Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Work in Utopia Workshop

Work in Utopia

915am-530pm, 4 July 2013, FASS meeting room 2, Lancaster University

Ideals aren’t enough: we need realistic assessments of possibilities and immediate tactics too. But ideals are necessary, because without them we can’t evaluate possibilities or form goals for our tactics. This one-day workshop at Lancaster University will consider ideals for work (what we do to make a living): what work would or will or should be in utopia. Should there be any work, or is it a curse from which we should free ourselves? How should work be distributed? How should appealing, autonomous, high-status work, or menial, grim, low-status work, be distributed? How should our working lives be organised - in hierarchies, democracies, by individual contract? What is the ideal of craftsmanship worth? What is the right relationship between work and education? between work and self-development? between work and play? between work at home and work outside it? Speakers will consider representations of utopian work, real-world prefiguring of utopian work, normative argument about the goods and evils of work, and the uses of utopianism for thinking about these issues.

Speakers: Professor Stephen Bevan (The Work Foundation), Dr Sam Clark (Lancaster), Dr Sarah Hitchen (Lancaster), Philipp Jeandree (Goldsmiths), Professor Ruth Kinna (Loughborough), Professor Andrew Sayer (Lancaster).

Free and open to all, thanks to funding from the Royal Institute of Philosophy

Further information and RSVP: sam.clark@lancaster.ac.uk


Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Lessons learned

The main result of being linked to (as my post on GTA pay, below, was by the British Postgraduate Philosophy Association) is loads of spam comments.

I've therefore put a word-verification task into the comment form in the hope that I'll be able to stop moderating spam.

Friday, 29 June 2012

Hiatus

Just making the obvious official: I'm not finding time to write anything here, and I have a very busy summer ahead, so I'm going to put this blog on the back burner for a while. I'll probably put up occasional notes and links, and I hope to return to more regular and substantial blogging eventually, but for the next few months there won't be much to see here.

Thursday, 7 June 2012

GTA pay

The British Postgraduate Philosophy Association has published a survey of GTAs' working hours which suggests that many UK institutions, including Lancaster, pay their GTAs less than minimum wage in real terms.

I was first startled by this, and then ashamed that I hadn't done more, in my role as Part I Convenor (and therefore our GTAs' line-manager) to check with them how much work they were actually doing.

Brian Leiter posted about this, and got a little bit of discussion, including from me:
[1st comment]
I convene part I philosophy at Lancaster, one of the intitutions picked out by the BPPA as paying less than minimum wage in real terms, and I therefore manage the excellent group of teaching assistants who are being paid so badly. I have several responses to this survey:

1) I agree that GTAs are underpaid and generally undervalued, and I’m pleased to have some extra ammunition for arguing that case with the people who set wages and conditions at Lancaster. I hope the UCU and other unions will also do some pushing here.

2) I find the results worrying in a different way. Working backwards from a real pay less than £6.08/hr and our official rate of pay and hours (2 hours of prep for every hour in the classroom), a GTA doing 3 seminars/week would have to be doing about 6 hours of prep and marking per seminar, per week, to be getting less than minimum wage. Someone doing 6 hours per group per week is not working efficiently, and needs training and mentoring. I’m unhappy that my GTAs are overworking to this extent, and while I do not believe that amount of preparation is necessary for the teaching we ask them to do, I clearly need to do more here.

3) There’s a tension in how we understand GTA work. Traditionally in UK universities, it’s a valuable apprenticeship in university teaching offered as part of postgraduate training, on the assumption that our students plan an academic career. Pay isn’t the central point, and we rely on our GTAs to be enthusiastic amateurs who do the work for its own sake and for career-development purposes, not just to put food on the table. But UK universities increasingly rely on professional adjuncts including GTAs to deliver first-year and other undergraduate teaching, and adjunct teaching is turning into a career, or a substitute for one. The UK is following a path already taken by the US in this, of course. If that’s what being a GTA is, then it ought to be paid and supported far better, and be far less precarious, than it is. But I’m not convinced that the way to make that case is to advocate increasing hourly pay, or adding an extra hour or two of prep. Why shouldn’t being a GTA be a proper part-time job with a salary?

