5 ms·

The scope of the article is in the first sentence.

ggm 3y ago
The author is no stranger to reading and research about matters considerably more complex than the nature of tertiary educational organisation worldwide and has an extensive readership outside the USA. If this was about Roman era educational norms he'd have done a French metric tonne more work.
- jholman 3y ago
  Again, who are you to determine what he chooses to write about? Your entire framing of what is going on is simply off-base, so the point you attempt to make about Devereaux's competence is beside the point. He is choosing to write about the American academic industry, incidentally speaking far more about the humanities than about other fields. The title of the article simplifies that, as all article titles do. That's just how titles work. He has researched his subject fairly extensively, as far as I can tell. If you want an article about non-American academy, perhaps including STEM fields, write the damn article yourself.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Nobody decides what he writes but himself. I read the blog frequently and they're well written and researched. I'm tired of Americentrism, and I think this piece would have been better for a wider sweep. I'm interested in how it differs from Japan, or Germany or the UK. I'd be interested in how an American academic understands this.
    - jholman 3y ago
      That makes sense to me.
skissane 3y ago
Even if you are going to limit your scope, a brief expression of awareness of things beyond it is called for-something absent here. Furthermore, the scope seems arbitrarily limited - it isn’t just the US system, the Canadian system is largely the same as far as ranks go - so why is the scope described as just “American”, as opposed to “US and Canada”?
- labster 3y ago
  The author is a Roman military history PhD talking about his personal experience in academia for the most part. It’s not hard to see the current system is broken, after all, but only if you’re in the middle of it. There are other sources if you want an in-depth view; the target audience is people who don’t even know what an adjunct is.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    The author is also very much a teacher; his goal, I think, is to educate primarily his own students, firstly in how to do history, and secondly in how not to fail as a student. He's written more than one article along these lines. Perhaps the shortage of navigation is a problem if you're just dipping in, or skimming. I check out Devereaux's blog every Friday, and if the article is interesting, I plough through the whole thing, including the footnotes. If I wanted to do history at Uni, I'd like to have him as my teacher.

ggm 3y ago

The author is no stranger to reading and research about matters considerably more complex than the nature of tertiary educational organisation worldwide and has an extensive readership outside the USA. If this was about Roman era educational norms he'd have done a French metric tonne more work.

jholman 3y ago
Again, who are you to determine what he chooses to write about? Your entire framing of what is going on is simply off-base, so the point you attempt to make about Devereaux's competence is beside the point. He is choosing to write about the American academic industry, incidentally speaking far more about the humanities than about other fields. The title of the article simplifies that, as all article titles do. That's just how titles work. He has researched his subject fairly extensively, as far as I can tell. If you want an article about non-American academy, perhaps including STEM fields, write the damn article yourself.
- ggm 3y ago
  Nobody decides what he writes but himself. I read the blog frequently and they're well written and researched. I'm tired of Americentrism, and I think this piece would have been better for a wider sweep. I'm interested in how it differs from Japan, or Germany or the UK. I'd be interested in how an American academic understands this.
  - jholman 3y ago
    That makes sense to me.

skissane 3y ago

Even if you are going to limit your scope, a brief expression of awareness of things beyond it is called for-something absent here. Furthermore, the scope seems arbitrarily limited - it isn’t just the US system, the Canadian system is largely the same as far as ranks go - so why is the scope described as just “American”, as opposed to “US and Canada”?

labster 3y ago
The author is a Roman military history PhD talking about his personal experience in academia for the most part. It’s not hard to see the current system is broken, after all, but only if you’re in the middle of it. There are other sources if you want an in-depth view; the target audience is people who don’t even know what an adjunct is.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  The author is also very much a teacher; his goal, I think, is to educate primarily his own students, firstly in how to do history, and secondly in how not to fail as a student. He's written more than one article along these lines. Perhaps the shortage of navigation is a problem if you're just dipping in, or skimming. I check out Devereaux's blog every Friday, and if the article is interesting, I plough through the whole thing, including the footnotes. If I wanted to do history at Uni, I'd like to have him as my teacher.