I finally watched The Martian last night and it was everything I hoped it would be. I really liked how they incorporated Mark Watney's sarcasm into the movie even though they weren't able to allow us to hear him thinking (at least, not all the time). The only downside was that they had to cut parts of the book out, like the accident he had while driving to the Area IV MAV site. But that's okay, what they left in was awesome.
But both the book and the movie raise an interesting question. Should we go to that much trouble and expense to save only one person? They would have spent billions of dollars to rescue one guy from Mars. Billions of dollars that could have been spent on more important things on Earth.
I guess the same could be said about missions to Mars -- is it worth the money to explore another planet when we have so much pain and suffering on our own planet. The way I would justify that is the fact that a planned mission to Mars would be used productively, to experiment and learn about a large number of things that could eventually be used back on Earth to improve our lives.
On the other hand, a rescue mission to Mars would only result in one thing, the rescue of one person. In the case of The Martian I'm sure NASA could use the opportunity to learn about things from both Mark's stay on Mars and the extra time spent in space by the rest of the crew. But unlike a planned mission to Mars, there's no guarantee of any productive outcome.
Thinking back through the history of NASA, they've never had to actually rescue anyone. And in fact they've made it policy that there is no such thing as rescue in space. I'm pretty sure all astronauts are aware and accept this. And even though NASA did a lot to help save the astronauts on Apollo 13, they didn't actually perform a rescue mission, they simply helped the crew figure out a way to get home. If they hadn't been able to get the Apollo 13 crew home, they'd still be floating around somewhere in space -- they wouldn't have been able to send anyone to get them.
I guess the problem is that while the astronauts may accept the risks, the public does not. And public opinion can have a greater impact on the outcome of crisis than logic and sense. It's why U.S. special forces were sent in to Iraq to rescue a blonde female soldier who ended up hurt and the video of the rescue is released to the media. It made no sense to do what they did, but public pressure required that they do it or they'd lose support for the war.
Along the same lines I can see public support for NASA being severely damaged if they left an astronaut to die on Mars. I can see the government cancelling future Mars missions because they left an astronaut to die on Mars. It's one of the reasons I can understand it when governments choose not to share things with the public -- because the public, in general, can be unreasonable and illogical.
But this still doesn't answer the question as to whether it's worth it to spend billions of dollars to rescue one person. Is there an answer? Does every single situation require its own analysis? If a general rule was made that rescue missions wouldn't happen, would that rule be followed if it actually happened? Is there a maximum number that should be spent, or should it be an all or nothing thing?
I honestly think that if I were stranded some place like Mars, and it was a complete accident, and I knew what I was getting myself into, I would ask them not to waste the time and money to come get me. Instead I would do what I could while I was alive and then probably do something to make my passing less agonizing. I don't think of it as being noble, just reasonable. If I wasn't prepared for that to happen, I have no business being on Mars (or where ever else it may be).
I'm pretty sure this is a topic that could be debated till the end of time and not everyone would agree. There will likely always be a division of opinions on what's right and what's wrong -- because there is no right and wrong answer.
Monday 18 January 2016
Wednesday 25 November 2015
Ethnic Diversity
On Monday I attended both a General Faculties Council (GFC) meeting and a strategic retreat. The retreat consisted of members of the GFC, the Board of Governors, the Senate and the Alumni Council. We essentially had roundtable discussion regarding the future of the university. Overall it was very interesting and enjoyable.
The GFC is headed up by the President of the University. All the Vice Presidents, plus the Provost and Vice Provosts are members. All the Deans and department/program heads are also members (I think). And then there are elected members that represent various other groups on campus, like the Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the academic and non-academic staff unions, etc. I'm considered a Graduate Student-at-Large on the GFC as I was nominated by the GSA to be on the council. Last week we had a brief overview of university governance and it turns out the GFC is 33% students, but most are undergraduates. Students are also members of the Senate and the Board.
Anyway ... the retreat was organized into 12 tables. Each table was assigned a specific topic to discuss. Each table was also assigned a facilitator and a scribe. The facilitator mediated the discussion and the scribe (obviously) made the notes of what was said. The scribes consisted of actual staff members in the President's office and other Governance offices. The facilitators ended up being Deans. For example, table 1 (my first table) was lead by the Dean of Physical Education. Table 5 (my second table) was lead by the Dean of Science. Table 3 was the Dean of ALES. Table 4 was the Vice Provost and Head Librarian. Table 7 was the Dean of Students. Table 10 was the Dean of FGSR. And table 12 was the Dean of Native Studies.
My point here is that the assignment of Deans as facilitators was pretty deliberate. It probably had something to do with the fact that there were enough of them to spread between 12 tables AND they could naturally take on a leadership role.
Near the end of the retreat, when each table was sharing what they'd discussed, someone raised their hand and pointed out that we unintentionally assigned only white people to be facilitators of each table. She also mentioned that she'd already mentioned that fact to the President and said -- very forcefully -- that we could not continue to do that.
I understand where she was coming from (although ironically she was a white woman), but I don't understand what she expected as an alternative. If there are no Deans with non-white ethnicities, what were they suppose to do? Would it have been appropriate to assign someone as a facilitator ONLY because they weren't white? Wouldn't it be odd that some facilitators were white Deans and others were non-white something else's? I think one of the purposes of having Deans be facilitators is because they already had a certain level of power at the table and people would respect their leadership. If you assigned a non-Dean to facilitate at one table simply because they weren't white, would they receive the same level of respect as per leadership? And if they didn't would it be automatically assumed that they weren't respected as well because they were non-white or because they weren't at the Dean level? Wouldn't that open more problems?
