Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(79)
-
►
May
(19)
- Wiley's Philosophy Spotlight
- Philosophy Blogs
- Department Meeting Rule #1
- Everyone's a Critic?
- Department Meeting Rule #2
- Department Meeting Rule #3
- Robin Gibb Posse
- Is it Wrong?
- Department Meeting Rule #4
- Donna Summer Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #5
- Department Meeting Rule #6
- A Plea to Academic Publishers
- Department Meeting Rule #7
- Maurice Sendak Posse
- Crap Websites
- MCA Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #8
- Department Meeting Rule #9
-
►
April
(14)
- Department Meeting Rule #10
- Films in Class?
- Somewhere in April time, they add another hour
- Everyone Gets a DVD
- Dick Clark Posse
- Reign in Blood Wine
- Someone in Austin Needs a Guitarist
- New APA Executive Director
- Note to an Underegraduate Student
- Profiles in Crappy Guitar Work
- APA Session Rule #1
- Mike Wallace Posse
- Book display
- Doom in Seattle
-
►
May
(19)
7 comments:
It was supposed to come out this friday, but because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses with their goddamn "website", we job-seekers now have to wait until October 12th. I GUARANTEE you that there will be job-ads in this JFP that have application deadlines of 10/10, 10/11, and 10/12.
F&c* the APA.
If you check (1) the Summer web ads (updated just a couple of weeks ago) and (2) the Chronicle of Higher Education job site (http://chronicle.com/jobCategory/Faculty-research/1/?cs=home)
you will discover most of the jobs that will eventuallly appear in the October JFP.
Melon twisted.
So what if someone ran for APA president not on professional publication record but on a reform platform: fix the website, make the conference schedule reasonable, and actually enforce the sexual orientation non-discrimination policy?
@9:20 has an idea there. I mean, those are more relevant qualifications anyway, right?
To 12:40 and 9:20:
Yes, that is a great idea. However, we would need [at least] 3 conditions to be satisfied:
(1) All those who would vote based on competence are paid-up members.
(2) Those paid-up members actually do vote.
(3) A majority of the voting members have any real basis on which to choose between this or that candidate whop claims to be a reformer. (Sorry to remind anyone of our national political problems.)
Further, I think there aer various arcane APA rules that might thwart any fast-acting grassroots movement.
To 12:40 and 9:20:
Yes, that is a great idea. However, we would need [at least] 3 conditions to be satisfied:
(1) All those who would vote based on competence are paid-up members.
(2) Those paid-up members actually do vote.
(3) A majority of the voting members have any real basis on which to choose between this or that candidate whop claims to be a reformer. (Sorry to remind anyone of our national political problems.)
Post a Comment