3 ms·
Lots of good replies. I'd like to add that incentives seem a better explanation than power: The professor's incentives are entirely towards thinking up and pul
by improbable22 9y ago
Lots of good replies. I'd like to add that incentives seem a better explanation than power:
The professor's incentives are entirely towards thinking up and pulling off big long-term projects. The tenure committee is not going to know or care about whether you seemed on top of your diary two years ago.
The incentives are much the same for graduate students too, another group known for sleeping through 11am teaching commitments. They clearly don't have any power, but they know damn well they won't get a job by being diligent about the small stuff.
The incentives for (say) lawyers or management consultants are massively different. Hence the firm handshakes and neat suits and always knowing what time the meeting is. Are these people less dominant, somehow?
- dycemply 9y agoI'd argue that they're 2 sides of the same coin. Understanding the differences in incentives between people gives you an idea of who has the power. If you took a subsection of grad students and said that if they missed any teaching commitments, they'd be expelled, you can reasonably guess that those grad students wouldn't be sleeping through any 11am teaching commitments.
- improbable22 9y agoBut why does this mean they have power? The hiring committee at their next job has real power. The administrators who could fire them have some power too (although failing to impress the former is almost as bad as being expelled by the latter). This power doesn't seem to explain who's sloppy very well. The hot-shit lawyer has loads of power, right? And is never forgetful. But his life revolves around impressing people right there in the same room. He's been both selected and trained to be be good at impressing them.