[2nd comment]
Addendum: It’s been pointed out to me by one of Lancaster's GTAs, Sarah Hitchin, that prep time includes marking every 5 weeks, so my claim in (2) that an average 6 hours of prep per week per seminar is inefficient work isn’t fair. What I intended as the main point of (2) – that I and probably others who manage GTAs need to do more to monitor and help them to avoid overwork, as well as to push for better pay – stands, though.
Some further calculations:


Over a 5-week period of teaching 3 groups, we pay:
  • 15 taught hours = 45 paid hours
  • 15 hours of seminars leaves 30 paid hours for prep (= reading, planning), marking, and admin (= attending plagiarism and standardisation meetings, office hours, email, physically getting coursework to and from Gillian, etc.).
  • 2 hours per week lectures = 10 hours lectures leaves 20 hours for prep, marking, admin
  • 2 hours a week prep (total, not per seminar) = 10 hours prep leaves 10 hours for marking
  • 10 hours to mark 45 pieces of coursework = less than 15 minutes per piece (which isn’t enough, obviously)
  • no time at all for admin
This is clearly inadequate. At this rate of pay, a GTA would either have to skimp on the work, or - much more likely - allow themselves to be exploited.

Over a 5-week period with 3 groups, to be paid minimum wage in real terms, i.e. £6.08 per hour’s actual work:
  • total pay = £41.55 x 15 hours = £623.25
  • divided by £6.08 = 102.5 hours (= 20.5 hours per week)
  • 15 hours of seminars leaves 87.5 hours for prep and marking
  • 2 hours per week lectures = 10 hours lectures leaves 77.5 hours for prep and marking
  • Guesswork from here on:
  • 4 further hours per week prep and admin = 20 hours leaves 55.5 hours for marking
  • 55.5 hours to mark 45 pieces of coursework = nearly 1¼ hours per piece
  • So to be paid less than minimum wage, some or all of marking, prep and admin are taking even longer than these estimates.
Comment: more than an hour to mark a 1,500-word piece of coursework strikes me as excessive. I realise that this includes preparation (e.g. reading) for the marking as a whole and some double-checking and returning to borderline cases, but I do think there's room for training and mentoring to speed this up. It takes me about an hour to mark and write extensive comments on a 5,000-word third-year essay, for comparison. I'm more experienced than most (not all) of our first-year tutors, but I don't have some special magic talent for marking fast, I've just learned to do it efficiently.

More detail still: the PHIL100 coursework isn't all essays: it's (1) a close reading exercise; (2) 'critical thinking', i.e. formal and semi-formal logic exercises plus a short essay; (3) a bibliography; (4) an essay. My experience of marking samples for standardisation is that (1) and especially (2) are quick to mark, (3) rather slow, (4) middling. If that's true for others, this suggests that the average of 1¼ hours per piece includes the bibliography (3) taking a lot more than that each. Perhaps that coursework needs to be redesigned.

A first sketch of a more realistic rate of pay, again for 3 seminar groups over 5 weeks:
  • 15 taught hours
  • attend 2 lectures/week = 10 hours
  • PREP: 4 hours/week prep including reading, planning, office hour, email = 20 hours
  • MARKING: ½ hr for each of 45 pieces of coursework, plus 2-3 hours for standardisation, plus 2-3 hours for plagiarism cases, plus a bit of leeway = 30 hours
  • = 75 hours total actual work (15 hours or 2 days per week)
= Rate of pay of 5 hours per taught hour (compare our current rate of 3/1)

A pie-in-the-sky idea: Why shouldn't being a GTA be a proper part-time job pro-rata on the official salary scale, with benefits?

Sunday, 3 June 2012

Poetry news

Obviously The Onion is great in general, but this is something like a work of genius.

Paul Fussell is dead

NYT obituary here. His most famous book is The Great War & Modern Memory, but Wartime, which is about the second rather than the first World War, is the one I'll remember him for. It pushed me into thinking that I should write about war and soldiers (my 'Under the Mountain' is forthcoming in Res Publica); just as importantly, it suggested that I was allowed to write in the way I wanted to, rather than the professional academic way I believed I had to.

