.This is what I mean about the whole system in academia needing an overhaul. All of it needs to change not just bits of it.
where i used to work, shelvers were on one year rolling contracts until this 4 year rule came in and then everyone was transferred en masse to permanent contracts.I worked for a university for 7 years, and iirc there were two redundancy exercises within that time frame.
Redeployment in the truest sense never seems to happen, universities or industry. Which is a shame because the organisation ends up suffering for it, as that institutional knowledge is gone almost overnight. Should it happen? Of course it should.
The fixed term contracts legislation does allow a worker on one of those contracts to request to be made permanent after 4 years of continuous employment but it rarely happens in practice as far as I can tell. I do know of a group of 6 postdocs who calculated they had over 100 years service between them who were successful in gaining permanency, but that seems to be an isolated case as best I can tell.
This is what I mean about the whole system in academia needing an overhaul. All of it needs to change not just bits of it.
I was on a similar contract. Other universities hired only for termtime and then every year.where i used to work, shelvers were on one year rolling contracts until this 4 year rule came in and then everyone was transferred en masse to permanent contracts.
Are the men denying that there is a gender pay gap?I've been commenting on a similar thread run by The Engineer magazine.
I'm sure all of you are shocked to hear it's dominated by lots of men, and mine as far as I can tell are the only ones made by a woman experiencing the gender pay gap.
It's irony in real time...
To be fair no, but they're doing a grand job of shutting women out of the conversation.Are the men denying that there is a gender pay gap?
I expect they know best.To be fair no, but they're doing a grand job of shutting women out of the conversation.
Perhaps you'd like to see the Office for National Statistic's own data on the gender pay gap:The myth of the gender pay gap is the outcome of substituting "average-person pay” (median) with “average person-pay” (mean) as the measure of central tendency.
Which part of referenced government data, excel plotting, and the excel “mean” and “median” functions are you taking exception to?I might have gone and looked into that but I think it's safe to say that graphic has come from somewhere weird incel types wallow in their own filth so I'll give it a miss.
Shut upWhich part of referenced government data, excel plotting, and the excel “mean” and “median” functions are you taking exception to?
Your post reeks of hatred of Feminism.The myth of the gender pay gap is the outcome of substituting "average-person pay” (median) with “average person-pay” (mean) as the measure of central tendency.
Feminist ideologists do this in order to artificially inflate the apparent pay of ordinary men and women in pursuit of further economic, legal, and social privileges for women.
The trick in this instance is to include the incomes of the tiny minority in the top 5% of all earners, who earn more than all other earners combined. The fact that men are overrepresented in that group says nothing about the distribution of incomes amongst ordinary men and women. (In fact, in significant cohorts, men now earn less than women e.g. men and women in their 20’s, as the more pernicious effects of feminist education ideology translate into falling educational outcomes and punitive hiring, promotion, and remuneration policies for boys).
[Note: this is separate from and in addition to the facts that men are disproportionately represented in occupations that attract higher pay in return for the increased likelihood of death and permanent injury, that 3 times more men than women work 45+ hour weeks, etc.]
Like most of feminist pseudoscience, it’s intellectual dishonesty but, ironically in a workplace that rewards numeracy, works well enough amongst the innumerate.
Here’s a little picture to illustrate the trick ...
" This really is right wing."the pernicious effects of feminist ideology
in pursuit of further economic, legal, and social privileges for women.
BBC Radio 4 - Analysis, The Real Gender Pay Gap
The Real Gender Pay Gap
Just finished. On I player now.
Programme has two interlinked themes. How stats show women earn less. Secondly how forms of Labour are not recognised and not included in traditional economics GDP. Work such as caring.
Breast feeding is exmple. Bottle feeding ends up being included in GDP. Breast feeding isn't. Despite it being good for babies long term development. Economist on programme worked out its worth three million a year.
Emotional Labour is another example.
I think the programme was part critique of conventional economics. Feminist economics includes reproduction of society. Emotional Labour and various forms of caring- which is imo part emotional Labour.
In this country the programme said the ONS calculate unpaid work. But don't include it in GDP in UK.
I would guess its gone up in UK. Tory "austerity" to bail out the parasites in the City means more unpaid work to keep social services going that help to bring up children. See this in my area.
Im not keen on commodifying all aspects of human existence in a Capitalist GDP. But , to be realistic , I think showing how work in the broadest sense should be recognised is positive.