orgtheory.net

If you think I was overly critical of the ecologists, then you’ll be horrified by this clip from the Organizations and Markets blog. Randy Westgren discusses Neil Fligstein’s recent ARS article on the state of economic sociology:

I’d fault the review only for its insistence on trying to make population ecology appear to be a useful piece of sociology for the study of markets, though the authors admit it really isn’t true. Pop ecology should, like an overly large litter of unwanted kittens, be placed in a burlap sack with a large stone and cast into a deep river. [emphasis mine]

I am keeping my child far, far away from Randy!

• overview of that columbia performativity conference
• krugman cites a post by kieran
• how math, english lit etc phd candidates are being converted to become business professors
• the economist’s business education news
• design: worse is better
• galaxies collide (nasa photo)
• obligatory friday ferret link

The University of Colorado recently announced that they’re now raising money for a “Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy.” There’s certainly an academically legitimate goal here. There are lots of specialties that might fit under this rubric: political theorists who study Strauss, Burke, or Oakeshott; religion scholars who study evangelical movements; free market economists; etc. At the same time, you shouldn’t use this as a fig leaf so you can tinker with the politics of the professors. We should resist all ideological litmus test. There’s also the idea that you might promote tokenism and thus ghettoize certain topics, a criticism that even academic critic David Horowitz even agrees with. What to do with such an initiative?

• First, judge any candidate in traditional terms. Have high standards. They have to be making a contribution to a particular field of study, such as political theory or history. The CV should have journal pubs and books.
• Second, resist the urge to turn any such chair into pork for politicians.
• Third, do some cosmetic changes. Change “conservative thought” to an academic topic.  While we wouldn’t support a chair for the promotion of Marxism, we could certainly have a chair on the history of Marxism.
• Fourth, allow professors who are experts in the area to have real input. For example, if you are going to hire political theorists who study Burke or Strauss, have someone from philosophy or government have real say in whether candidates meet the standards. Also, give the chair a home in a quality department so they become integrated with the rest of the faculty.
• Fifth, make it clear to donors that the deans and faculty have final say.
• Finally, enforce the idea that you don’t have to be conservative to have a real contribution to the study of conservatism. We don’t expect all French professors to be French, nor should we expect all students of conservatism to be conservative.

It’ll be interesting to see if Colorado makes any progress with the initiative.

So, I don’t know that I have any answers about what makes for a good (academic) presentation (though, note that the comments to that post have links to some fantastic advice). For now I’ll just put up a few conjectures for what might work. I think the below points are counter to what most presentations look like, indeed (mostly) counter to all my past presentations (except the two presentations I’ve done since starting to think about this issue a few weeks ago).

1. Tell your story — I think its interesting to hear how one finds a research question, why the question keeps you up at night, the journey the question’s taken you on.
2. Tell a story. This is different from the above, I think a coherent narrative needs to be interwoven into a presentation. You need a plot.
3. Don’t have more than six words per slide. Somehow there is a sense that one’s slides ought to make sense to someone who didn’t attend the presentation. I don’t think so. Slides aren’t meant to be read, they’re not meant to summarize the paper — they’re there to illustrate and perhaps prompt.
4. Use pictures (high-quality ones, not clip art), and in particular, figures. I think the ol’ saying ‘picture=1000 words’ might be right.
5. Be ‘into it’ and have fun. If you’re not into your own presentation and having fun, the audience certainly is neither.
6. All of this, of course, presumes that you have a brilliant research question in the first place.

OK, that’s all I have for now — perhaps some additional presentation-related conjectures later; I’ve got a few presentations coming up soon, so I’ll definitely be thinking about this issue.