UPDATE: Jay Winter in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Civic Health Talks

The series of talks I organised is now done. I recorded them, with their question-periods; click on the talk titles below to listen or download.

1. Derek Edyvane, 'Civic Health & Civic Vitality'
2. Sam Clark, 'Good Work'
3. Kerri Woods, 'Solidarity, Vulnerability, & Civic Health'
4. John O'Neill, 'Living Well Within Limits'

I'm glad I did this, even though it was quite a lot of work and stress - I'd slightly forgotten what it was like to fret about whether anyone's going to turn up to the play or gig I'm promoting. Thanks again to all the speakers.

Saturday, 19 May 2012

Adventures in public philosophy

I was in the Spurriergate Centre in York today for lunch, and remembered that I'd tried and failed to engage them in philosophical conversation a while ago. Here's the letter I sent them:

Dear Spurriergate Centre,  

I visited your café on Sunday 7 November with my wife and son. We enjoyed our drinks and food, and reading your website suggests that you do admirable community and social justice work. 

However, while we were in the café, there was a video playing on continuous loop on a large screen. It offered an argument about the creation of the universe. I think you’re doing yourselves no favours showing it, because it’s a very bad argument.  

The argument was as follows:  

There are only three possible explanations for the existence of the universe: 

a) it created itself; 

b) it has existed eternally; or 

c) it was created.  

a) was dismissed as impossible, because ‘nothing comes from nothing’ and ‘the first law of thermodynamics forbids the creation of energy’ 

b) was said to have been disproved by Einstein and Hubble 

c) was then interpreted as the claim that the universe was created by an ‘eternally existing' being with ‘superior knowledge’ and ‘no matter’ The rest of the video then illustrated passages from Genesis.  

There are several things wrong with this argument. In the first place, (a), (b), and (c) aren’t the only possibilities: Maybe this universe grew from a seed produced by another universe, like a plant. Maybe the universe continually expands, contracts, and then expands again in a new big bang. 

In the second place, the argument against option (a) doesn’t work: the first law of thermodynamics and other natural laws are features of the created universe. They don’t tell us anything about how universes are created. 

In the third place, on the argument against option (b): you don’t get to cherry-pick just the bits of science you like. If you accept Einstein, what reason have you to reject the paleontological, genetic and other evidence that animals weren’t all created at the same time in their current forms? But if that’s true, Genesis is false.  

In the fourth place, the argument for option (c) contradicts the argument against option (a): if the first law of thermodynamics applies to universe-creation (as the argument against (a) requires) it also forbids the creation of energy by this being of superior knowledge. Where did the matter/energy for the universe come from, if it can’t be created?

In the fifth place, even if option (c) is the best, and the universe was created, that doesn’t show that it was created by a being with the characteristics stated. Why only one being? Coral reefs, for example, are complex and beautiful things created by large numbers of simple creatures with no plan at all. Why ‘superior knowledge’? Why shouldn’t the universe have been created by accident? Or by unconscious processes? Why ‘eternally existing’? Why shouldn’t the creator itself have been created by a previous creator, itself created by another one, and so on? Maybe universe-creation is a craft like traditional boatbuilding: honed by generations of makers, none of them particularly clever or powerful in themselves, each relying on gradually accumulated wisdom and inherited tools. 

None of these are original counter-arguments – most of them are in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (first published in 1779).  

I don’t mean, by objecting to your video, to denigrate your faith or work. But respect for others requires telling them when you think they’re wrong. And I think you’re wrong here.  

Best Wishes,  

Dr Sam Clark 

Lecturer in Philosophy, Lancaster University.
And here's their eventual reply:
HI Sam
thank you for your message, I shall pass it on to our pastoral manager.regards
Jesper Sorensen, Centre Manager 
 Philosopher 0, public 1.

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Author, author

My friend Ryan Shirlow has written a novel. Buy now so you can say you were into him before he sold out.