Again, I can see her point but I'm not sure the organization of an event like this is the problem. The problem is more systemic and related to the fact that there are very few Deans who are non-white. Isn't that the larger problem? Why aren't there more non-white Deans? Do we have a balanced number of white and non-white professors (who could one day be a Dean)? Do we have enough non-white interest in a Dean job? Does the U of A have a diversity hiring policy?
But then doesn't it go even deeper? Maybe there are a lot of white Deans because the majority of professors are white as well. And maybe the professors who are skilled enough to be a Dean also happen to be white. Then the question is -- why don't we have more non-white skilled professors? Is it because we don't have enough non-white graduate and undergraduate students? Is there enough interest in this profession from non-whites? If so, are they at a disadvantage, and if so, how? And doesn't that mean it really starts from the bottom (i.e. kids)?
You can't change someone's ethnicity once they reach a certain level, you need to have a variety of ethnicity at every level. But unless you start with giving all kids an equal chance to pursue whatever they want, that'll never happen. You can't wait till you get to the Dean level and they say "we're only going to hire a non-white person." If the only skilled people at that level are white, you can't hire an unskilled non-white person to do the job -- that's not helpful to anyone.
Anyway, as I've already said, I understand where this person was coming from, but I'm not sure pointing it out in that particular situation was useful. Ironically, up until that moment no one was probably thinking about white and non-white people (i.e. they looked at everyone as simply a member of the university community). But the minute it was pointed out everyone starts to notice the ethnicity of everyone else -- for the wrong reasons.
Many of the topics discussed at the various tables were too high-level to include ethnicity (or any specific type of demographic). But the ones that did have the ability to include ethnicity, did. It wasn't ignored or forgotten. It was discussed naturally not because it was suppose to be, but because it was important.
Although -- the main ethnicity focus was Aboriginal peoples. Is that racist? To focus on a specific ethnic group over others? I'm not sure. Are Aboriginal peoples more important than other ethnicities here in Alberta or Edmonton or the U of A? Is that fair or reasonable? I have no idea.
As an aside, immediately after this comment was made to the group, a professor asked a question. She happened to be of an ethnic minority. As she started her question she made the comment that she would be the ethnic minority representation. I don't think she said this to be funny, she said this sarcastically. I don't think she appreciated being distinguished because of her ethnicity, she would have preferred being treated as an equal.
The GFC is headed up by the President of the University. All the Vice Presidents, plus the Provost and Vice Provosts are members. All the Deans and department/program heads are also members (I think). And then there are elected members that represent various other groups on campus, like the Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Association (GSA), the academic and non-academic staff unions, etc. I'm considered a Graduate Student-at-Large on the GFC as I was nominated by the GSA to be on the council. Last week we had a brief overview of university governance and it turns out the GFC is 33% students, but most are undergraduates. Students are also members of the Senate and the Board.
Anyway ... the retreat was organized into 12 tables. Each table was assigned a specific topic to discuss. Each table was also assigned a facilitator and a scribe. The facilitator mediated the discussion and the scribe (obviously) made the notes of what was said. The scribes consisted of actual staff members in the President's office and other Governance offices. The facilitators ended up being Deans. For example, table 1 (my first table) was lead by the Dean of Physical Education. Table 5 (my second table) was lead by the Dean of Science. Table 3 was the Dean of ALES. Table 4 was the Vice Provost and Head Librarian. Table 7 was the Dean of Students. Table 10 was the Dean of FGSR. And table 12 was the Dean of Native Studies.
My point here is that the assignment of Deans as facilitators was pretty deliberate. It probably had something to do with the fact that there were enough of them to spread between 12 tables AND they could naturally take on a leadership role.
Near the end of the retreat, when each table was sharing what they'd discussed, someone raised their hand and pointed out that we unintentionally assigned only white people to be facilitators of each table. She also mentioned that she'd already mentioned that fact to the President and said -- very forcefully -- that we could not continue to do that.
I understand where she was coming from (although ironically she was a white woman), but I don't understand what she expected as an alternative. If there are no Deans with non-white ethnicities, what were they suppose to do? Would it have been appropriate to assign someone as a facilitator ONLY because they weren't white? Wouldn't it be odd that some facilitators were white Deans and others were non-white something else's? I think one of the purposes of having Deans be facilitators is because they already had a certain level of power at the table and people would respect their leadership. If you assigned a non-Dean to facilitate at one table simply because they weren't white, would they receive the same level of respect as per leadership? And if they didn't would it be automatically assumed that they weren't respected as well because they were non-white or because they weren't at the Dean level? Wouldn't that open more problems?
Again, I can see her point but I'm not sure the organization of an event like this is the problem. The problem is more systemic and related to the fact that there are very few Deans who are non-white. Isn't that the larger problem? Why aren't there more non-white Deans? Do we have a balanced number of white and non-white professors (who could one day be a Dean)? Do we have enough non-white interest in a Dean job? Does the U of A have a diversity hiring policy?
But then doesn't it go even deeper? Maybe there are a lot of white Deans because the majority of professors are white as well. And maybe the professors who are skilled enough to be a Dean also happen to be white. Then the question is -- why don't we have more non-white skilled professors? Is it because we don't have enough non-white graduate and undergraduate students? Is there enough interest in this profession from non-whites? If so, are they at a disadvantage, and if so, how? And doesn't that mean it really starts from the bottom (i.e. kids)?