If you are like me, you treat meetings like dentist visits - you’re happy to go if you have to, but you’ll need Highlights for Children to survive. But how do we minimize time spent in the meeting itself? I propose the “pre-attended meeting.” It’s kind of like a pre-owned car. For a small fee, you can get a coupon excusing you from the meeting. The person issuing the coupon has attended exactly this type of meeting and can vouch that the buyer doesn’t have to show up. For example, if you are trying to avoid a meeting about the need to repaint the department front office, your coupon might say:

To Whom it May Concern,

Professor X is excused from attending the upcoming meeting on front office repainting. Having attended many of these meetings in the past, it is safe to say that at least one person will propose a nasty 70s avocado green. This person should be ignored. Then, the committee will gravitate towards a few safe colors, like institutional beige, or a nice powdered blue. The committee will choose the color that is cheapest and hasn’t been done in a while. Since we know what the decision will most likely be like, Professor X does not have to attend. S/he expresses his preferences with the color chart below and gives the committee chair his/her vote should his/her prefered color (fuschia) not be chosen.

Sincerely,
Dr. Geraldo Edley
Class of ‘22 Thomas Kincaid Professor of Interior Design

Ideally, the office decoration committee chair could then collect coupons from the whole committee and just make the decision. Committee chairs would accept coupons issued by authorities on certain kinds of meetings. In an efficient system, people could trade coupons on an open market and minimize the population of meetings. You have nothing to lose except your meetings. 

I was just now skimming (while looking up some of his other work) Lazarsfeld et al’s book Academic Mind: Social Scientists in Time of Crisis. Kind of a fun book, though not too optimistic about the professional standing of social scientists. Here’s apparently how social scientists felt various other professions would rank professors.

“Suppose a typical businessman [congressman or college trustee] were to rank these four occupations by the esteem he hold for each—in what order do you think he would rank each?” The figure’s slightly confusing, but, you get the point.

The book also has all kinds of descriptive statistics related to productivity, social scientist voting behavior, department-effects, age-effects, university-effects, etc etc.

Econ Journal Watch has a symposium on why there are so few women who are full professors of economics. The main article is by Christina Johnung and Ann-Charlotte Stahlberg. Basically they reprise the “leaky pipe line” idea, but this time for women in the economics discipline and with some new data.

Perhaps the most interesting response is offered by sociologist Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics. She says that lifestyle choices are often incompatible with top level achievement. The discussion on studies of mathematically precocious children is worth the read. Psychologist John Johnson agrees, adding that there’s a well developed vocational psychology model that explains the sort of finding presented by Johnung and Stahlberg.

Garret Jones’ response starts from a bio-psychological point of view, but says economics should also support narrative styles of research, so that economics will resemble other disciplines with more balanced M/F ratios like sociology, legal scholarship, and the humanities. Dierdre McCloskey discusses how economics might attract more women if it stopped being a man’s game focused on scoring mathematical theory points. McCloskey’s view is valuable since it’s the only comment written by a transgendered person who experienced high level economics from the perspective of men and women.

I am still in shock over a notice I received today from Karen Cerulo, editor of Sociological Forum, on whose board I sit:

“Dear Colleagues,

Professor Charles Tilly, a member of our editorial board, passed away this morning following a long battle with cancer. Professor Tilly (Chuck) leaves an indelible mark on sociology. His work on theory and comparative historical models are at the core of the sociology literature….

Additional Information is forthcoming from the Columbia sociology department.”

I had one conversation with Charles Tilly, at an airport, after an ASA meeting, while we were both waiting for our airplane to board. We talked about two books he was working on (one on intimate relations; the other, as I recall, was Why?). It was one of the warmest, most intellectually stimulating conversations I have had.

Graduate school is tough for everyone, but in different ways. A few weeks ago, I asked female scholars and graduate students to share their thoughts for the benefit of women working their way through the academic system. Here’s what they said….

