tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post4022420904434935917..comments2024-03-29T12:03:37.344+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Be careful what you make your professionBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-29433760592761664802019-09-28T07:42:53.326+01:002019-09-28T07:42:53.326+01:00@d - All committees are bad, intrinsically; but my...@d - All committees are bad, intrinsically; but my place made extra sure that they would be bad by having the chair and two others from the five persons as outsiders to the subject matter and the department. These were appointed to the committee on an ad hoc basis just for the day - and therefore unable to evaluate specific applicants but only able to apply only standard, checklist, generic 'academic staff' criteria to appointments. <br /><br />In sum the committee had power but no knowledge, and did not have to live-with the results of their deliberations. Sticking a pin in the list of names while blindfold would have had similar validity. <br /><br />This was some 25 years ago - no doubt things are Much Worse now that the appointees of the above shambles are running the system. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7496551979928345492019-09-27T23:42:08.504+01:002019-09-27T23:42:08.504+01:00I often interviewed applicants for tenure-track ac...I often interviewed applicants for tenure-track academic jobs. As time rolled by they tended to be better credentialed but less intelligent and high spirited. Not that there was ever any guarantee that the intelligent and high spirited would be appointed anyway, such are the ways of Appointment Committees.<br />deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-2410842389762782092019-09-27T13:01:39.454+01:002019-09-27T13:01:39.454+01:00Doesn't the word amateur derive from the Latin...Doesn't the word amateur derive from the Latin for love? It's the old distinction between doing something for love and doing it for money. How could the former not be superior?William Wildbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231219533755925897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-14471178696759993122019-09-27T11:59:58.472+01:002019-09-27T11:59:58.472+01:00@D - Yes, it has always been so to some extent - w...@D - Yes, it has always been so to some extent - which is why so much of the best work (by geniuses) was done by amateurs, not paid to do that kind of work. <br /><br />eg. there were no professional scientists until late Victorian times. And most scientists used to be paid to teach, not do, science - the 'research' was in at the scientist's own expense and in their own time when not engaged in teaching (but there was typically adequate time for this). <br /><br />The same applies to writing fiction, and even more so poetry. e.g CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were amateur fiction writers, publishing not much, but some of it at the highest level. Their modern professional equivalents are usually professional fantasy writers, therefore necessarily far more productive; but Not As Good. <br /><br />However, if it was always difficult for a professional to be a genius (because it is difficult for a genius to be a professional) it is much more so now - and this happened incrementally and very fully through the past 40 years of my working life. <br /><br />(Tolkien and Lewis would not be academics nowadays - they were not bureaucrats. They would, indeed, be all-but un-employable. The idea of such geniuses as Newton, Dirac or Wittgenstein functioning in the modern so-called-university is unthinkable.) Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88807156891808206702019-09-27T10:08:26.200+01:002019-09-27T10:08:26.200+01:00Pretty much has always been so - hence sinecures. ...Pretty much has always been so - hence sinecures. Kierkegaard had a sinecure in the Danish diplomatic service. He was a honest philosopher. Hegel was a professional philosopher and I tend to agree with Schopenhauer saying he was a fraud.<br /><br />Dividualisthttp://dividuals.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com