Rebecca Schuman on graduate study

Rebecca Schuman: “After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job — and if you go to graduate school, neither will you”: Getting a literature Ph.D. will turn you into an emotional trainwreck, not a professor (Slate).

Schuman’s narrative reminds me of the tale told in Chapter Sixteen of The Grapes of Wrath: “You goin’ out there — oh, Christ!” The tale’s anonymous, ragged teller is the man who’s been: he’s been to California, he’s seen what’s there, and he’s heading back home to starve. Nothing he says can persuade the Joads to turn around: they have nothing to go back to. Perhaps Rebecca Schuman’s account of grad school though will persuade some aspirant undergraduates to rethink their lives’ trajectories. There are, as Schuman concedes, jobs, but the odds are against you, whoever you are.

I remember being told as a prospective doctoral student that “There are, of course, no jobs.” I nodded and thought, “Well, I’ll somehow get one.” Delusional, yes? Back then the odds were about fifty-fifty, and I was lucky. Today, the odds are worse.

Teenaged multitasking

[“Teenager Pat Woodruff pondering homework while listening to radio in living room.” Photograph by Nina Leen. United States, 1944. From the Life Photo Archive. Click for a larger view.]

This young lady appears to be the epitome of the tech-savvy analog native, digging the tunes and getting the homework done.

A related post
Studying alone, really alone

About machine-scoring

In the New York Times, a report on machine-scoring college writing:

Imagine taking a college exam, and, instead of handing in a blue book and getting a grade from a professor a few weeks later, clicking the “send” button when you are done and receiving a grade back instantly, your essay scored by a software program. . . .

EdX, the nonprofit enterprise founded by Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to offer courses on the Internet, has just introduced such a system and will make its automated software available free on the Web to any institution that wants to use it. The software uses artificial intelligence to grade student essays and short written answers, freeing professors for other tasks.

It is worth asking: is this scheme meant to “free” professors for other tasks, or for unemployment? Machine-scoring seems to point toward a future in which the human presence is ever more superfluous for the work of teaching and learning.

Especially galling is the claim, from University of Akron professor Mark D. Shermis, that critics of machine-scoring tend to come from the nation’s elite schools, where human beings do a much better job than machines. “There seems to be,” he says, “a lack of appreciation of what is actually going on in the real world.” Indeed. The great variety of institutional affiliations represented by the signers of the Human Readers petition against machine-scoring suggests that opposition to the practice extends well beyond elite schools. Thoughtful and helpful evaluations of student writing by what the Times article calls “human graders” can be found at all levels as well.

My mantra re: technology, which I will now repeat (because that’s what makes it a mantra): technology makes it possible to do things, not necessary to do them. And its converse: technology makes it possible not to do things, not necessary not to do them.

Roger Ebert (1942–2013)

From Life Itself: A Memoir (2012), quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times obituary:

I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.

Roger Ebert was a son of east-central Illinois. Champaign’s fifteenth Ebertfest takes place later this month.

A better Life Photo Archive search

Arjan den Boer has created a better tool to search Google’s Life Photo Archive: Better search for LIFE Photo Archive. I just tried it out:

A search for duke ellington : LPA: 34 results; Arjan’s search: 156 results.

A search for post office : LPA page: 38 results. Arjan’s search: 218 results.

A search for typewriter : LPA: 45 results; Arjan: 158 results.

Arjan’s search not only yields far more results; it presents those results in a legible uniform size, twenty to a page.

The Life Photo Archive is a wonderful place to get lost. It’s now easier than ever to get lost and stay there. Thanks for sharing your work, Arjan.

*

March 12, 2014: As Arjan wrote in a comment, Google has a new way to search Life photos. Thanks for the memories, Arjan.

The New York Times on Walmart

Breaking news! Walmart offers a crummy shopping experience, with empty shelves and awful produce.

[This is breaking news?]

7 Little Words

7 Little Words — that’s its icon to the left — is a lovely little diversion, challenging enough to provide at least slight difficulty here and there, easy enough to solve in a minute or two. (You can make things more difficult by removing the number-of-letters hint for each word.) The daily puzzle is free online or as a mobile app. Extra puzzles for the mobile app are fifty for 99¢. Clues in the for-sale puzzles offer flashes of crossword-style wit. “Nice chap, perhaps”: FRENCHMAN.

Buehner’s Office Supply

“A window into a world where analog was king”: Buehner’s Office Supply, in Cleveland, Ohio (via Coudal.) They even have Robinson Reminder refills for sale.

The photographs of Buehner’s remind me of the now-defunct office-supply stores where I found many of the items in my imaginary Museum of Supplies. How come I never took a picture?

Hummingbird neighbors

[Photograph by Seth. Click for a larger, cuter view.]

My daughter Rachel needs no nest cam: she has neighbors right outside her window.

Thanks for the pitchers, Rachel and Seth!

William Maxwell on sentences

From his 1982 Paris Review interview:

That’s what I try to do — write sentences that won’t be like sand castles. I’ve gotten to the point where I seem to recognize a good sentence when I’ve written it on the typewriter. Often it’s surrounded by junk. So I’m extremely careful. If a good sentence occurs in an otherwise boring paragraph, I cut it out, rubber-cement it to a sheet of typewriter paper, and put it in a folder. It’s just like catching a fish in a creek. I pull out a sentence and slip a line through the gills and put it on a chain and am very careful not to mislay it. Sometimes I try that sentence in ten different places until finally it finds the place where it will stay — where the surrounding sentences attach themselves to it and it becomes part of them. In the end what I write is almost entirely made up of those sentences, which is why what I write now is so short. They come one by one, and sometimes in dubious company.

I’ve just begun reading Maxwell’s So Long, See You Tomorrow. No dubious company to be found.