• Spouses: A common theme was that women have to really work extra hard to manage their partner’s expectations. Sadly, a lot of men seem not to support their spouses in the academic track: “My talks with others and my own experience suggests that, in general, male non-academic partners are somewhat less supportive of grad school than female non-academic partners. For everyone, being partnered to someone who is not in grad school is difficult but women grad students seem to struggle more with this.” I think this really underscores what I wrote here about family before. Women have to go the extra mile to make sure that their partner knows what an academic career is about and they have to be willing to stand by you 100%. If they don’t “get it,” then you have to sit down with the partner and have a serious talk.
• Family Planning: The unfortunate truth right now is that having children is a career penalty (see this ASA report). So when should someone have children? The ASA report says there is no “right time,” though multiple people have suggested to me that the time is between course work and the job market. I’ll leave it to the readers to assess this claim for themselves. However, what can be agreed upon is that the career hit can be lessened with the use of institutional, social, or financial resources. So seek out your university’s policies regarding funding and children, look for inexpensive quality child care, import relatives for help. Maybe your country, state, or city(e.g., Europe) has child care resources. Resource planning seems to be the issue here.
• Confidence: Numerous respondents addressed this issue. Academia is often a game of seminar room aggression. Many scholars said that women graduate students need to learn that they are not “impostors” and that you have to assert yourself in class and at conferences. Good words: “Women often walk a fine line between being considered too nice or sweet and being pushy, arrogant or bitchy when giving critiques. Graduate school can be an excellent laboratory for figuring out how to be assertive yet constructive. Use seminars and talks as a chance to watch how others give constructive feedback and express their opinions. Figure out how to assert yourself without being arrogant/condescending or without backing down when someone disagrees with you. This is not an easy thing to do - but it’s worth spending some time on.”
• The Old Boys Network: Another issue that men are much more common in many in subfields and it can lead women students to feel out of the loop, even if it is unintentional. Sometimes, women will be excluded from social activities because it might seem inappropriate (e.g., going drinking after seminar). First, as one respondent wrote, it doesn’t mean that you’ll be left out of everything. UItimately, you are judged on your research and teaching. The person who raised this issue even commented that she has succeeded quite well, but it was extremely awkward for her. Second, you can actually show up to these events most of the time. Unless it’s a personal 1 on 1, you can crash most quasi-academic events (snacks, drinks, etc).
• Being the Listener: Students treat their female instructors like their moms or like a free therapist. One correspondent wrote: “Female teachers are more likely to get students who tell them very personal stories about themselves and, in general, look to the female faculty member (or TA) for nurturing. This is really strange if you’re not expecting it and difficult even if you are..” I’ll actually add my own strong opinion here. You don’t have to become the department therapist. Many campuses actually have paid therapists students can go to. It’s not your job. I’d suggest that you kindly listen to the student’s issue, wish them the best, and if they need more help, ship them to the right office.
• Harassment: I’ll add my own view here because it’s actually pretty cut and dry. The university department is like any other workplace. Co-workers and bosses should talk respectfully to each other and keep their hands to themselves. If a student is harassed (rude talk, quid pro quo for sexual favors, a nasty work environment), document it immediately and talk to a knowledgeable third person who can help you. Do not tolerate boorishness and, if possible, truncate relationships where one person is clearly expecting something other than academic work. Also, do this in a respectful way so that you can continue and complete your degree. You’ll learn by consulting with other trustworthy people. Finally, exercise some judgment - sometimes it’s best just to ignore the person if the behavior is harmless.
• Paternalism: A number of people mentioned the fact that many older men will still call their adult female students things like “honey,” “sweety,” etc. I really don’t know what else to add, other than to say that you should beware. If that’s all, maybe you can let it slide. But if it’s coupled with other behavior, you should avoid them.
• Your team, network and Mentors: Many people emphasized the need to build networks and find a mentor. Get more than one friend or mentor to give you a variety of opinions. One person emphasized that it’s important not to insulate yourself with your network. A cohort of supportive female doctoral students can help each other deal with the program, not become a substitute for the program. Help and support are what’s needed, not isolation.

