Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked this thread more when I thought you were a woman.

I'm a humanities prof. My gender is constructed, and you can construct it any way you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you heckle your children when they use improper grammar?

Prof kid here. Yes.

Anonymous wrote:Do you heckle your children when they use improper grammar?

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Purdue chancellor should be fired for making racist Asian comment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much you make?

$175. More than a ditch digger, about what my plumber makes. Some days I think he has the better gig.

That's unusually high for a humanities prof. Are you in an administrative position, as well?
-Another humanities prof (tenured) at an R-1, but a woman and earning about $50K less...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: do most humanities profs (a) not realize that covid vacc mandates are not supported by data and are unethical, (b) are afraid to say anything to the contrary for fear of retribution/ostracization, and/or (c) have no pull whatsoever where college administrative decisions are concerned?

I feel fairly certain that (c) is true, but it's much harder to discern (a) or (b). Guessing (a) is true (they just don't realize) (no personal offense intended if this includes yourself). Perhaps you might offer observations on this issue, considering the anonymity of your thread.

The data clearly demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines prevent serious illness and death. Do you disagree with that? If so, based on what?

(a) Mandates are unethical without transmission prevention (or at the very least, durable and significant reduction). The vacc does not prevent transmission. Short duration increase in antibody levels, combined with the lack of any antibody level correlate of protection, do not support mandates.
(b) College students are not at significant risk of severe disease and death. Seroprevalence is very high (>90%) nationally. There is no age-stratified clinical trial data proving a marginal benefit to previously-infected college students against severe disease.
(c) There are risks. Studies on such risks have not even finished and been released (more are due at the end of this month).
(d) All available products in the US are still under EUA only, which prohibits coercion.

See e.g. COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities, https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

Is this the prof answering or some rando spouting off?

Anonymous wrote:What are you and/or your humanities professor ilk doing about the dearth of humanities majors? Are demands/requests being made to admissions, either by you or your well situated brethren, to accept more students with a demonstrated intent to actually major in your respective fields? Does admissions know it needs to do this without being asked?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much you make?

$175. More than a ditch digger, about what my plumber makes. Some days I think he has the better gig.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: do most humanities profs (a) not realize that covid vacc mandates are not supported by data and are unethical, (b) are afraid to say anything to the contrary for fear of retribution/ostracization, and/or (c) have no pull whatsoever where college administrative decisions are concerned?

I feel fairly certain that (c) is true, but it's much harder to discern (a) or (b). Guessing (a) is true (they just don't realize) (no personal offense intended if this includes yourself). Perhaps you might offer observations on this issue, considering the anonymity of your thread.

The data clearly demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines prevent serious illness and death. Do you disagree with that? If so, based on what?

(a) Mandates are unethical without transmission prevention (or at the very least, durable and significant reduction). The vacc does not prevent transmission. Short duration increase in antibody levels, combined with the lack of any antibody level correlate of protection, do not support mandates.
(b) College students are not at significant risk of severe disease and death. Seroprevalence is very high (>90%) nationally. There is no age-stratified clinical trial data proving a marginal benefit to previously-infected college students against severe disease.
(c) There are risks. Studies on such risks have not even finished and been released (more are due at the end of this month).
(d) All available products in the US are still under EUA only, which prohibits coercion.

See e.g. COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities, https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many years have you been teaching?

What changes have you seen in students over the years?

I taught a number of years during grad school at a big research uni (not my own), three years at my phd institution (top of the top) and then 13 years where I am now.

Overall, the students seem to have greater pressure to succeed financially. At the same time, the paths to that success are much more diverse. 15 years ago, it was clear tracks to big consulting firms, or banks, or other similarly defined institutions. Now the tech bulge has blown all that up. There are students who think they can do startups, live in the Maldives, and make billions.

Overall, students' abilities to interpret texts and analyze ideas has PLUMMETED.

They seem afraid. Honestly afraid that the world is on the precipice of falling apart.

At the same time, I'm honestly blown away by how much intellectual ability many of them have. If it can be shaped and directed in good ways, we have some hope for the future.

Also, general note: I see a substantial difference between student abilities coming out of private schools and out of public schools (esp. in the ability to read/interpret, think analytically, and in level of confidence). There are some standout public school students, but the numbers of top private school students outweigh the numbers of public school students (caveat: total anecdotal evidence from my own limited experience, but it's been consistently the case over 20 years).

Remember that those private school kids came from an advantaged upbringing to begin with.

By private do you mean Catholic and christian schools as well? These are generally that much more expense/have many financial aide students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: do most humanities profs (a) not realize that covid vacc mandates are not supported by data and are unethical, (b) are afraid to say anything to the contrary for fear of retribution/ostracization, and/or (c) have no pull whatsoever where college administrative decisions are concerned?

I feel fairly certain that (c) is true, but it's much harder to discern (a) or (b). Guessing (a) is true (they just don't realize) (no personal offense intended if this includes yourself). Perhaps you might offer observations on this issue, considering the anonymity of your thread.

Humanities profs are smart enough to recognize the superior scientific and medical knowledge and analytical ability of their STEM colleagues (so "a" is demonstrably false). "c" is demonstrably true, so your "a" and "b" are irrelevant to how universities make decisions.

Anonymous wrote:Are you pressured to give top grades to top athletes who never bother to show up for your class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: do most humanities profs (a) not realize that covid vacc mandates are not supported by data and are unethical, (b) are afraid to say anything to the contrary for fear of retribution/ostracization, and/or (c) have no pull whatsoever where college administrative decisions are concerned?

I feel fairly certain that (c) is true, but it's much harder to discern (a) or (b). Guessing (a) is true (they just don't realize) (no personal offense intended if this includes yourself). Perhaps you might offer observations on this issue, considering the anonymity of your thread.

The data clearly demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines prevent serious illness and death. Do you disagree with that? If so, based on what?