I can't be objective, but I'll comment on it anyway

ETA: I shouldn't malign the Chronicle, because they actually have a column (from the end of March last spring - sorry to have missed it at the time) that expresses a different take on tenure, one that encompasses many of the objections that people have made to the column discussed below.

* * * * *

"It" is a First Person column in the Chronicle, by "George Farmer," on "The Treadmill of Tenure." He compares working towards tenure to exercise - it's something that you probably don't enjoy but you need to do on a day to day basis in order to reap the benefits. In short, the "no pain, no gain" philosophy. This was how he lost 70 pounds, despite not enjoying his time on the treadmill at all, and this is how he's confident that he's going to get tenure (which he comes up for this fall).

That's all very well and good, but the tone of this piece makes me crazy. Because to make his point, Farmer points to the cases of people he's seen go through the review process. For instance, there's his friend Mark, who just went through a rough third-year review:

He thinks that he can turn things around with a few superficial changes. Mark believes that if he just keeps his door open a bit more and shows up to one or two more campus activities, the administration will believe he is plugged in to campus life, which is terribly important at our college.

Mark does not understand that he has to make deep changes in the way he feels about students here. He seems to see them now as an inconvenience, preventing him from spending time on his writing, and it shows. That's not good in a teaching institution like ours.

Similarly, there's Doug, who was just denied tenure:

Doug, too, was unwilling to make deep changes in his job performance in order to reap the long-term benefits of tenure. He was told that he needed to increase his involvement with students. Instead, he did the bare minimum. He was unwilling to make the investment required for the few years until he came up for tenure, which, had he earned it, would have resulted in another 20 or more years of full-time employment.

Now, Farmer's absolutely correct that at a teaching institution, it's necessary to see the students as central, and not to treat them as an inconvenience. Similarly, if someone tells you to up your enrollments, yeah, you want to work on that.

But the superiority in Farmer's tone is somewhat galling. He has it all figured out, and these silly people around him who haven't succeeded, well, they were just lazy - unwilling to put in the daily "exercise" to achieve the "fitness" of tenure.

Unsurprisingly, I can envision other versions of these scenarios. For instance, if Mark seems to prioritize writing over students, it may be he's feeling the pressure to publish to get tenure, and has to make choices about how he's going to spend his time. I'm presuming that like most schools, the "small university in the South" at which these people work requires publications of some kind for tenure. It's true that not looking devoted to students doesn't fly at a teaching university, but it's also likely equally true that if he has no publications when he goes up for tenure, Mark won't succeed either. (Now, it's possible that this institution has extremely low publication requirements for tenure, or that Mark has already met whatever requirements there are, but Farmer doesn't tell us these things.) Mark may even be trying to write his way out of this job and move elsewhere. In any case, especially given academia's broader emphasis on the importantance of research over teaching (I mean, c'mon, which one wins you big fellowships and widespread acclaim?), it's not incredible that Mark may feel the pressure to publish is stronger than the need to feel a certain way about his students.

I'm not saying that Mark is correct in feeling this way, or that he's judging his situation accurately. But I would suggest that there may be reasons why he hasn't done what Farmer thinks he should have done other than his unwillingness to put in the time - in short, Mark's probably not just lazy.

Similarly, Doug did "the bare minimum" to increase his involvement with students. What was that bare minimum? What support did he have from his department in this endeavor? What else does Doug have going on in his life - for instance, does he have small children and a working spouse, an aging parent, responsibilities that take up his time? Does he live far from campus, and if so, is that because he just doesn't like being on campus or for other reasons? Again, I'm not saying that Farmer is wrong in his overall assessment - Doug didn't increase his involvement with students enough. But I doubt Doug did so because he was too lazy to take the time.

Farmer compares these two to "a guy I know who does not like to exercise because it's not 'fun,' but who believes that if he walks 30 minutes every other day or so, then he will see dramatic changes in his health." Their problem is not that they made questionable choices about where to focus their time and energy, but that they only want to do things that are "fun." (And Farmer also assumes that these two have received clear, consistent messages about their progress and where they should focus their time. They very well may have, but that's not always the case. People who do not succeed in their institution's reviews are not just lazy.)

In contrast, he lauds Mary:

Mary does not do anything flashy on the campus. She is not a superstar by any measure. However, she puts in the time doing work that is necessary, but not glamorous, for her department and the university. Mary takes on jobs whose accomplishment only a few people ever observe. But those people are the ones who need to see her work....She's like the runner who is out on the road at 6 a.m. while everyone else is still asleep.