I’ll end with these insightful words: “You didn’t get to where you are because you played according to gender stereotypes, which, as you know, are socially constructed and wrong even if they have a pervasive, pernicious lingering effect. Read bell hooks and Paolo Freire (critical pedagogy), and Power, Race, and Gender in the Academe by Shirley Geok-Lim. Feel empowered. Feel (some) responsibility. Be a good student and institutional citizen by speaking up in class, going to office hours, going to paper talks, presenting your own work, forming the networking connections you know you’ll need now and later, and competing for those plum teaching assignments and fellowships and post-docs. Try to ignore the imposter syndrome. You deserve it, and you owe it to yourself to believe in yourself. That said, recognize that you are human, that sometimes institutional factors and lingering stereotypes and subtle discrimination can hamper even the best of our efforts. So, don’t blame yourself if you can’t get everything, can’t get everything done, and can’t do everything. You don’t have to be a super human, much less Superwoman. You don’t have to believe yourself responsible for all of womankind in ___ discipline.”

I’ve had a lot of fun reading chapters from this wonderful little book that offers advice from established organizational scholars about how to engage in research. A preview of the book, Renewing Research Practice, can be accessed online here. This is great material for a pro-seminar, but it’s also nice conversation fodder for any informal occasion where academics will be present.

I found this piece of advice from Steve Barley to be particularly compelling:

Early on I set myself the goal of publishing in journals, in particular the Administrative Science Quarterly, read by the majority of the field. I resisted publishing in less widely read journals that were more sympathetic either to my message or my methods. I believe that unless you can communicate with the center, there is no hope of effecting change on issues that one holds dear, of influencing how members of the field think, or of broadening the type of research that the field considers legitimate (81).

I couldn’t agree more. Yes, it’s much harder to get published in the top journals (i.e., the most widely read journals in your field or subfield) but how else can you have an impact on the broader field if you don’t try to get published in these outlets? In most elite departments this is expected of nearly all members of the department and is certainly enforced among junior faculty, who will have a hard time getting tenure if they haven’t published at least a few papers in their top journals. But my experience tells me that this is not true of the majority of departments (especially in sociology, less so in management). It’s an unfortunate product of our stratified system of rewards. But still, is there anyone out there who wouldn’t at least agree in principle that we should strive to maximize our audience size? That playing to the center has its own intrinsic rewards, independent of the monetary incentives for publishing in highly-regarded journals?

1. James Fowler is organizing a conference at Harvard in June on networks and political science. My co-author is presenting on some of our work and there are a lot of other good talks scheduled. If you are in Boston, it’s worth visiting. Registration is May 7.

2. Have an unpublished dissertation on the African American community? Consider submitting it to the SUNY Press Dissertation/First Book Prize in African American Studies:

SUNY Press is proud to announce a new competition for the best single- authored dissertation or first book manuscript in the field of African American studies. We welcome nonfiction manuscripts that engage any dimension of African American experience, whether historical or contemporary. The competition is open to scholars in all disciplines, but we especially encourage work that speaks effectively across disciplines, and projects that offer new perspectives on concerns central to the field of African American studies. Comparative approaches to the African diaspora are welcome if African American experience is central to the analysis. Possible topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Intersectionality, African American families, Race and visuality, Critical race theory, African American experience in the multiethnic United States, Slavery and its legacies, African American political institutions, Black queer experience, Social policies and race, African American activism, Segregation Black feminist thought, Prisons and incarceration, Civil rights movement, African American churches and spirituality African, American cultural production (film, music, literature)

If a winner of the competition is selected, he or she will receive a publication contract with SUNY Press and a $3,000 advance. Runners up may also be considered for publication with SUNY Press. All submissions must be postmarked by July 1, 2008, and should include the following materials: Cover letter, C.V.,Proposal, including a 4-5 page overview of the scope of the project and analysis of competing titles, Complete manuscript, at least 150 double spaced pages, Courier font.

Please mention the competition in your cover letter, and also indicate if any material from the manuscript has been previously published. The winner will be announced at the 2008 American Studies Association conference. All submissions must be exclusive submissions to SUNY Press for the duration of the contest, and finalists will be notified by September 1, 2008. Please direct all questions and submissions to: Larin McLaughlin Acquisitions Editor

SUNY Press
194 Washington Ave, Ste. 305
Albany, NY 12210
larin.mclaughlin@sunypress.edu

Check it out!