You can't change someone's ethnicity once they reach a certain level, you need to have a variety of ethnicity at every level. But unless you start with giving all kids an equal chance to pursue whatever they want, that'll never happen. You can't wait till you get to the Dean level and they say "we're only going to hire a non-white person." If the only skilled people at that level are white, you can't hire an unskilled non-white person to do the job -- that's not helpful to anyone.
Anyway, as I've already said, I understand where this person was coming from, but I'm not sure pointing it out in that particular situation was useful. Ironically, up until that moment no one was probably thinking about white and non-white people (i.e. they looked at everyone as simply a member of the university community). But the minute it was pointed out everyone starts to notice the ethnicity of everyone else -- for the wrong reasons.
Many of the topics discussed at the various tables were too high-level to include ethnicity (or any specific type of demographic). But the ones that did have the ability to include ethnicity, did. It wasn't ignored or forgotten. It was discussed naturally not because it was suppose to be, but because it was important.
Although -- the main ethnicity focus was Aboriginal peoples. Is that racist? To focus on a specific ethnic group over others? I'm not sure. Are Aboriginal peoples more important than other ethnicities here in Alberta or Edmonton or the U of A? Is that fair or reasonable? I have no idea.
As an aside, immediately after this comment was made to the group, a professor asked a question. She happened to be of an ethnic minority. As she started her question she made the comment that she would be the ethnic minority representation. I don't think she said this to be funny, she said this sarcastically. I don't think she appreciated being distinguished because of her ethnicity, she would have preferred being treated as an equal.
Tuesday 10 November 2015
Annoying Little Things
I'm in the middle of reading this book. It's part of a series by one of my favourite romance authors. This is book 7 in her current series, but this series is a continuation of a previous series that had at least a dozen books. It's based in Scotland, but the author is American.
Based on just standard knowledge that most anyone should have, there are a few things that authors shouldn't mess up. When authors do mess up on these things, it bothers me. There are several things that annoy me in this specific book:
1. The fact that the lead female character calls herself a masseuse and she works at a fancy spa in South Carolina. No respectable person who gives massages for a living would call themselves a masseuse -- they'd call themselves a massage therapist. It's a thousand times more professional and respectable.
2. The lead female character had checked into her flight at the Edinburgh airport, but never got onto the flight. Twice now she's made a comment about how her luggage would already be back in South Carolina. Anyone whose been on a plane in the last 5 years or more would know that your luggage NEVER flies without you. It doesn't matter if you check in. If you don't go through the gate, your luggage is taken off the plane. Therefore her luggage would still be in Scotland.
I also watched the movie Edge of Tomorrow last night. It stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt and it was surprisingly good, I liked it. Tom Cruise's character is American. To make a long story short, he gets thrown into a situation he's unprepared for. However when making a plan with Emily Blunt's character he refers to a trailer attached to a mini-van as a 'caravan.' He's in France when he says this.
I know that folks in Britain call trailers 'caravans.' Americans and Canadians call them trailers. I'm sorry, but there's no way that Tom's character would refer to the trailer as a 'caravan.' My guess is that most Americans don't even know that the Brits call trailers something different.
The same series of books I'm reading had a situation earlier in the series where a woman was living in a mountain cave. Someone had set it up for her with a generator, etc. But somehow she was able to talk on her cell phone ... from inside the mountain ... in the middle of the Scottish Highlands. There's no way she would ever get reception out there, especially not inside a mountain. I actually pointed this out to the author and her response was that the story had magic in it, so the magic allowed her to be able to use her cell phone. While that may align with the story, it's a bit of a cop out!
I don't know why these little things bug me, but they do!!
----------
Oh, another annoying little thing ... it bugs me when people post something really vague on social media like ... "I can't believe that happened last night, I'm so glad we're okay" ... but then never actually say what happened. It's like they're looking for blind sympathy from their social media friends.
If you're going to post it on social media, explain what happened. If you're uncomfortable explaining the details on social media, then don't mention it on social media. For some reason you want to advertise the fact that something happened to you, but you don't want to say what it was. It might be something big ... it might be something small ... no one has any clue. And obviously you're hiding something from your social media friends. I don't find these posts sad or concerning, I find them annoying.
I guess tonight is pet peeve night!
Based on just standard knowledge that most anyone should have, there are a few things that authors shouldn't mess up. When authors do mess up on these things, it bothers me. There are several things that annoy me in this specific book:
1. The fact that the lead female character calls herself a masseuse and she works at a fancy spa in South Carolina. No respectable person who gives massages for a living would call themselves a masseuse -- they'd call themselves a massage therapist. It's a thousand times more professional and respectable.
2. The lead female character had checked into her flight at the Edinburgh airport, but never got onto the flight. Twice now she's made a comment about how her luggage would already be back in South Carolina. Anyone whose been on a plane in the last 5 years or more would know that your luggage NEVER flies without you. It doesn't matter if you check in. If you don't go through the gate, your luggage is taken off the plane. Therefore her luggage would still be in Scotland.
I also watched the movie Edge of Tomorrow last night. It stars Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt and it was surprisingly good, I liked it. Tom Cruise's character is American. To make a long story short, he gets thrown into a situation he's unprepared for. However when making a plan with Emily Blunt's character he refers to a trailer attached to a mini-van as a 'caravan.' He's in France when he says this.
I know that folks in Britain call trailers 'caravans.' Americans and Canadians call them trailers. I'm sorry, but there's no way that Tom's character would refer to the trailer as a 'caravan.' My guess is that most Americans don't even know that the Brits call trailers something different.
