Comments, anyone?
Doug
----
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Precedence: Bulk
>Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:21:33 -0800
>From: Brad De Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Multiple recipients of BAD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: new e-zine
>
>Re:
>>www.workplace-gsc.com www. workplace-gsc.com www.workplace-gsc.com
>>
>>Foreword by Marc Bousquet: "The degree holder is the waste product
>>of a job system that produces Ph.D holders but does not use them.
>>In language and literature more than any other field the teaching
>>machine runs on non-degreed labor. . . ."
>>
>
>So far we economists have been able to avoid such a horrible situation, in
>part because of the strong non-academic labor market demand for economics
>Ph.D.s, in part because of the expansion of business schools (which has
>added to academic labor market demand for economics Ph.D.s), in part
>because we pay attention to forecasts of the academic job market ten years
>out...
>
>... and in part (dare I say it?) because we economics professors are better
>people than language and literature professors in that we view graduate
>students as colleagues or comrades, and get profoundly depressed when we
>are unable to place new Ph.D.s in jobs that we think are challenging and
>appropriate to them.
>
>Hence a question: how did language and literature (and history, and other)
>professors get to the stage where they regard their new Ph.D.s not as
>colleagues and comrades who are to be assisted, but as pieces of used
>kleenex to be thrown away? It seems contrary to human nature for professors
>to develop such an appallingly instrumental attitude toward people whom
>they work closely with for years...
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>
>
>