There is something I do not understand about today’s research on social inequality. If you read many of the recent books on inequality—particularly the heavily cited, edited volumes that contain chapters by sociologists, demographers, economists, and political scientists—you will find very few works that examine whether or how organizations or organizational processes contribute to social inequality. For example, Katherine Neckerman’s 2004 Social Inequality contains 26 generally strong chapters on everything from health and the family to imprisonment and even the internet, but practically nothing on organizations. Sheldon Danziger and Robert Haveman’s 2002 Understanding and Poverty, composed of 15 chapters by scholars in several disciplines, even includes a section on neighborhoods and groups, but nothing on formal organizations. (Perhaps an exception is research on the school.)

Why does this happen? Research on social inequality today is dominated by labor economists and demographers, for whom the main units of analysis are people, states, and (sort of, in recent years) neighborhoods. In addition, they tend to worry much more about establishing empirical facts and making (econometrically) convincing causal claims than uncovering processes or interpreting case studies of, say, gatekeeper organizations. So, maybe social inequality research has become not merely narrow but also solipsistic, ignoring an important literature being produced somewhere. Or maybe sociologists of organizations have simply failed to produce the work. Organization scholars often work in business schools, where explaining social inequality has not exactly been a priority. Which is it?

Or is it something else?

For the past week I’ve been sifting through old papers in the Bancroft library archives at UC Berkeley.  It’s been a while since I’ve had my head buried in an archive (I got my start in grad school doing this kind of historical research), and I have to say that the return has been personally rewarding.  Doing archival research feels like real work to me.  Your hands get slightly sticky from the dust that accumulates on old books and documents, you often spend hours headed down paper trails that lead nowhere, but the reward is that you sometimes discover hidden gems of information.  At the end of the day, it’s very satisfying.

As I’ve been looking at some personal papers and files of retired Berkeley professors and administrators, I’ve felt enormously grateful that someone took the time to save all of their little memos and correspondences in a filing cabinet.  At the time, these people probably had no idea that someone like me would earnestly read them decades later and that they would ever be helpful in answering a scholarly question.  But some of them have proven very useful.  Other memos are just fun to read.  For example, yesterday I found a set of letters sent between the historian Henry May and the sociologist Reinhard Bendix (who wrote the classic, Work and Authority in Industry). The letters were somewhat personal and touching.  Although they didn’t apply directly to my work, I was glad to read them.

I hope people of our generation are diligent in archiving our files.  Admittedly, I don’t carry around a lot of paper files with me, but there is little reason to do so now.  Today we have the marvelous innovation of having electronic archives.  Anyone who uses Outlook or Gmail has a wealth of information (personal and professional) stored about their experiences that someone in the future might find useful when doing historical work.  You may not think anyone would care about them now, but you never know.  Some young historical sociologist down the road might find your blog posts or emails to colleagues very interesting.  So save them!  It’s easy to do.  Sure, you may not want all of your personal emails to reach the public.  But you’ll have years of retirement to relive your youth, sifting through old emails and deleting the snark.  It will be great fun.   Sadly though, the future me won’t have to gather so much dust on his fingertips, but his keyboard will surely get a workout.

I’ve always told people that graduate school is hard for everyone. However, it’s hard in different ways for different people. I think the rulz should have at least one post, or more, dedicated to the issues women have to face in the academy. I’m not qualified to write on the topic, but I would like readers to post in comments or email me privately (frojas at indiana dot edu) what advice or strategies they think that women graduate students should get from the rulz. If you can link to other websites with good advice, that’d be great. I’ll bundle it all together into a post. Your suggestions will be confidential, unless you specifically tell me you want your name in the posts. Looking forward to your insightful feedback.

Clark Kerr, the former president of the University of California system, reportedly said that the perfect university “provided sex for students, sports for alumni, and parking for faculty” (Rorabaugh, Berkeley at War, pg. 12). A colleague more recently commented that the university would be the perfect place to work if it weren’t for all the students. Joking, of course.