The same series of books I'm reading had a situation earlier in the series where a woman was living in a mountain cave. Someone had set it up for her with a generator, etc. But somehow she was able to talk on her cell phone ... from inside the mountain ... in the middle of the Scottish Highlands. There's no way she would ever get reception out there, especially not inside a mountain. I actually pointed this out to the author and her response was that the story had magic in it, so the magic allowed her to be able to use her cell phone. While that may align with the story, it's a bit of a cop out!
I don't know why these little things bug me, but they do!!
----------
Oh, another annoying little thing ... it bugs me when people post something really vague on social media like ... "I can't believe that happened last night, I'm so glad we're okay" ... but then never actually say what happened. It's like they're looking for blind sympathy from their social media friends.
If you're going to post it on social media, explain what happened. If you're uncomfortable explaining the details on social media, then don't mention it on social media. For some reason you want to advertise the fact that something happened to you, but you don't want to say what it was. It might be something big ... it might be something small ... no one has any clue. And obviously you're hiding something from your social media friends. I don't find these posts sad or concerning, I find them annoying.
I guess tonight is pet peeve night!
Friday 6 November 2015
My Recent Job Shadow Experience
Every year the library school students' association organizes job shadows for the students. They call this event Partner's Week, although it's scheduled for one week in October and one week in January.
From a student's perspective, we're provided with a list of potential librarians to shadow divided into three categories -- public, academic and special. Each listing includes the librarian's name, their work location (and maybe address), when they're available and a very, very brief description of their job. I don't know how the organizer's collect this info, and what sort of screening they do, if any, before they put someone on the list. Based on my personal experience, I suspect they don't do any screening of librarians.
I selected a librarian that worked in a 'special' library as a research analyst. Based on the organization where she worked and the brief job description, it sounded like an interesting job and possibly something I'd like. How very wrong I was!!!
The job shadow I signed up for was in Calgary -- therefore it was a 3 hour drive (one way) to get there. I was there for 3 hours on a Friday afternoon. The woman seemed very nice, but I discovered pretty quickly that while she'd graduated from SLIS a couple of years ago, this job was the first one she had related to library science, and she only started it 2 months earlier!!! I have absolutely no idea why she thought it would be a good idea to sign up to have someone shadow her when she's only been in the job for 2 months!!!
Unfortunately the job shadow went downhill from there. She showed me her job posting and I discovered that they had only been looking for someone with a bachelor's degree. It was very much an entry-level position and not designed for someone with an advanced degree. And while there was some content management involved, it did not require someone with a degree specifically in information science. Essentially she was over-qualified and under-employed in this job.
By the end of the job shadow I did learn that -- for her -- this job was perfect. It seemed right up her alley and she seemed to really like where she worked. But it was also apparent that there was no need for her to have a masters degree. In fact, she worked in an extremely similar job for 7 years before she went back to school to get her MLIS. Technically I don't think her MLIS was necessary, she could have gotten this job based simply on her past experience. Interestingly, even her past experience made her over-qualified. I'm just glad she seemed happy where she was and didn't seem to think she was in the wrong place or at the wrong level.
Having said that though, when I asked her what her career plans were for after this, she had none. Not because she wasn't yet sure what she wanted to do, but because she didn't want to do anything else. She claimed she loved this job so much she'd be happy in it for the rest of her life! She had no plans to ever get another job, a promotion or change organizations! If she's that happy, power to her. But I'd like to ask her that question again in a year and see if she still feels the same way!
While I learned a lot about her and the job she does, none of it was helpful for my own career plans or future. The job she was doing was something I could do with one hand tied behind my back. Most of her job consists of gathering data from online sources and giving it to someone else to use in an analysis. She doesn't actually do any analysis, so I'm not really sure why they called the position a 'research analyst.' It should just be 'researcher.'
She had also apparently taken one database course in school over a year ago that did go over Access a little bit. Based on this limited knowledge she actually argued with me about what Access can and can't be used for. I've used Access for a large variety of projects for years. For every suggestion I made, I had done it before in Access myself -- therefore I knew it could be done. But no matter what suggestion I made, she claimed it couldn't be done. Based on her understanding of Access, it can't be used for much. That is very unfortunate as Access can be a great tool if you know how to use it right.
Ironically the tools she did have she didn't know how to use. She showed them to me, but couldn't explain their purpose or what they were suppose to be for, only what she had been experimenting with.
Overall I was very disappointed and a little annoyed. It wasn't until after that a fellow LIS student mentioned that she checks all the librarians on Linkedin before she decides if she wants to shadow them. I totally should have done this, but in all honesty I never thought someone with so little experience would have been included. If I can volunteer to run the event next year, I totally will. Not only can they benefit from using more automated methods in the whole thing, but they could benefit from screening out some of their librarian candidates. After all, based on who had signed up in the books, they had more librarians than students, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to screen some of them out.
I sure hope that other students had a better experience than me. And I sure hope that I have a better experience in January at my next 2 shadows. Before I contact those people, however, I will be checking them out online to make sure the same thing doesn't happen.
From a student's perspective, we're provided with a list of potential librarians to shadow divided into three categories -- public, academic and special. Each listing includes the librarian's name, their work location (and maybe address), when they're available and a very, very brief description of their job. I don't know how the organizer's collect this info, and what sort of screening they do, if any, before they put someone on the list. Based on my personal experience, I suspect they don't do any screening of librarians.