Maurice Sendak is dead

Where the Wild Things Are is one of my and my son's favourite books; I just read it to him, for the hundredth or thousandth time, yesterday. The New York Times obituary contains the unbeatable description of that book's Max as a 'pocket Odysseus'.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

Civic Health Lectures

I've organised a series of public talks on the idea of civic health:


Civic health: four public lectures on living well together

What is a sick society, and what would a healthy society be? What relations does civic health require between citizens? What must citizens be or do or have to live well together? What does the current civic health agenda in politics have to say about these questions, and is it adequate?

Visiting and local philosophers will reflect on these questions in this series of free public lectures, organised by the Department of Politics, Philosophy, & Religion at Lancaster University and funded by the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

Schedule:
1. 730pm, 9 May: Dr Derek Edyvane, University of Leeds: ‘Civic Health & Civic Vitality’
2. 730pm, 16 May: Dr Sam Clark, Lancaster University: ‘Good Work’
3. 730pm, 23 May: Dr Kerri Woods, University of York: ‘Solidarity, Vulnerability, & Civic Health’
4. 730pm, 30 May: Professor John O’Neill, Manchester University: ‘Living Well Within Limits’

Venue: The Storey, Meeting House Lane, Lancaster

Free & open to all


Friday, 20 April 2012

Chris Watson interview

Worthwhile interview with sound-recordist/sound-artist Chris Watson, whose Weather Report is one of my favourite records of the last few years:



Apart from Watson's appealing joy in his work, this is interesting to me because of his focus on trained perception and its pleasures and risks.

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

A former self speaks 2: another sketch utopia

I've found another one...

Rint: a utopia


I first met Josef Rint in a shanty-town in old Bombay. His door - soldered together out of roadsigns - was the fourth I’d banged on that morning, I was sweating in the orange community-service bomber-jacket the supervisor’d given me, and I was beginning to think that vee-jail couldn’t be that bad. I’d been caught with six gees of knock-off anti-depressants, only a few days before the medbiz’s exclusivity ran out, and the expert-system’d plea-bargained me down to ‘volunteering’ to do this Red Cross survey. The option was a year subjective in a monchrome virtual space. A year to me, two hours to everyone else. But just try getting health insurance after your metabolics’ve been amped that high.

I flicked a mozzy off the scratched screen of my clipboard, and banged on the door again, just as Rint yanked it open. He looked like Karl Marx after years of solvent abuse, and I could’ve snapped him in two – I was big then too, but it used to be muscle – but he still made me feel like some tribal beggar kid. We looked at each other. The clipboard booted up, and I started out – “Good morning. I wonder if you’d mind if I asked you a few questions. It won’t take long.” – as if this guy had anything to do beyond going and getting his hand-out at the reprocessor station. He shrugged, asked me in. We sat down on a couple of cushions made from salvaged bubblewrap, and he made tea. Not chai, black tea made by pouring boiling water on leaves. Tasted like engine oil, but I didn’t like to say.

I can’t remember how we got talking, but by the time the clipboard crashed the second time, and the shadow of the supertower out in the bay’d covered the whole shanty town, and I was almost getting a taste for the tea, we were like old schoolfriends at a reunion. Rint invited me back for the next day. Said he had a story to tell me.

I signed off with the supervisor, went to the bank to pick up that month’s trust money, got the usual lecture from the manager – an old friend of my father’s – and headed back to my flat. I spent the evening drinking cheap beer and faking survey results, and I was there at Rint’s door good and early next morning, only a little hung over. This is his story:

After the old Europe fell to bits, there were thousands of places like the one Rint grew up in – microrepublics, back-to-nature citadels, strong-man chiefdoms. His was some sort of neo-Marxist mir, a fishing-in-the-morning, criticism-in-the-afternoon commune. He mostly remembered dinners with the whole village, like a cross between a union-meeting and a barquiz – “I ask our younger comrades – what is commodity fetishism?”

He never told me exactly where it was – security habits die hard – but I’m guessing Bohemia somewhere. The short version is, that the commune were tough guys – Rint knew judo and could field-strip an AK blindfold by the time he was eight – but that they still got smashed by some raiders, and Rint and three other teens found themselves, with nothing but what they’d managed to grab while running, heading north in bitter, mountainous country.