In all seriousness, as tomorrow I will teach what may be my final undergraduate class, I’m somewhat sad to be done with that part of my academic experience. Although research is what I’m passionate about, there is something thrilling about teaching undergrads who are “getting it” and seeing their understanding of the world change, at least in part, because of something we discussed in my class. I’ll miss that experience.

If you don’t know them, the Social Science Research Council is a major funder of social science research. They’ve now come up with an interesting program where grant agencies offer a “bounty.” The sponsor offers money for grants on particular topics. Joe Karaganis of the SSRC, gave me permission to quote him, describes it this way:

We’re trying to cross a research project brokerage site with a prize system–in our case around media policy and reform issues. Projects ideas are submitted by research users, SSRC or other funders place prize money on some of them, researchers respond. The bet is that a project idea with a ready user, plus a little money, plus a little recognition, can shape your choices about your next research project.

If you’re interested in media issues, check out their collaborative grant page, which lists a bunch of projects relating to the media access and politics. Check later as more projects are announced.

Fabio

Apparently not an April Fool’s day prank, I’ve recently read that Antioch College is up for sale. $12M. Check out the UPI news story here. Yes, *the* Antioch College, that graduated folks likes Coretta Scott King and Clifford Geertz. I wasn’t terribly surprised. Antioch, though respected, has been on a down hill slide for decades, with one administration after another driving the school downward. A few orgtheory comments:

• The traditional liberal arts college is a shrinking population. Expensive and few people are willing to pay top dollar for non-vocational higher ed. In contrast, the for profit higher ed sector is booming. Antioch is just an extreme case in a big trend.
• Strangely, Antioch’s graduate programs have done ok because they packaged the Antioch brand name with distance graduate education. Those don’t seem to be for sale. It’s only the liberal arts programs that crashing. It’s ironic that what remains is the for profit adult education component of a famous liberal arts college.
• Is this a case of too much political correctness? Antioch has a history of relatively extreme campus politics. Thus, it’s been hard to recruit a lot of students who can pay $$$. Lethal for an institution that must support a fair number of tenure track faculty.
• What will happen? I wouldn’t be surprised if many buyers approached the trustees but negotiations failed over issues like faculty and organizational identity. Good case study of how identity inhibits survival. I predict a future ASQ or AMJ article here.

What *should* happen? $12M is small potatoes these days, so I think an educational innovators should scrap up the money and use Antioch to push a new brand name in education. Maybe a first tier conservative liberal arts college? How about one, like Berea, devoted exclusively to low income students? Or how about a more mellow multicultural institution? Or combine grad-undergrad programs? $12M is a small price to pay for the chance to really try out a new educational philosophy. Think about it.

There’s a new blog you should check out called “soc2econ.” Sponsored by the academic superstars who brought you left2right, which proved once and for all that conservatism was a completely bankrupt and lubricated system, soc2econ is out to save “economics from itself.” It’s full of the material you’ll need to smack down mouthy economists. Good posts include:

• Stunning revelation: The perfect information assumption is wrong and how it’s wasted 50 years of academic economics.
• How to tell an economist that their literature review sucks.
• The true sociological story behind the rise of the West. Eat your heart out, Greg Clark!

So next time you are at the weekly faculty club tea ceremony, and they start rafting on sociology as vague and silly, just whip out your iPhone, log into soc2econ, and read those bad boys out loud. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Fabio

I’ve only been on the other side of the PhD for five years and I haven’t had chaired any dissertations, but I do feel that I should at least mention what faculty can do to help grad students finish in a reasonable time, barring a Skocpol style incentive system.