In short, Mary's not lazy like the other two. (Gotta love the rhetoric of "early to bed, early to rise" - those of us night owls who get up late but work late must be SOL.)

What especially concerns me about Farmer's description of Mary is that it plays into insidious gender expectations at work in the academy. Women, especially young women, are especially vulnerable to the service trap, being asked to do all kinds of scut work because they are the "good girls" and will do it (and probably do it well). Again, this probably is serving Mary well. But I'd propose that at some point it would benefit Mary to do something a little "flashier." Moreover, Farmer puts the interests of the university firmly above Mary's interests - she is successful because she puts their interests above hers. Granted, in this situation it seems that serving the university is serving Mary's interests. But call me cynical, but I'm uncomfortable with the general message that the interests of the university trump everything else, and should be served, without considering how that might conflict with one's own interests. I'd just suggest that Farmer's interpretation is, again, not the only perspective to take on these events.

In fact, there is a disturbing elevation of suffering throughout Farmer's column, summed up in his reference to the "no pain, no gain" philosophy (which he cites explicitly). He states:

We suffer in the short term (though it does not seem all that short) for a long-term gain,

and

I am amazed by the number of people I know who simply don't have the ability to suffer now in order to thrive later on.

The assumption here, of course, is that the tenure track requires suffering. And that this is just fine. That of course one should be willing to suffer to get tenure, because the ability to suffer sets the strong apart from the weak, and after all, only the strong survive.

Perhaps I am just lazy (and perhaps it's not a coincidence that I don't like to exercise either). But I don't subscribe to the "no pain, no gain" philosophy of fitness (sports injuries, anyone?) and I don't think it's a useful philosophy for getting tenure. In short, I'm not sure how much I am, or should be, willing to suffer to get tenure. (Well, in theory - it's moot for me at the moment.) Is any level of suffering acceptable? And who gets to determine how much suffering is required? Obviously in practice, the tenure-granting institution gets to decide. But what if the candidate doesn't want to do what that institution requires? Does that really mean they're lazy, or might it be that they have different priorities? If they don't like trudging on a treadmill day in and day out, at what point does continuing to do so become ridiculous?

Farmer himself says,

I feel chained to [the treadmill]; I work out because I have to, in order to stay in good shape, not because it's particularly enjoyable. Realistically, what is enjoyable about walking on a treadmill for an hour, even if there is a TV available? And I've yet to understand why people like lifting weights.

To be honest, I have to question whether this is the best attitude. Why spend a good percentage of your life doing something you don't like? Isn't it possible that there are other physical activities that Farmer would like better? Taking tennis lessons, joining a soccer league, hiking in the beautiful outdoors - there are lots of ways to stay in shape. Because Farmer's chosen a means that he doesn't enjoy, why should everyone else have to do so? Because for him the payoff is worth the misery, does that mean everyone else should feel the same way?

And really, why should the tenure track be a life of suffering and pain? What benefit does that serve the academy (because it really doesn't serve the individual)? Doesn't it seem designed purely to break the will of junior faculty, and likely to perpetuate an attitude that says, "Because I had to suffer through this, you do too" - in fact, a hazing mentality?

I'm not suggesting that untenured faculty should be coddled, fanned by pretty slave boys and fed peeled grapes one by one. I'm certainly not suggesting that untenured faculty do not need to work! Nor do I mean to suggest that Farmer is doing anything wrong - what he does, regarding exercise and tenure, certainly works for him, and I'm sure he has very good reasons for sticking with the treadmill and weights he dislikes. There are doubtless many factors at play that make his use of the treadmill the best use of his time.

But that's kind of my point. There are equally many factors at play in Mark's, Doug's, and Mary's experiences with institutional review, and I don't think Farmer's explanation for what's going on recognizes those many factors. Mark and Doug undeniably erred, Doug more fatally than Mark, but they erred in a specific context that they misjudged, due to their own assessment of their best interests - not due to  the character flaw of being unwilling to exercise because it's not fun.

You readers out there are entitled to take this all with a grain of salt, of course, because at the post title says, I have a hard time being objective about this issue. Perhaps you'll forgive me for being cynical if I resist Farmer's underlying belief that the tenure system is based solely on merit, and that therefore those who founder along the way deserve to do so. I'm sure such a belief is comforting to him at the stressful time of going up for tenure.

Comments

[meg]

Yeah, the gender thing about Mary smacked me upside the head straight away. And I like the way that Farmer classifies focusing on students as a form of suffering!