So far, this could be any of a thousand stories, most of them never told. Plenty started again with less. There’s a guy bossing half of what used to be Poland who started with the same. But most of the lost people just quietly died.

Rint’s story’s different because of what he and his friends found in the mountains. This is the place where you’re going to stop believing me, but I’ll swear to this at least – Rint believed what he told me, and I’m telling it to you just the same.

It was Rint’s sister Jana who spotted it first. The gate – a shimmering between two pines in a hanging valley. No big deal for someone brought up on blockbuster special effects, but plenty for someone who’s idea of light entertainment was Battleship Potempkin projected onto a sheet in the refectory. They moved up to it two-by-two, ready to give covering fire, the way they’d been taught. Rint, Onza and Jana had AKs, big blunt Sascha had a beaten-up SA80. He went forward first, stepped into the shimmering, and disappeared without fuss. Jana yelled and charged after him, to vanish the same. Rint had to pick Onza up by his webbing and throw him through, before he took a breath and followed. He told me, ashamed, that he thought of running and forgetting it.

On the other side, the world had changed. Same splintered mountains, even the same saddleback peak they’d been heading for, but a thicker forest – pine, feathered moss ground-cover, bilberries, ‘shrooms – and where there’d been an abandoned village slumping down the valley side, three terraces of garden surrounded a low, white, windowless dome. They only had a few seconds to wonder before the hum they’d been hearing turned out to be the sound of engines.

Three vehicles were splashing along the middle of the shallow stream at the bottom of the valley, two trikes and what Rint called a baba-yaga house – a two-storey caravan on beetle-like legs. All were the same plastic white as the dome. Rint and the others did what they knew to do – dived for cover, guessed the distance and set their sights, and tried to secure a line of retreat, but the shimmer was gone. A white bird hovered over their position, nearly drawing fire from Sascha.

The vehicles pulled up, and there was a pause. Rint watched through field-glasses as two bulky, copper-tanned women got off the trikes and stared up at their position. One pulled a book out of a thigh-pocket and peered into it, before shutting it again, shrugging, and yelling, in oddly-accented english - “Hey comrades, if we’ve got a beef, why don’t we play chess for it or something? There’s no need for the guns.” I don’t know if it was “comrades” or “chess” that got Rint and the others, but after a whispered argument, Rint put down his AK, stood up and walked a little way down the hill to meet one of the women coming up.

She was taller than him, shaven-headed, and some of the bulk was the white, much pocketed boiler-suit she was wearing. The first thing she said was to ask Rint if he was OK, did he need some food? Rint told me this leaning forward, frowning, trying to get it across just how important that was. Positions reversed, he’d have assumed they were an ambush. This woman’s first worry was for him. He nodded without thinking – their rations had run out the day before, they’d been living off berries – and she passed him a crumbling block of something rich-smelling before sitting crosslegged on a stump and watching him stuff his face. Rint backed far enough to throw three-quarters of the block up the slope to his friends. He and the woman looked each other over.

Rint was not a big guy when I knew him or ever, and I imagine him eighteen, scrawny and filthy from days in the wild, Russian-surplus webbing over home-woven jacket and trousers, ancient boots. He must’ve looked like the tramp you ignore in the street. The woman grimaced, then suggested they come down to the house to get clean and eat more. 

Saturday, 31 March 2012

Self-monitoring

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

mic check

[...stumbles over ashy drifts of old lecture handouts ... blows dust off lectern ... clicks laser-pointer a few times, without effect ... 'um... is this thing on?']

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Linking will continue until morale improves

I am clearly failing to write anything substantive for this blog at the moment, let alone the book drafts I promised. This term has been an effort, for a variety of reasons, but posts that don't just consist of near-contextless links will appear soon. Fairly soon. Probably.

5 Lessons of fieldwork

From Zoe Cormack.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Capitalism book drafts: placeholder

Failed to get a draft finished last week; will probably fail this week too. Normal service will be resumed soon, I hope.