• Grad students have lives and they need you: It’s easy for professors to get wrapped up in their own publications and promotions and forget that grad students need your time if they are ever to proceed with their own lives. I am not saying you should martyr yourself and spend all time on graduate students, but you should periodically ask “what can I do *this* semester to help my students move along in their career?”
• Expectations: Like all ventures, explain to your graduate students - over and over - what you expect.  From the beginning. Write it down. Also try to gauge their expectations. If they want an R1 career, make it clear what they will need an exceptional dissertation or a top journal hit. Teaching colleges require less spectacular research but a big teaching portfolio. Be clear on what kind of support you can provide, both socially and academically.
• Timeliness: This is real important - respond to dissertation drafts and letters of recommendation in a timely manner. Don’t you hate it when reviewer C takes a year to read your paper? Well, guess what? Your students feel the same way. Every semester you fail to graduate someone because you couldn’t take the time to read a chapter literally costs a grad student thousands of dollars in lost income.
• Calm Criticism: It’s entirely legitimate to tell a student that they need to work hard and do better. However, it’s never useful to do so in a way that demoralizes the student. Be stern and demanding, but be nice, constructive and uplifting. On a related note, avoid changing the goalposts or providing ambiguous advice. Consistency is a virtue.
• Stability: Academia is full of divas. Don’t be that way. You should be the stable coach who taps into the right emotional pool to help students move on with their lives. Don’t turn mentorship into another stage for acting out your bad side.
• Reasonableness: Set research goals that your students can acheive and where there can be a reasonable time table for the completion of the project in a few years.. Also be prepared to help students work to acheive those goals, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves.
• Match students with goals: Notch expectations to ability and career goals. The student gunning for R1 needs an advisor who will demand good work, but the person aiming for community college teaching merely needs to produce a satisfactory dissertation. Also, remember that if you have PhD students, you are probably a respected, if not leading, member of your academic community. You are the best. In contrast, your students may not be.  Most will not engage in the research career that you have. Your talent and career may not be theirs. Set goals that both produce quality scholarship and allow them to work toward goals that match their ability and desires.
• Gentle Triage: This is tough, but needed. You have to really see which graduate students are willing and able to complete the program. Help people make the decision to pursue academia or another career. On the other hand, don’t “write off” students just because they aren’t perfect. Remember, many leading scholars failed a grad school test or acted like morons 30 years ago in that seminar. Give people second, third and fourth chances. Tolerate people who work differently than you do and don’t automatically dismiss them.
• Selection:  Accept students who you think you can have productive relationships with based on research focus or personality. It’s ok to turn down students if the fit is bad. This is the flip side of grad skool rulz #7.
• Face to face time: Get ‘em in the office. Frequently, at least a few times a semester. Take ‘em out to lunch. Anything to keep them on the wagon.
• Let them shine: It’s often the case the students apprentice on the mentor’s projects. That’s great, but make sure they complete their own work as well so they don’t look like they’re just your research assistant.
• They are future professors: Above all, these are adults who have begun a career. Treat them with dignity and respect.

R1 faculty, please add your own advice in the comments, especially if you have a solid track record placing PhD students.

The art of presentation seems underappreciated in academia.  While we spend quite a bit of time presenting our research to various audiences — in fact, presentations often are the venue for us to get feedback — nonetheless, it’s striking how little generalizable advice one can find on how to present one’s ideas.   What, then, makes for a strong academic presentation?   I suppose we presume that if the research question and paper are good, then so is the presentation — perhaps that’s a start.  But, I don’t know whether directly copying a paper’s set-up and intuition is the right thing either; somehow I doubt it.  (Though, I have seen folks essentially read their papers, or directly post paragraphs from their paper onto powerpoint slides.  That’s one approach.)  

So, the question is, are there some general tips for what makes a good academic presentation?  Have you seen knock-out presentations in academia, what made them good?  At this stage, all I know is what doesn’t make for a good presentation:  

• Literature review.
• Endless citations.
• Too many slides.
• Slides with paragraphs of 12 pt font.
• Dad’s tie powerpoint background.

Hmm, that sounds like many of my presentations, and about 90+% of academic presentations I’ve seen.  I don’t know what the solutions are, let me know if you know of resources online (or elsewhere).  Meanwhile, presentation zen seems to have loads of advice on presenting in general (with links to well-executed presentations), though, somehow I don’t think the Steve Jobs-approach idolized over there would fly in an academic setting.  Edward Tufte also has some advice.