I selected a librarian that worked in a 'special' library as a research analyst. Based on the organization where she worked and the brief job description, it sounded like an interesting job and possibly something I'd like. How very wrong I was!!!
The job shadow I signed up for was in Calgary -- therefore it was a 3 hour drive (one way) to get there. I was there for 3 hours on a Friday afternoon. The woman seemed very nice, but I discovered pretty quickly that while she'd graduated from SLIS a couple of years ago, this job was the first one she had related to library science, and she only started it 2 months earlier!!! I have absolutely no idea why she thought it would be a good idea to sign up to have someone shadow her when she's only been in the job for 2 months!!!
Unfortunately the job shadow went downhill from there. She showed me her job posting and I discovered that they had only been looking for someone with a bachelor's degree. It was very much an entry-level position and not designed for someone with an advanced degree. And while there was some content management involved, it did not require someone with a degree specifically in information science. Essentially she was over-qualified and under-employed in this job.
By the end of the job shadow I did learn that -- for her -- this job was perfect. It seemed right up her alley and she seemed to really like where she worked. But it was also apparent that there was no need for her to have a masters degree. In fact, she worked in an extremely similar job for 7 years before she went back to school to get her MLIS. Technically I don't think her MLIS was necessary, she could have gotten this job based simply on her past experience. Interestingly, even her past experience made her over-qualified. I'm just glad she seemed happy where she was and didn't seem to think she was in the wrong place or at the wrong level.
Having said that though, when I asked her what her career plans were for after this, she had none. Not because she wasn't yet sure what she wanted to do, but because she didn't want to do anything else. She claimed she loved this job so much she'd be happy in it for the rest of her life! She had no plans to ever get another job, a promotion or change organizations! If she's that happy, power to her. But I'd like to ask her that question again in a year and see if she still feels the same way!
While I learned a lot about her and the job she does, none of it was helpful for my own career plans or future. The job she was doing was something I could do with one hand tied behind my back. Most of her job consists of gathering data from online sources and giving it to someone else to use in an analysis. She doesn't actually do any analysis, so I'm not really sure why they called the position a 'research analyst.' It should just be 'researcher.'
She had also apparently taken one database course in school over a year ago that did go over Access a little bit. Based on this limited knowledge she actually argued with me about what Access can and can't be used for. I've used Access for a large variety of projects for years. For every suggestion I made, I had done it before in Access myself -- therefore I knew it could be done. But no matter what suggestion I made, she claimed it couldn't be done. Based on her understanding of Access, it can't be used for much. That is very unfortunate as Access can be a great tool if you know how to use it right.
Ironically the tools she did have she didn't know how to use. She showed them to me, but couldn't explain their purpose or what they were suppose to be for, only what she had been experimenting with.
Overall I was very disappointed and a little annoyed. It wasn't until after that a fellow LIS student mentioned that she checks all the librarians on Linkedin before she decides if she wants to shadow them. I totally should have done this, but in all honesty I never thought someone with so little experience would have been included. If I can volunteer to run the event next year, I totally will. Not only can they benefit from using more automated methods in the whole thing, but they could benefit from screening out some of their librarian candidates. After all, based on who had signed up in the books, they had more librarians than students, so it wouldn't be a bad thing to screen some of them out.
I sure hope that other students had a better experience than me. And I sure hope that I have a better experience in January at my next 2 shadows. Before I contact those people, however, I will be checking them out online to make sure the same thing doesn't happen.
Sunday 1 November 2015
Responding to Emails
I've had the unfortunate experience lately of having a number of people not feel it necessary to respond to my emails. Or, not to respond to my emails in a timely manner.
In general there is no set rule on how quickly emails should be answered, but I do think there's general etiquette and respect that can be followed by everyone. I do not think it is unreasonable to respond to emails within 48 to 72 hours. Keep in mind that these initial responses do not need to include full and complete answers to the original emails. They can simply include acknowledgment that the original email was received and you are looking into the matter.
This is what I consider to be respect. Respect for the person sending the email, but also respect for whatever type of position you have. If you are employed in a certain profession, your actions help create the overall reputation for that profession. Remember, chains are only as strong as their weakest link -- don't be the weak link that brings your whole profession down and gives it a bad reputation. Or worse, helps its existing bad reputation continue.
And for the love of all things holy, do NOT use the "I'm really busy" excuse. YOU are not the only one who is busy. YOU are not the only one who has a lot of things on the go. You may have your own priorities, but so does everyone else. YOUR priorities are NOT more important than anyone else's, no matter what your position is in comparison to anyone else.
The worst part about using the "I'm really busy" excuse is it assumes you actually know everything there is to know about the person to whom you're too busy to deal with. By saying you're too busy to deal with them, you're implying that you are more busy than they are. Yet in reality you probably don't know that person well enough to truly know what's going on in their life and how busy they may be.
Not being able to answer emails within 48-72 hours and claiming it's because you're so busy also implies (a) you have bad time management skills or (b) you have too much on your plate. Either way, it's not anyone else's fault that you either can't manage your time effectively or have taken on too much, it's yours. Yes, maybe there's an underlying reason why you have too much on your plate and can't handle it, but that doesn't mean you throw respect out the window and resort to being "that person" who ignores people.
I've had a lot of different jobs in my time and I've met some insanely busy people. Oddly, some of the busiest people I've met have been the most responsive via email or other forms of communication. Either because they have help, they've figured out how to manage their time to respond to their emails, or because they've figured out that ignoring emails is disrespectful and that's not the sort of person they want to be. Whatever the reasons why they were able to be responsive, it demonstrates that the "I'm really busy" excuse is just that, an excuse.
