Mustnottakebait…I believe most of the finer Clown Colleges do accept Twitter as part of the tenure dossier. But if your score on the major laugh indices is low you are screwed.
I'm betting it's that Mozman guy....Actually, the sad part of this is that the 2nd may tweet may well be true.
I really feel sympathy for this person, oh wait, no, that's gas. sorry.
It's heartbreaking to think my toots won't be part of my tenure dossier?
I hadn't seen this of the 'toots' when I continued the thread re the shitter, lower in this page. Great minds and all.
Actually, your work on the shitter called to mind MA&M's gas, an inspired me to re-toot.Which only goes to show that toots on the shitter are a valid discourse of synergistic creation within a collaborative community. Or something.
JS's tweets remind me of Reggie Watts taking the piss out of TED.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdHK_r9RXTc&feature=youtu.be
@R+/-G: Thank you for the citation. N.B. that I also cited you, and I am now citing you for citing me. I shall cite you again if you can manage to insert "intersectionality" into your treatise on valid discourse of synergistic creation within a collaborative community. Thus, our citation indices should increase in a manner that is neither consanguineous nor mutually onanistic.
I saw this when it first appeared, you know, on twitter. At first, I thought the person was being sarcastic so I thought it was pretty humorous. Then I saw who wrote it. It was still funny but in a different way.
The @collegemisery account is blocked on that page but a few readers alerted me to it and a couple sent screenshots.
I feel left out. I need to get one of these twitter things so I can get blocked, too.
Bet "Colarado Prof" and "Dedicated Educator" aren't blocked!
@EC1: I'm betting Mozman would eat this guy alive. Hey, let's introduce them! @RGM: Are we not saying his name for some reason? Is THIS He Who Shall Not Be Named?
@PG: After "meeting" Mozman the other day, I was actually thinking that there's some sort of continuum of teacher demandiness, with Stommel at one end and Mozman at the other.
Stommel vs Mozman - sounds like an old Japanese monster movie from the sixties
I am trying not to pile on this guy because he's not the cause of any of my problems (and he sure as hell doesn't care about my opinion) but when he says stuff like, "99% of the work I do on Twitter is listening." I can't help myself.If you're inclined to be driven crazy by Stommel's preciousness, pretend that he's conducting an elaborate parody of an academic gumdrop unicorn. Then, you'll feel like your witnessing a golden age of satire.
It's weird not to know which side of Poe's Law this falls on.
You mean it's not satire? I thought he was like the proffie equivalent of https://twitter.com/guyinyourmfa
The first two comments his tweet attracted (assuming they're not sock puppets) are great examples of Poe's Law.As to what Ben said, this guy and his ilk may not be a direct cause of any problems to CM members, but I think he has the potential to do a lot of damage.In a Tea Party / Fox News fashion, getting weird shit on the agendaHaving a blog with an ISSN, and calling it a peer-reviewed journalIncreasing the risk that some asshat Dean somewhere will start looking at teachers' social media presence as a required part of their jobSomebody somewhere taking his pronouncements as being mainstream / important / in touch with reality, and then using it to cut budgets, etc.So I don't see him as my problem, but I do see him as A problem.
To my mind, this is like saying you do your best scholarly work in the hotel bar at the MLA [substitute massive professional conference/meat market of your choice]. Yes, you may well do all kinds of things there that feed and help to disseminate your scholarly work (as well as, potentially, things that could bring a sudden and ignominious end to your scholarly career), but it just doesn't work as a primary venue for conducting or communicating the results of research, and if you don't know that, you're probably safest staying away entirely, lest in an unguarded moment you say something that will haunt you later.
Yes. In that moment, you might say something like "It is heartbreaking to imagine my tweets not being a part of my future tenure dossier -- as a kind of scholarship that 'counts.' "As a member of a search committee, I would counter that it is disturbing to imagine someone thinking his tweets themselves could be a part of his tenure dossier as any kind of 'scholarship'. Terry said it well: such a planet would not be worth saving.
Well, when Google Scholar tells me that no one has EVER cited my published work, but a post I put up here has over 400 hits, there *might* be something to this.
In a moment of nastiness, I checked out his work on Google Scholar.He cites himself quite a lot, but that's about it.
He can cite himself as much as he wants, so long as he does it in private and washes his hands afterwards...
Here is the link he shared today: Twitter and the Locus of Research: http://www.hybridpedagogy.com/journal/twitter-and-the-locus-of-research/
I feel dumber for having read that. If I'm going to kill brian cells like that, I'd rather smoke a fat one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will be fully honest and say that I do some of my best thinking on the shitter. Adulate me, O lesser mortals, for what I have wrought!
Stommel has a masturbatory grip on personal pronouns.
99% of what I do on the shitter is listen.
Oh, that's GOOD.(To the group: I can't remember if it's been quoted on CM, but somone special did indeed tweet "99% of the work I do on Twitter is listen.")
It is heartbreaking to imagine my work on the shitter not being a part of my future tenure dossier -- as a kind of scholarship that 'counts.'
How exactly do you weigh that contribution Ogre?
In grams, I would think. Unless you're in the humanities.
@AA: The point is that the scholarship 'counts', i.e., is countable. In my field, we sometimes talk about the Publishable Unit, which is of course journal-dependent. Here, I'd say the appropriate unit is the Pinchable Unit. Therefore, as at any other tenure review, the candidate's level of scholarship could be known simply by counting the PUs. @PC: Volume, density, and aesthetics would also seem important. What a STEM PU may lack in total mass or volume could be made up in opacity.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.