Looking at things like impact factor of the journal or the number of times the article is cited require reading/counting* skills most deans don't seem to have--at least based on how most of them seem unable to read contracts or faculty handbooks. (*It seems skills learned while counting beans do not transfer well.)
Why is this modded "insightful"? It should be modded "completely ignorant of history." Marriage is legislated as far back as Hammurabi's code. It is regulated in the Islamic Hadith, in Jewish law, in early Christian law, and in Daoist and Confucian systems. I'm sure it's regulated in other religious systems, but I don't have knowledge of them. And the statement "Religion cannot coexist with government"? The list of state religions is too long to list before I finish my coffee. Not to mention all the religions that are coexisting with government right now. I say all this as an atheist and critic of the value of religions. We have enough fantasists in high office, on TV, in pulpits as it is. We don't need to go modding this particular denier of reality as "insightful."
I keep reading about this bubble, but I don't experience in my daily life. I am by political inclination pretty far to the left, but I run into plenty of right-wing opinions, from the libertarians on Slashdot to the Tea Party people on Facebook. I interact with moderate Republicans at work and extreme (God needs to cleanse this nation! Gold Standard!) Republicans in my neighborhood. I have no sense that there's a bubble. I sometimes wish there was a bubble that could filter out all the idiots. Some of the best days of my life were spent hanging out with people of varied and conflicting views who were all intelligent and capable of mutual respect and civility. I'd love a bubble like that. But, again, I don't see any damn bubble in my daily life. Why's it getting broadcast so much? Cui bono?
I have a doctorate in English from a better state university (University of State_name). I worked with people well-known in my field. I have teaching awards, research awards, and publications. I'm willing to work anywhere in the US except places I can't afford (where I couldn't get hired anyway): San Francisco, NYC, etc. After searching for a job for four years, I ended up at a school in the deep South that's ranked near the bottom. I work with people who have doctorates from Brown, Purdue, Penn State, and the like. We earn, at the start $44-49k/yr. During the job search, I got quite a few interviews and would be enthusiastically supported by a few members of the committee, but would get beat out by someone a little better, or a little younger. I was lucky, though, and have always been a scholarship boy, so I don't have a crushing student loan debt, "only" $50k. But that debt is a significant burden for my family, and, without it, we would have been able to buy a house much earlier. (Also: I left out the part where I taught at a major research school for four years off the tenure track with 100-135 students a semester, half of them composition students, for $32k/yr, with only annual contracts. I worked between 55 and 60 hours a week during the semester. 40 in the summers, trying to get out publications and doing extra teaching so that we could afford to live in a f*cking shack.) So, yes, when anyone tells you "Be careful. Yes, do it for love, but for god's sake, consider the consequences!" You'd be wise to quit being a callow little Holden Snotfield and listen to what we're trying to tell you. Better yet, go look at the job market figures over at the MLA and AAUP websites. Don't be a chump.
I have no problem addressing theories of divine creation in a humanities class. It's an appropriate topic for religion, philosophy, history, etc.. But it's a problem in a science classroom. There's a limited amount of time, and students in science class should be investigating ideas that are falsifiable, amenable to the scientific method. If we want to do creationism, AWESOME! Let's bust out Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon and the whole fat lot and throw up against Lyell and his gang. It'd be an awesome scrap. But, again, today's public school curricula really give very little time to science, and I'd frankly rather students learn the mechanisms of science in science class. SCIENCE. Which is based, in terms of the history of ideas, in skepticism and materialism--granted, with fat doses of mostly counterproductive hoo-ha metaphysics, but SCIENCE!!! (The last two instances of all-caps should be performed in the voice of Thomas Dolby.)
You were offered a dictionary definition of democratize accompanied by the etymology. Whether you profit from that gift is up to you.
If ten a month is the standard load for a reviewer, I think there's already a problem. Reading an article should probably be allotted at least an hour. Any fact-checking will take more. I read articles for the humanities, and that's pretty easy. You can spot a bullshitter pretty quickly, in a page or two. But I'd imagine science can be trickier. So, the half-hour or so it might take me to be sure that it's crap would probably double for science. At a minimum. I say minimum because reading a stack of a dozen poetry submissions can easily take me over an hour, and that's really not very much text. Then you have the separate but connected problem of being rushed or just feeling sick and tired of the stack and rushing through it. It seems to me like it's a recipe for rubber-stamping and carelessness. I know that a science journal my ex-wife worked for sent out far fewer articles a month. But it was a small journal on a narrow topic. I think that it will boil down to, this whole issue, to the fact that you'll always be able to game the system. The process of peer-review doesn't end with publication. For good reasons.