As is probably obvious by now, this lack of response via email has escalated to the point of extreme annoyance and frustration for me. It makes me feel disrespected and unimportant. And I don't like feeling that way, it's not fun. I don't know why my emails are not responded to. Did the other person receive them? Were they lost in cyberspace? Did the other person see it and then ignore it, or did they not notice it at all? Are they waiting for something before responding? Is there a reason why they can't let me know they're waiting for something? Did they accidentally delete my email and are waiting for me to follow-up? Are they categorizing their emails somehow and I'm in the "don't care" category? Did they see who the email was from and have deleted it? Did they think they responded but didn't actually respond? The point is I'm left in limbo not actually knowing what's going on at the other end.
You might be thinking to yourself, "why doesn't she contact them in another way"? Excellent question. One, in the case of some folks I don't have any other way to contact them. And two, in the case of other folks the only other way I potentially have to contact them is during a very limited timeframe that is either too far away and I need a response sooner. Either way I'm SOL.
You might be thinking to yourself, "why doesn't she contact them in another way"? Excellent question. One, in the case of some folks I don't have any other way to contact them. And two, in the case of other folks the only other way I potentially have to contact them is during a very limited timeframe that is either too far away and I need a response sooner. Either way I'm SOL.
Saturday 10 October 2015
Revenue Generation
I've become involved in many councils and committees at my university this year. I did this for two reasons. One - because I was interested to learn more about the governance of the university. And two - I wanted to be on the 'inside' of what was going on. So far it's been quite interesting.
At a recent council meeting for the Faculty of Arts, the Acting Dead introduce a document that outlined potential revenue generating ideas for the faculty. It met with mixed reviews.
As I listened to the feedback, I grouped people into two categories. Those who were looking at things from a logical, realistic perspective. And those that were looking at things from an historical perspective.
The historical perspective was expressed by a number of professors ... loudly and critically. This group is against revenue generation because (they claim) it goes against what a university stands for, and is suppose to represent. In general they viewed revenue generation as contrary to what a university should be focusing on, which is pure, un-obstructed research.
The logical and realistic perspective look at revenue generation as a necessary evil. None of them wanted to do it, but they understand why it was being introduced. And they could see the benefit of it if it worked properly. But given the choice, they wouldn't do it.
The reason why this 2nd group saw it as a necessary evil is because overall funding from government, private and student sources is declining (or has declined). And while there's a chance it could increase in the future, there's no guarantee. As an alternative to this 'outside' funding, the Faculty of Arts is looking at ways to generate revenue that can go directly back into their pocket for programming they could not otherwise afford.
Departments like engineering, some sciences, business, law, medicine, density, pharmacy, economics, education, etc., have obvious things they could do to generate revenue. Departments like history, classics, english, philosophy, anthropology, etc., have less obvious things they could do to generate revenue. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the negative feedback about revenue generation is coming from those departments without obvious sources of revenue generation.
I don't blame them for being unsettled. For them it's a completely new way of thinking and in some cases will be a big change from what they've done in the past. But I'm also a realist and I can see the short-term benefits of exploring revenue generation projects.
I'm also offended that so many people in academia find the concept of 'capitalism' so offensive! We live in a capitalistic society. Our economy (for the most part) follows capitalistic 'rules.' Universities receive funds in order to provide services. Those services are education and research. Research is a service. It's providing information and knowledge about something that did not exist before. From a financial perspective, the service may not be worth much in a capitalistic market, but it's still a service. Professors are paid for the services they provide to the university.
Those professors then use that salary to buy things they need in order to live (food, shelter, etc.). And I'm pretty sure that most professors do NOT live at the lowest financial level possible and give the rest of their earnings back to the 'system.' I'm pretty sure some of them buy cars (even fancy cars) rather than take transit. I'm pretty sure some of them go on vacations. I'm pretty sure they buy new clothes every now and again that they don't actually need. In other words, they take advantage of their salary to participate in a capitalistic society.
Because of this, I find it very annoying that some professors complain about having to think capitalistically, but use every capitalistic advantage they can in order to live their daily lives. You really can't have it both ways. If we lived in a country that had an endless amount of money to give to academia and academia didn't have to worry about trying to fund itself, then maybe we could have it both ways. But we don't live in that country. And I'm pretty sure if our existing country was to say that we could increase academia funding at the expense of health care, those same professors would be up in arms about losing their health care!
Yes, our current (and hopefully outgoing) government has destroyed many of the things Canadians have held near and dear, and those things need to be reversed with the next government. But the majority of Canadians actually did elect them in the first place (not me, but someone did) and as a democratic society we do have to live with the consequences of our decisions.
In the meantime, while we wait for a new government to 'fix' the problems caused by the old government (and to create new problems of their own), we need to do something. We can't just sit back and wait and hope something changes in the future. That's not realistic. Instead we have to figure out short-term solutions to the problem, and revenue generation is one of those short-term solutions.
If the Faculty of Arts wants to implement projects and programs that have no other source of funding, they need to come up with the funding themselves. If we're able to figure out a way to sell some of our services for money, then we can use that money to fund those projects and programs. If we can't raise the money on our own, then we can't offer these projects and programs, and worst case scenario, we have to reduce some of the projects and programs we already have. You can't spend money you don't have. (Well you can, but I'm not sure that the faculty is allowed to incur debt.)
