Afshan Jafar, writing from New London, Connecticut in the US.

What makes a teacher hot? Better yet, why is it an important question to consider? Even though I disagree with most of the explanations and the conclusions that Daniel Hamermesh makes in his book Beauty Pays, I do believe that our physical appearance is of great significance. But then again, sociologists have known that for a long time now. A person who appears to be well-dressed, fit, healthy, and attractive is evaluated more positively than a person who is not. But what people often read into our faces and bodies has much less to do with some abstract notions of beauty and much more to do with perceptions of a person’s social class, race/ethnicity, education, and the pre-conceived ideas that go along with each of those categories. To put it bluntly, people who project a certain amount of wealth or status are much more likely to be seen as attractive or beautiful than those who project a lack of wealth or status. People who have more wealth can also employ all the “tools of the trade” to project an image which approximates the ideals of beauty in their cultures: they can spend more money on their hair, their skin, make-up, fitness trainers, vacations (where they develop glowing tans), expensive clothes, perhaps cosmetic surgery, etc. So it is no wonder that Hamermesh finds that attractive professors have higher salaries – they may be attractive precisely because they have higher salaries!

One of the most glaring flaws of Hamermesh’s argument is the idea that student evaluations lead to higher salaries for professors. Some places do have teaching awards for outstanding faculty, but I don’t know of any place which actually increases or decreases your salary based on student evaluations. But let’s put aside the question of money and how that relates to a professor’s attractiveness. Beauty, attractiveness, hotness, they do confer certain advantages on the person embodying them. Hamermesh argues that beautiful professors(or to be more precise those who are considered better looking than other professors and that does not necessarily qualify them as beautiful even according to Hamermesh) get better evaluations than their less attractive colleagues. But what makes a professor hot in student’s eyes? What differences might we find in students’ perceptions of their professors’ hotness depending on the professors’ gender, race, ethnicity or age for instance? Consider a well-liked male professor in his sixties – very likely that he is still getting chili peppers on ratemyprofessors.com. Now consider a well-liked female professor in her sixties – the chances are she’s being called a “nice old lady” in her evaluations and not getting many chili peppers. A young, male African American professor or a young Latina professor on the other hand, may often be perceived as hot by their students. Beauty and hotness are not unbiased or universal standards that we all can agree on. Our perceptions of somebody’sattractiveness reflect our cultural attitudes towards various groups of people .

Consider feminists as an example. It’s not that feminists are unattractive, but that is how they are often portrayed and imagined by others. Ask your students to be honest and list words that describe feminists from their point of views. Somewhere along the line, “unattractive” or some variation of it will surely make the list. But what is it that makes feminists “unattractive”? For one, the cultural mythology of them being “man-haters” certainly doesn’t help with their public image. Although Hollywood may romanticize relationships between paid assassins trying to kill each other, most “ordinary” people are not attracted to somebody who they think is “out to get them” or out to get half of humanity for that matter. But it is also that feminists deal with volatile and intimate subject matter and our teaching asks students to fundamentally question what they think they know and perhaps how they live. Our subject matter is unsettling; we are “unsafe,” “difficult,” “bitchy”. It is much easier to find somebody else attractive—somebody less “demanding” of their students. Under these circumstances, (even though it may irk us as feminists that students can’t get past our physical appearance), that many of us do get chili peppers from our students, should be seen as a testament to our ability as teachers to transform cultural attitudes! For it is not, contrary to what Hamermesh argues, that students view some professors as hot that leads them to think of them as amazing teachers. It’s because some professors are amazing teachers that often leads students to think of them as hot!

*Song on Van Halen’s album 1984.

This post was also published at Inside Higher Ed.

Afshan Jafar, writing from New London, Connecticut in the US. 

It’s hunting season! Those of us in the academic world know that August marks the start of the job hunt. So, in a small attempt to ease some of the stress and uncertainty of looking for a job in academia these days, let me introduce the cast of characters you are likely to meet during the tragicomedy that is The Job Hunt.

Setting

 A job interview at your dream college/university or some institution that comes close enough (hell, you just want a job and you really don’t care where it is).

 Cast of Characters

The Rock Star: This, as the name implies, is somebody who is well known in their field. But it also includes those who think they are rock stars but in reality fall short of being one. Regardless, they have the egos of rock stars and thus must be dealt with gingerly. If you really are in the presence of a rock star, or someone whose work you’ve admired or used in your own research, then come clean. Be humble, be honest. If you are in the presence of a person who simply thinks that he or she is a rock star, you have nothing to worry about. He or she will do all the talking (mostly about how great they are, how busy they are, and how important they are), so try to sit still and nod your head. This is your moment of zen. Check out for a few minutes, recuperate, think happy thoughts. By the time you’re done, The Rock Star will be winding down. The only time Rock Stars become difficult is if you get the Rock Star-Intimidator combination (see below for The Intimidator).