I read an article a year or so ago claiming that this was a natural rhythm. Apparently quite a few intellectual workers had this pattern. The one I remember is John Milton. Sorry, too busy to run down the article for you!
Traffic fatalities and gun deaths are both just over 32,000 per annum in the United States. Most gun fatalities are self-inflicted, last I checked, around 60%. So I'd say that the cops are doing a damn fine job when they're ticketing/arresting people speeding, running lights, drinking/texting while driving and so on. Of course this particular cop seems to be a limit case, a bad example. As are those redlight cameras that are about revenue and not safety. Still, I don't think it's right to claim that traffic tickets are some kind of low-hanging fruit. It's also to comforting, easy, and disingenuous to point fingers at "real" bad guys when all of us are self-centered enough to occasionally put someone's life at risk because we're running a few minutes later, or want to eat or something else while driving. We can debate helmet laws and such, but I think we'd still have to acknowledge that traffic control is an important form of police work.
Hearing the sonic boom of the B-52s?
I suppose you don't read the news. The most recent example is the girl who killed herself after a gang of her classmates spent a year tracking her down on social media to write things like "why don't you kill yourself." Ostracism, hateful words, those things are very powerful. Sure, violence. But you don't need violence to be a bully.
So, let me get this straight: you assign students some homework and then have them discuss the material in class? Holy cow, these folks really are standing education on its head!
Typing fast before I go teach, I made some mistakes; the worst was this omission: "As long as that student is NOT planning on pursuing graduate work...." One more item: there's tons of research out there on this already, a lot of it at the MLA and AAUP websites, as well as the New Faculty Majority website.
I've been both a non-tenure-track (NTT); I am now on a tenure-track (TT) professor; and I will soon be a tenured professor. I've been in the position of evaluating non-tenure-track instructors. (First off, a correct on the terms of art: very seldom is a NTT faculty member titled "professor.") In my experience, yes, NTT faculty are much better teachers. From working as an NTT faculty member, working with NTT faculty, and having them as close friends, I can say that there are three reasons that NTT faculty are better teachers. 1) They are younger and consequently fresher and have fewer family obligations. They are typically single. When coupled, they don't yet have or don't plan to have kids. 2) They are under constant threat of losing their jobs, so they work very, very hard--much harder than should be expected of people working for, often, about $35k/year, sometimes more, but generally not over $40k/yr. 3) NTT faculty are teachers only. They are not distracted by research obligations nor by substantial obligations to develop/run the program. ALL THAT SAID, I don't think hiring lots of NTT faculty is a good thing, at least as it is done now. Such faculty are treated as disposable, paid just enough to keep them around a few years, and worked hard enough that they will burn out pretty soon anyway. That may be good for the students (as long as that student is planning on pursuing graduate work that will lead to one of these dead-end jobs), but it's not ethical. Granted, to some, those salaries I listed sound pretty good, but keep in mind that level of pay is not enough to support a family and it is often further reduced by the need to repay the costs of graduate education. The answer may well be to admit fewer graduate students, produce fewer doctorates. But, a lot of the quality I saw in the instruction of NTT faculty was the result of very strong educations; many of those faculty were electing to pursue significant and demanding research projects on their own dime/time. So the undergraduates (and the employing institutions) are often effectively getting the benefits of a young professor without actually paying for a young professor. That may sound good, until you're the person in a similar situation.
I wish I could provide a citation of the account I'm about to provide, but years have passed. Cornell West was speaking somewhere on racism, and this white person during the comment period said "I'm sick of these racists; I'm not a racist"--something like that. And West said something like "Good for you because I'm a racist. We're all taught to be racists here. I walk down the street, I'M afraid of young black men." I'm summarizing the hell out of it, and my memory is old, but his point seemed to be that no one of us is free of this BS because it's so pervasive, that black people even internalize it. And that he was calling this holier-than-though person on lack of self-awareness and sanctimony. Racism and prejudice is human nature, but it's really bad in the US because we lie to ourselves so much about it and don't face up to our problems and past. Could be worse, sure. But it's bad enough.