The whole suffering thing is weird here. As you say, if getting tenure is all about the suffering, change jobs! We both know at least one person doing this, and more power to everyone who makes that brave step.

I'd bet you dollars to donuts he was raised Calvinist.

[Barb]

I agree with you, and Meg, about the gender thing, and the idea that focusing on students is a form of suffering. What about the people who love the teaching and service aspects of the job, but find writing really difficult? I know a lot of people who love their research but would rather do almost anything than have to sit at the computer and write it up. Why isn't that suffering, too, instead of an indication that maybe you're in the wrong job? It bothers me that there is such a (perceived) divide between teaching and research, and that if you love one, you must struggle with the other one.
And of course, implicit in his whole piece is the belief that once you get tenure, you can blow off teaching, or connecting with students, or service, or whatever other form your "suffering" has taken, because you've achieved the prize. Suck it up and deal with those pesky students know, because you can ignore them later, once you've deluded the tenure committee into thinking you're dedicated! Yuck!

[Feirefiz]

The article annoyed me too! I agree with your analysis, NK. The author of the piece seems to see the tenure process as a simple thing which it is not. It's very complex and a lot of factors go into tenuring someone or not. Assistant professors have to balance a lot of things. On the job it's teaching, research and service and getting that right balance for that particular job, but also doing the kind of teaching, research or service that your department or institution values can be tricky too. There's also the issue of balancing work and life. Assistant professors have a life out of work too--spouses, children, parents, friends, other commitments. They may be in commuting relationships. Women particularly may be hearing the biological clock ticking if they want children. But mostly I object to his attitude that doing the job is to suffer. Given that academe (particularly the humanities) pay so little, if one doesn't get the payoff, which is pleasure, from the job, there's really not a lot of point to it. What the point seems to be for Mr Farmer is lifetime sinecure, so he can goof off and ignore students all he likes after tenure. He had better be sure his department doesn't find out he wrote this. I'm not tenured (going up this year) but I would want to tenure colleagues who love their job. Sure we have bad days and sure we like to complain, but fundamentally we've got to love what we're doing.

[flossie]

Yes, why suffer so much to get tenure, when the grand prize is 30-plus more years of what makes you suffer (whether it's teaching, research, or writing)? I think we are taught to delay gratification endlessly (after comps...after the diss...after getting the job, etc., I'll be happy). Why not judge a career based on how happy it makes you on a day-to-day basis? That's what it all comes down to anyway.

[Anastasia]

everybody who made it through grad school knows how to suffer.

I agree with your analysis here. it parallels the if you just work hard and write a good dissertation you're guaranteed a job at the other end rhetoric.

[Bardiac]

What a great response.

I don't want a job to be about suffering if it doesn't HAVE to be. Overall, it's best when there's some sense of pleasure.

I exercise better when it feels good, too, so I don't buy that metaphor either.

And sometimes, demands for being involved on campus are just stupid. If the demand is that we all show up for football games, but not for theater productions or art shows, then that's just stupid! But it's a stupid that faculty members SHOULD be able to change!

[maggiemay]

You are a very brave woman. I read 3 sentences of this piece and had to put it down I was so annoyed.

Maybe I'm naive, but I do the work I do because I love it, not because I wanted to get tenure. Tenure was the side-effect of doing what I love.

I like to hike, too. I don't hike to "stay in shape". I like hiking because I like to be outdoors, breathing fresh air, and looking around.

Gah! Even thinking about this for five minutes makes my head hurt. Like I said, you are a courageous woman, NK!

[heu mihi]

I always appreciate your analyses of Chronicle articles, NK, and this one's no different (although I haven't read the article in question).

Why does the Chronicle persist in publishing these smug, oversimplified pseudo-glimpses into some Disney version of "academia"? I'm afraid I'm not objective here, either--I got pretty put off the Chronicle First Person column when I was on the market last year, and reading what seemed to be an incessant stream of relentlessly cheery articles about how Working Hard And Doing All The Right Things will land you a job before you know it. It kind of made me feel terrible, to tell the truth, when the market situation was at its bleakest--like even though I'd thought I was doing the right things, somehow I myself simply wasn't good enough. I can see how this article plays directly into the same kind of thinking.

[meansomething]

"I look forward to the day when I can turn down a committee appointment that will take up way too much of my time and does not interest me in the least; when I can speak freely in meetings without fear that I'll be looking for a new job next year; and when I can go for a period of time without feeling the pressure to write something new, and I can actually dig into a long-term project and savor the research process."

