Pamela Oliver

Disclosure, not a political scientists. (Sorry) A sociologist who studies protest and social movements.

In addition to work for pay (which I approve of), we created a research practicum course that provides some academic structure for this. Grads get help, undergrads get research experience, a faculty supervisor checks that the structure is legit. Popular with undergrads as well as grads.

how old do you have to be to be "oldest" in this context? 110? 90? 80? 65?

I was literally presented with a JSTOR page that displayed an abstract and, next to it, an AI summary. I can't even.

We also still have boxes of stuff in our basement from our kids' former relationships (they are now ~40). And I'm sure some of their stuff was left at the homes of their ex's parents.

In our experience, this continues at all ages. I have lost several jackets. My spouse now wears a comfortable fleece jacket that someone left in our closest years ago, we have no idea who; we asked the likely prospects.

FWIW as a non-demographer (who however has long talked to demographers) I have been struck about how quickly there has been a pivot from "overpopulation" to "underpopulation" as a worry in elite discourse. Maybe extrapolating too far into the future from a short term trend gives bad results?

Agree that 8 ball is a better analogy. Or people's reading of their own Tarot cards. My understanding of working psychics is that they are good at picking up the cues offered by the client & in some cases intentionally operate much like a nondirective therapist.

TBF quant when you are doing a secondary analysis of data someone else collected is different from quant when first you have to collect or construct the data & it's not just an online survey in Qualtrics feeding you a spreadsheet as output. But not denying that most qual work is a lot of work.

Also, unless submitting for blinded peer review, make sure your name is on any manuscript you circulate. (Maybe even put your name in a footer so it is on every page.) You don't want your work circulating without your name on it. #AcademicSky

You would be surprised how many people, even those with PhDs, do not do this.

#AcademicSky pro tip: when sending a manuscript file to others, rename the file to add your name to the filename and, ideally, use a descriptive title and possibly the date (for a paper still being revised), e.g. lastname_topic-title_date.docx (or .pdf).

This is what I was going to say. Wisconsin has extremely strong open records laws. No reason needs to be given. Syllabi about race were requested at least three times I can recall, all pre-"CRT" panic.

Academics generally have an interest in sharing our work freely because we don't get paid for it directly & most royalties are peanuts. But commercial and fiction writers have a different profile of interests. 2/2

I've read a lot of the thread, good points. Chiming in with another angle. I signed on some years ago to a friend of court brief asking to separate academic writers from commercial writers in the suit against Google Books. 1/2

FWIW I'm pretty sure you can get it online from the UW library, and probably public library as well. That's what I've been doing with Wash Post since unsubscribing due to Bezos. I pay for a lot of different news sources for the reasons you state, but I don't think I'm ready to put WSJ on my list.

Hmm I have not seen them either, but maybe John is just throwing them away? (He's usually the one to get the mail.)

Now buried in the minutia of getting non-journal type sources to have reasonable formats in reference lists. Ugh!! #AcademicSky

Thanks!

In general, there were many claims that "it all started with the nooses" but that is different from the assertation that the boys said they attacked Barker because of the nooses. If you get the nuance. In any event, that is not what Mary Foster's article says.

I have never encountered a source where one of the boys themselves claimed that, although there are news articles and editorials written by others that claim this was a direct cause. (The "noose fight narrative" claimed it was an indirect cause.)

oops we are not mutuals. This is actually not confidential. On the Jena Six page the claim "subsequently they advanced the explanation they beat him because they encountered three nooses.[21]" references an article that does not say that. Also (next)

thank you, I will.

I'm not a Wikipedia editor. Is there any way I can flag part of a sentence that is (a) not true and (b) footnoted to a source that does not say what the footnote implies it says? (This is about the Jena case, so I'm pretty familiar with the evidence and the sources.)

AND just realized that a clear spike in Google Trends searches for Jena on July 1 that I could not explain is the date that Tom Joyner's BlackAmericaWeb mentioned the case. Sometimes things click.

This seems important. do you have documents or blogs or something I can point people to?

Your post showed up in the feed after a delay

Or at least I think just using the hashtag works. But agree that I didn't see your post there.

Just use the hashtag #AcademicSky I've done it and didn't need any permission to do it.

I was fed an AI summary of an ABSTRACT in JSTOR!