Here's the thing ... revenue isn't profit. Revenue minus expenses is profit. Revenue is simply incoming funds. They key to the revenue generation program the Faculty of Arts is hoping to implement is to have an equal amount of money coming in (revenue) to the money going out (expenses) to balance to zero. As in NO PROFIT. They aren't looking to create a nest egg! They aren't looking for ways to make a profit for giving people bonuses or extra merit increases or to invest in long-term financial investments (like a for-profit corporation would do), they're simply looking for a way to offer more things to their students in order to break even.
And here is where I may be a little biased. I'm one of those students. I'm one of the many Arts students who is unfunded this year. That means I get zero help from the faculty to pay for my education (unlike least year). If a revenue generating project were to create a funding opportunity for me, I would not be opposed to this. To me it's a simple calculation - something versus nothing. Whereas, for a tenured professor (who many of the complainants were) their paycheque isn't likely to change. Or if it does, it'll only change slightly. They aren't in a situation where they need to figure out how they're going to pay for food or shelter, as they already have a decent income with which to do this. They are, however, being asked to do more work for zero increase in pay (under some circumstances). In other words, there's a lot less incentive for them to make this happen, especially if they already have decent grants.
And this is where I question some of the opinions. Many folks said they were against revenue generation because it was capitalistic and that goes against the principles of academia. But is that the real reason they're upset? Or are they upset because they're being asked to do more work for possibly no additional pay? That - to me - would be contradictory.
Maybe, and hopefully, there are other reasons as well. If there are, they weren't explicitly expressed at the meeting I attended. But whatever the reasons, I wish someone who was against this process could present an alternative solution rather than just complain. If this option isn't going to work for them, what options would work for them? Do they have any ideas on how to fund projects and programs without selling a service? Do they have any suggestions on how to balance the budget via another method? How can we make this work while still living within the historical principles of academia?
At a recent council meeting for the Faculty of Arts, the Acting Dead introduce a document that outlined potential revenue generating ideas for the faculty. It met with mixed reviews.
As I listened to the feedback, I grouped people into two categories. Those who were looking at things from a logical, realistic perspective. And those that were looking at things from an historical perspective.
The historical perspective was expressed by a number of professors ... loudly and critically. This group is against revenue generation because (they claim) it goes against what a university stands for, and is suppose to represent. In general they viewed revenue generation as contrary to what a university should be focusing on, which is pure, un-obstructed research.
The logical and realistic perspective look at revenue generation as a necessary evil. None of them wanted to do it, but they understand why it was being introduced. And they could see the benefit of it if it worked properly. But given the choice, they wouldn't do it.
The reason why this 2nd group saw it as a necessary evil is because overall funding from government, private and student sources is declining (or has declined). And while there's a chance it could increase in the future, there's no guarantee. As an alternative to this 'outside' funding, the Faculty of Arts is looking at ways to generate revenue that can go directly back into their pocket for programming they could not otherwise afford.
Departments like engineering, some sciences, business, law, medicine, density, pharmacy, economics, education, etc., have obvious things they could do to generate revenue. Departments like history, classics, english, philosophy, anthropology, etc., have less obvious things they could do to generate revenue. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the negative feedback about revenue generation is coming from those departments without obvious sources of revenue generation.
I don't blame them for being unsettled. For them it's a completely new way of thinking and in some cases will be a big change from what they've done in the past. But I'm also a realist and I can see the short-term benefits of exploring revenue generation projects.
I'm also offended that so many people in academia find the concept of 'capitalism' so offensive! We live in a capitalistic society. Our economy (for the most part) follows capitalistic 'rules.' Universities receive funds in order to provide services. Those services are education and research. Research is a service. It's providing information and knowledge about something that did not exist before. From a financial perspective, the service may not be worth much in a capitalistic market, but it's still a service. Professors are paid for the services they provide to the university.
Those professors then use that salary to buy things they need in order to live (food, shelter, etc.). And I'm pretty sure that most professors do NOT live at the lowest financial level possible and give the rest of their earnings back to the 'system.' I'm pretty sure some of them buy cars (even fancy cars) rather than take transit. I'm pretty sure some of them go on vacations. I'm pretty sure they buy new clothes every now and again that they don't actually need. In other words, they take advantage of their salary to participate in a capitalistic society.
Because of this, I find it very annoying that some professors complain about having to think capitalistically, but use every capitalistic advantage they can in order to live their daily lives. You really can't have it both ways. If we lived in a country that had an endless amount of money to give to academia and academia didn't have to worry about trying to fund itself, then maybe we could have it both ways. But we don't live in that country. And I'm pretty sure if our existing country was to say that we could increase academia funding at the expense of health care, those same professors would be up in arms about losing their health care!
Yes, our current (and hopefully outgoing) government has destroyed many of the things Canadians have held near and dear, and those things need to be reversed with the next government. But the majority of Canadians actually did elect them in the first place (not me, but someone did) and as a democratic society we do have to live with the consequences of our decisions.
In the meantime, while we wait for a new government to 'fix' the problems caused by the old government (and to create new problems of their own), we need to do something. We can't just sit back and wait and hope something changes in the future. That's not realistic. Instead we have to figure out short-term solutions to the problem, and revenue generation is one of those short-term solutions.