Not that I wish "George Farmer" ill, but if I had a fictional character write these sentences, he would get the letter informing him that he had been granted tenure, walk out of his department in triumph and get hit by a bus. I'm into situational irony.

[Medieval Woman]

I really liked this post, NK - this guy reminds me of a recent religious convert who thinks that he needs to shove his way of doing things down everyone's throats. It's annoying the way he's mapped the tenure process onto his weight-loss regimen. He's lost the weight and now he's gonna look around at everyone else and tell them why they're failing to lose weight...or get tenure...etc.

Grrrr!

[T.E.]

I already waxed grumpy about this elsewhere and will try to restrain my incoherent rage in deference to your wise and considered comments. In short, I agree with you, and I especially agree with flossie's comment. The thought of being tenured in a university filled with George Farmers and their treadmills is giving me heartburn!

[Kate]

Brilliant, New Kid, just brilliant. More evidence that there are lots of book smart academics with ZERO self awareness about their own sexism and other internal assumptions.

And more evidence that we female academic bloggers should be running the whole system.

[Ancarett]

Of course, it would be poetic justice if he were pulled up short at his upcoming review. But I'd hate to wish that upon anyone.

Still, there's so much more that goes on in the tenure decision than anyone on the outside, even in the same department, can know. To presume to know all and have the system worked out when one does not even have tenure? That doesn't seem smart to me!

[Rachel]

I knew a woman who did what Mary was doing; she felt that her work effectively kept the department running and all her service responsibilities did cut into her research time. She was denied tenure due to lack of publications, and strangely, the department continued to run even after she left. I think there are a few potential conclusions to draw from that observation!

I disagree with his premise that pre-tenure is a vastly different experience than post-tenure. The implication of his argument is that once you've "achieved" tenure, that's the reward, which I assume means ceasing the dreaded activities. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I was under the impression that the essentials of my job won't be changing if I become tenured: teaching, service, professional development. I suspect Mr. Farmer is in for a big surprise if he makes tenure and discovers it ain't the Land of Milk and Honey (or will he just argue that it's just another treadmill to be promoted to full professor?).

My parents were denied tenure when I was a toddler, which is how I ended up growing up in Puerto Rico (which is how I ended up bilingual and then majoring in Spanish and now I'm a Spanish professor). So denial of tenure was just a part of the narrative when I was growing up, something that definitely happened, that wasn't cast in terms of some moral failing. Since being denied tenure was a fundamental reality in my family's story, I saw how tenure wasn't the be all, end all of life. Okay, so that anecdote may not be directly relevant, but I'm really hoping to hang onto that thought as I start hopping through the hoops (and I totally plan to keep my teaching license handy as a reminder that I do have a backup plan :) ).

[ozma]

If suffering was the way to get tenure, I'd be full professor by now.

I suffer. Holy shit, do I.

I also work my ass off. Problem? Papers not being accepted. In a nutshell, this is it. Not enough papers being accepted.

What an absurd article. Only a privileged white man would ever be so &*%$# stupid. But only men like that believe in merit in the first place.

And yes, tenure has vast swaths of arbitrariness. And everyone EVERYONE knows this.

Tenure kills, man. LET'S ABOLISH TENURE.

[Sisyphus]

I love how some guy who hasn't actually achieved tenure feels himself to be enough of an expert on the topic that he can advise all his colleagues and indeed his whole readership.

I'm not suggesting that untenured faculty should be coddled, fanned by pretty slave boys and fed peeled grapes one by one.

No? Well, I am! Grad students too. Where's my beautiful slave boy? Beaulah, peel me a grape!

Seriously, why can't we have a master narrative for our profession of sharing abundance rather than suffering and self denial?

[Notorious Ph.D]

I read this column this morning, too, and what I wondered was: If one "suffers now" to avoid suffering later, and if that "suffering" is defined as doing an exceptional job on teaching... well, what I see is this guy seeing tenure as the end point of the effort he has to put into working with students.

What I saw was the teaching-side equivalent of the old story about those professors who research and publish their butts off, pre-tenure, then never publish anything else but book reviews post-tenure. When talking about researchers, we call those people "deadwood." I think we could reasonably apply this to those who do the same at teaching-focused institutions. And that, to me, was the implication of his essay.

