The media does the same thing with psychologists, who are nearly always depicted as sleeping with their patients (clients). This is one of the strongest taboos in the profession and rarely happens because it is anti-therapeutic (APA has statistics), but that doesn’t change the media’s portrayals. As a result, I believe the public considers this violation of ethics to be a routine occurrence.

Perry, at 10:00 am EDT on June 27, 2007

Squid and Whale

I’m fairly sure that the movie title “The Squid and the Whale” is taken from Richard Moore’s poem “A Deep Discussion.” The poem is an argument between a squid and the sperm whale who wants to eat him about the superiority, or lack of it, of intellect as an occupation. Significantly, the squid hides in a cloud of ink. He regards the whale as intellectually inferior. The whale feels no sense of inferiority. If anything, he says that his experience of world travel has given him a broader, therefore better, education than the squid’s narrow specialization. He points out that he is at the top of the food chain, well able to feed on squid. As they argue, the whale gradually runs out of breath. When the squid threatens to seize and drown him, he is forced to surface for air as the squid escapes.

In the poem, Moore gives the victory to the intellectual squid but in the movie it’s the leading man, a college professor, who ends up looking like a loser even to his own children. If there is a stereotype in popular culture of college professors as otherworldly losers compared to worldly successes, is this because screenwriters see them that way or because they think audiences see them that way?

Jack Olson, at 10:10 am EDT on June 27, 2007

Four Comments From Mr. Know-It-All

First, for Jack Olson. No, the title of the movie is not from Richard Moore’s poem; it’s from the quite wonderful display of the squid and the whale at the American Museum of Natural History on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. See ...

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/p...t/ocean/01_dioramas/n_spermwhale.php

Second, Scott and William Deresiewicz, you simply cannot have this discussion without paying homage to “antiquity” ... and that goes back much further than “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?” Anyone who has the slightest interest in this theme – and why wouldn’t you?” – should get a copy of the spectacular Josef Von Sternberg film, “The Blue Angel” (1930), starring Marlene Dietrich, Emil Jannings, and Kurt Gerron. Oh my!

If I’m not mistaken, there are both English- and German-language versions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020697/

Third – and I realize I need to get a life – I have seen all of the movies in Scott’s list, and I want to go on record as saying Jeff Daniels is one of America’s least appreciated, exceptional actors (I almost said “great”).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001099/

Finally – and here comes Mr. Know-It-All – this phenomenon is perfectly obvious and easily explained ... but to understand it you must first understand what I think is called Hoyer’s Insecurity Theory (HIT). According to Hoyer – and he concedes that not all academics reach their station in life via the “insecurity route” described below – his theory explains why well over 60% of all “professors” (interpreted broadly) choose that profession.

Here’s how it works ...

STEP 1. At some stage of the game – grade school, junior high, high school, somewhere – John discovers that he has an aptitude for succeeding in school (not to be confused with having intellectual interests).

STEP 2. John goes to college ... not necessarily because he was “successful” at Step 1, but because everyone goes to college. Oh, wow, for a reason he may or may not understand, he does fairly well in college.

STEP 3. John graduates from college. Ouch! he’s confronted with a difficult choice. He can either go out into the hard, cruel world or he can – because he’s got a feel for this sort of thing and it’s pretty easy for him – go to graduate school.

[Note: Some go on to professional schools and, although there’s a fork in HIT at that point, Hoyer asks us to take his word for the fact that it still “works” for those who take that route. Of course, only a very few go to graduate school to get a master’s degree. Master’s degrees are consolation prizes for those who are not up to what is required to get a Ph.D. Those with master’s degrees go on to be high school teachers (and coaches, counselors, or assistant principals).]

STEP 4. John gets a Ph.D. Ouch! he’s confronted with a difficult choice. Either he can go out into the hard, cruel world or he can – because he’s got a feel for this sort of thing and it’s pretty easy for him and because he was required to do some teaching and research as a graduate student – become a professor.

He knows he won’t make fortune – although the work is fairly steady and the income is predictable – but society at large has wonderful misconceptions about selfless professors who eschew the financial rewards of their educations and devote their lives to the children of others. They also have the mistaken notion that educated people – and we’re all educated aren’t we? (that’s the easy part) – are also intellectuals and scholars. John won’t tell if you won’t.

STEP 5. John become a college or university professor ... and please call him Dr. Pro, Ph.D.

That’s the end of HIT, but I’ll add some steps of my own...

STEP 6. Being the insecure person he is and being generally revered by a public that hasn’t got a clue, John is prone to earlier, longer, and more intensive mid-life crises than the next guy.

STEP 7. John finds himself in an environment with a very large number of young, vulnerable, respectful (and often adoring) individuals ... oh, did I mention that they’re women and a very large number of them are at that stage of their lives where they’re experimenting with freedom and independence.

STEP 8. You know, things have not been going that well for John. He has been living with his family so long they can see right through his insecurity. And his colleagues have a very accurate sense of his professional (in)competence. He imagines an affair with a young co-ed will satisfy his pathetic quest for respect and power ... and demonstrate that he has still got what it takes.

But what do I know?

RWH, at 12:45 pm EDT on June 27, 2007

Whenever a professor in the humanities or social sciences shows up on Law & Order, they almost always fit into this stereotype. On the other hand, science professors on Law & Order always appear to be aloof, cold and uncaring (about other human beings).

Anonymous, at 4:25 am EDT on June 28, 2007

re: The Blue Angel, etc.

Following after the know-it-all, let me suggest that one could, rather than renting the dvd, actually read The Blue Angel, by Heinrich Mann, in anonymous translation from Frederic Ungar Publishing (1979), which appends a dandy translation of von Sternberg’s continuity script for the 1929 Marlene Dietrich movie. (Mann, elder brother of the justly more famous Thomas, published it as Professor Unrat in 1905.)

As to the larger question: although Hoyer’s scenario rings comically true, it’s foolish to look to any reality concerning academics in order to explain distortions in the public image of professors. Ask instead why the public might want to believe those things, true or not.

I’ve learned to accept that my students tend to see me as some sort of quaint loser, somewhat along the lines of a Disney dwarf. If that’s the price I have to pay for not racing with the rats, no problem—well worth it. I suppose I’m protected from the Viagra thing by being fat and jolly.

the professor of ignorance, at 12:50 pm EDT on June 28, 2007

It’s amusing to contemplate the evidence that there are so many faculty out there who WANT to sleep with their students. How can they hop into bed with a species of parasite that consistently lies about why it didn’t do its homework or show up for class? Aren’t they bothered at all about students’ motives?

Vivian, at 6:00 am EDT on June 30, 2007