My Photo


  • Creative Commons License

« I would be a moral monster, were it not for... | Main | Breaking Bad: "Gliding Over All," said the fly to the money pile. »

Monday, 10 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jonathan Dresner

This is inexcusable. And bad policy, it seems to me: Lots of schools are thrilled to get faculty with substantial teaching experience, so that the usual first-time jitters aren't part of the adjustement process. And committee work? Bonus!

The qualifications listed -- "A promising record of scholarship/research ... Ability to teach a range of subjects" -- are unlikely to exist in a truly mint Ph.D. Some, maybe, but if you want evidence of scholarship and range, that takes time.


I think they're just looking for ways to cut down the number of applications from 300 to 45... But I wonder if this is really legal. Are they discriminating on the basis of age?


Technically, I don’t think it falls under age discrimination, since there’s no single age that a person finishes their doctorate. I was 31 when I finished mine, but I know people who were 28 and 38 when they finished theirs. It’s a loophole, and CSU seems happy to exploit it.


I called up the office of equal opportunity at CSU and they basically said they want to cut down the number of applicants they see (at least that's generally the case) and if they miss qualified people, well, there are always more fish in the sea.

Personally I think the MLA should issue a statement (isn't Berúbé on the right side of this?)


I've contacted Michael and am waiting to hear what he says.


I don't know what the Colorado statute says, but you are way too young for federal age discrimination protection.

Jonathan Dresner

The comment I left at IHE:

While there is an implicit age issue here, apparently the real issue is cost: "an entry-level professor with an entry-level salary and expectations" has to be read as "cheap, weak-willed, willing to be overworked, and with a low probability of tenure."

Ironically, I still think they're shooting themselves in the foot on this. Not only are they excluding lots of strong candidates with solid experience who would be easy to get started, but those strong candidates have been working for peanuts without benefits for years, and would certainly not be that expensive.

"Overqualified" is another way of saying "might have ideas of their own."

There's no reason to give affirmative action to new Ph.D.s in tenure-track hiring. Postdocs, grants, short-term teaching assignments, I could justify. But not tenure-track. That's just wrong.

This definitely was a Kinsley Gaffe: saying these things openly just obliterates our veneer of meritocracy....

The comments to this entry are closed.