Comment on Academic job talks
weariedfae@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oof.
Just master’s out and tapdance away from that nonsense.
Join us in the work force with options like: (a) high salary but 50+ hr weeks and you’ll either thrive or want to kill yourself in 2 years, or (b) pennies and prestigious temp jobs because they literally can’t make permanent positions because their budget is not under their control, or © run your own business like literally everyone else in a saturated market for a niche job! Make sure you are prepared for liability and the possibility of getting sued.
It’s fun…out here…in not-academia.
Confused_Emus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I wanted to go into forensic psychology. But then I took a class on Tuesday nights taught by someone whose day-job was forensic psychology and found out how often you’re likely to get sued just by doing your job (assisting the courts means the losing side will often be pissed at and litigious with you).
I graduated with my BS in Psychology and promptly accepted an IT job - I have a natural talent with tech and had work experience from my student job as a helpdesk tech for the college. Now I work nights from home doing core network maintenance for an ISP.
Still trying to figure out if the student loan debt I’m currently buried under was really worth taking on just to get my foot in the door of barely-lucrative employment.
SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 months ago
Why the fuck is it legal to sue someone because they assisted the courts? I feel like they should have legal protection unless they massively fucked up
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
I guess that’s what the people who are suing are alleging. Like if we imagine they did severely fuck up, and it led to a defendant losing the case, then suing is probably the only way you’d be able to get formal acknowledgement of that fuck up.
I think it sucks from that angle too, because as someone who has had to litigate against an organisation, it really sucks to have to do, especially when you know you’re in the right.
sukhmel@programming.dev 5 months ago
There’s the opposite when there’s too much protection: defendant provides an independent expert’s opinion, court provides state approved expert of questionable ethics and professional qualifications but with a correct opinion, i.e. the one that supports the prosecution. And guess who the court will listen to, and that state provided expert is untouchable and has no reason to actually do a good job.
SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 months ago
Yeah that’s true. I’ve honestly got no idea for a balance between the two or if there even should be any changes made
Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Which is already happening.