If the Faculty of Arts wants to implement projects and programs that have no other source of funding, they need to come up with the funding themselves. If we're able to figure out a way to sell some of our services for money, then we can use that money to fund those projects and programs. If we can't raise the money on our own, then we can't offer these projects and programs, and worst case scenario, we have to reduce some of the projects and programs we already have. You can't spend money you don't have. (Well you can, but I'm not sure that the faculty is allowed to incur debt.)
Here's the thing ... revenue isn't profit. Revenue minus expenses is profit. Revenue is simply incoming funds. They key to the revenue generation program the Faculty of Arts is hoping to implement is to have an equal amount of money coming in (revenue) to the money going out (expenses) to balance to zero. As in NO PROFIT. They aren't looking to create a nest egg! They aren't looking for ways to make a profit for giving people bonuses or extra merit increases or to invest in long-term financial investments (like a for-profit corporation would do), they're simply looking for a way to offer more things to their students in order to break even.
And here is where I may be a little biased. I'm one of those students. I'm one of the many Arts students who is unfunded this year. That means I get zero help from the faculty to pay for my education (unlike least year). If a revenue generating project were to create a funding opportunity for me, I would not be opposed to this. To me it's a simple calculation - something versus nothing. Whereas, for a tenured professor (who many of the complainants were) their paycheque isn't likely to change. Or if it does, it'll only change slightly. They aren't in a situation where they need to figure out how they're going to pay for food or shelter, as they already have a decent income with which to do this. They are, however, being asked to do more work for zero increase in pay (under some circumstances). In other words, there's a lot less incentive for them to make this happen, especially if they already have decent grants.
And this is where I question some of the opinions. Many folks said they were against revenue generation because it was capitalistic and that goes against the principles of academia. But is that the real reason they're upset? Or are they upset because they're being asked to do more work for possibly no additional pay? That - to me - would be contradictory.
Maybe, and hopefully, there are other reasons as well. If there are, they weren't explicitly expressed at the meeting I attended. But whatever the reasons, I wish someone who was against this process could present an alternative solution rather than just complain. If this option isn't going to work for them, what options would work for them? Do they have any ideas on how to fund projects and programs without selling a service? Do they have any suggestions on how to balance the budget via another method? How can we make this work while still living within the historical principles of academia?
Thursday 17 September 2015
I hope your don't own GM stock.
I just read an article on cbc.ca about the fact that GM has agreed to a settlement where they're to pay $900 million dollars to the victims of the ignition switch problem found in some of their small cars.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gm-agrees-to-pay-900m-us-to-settle-ignition-switch-probe-1.3231785
So much about this story frustrates me ...
"... the deal calls for two criminal charges to be dismissed if the company complies with terms of the agreement for three years."
This means they will not be held criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100 people.
"The company acknowledged that some of its employees knew about the problem for more than a decade, but no cars were recalled until early last year ... found no wrongdoing on the part of top executives ... the problem [is due to] ... bureaucratic corporate culture that hid problems and failed to take action."
Whoever these employees were, they should be criminally charged. How can you live with yourself knowing you knew about a problem that was killing people, but you did nothing about it? Even if the corporate culture was such that you couldn't convince higher-ups to do something, you could have gone to the media anonymously, or even hired a lawyer. There are ways to get this info out and there is no excuse for the people who kept it secret.
The part I really hate about this comment though is that a "report" didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of executives, but instead blames the corporate culture. Executives are what MAKES a corporate culture. They're responsible for how their employees act and react to things within the organization. In this case they obviously created a culture where killing people was okay as long as they didn't lose money. In a situation like this the executives should be held responsible for the behaviour of their employees. The buck stops at them.
Of course, there's also the problem of this so-called "report". It was written by an external person who was hired to investigate the issue inside GM. It doesn't say who paid him, but I got the impression from the article that his paycheque came from GM itself. If that's the case, the investigation and report is automatically biased. Would you write a report for GM executives that says that GM executives are responsible for something bad? I don't think so.
$900 million dollars is a LOT of money - but it doesn't replace the 100+ people who died due to such a shameful act.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gm-agrees-to-pay-900m-us-to-settle-ignition-switch-probe-1.3231785
So much about this story frustrates me ...
"... the deal calls for two criminal charges to be dismissed if the company complies with terms of the agreement for three years."
This means they will not be held criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100 people.
"The company acknowledged that some of its employees knew about the problem for more than a decade, but no cars were recalled until early last year ... found no wrongdoing on the part of top executives ... the problem [is due to] ... bureaucratic corporate culture that hid problems and failed to take action."
Whoever these employees were, they should be criminally charged. How can you live with yourself knowing you knew about a problem that was killing people, but you did nothing about it? Even if the corporate culture was such that you couldn't convince higher-ups to do something, you could have gone to the media anonymously, or even hired a lawyer. There are ways to get this info out and there is no excuse for the people who kept it secret.
The part I really hate about this comment though is that a "report" didn't find any wrongdoing on the part of executives, but instead blames the corporate culture. Executives are what MAKES a corporate culture. They're responsible for how their employees act and react to things within the organization. In this case they obviously created a culture where killing people was okay as long as they didn't lose money. In a situation like this the executives should be held responsible for the behaviour of their employees. The buck stops at them.
Of course, there's also the problem of this so-called "report". It was written by an external person who was hired to investigate the issue inside GM. It doesn't say who paid him, but I got the impression from the article that his paycheque came from GM itself. If that's the case, the investigation and report is automatically biased. Would you write a report for GM executives that says that GM executives are responsible for something bad? I don't think so.
$900 million dollars is a LOT of money - but it doesn't replace the 100+ people who died due to such a shameful act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)