[Dance]

Ditto to NPhd ...this guy is heading to be a horrible post-tenure person. But I focused on "can't speak freely in meetings for fear of job next year". What are you going to say in meetings that would get you fired? Either it's something very rude (in which case I shudder for post-tenure comments), or you don't want to stay in a dept that can't handle polite disagreement.

[Oso Raro]

What she said for the commentary already here. Like Maggie May, I find the columns in CHE to be on the edge of drug-induced fantasia. The relentless desire to avoid looking at the hard realities of our increasingly moribund profession is almost completely determinant of what winds up being published in the CHE. See the very first entry of my blog for the first person piece they choose not to publish (natch).

In any event, the troublesome association of the corporeal, in a society that loathes the body, and the professional, in a society that hates the intellectual, is intriguing as a case study in denial. The gender politics are also interesting: focusing on the body implies the whole realm of fitness culture that borrows from Puritanism the denial of pleasure and the elevation of work in the name of God, but one that also is used most often against women and in the name of a particular self-objectification. Look Busy, Jesus is coming! The simple fact of the matter is that it is too easy to rely on shibboleths, sloganeering, and smugness. What one really needs are good talismans, spells, and the name of an excellent lawyer.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Dance - definitely! I spoke up all the time in meetings. At RU it definitely didn't hurt me. It might have at Former College, but since I'm still kind of confused by that whole thing, I can't really say for sure. :-}

And Oso - thank you for that wonderful comment! I went back and re-read your first post (I'd read it a while ago), and am so very amused because I just found out that the Chronicle rejected my own first person column (hey, money is money), which sounds quite a bit like your own. God forbid we should consider whether or not this job is worth keeping.

In fact, I'd love to share stories with you sometime, now that I've been non-renewed (at a place which sounds almost exactly like where you worked - I'd say we worked for the same place, except that there was no Ethnic Studies department there!), about how to get back on track after such an occasion...

[mimi]

Gah. If tenure is going to take a treadmill of pain, then I ain't gonna make it. Because I'm not going to suffer for six years to earn the privilege of suffering for the rest of my career.

I'm trying to do the best--within reasonable limits--that I can do to fulfill my university's expectations, and if it wants more or different from me than I am able or willing to give, well, then maybe this isn't the right career for me.

Competive, macho nonsense, that's what it is.

[marcelle proust]

This whole essay struck me as really weird in so many ways. As did George Justice's, actually---I was wondering what Maggie made of GJ's, but I guess she won't read it. I'm about to give up on CHE, as well. Thanks for the original post & to all the insightful commenters!

[marcelle proust]

Oh, and I meant to say, as well, that the "30-minute-walk every other day won't get you anywhere" attitude is another weird thing. It depends on where you're starting from. There are people for whom that would be a huge positive change or a major accomplishment. I suppose George was thinking about "normal" people, but how about being more inclusive about what "normal" is?

[Dance]

I also think a brisk 30-minute walk every other day will, in fact, improve your health.

When I was in my fourth/fifth year, with a library job that made lots of websurfing not only easy but totally legit, I actually found the First Persons quite useful in showing the range of market experiences (especially the woman who totaled the money spent). But I think I only read the ones about the market. But even next to Farmer right now, there is a good one on invisible work and being visible on campus, without the type of smug advice-column manner of his.

[CCPhysicist]

I wonder what will happen to Farmer's tenure review if the college picks up on the fact that he views all of his time spent with students as just a bit of unpleasant labor leading to decades of retirement with tenure?

Does he think that is what his college is looking for in a professor?

[Belle]

Wow. What a post, and what incredible comments! Hang in there, all of you! I just got full, and tenure several years back. Guess what? I spoke out about the things that mattered to me, served on committees good and bad, didn't get published, taught my *&^% off, and generally got known as a PITA, but one who got things done. So they'd ask for me on their committees, and listen when I spoke. All the while, I worried that I'd not get promoted, tenured, promoted, I was too old... the whole insecurity thing. And it's still not totally secure, as they keep changing the faculty handbook and undermining tenure.

On the other hand, there are lots of Mr Farmers in my experience. They got tenure then made themselves pests: no more committee assignments, no one wants to try and work with them, they come in for classes only and do zero research or writing. Or do research and hate meeting with students and regard teaching as a hated distraction. They have tenure, and dinosaur status. Untouchable. Not that I'd want to touch them.

I love teaching. I love researching, and writing. I still can't believe I got the gig. Farmer is a twit. Job hunting is soul-sucking destructive; I wish you all piles of luck and multiple offers. You'll be fabulous. I'd be happy to work with any of you. All of you. Let's start our own university!

[yusifu]

I saw a little more pathos in the article than most of you, though in the end I agree that "Farmer" comes across as an entitled creep. One of the real pathologies of academia is a side-effect of the job and funding crunch: we spend most of our careers--and especially our grad-school and pre-tenure careers--jumping through a series of do-or-die hoops. You spend at least fifteen years in acute anxiety about funding, jobs, publishing, and tenure. And all around you are really excellent people who don't make it.

It's a nasty but all-too-human response to tell yourself stories about people who fall by the wayside. Their research wasn't good enough. They didn't work hard enough. They weren't smart enough. They didn't present well enough. You never want to admit that your success (however well deserved) also was contingent and could easily have gone the other way. And when you still have hurdles to cross, you want to assure yourself that merit will out--*you'll* survive.

It gets even nastier for people like "Farmer," who seem unable to acknowledge the role that identity plays in success. It's so much easier when you're white, male, middle class, straight, of prestigious academic pedigree.

I remember a truly weird series of discussions with my dissertation advisor before I got my first job. In one, he assured me that all and only good people get jobs. (In retrospect, I think he was trying to reassure me that I was going to get a job, but at the time I thought he was suggesting it remained to be seen whether I was good or not.) In another, he suggested that I go to law school. He said that legal academia worked more on merit than the humanities did, so I'd be likelier to get a job on a law faculty. Alternatively, I could make a lot of money and then endow a chair for myself.

What truly saddens me about the CHE article is that this process we go through really diminishes our capacity to empathize with other people I don't know how to get around that.

[lettriste]

Hate to be coming so late to the party. Thanks for a great commentary, NK.

What I wanted to know about "Farmer" is this: how did he get to be 70 pounds overweight in the first place? That kind of overweight is serious, and it doesn't just happen overnight. Nor is it something that can be simply dealt with via the "no pain no gain," exercise method. He wasn't just a "little" overweight. He was obese. So there was at least ONE area of his (former) life where he had not been able to figure out the rules and apply them successfully. Or he was choosing not to, on some level. Now, though, he quite smugly tells us that he has figured everything out. He has determined that life should suck!

Really, whatever happened to moderation? Work seriously, take time off to regenerate, eat a little bit of what's "bad" for you. Have a goddamned life already!

[New Kid on the Hallway]

yusifu, you're absolutely right about the stories we tell ourselves about why we succeed/others fail. I think part of the reason I'm so hard on Farmer (and I should say again: it's not that I think he's assessing his colleagues wrongly or that the things he criticizes about them aren't problems; it's just the rhetoric in which he frames the conversation) is that I've been way too guilty myself of telling myself such stories!

[Chaser]

This dude is an ass. I commented on it, less kindly than you did, on my blog as well.

But, I have to say: I rather like the idea of pretty slave boys.

[Professor Zero]

People who get PhDs and land tenure track jobs are disciplined and focused - if not, they would not have gotten so far. The idea that people do not make tenure out of laziness is ridiculous.

CHE articles as drug-induced fantasies (as per Oso Raro's comment), yes. The thing is that CHE *so* believes in the system.

[Winter]

I agree with your analysis head-on. When I was starting out, I thought that tenure would be the place where all the BS would finally come out. Where the people who never worked, but kissed all the right asses, would finally "get caught." Strangely, tenure promotion seems to work just as blindly and irrationally as the job market. I cannot take seriously anyone who writes about it as a logical or "open" system.

[Melissa]

Surrendering to the pain of training for long-distance bike racing didn't keep Lance Armstrong from getting cancer, and there is no guarantee that working hard and smiling at his students will get Farmer tenure. Tenure doesn't have to hurt (and neither, for that matter, does exercise.) He needs to let go of the notion that his ability to suffer will inevitably be rewarded, as well as of the conviction that his male colleagues are lazy, dumb, and bound to get fired because they aren't following his script. Does he even like his work, or does he just think he's figured out how to play the angles? If universities are such hellholes that you can only succeed if you inure yourself to suffering, who the hell would want to work in one?

[Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson]

I'm in academics because I love what I do. Still mid-PhD, but I must admit that I don't even see much of suffering at this point in my career - however, I did a stint in the private sector before starting on my PhD - and THAT felt like suffering.

I'm in academics because anything else I could do would be less fantastic. Would be less of what I want to spend my time on and more spending time to get money to get free time to do what I want then instead.

I'm in academics because it is almost the only thing I can imagine doing that will not cause my work to annoy and depress me.