The Intimidator: I can almost guarantee that you will come across this character no matter where you are interviewing. This is the person who alternates between looking bored and wanting to jump out of their chair and rolling their eyes during your job talk. They always have a question for you which attempts to paint your research as insignificant or boring. The Intimidator is tricky to deal with for they can really make your blood pressure rise fast. But don’t take the bait. Chances are that most people in the room dread the moment when The Intimidator asks a question and at that moment they sympathize with you. The trick is to answer The Intimidator calmly and confidently. If you handle The Intimidator without getting flustered or angry, you will win over many friends.

The Friend: Every now and then, you meet a person at a job interview with whom you immediately click. This is The Friend. Perhaps they remind you of someone from graduate school or someone in your family. They are funny, easy-going, and very easy to talk to. But that can be dangerous. The Friend is so easy to talk to you may find yourself revealing things that you had not planned to. Still, The Friend allows you to show your more personable side—you know, the funny and charming side of you that is being stifled under that suit you bought for the job interview.

The Border Patrol: If your work is cutting-edge, inter-disciplinary, or sometimes even simply feminist, you will surely tangle with The Border Patrol. The Border Patrol is fond of asking such questions as “So, what is Sociological (input whatever department you’ve applied to) about your research?” or “Why is this Sociology (or X) and not International Relations (or Y)? The Border Patrol likes to defend disciplinary boundaries and the “good, old-fashioned way” of doing things. Your response should point out the changing nature of the discipline (if it is indeed changing), the advantages of interdisciplinary research and its effectiveness in the classroom, but also highlight those aspects of your research that are solidly embedded in that particular discipline.

The Historian: Every department has The Historian. This person has been at the institution for a long time and served in various capacities over the years. The Historian has the ability and willingness to answer any and all questions with ten minute lessons on how and why that particular thing you asked about came to be at the college. The Historian also likes to say things like: “We have always done so and so at this school and that’s because . . .”as if that somehow precludes thinking about change now. But, let The Historian talk. This is another chance for you to recuperate in between meetings.

There are other characters as well: The Fan, The Gossip, The Weeper, The Back-stabber. But I’ll save those for another post.

Dear Anonymous,

I’ve been meaning to write to you for a while, but every time I think that I should respond to one of your comments or posts, I just can’t muster enough energy to do it. I understand that you come in different ages, genders, ethnicities, races, nationalities etc. Sometimes you present yourself as a professor, at other times you are an administrator or staff member, sometimes you get brave enough to give yourself initials or even an untraceable first name, and at others you are just “anonymous”. But the fact that you are so many different people isn’t why even the thought of trying to reason with you is pointless. It’s something else entirely.

Anonymous, I understand that there is a good reason sometimes to hide our identities. We fear retribution from our workplaces or colleagues, we don’t want to reveal too much about the people who are close to us, we don’t want to reveal too much about our students, workplaces etc. There was a good reason why women writers in the past wrote anonymously or under male pseudonyms. It allowed them a venue for self-expression that was closed off to them under the norms of their societies. As academics we are used to blind reviews of our work (but in academic publishing, editors, for instance, know the identities of reviewers, and some journals reveal the identities upon the publication of the piece under review). It’s not anonymity that I have an issue with. But when you make anonymity your modus operandi – whether you’re posting comments on other people’s blogs or maintaining an anonymous blog of your own—it brings out certain very undesirable characteristics in you. What may have started out as a necessary protection of your identity, has led to an outright abandonment of self-reflection and mindfulness.

Allow me to make a comparison, which may not make sense to you, but since I know nothing about you, I will proceed anyway. Did you ever see Jim Carrey in “The Mask”? Briefly: Carrey’s character, who is very gentle, subdued, deferential, and an all around nice guy, comes upon a mask. Once he puts it on, the mask allows him to let his suppressed, inner-most, cartoonishly romantic, super-hero type personality, take over. The problem of course is that this mask allows him to behave in ways that he would otherwise not deem proper and that are even downright criminal. Eventually Carrey’s character realizes that he’s better off without the mask, as liberating as it may have been to wear it.

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. Why blog anonymously all the time? Why post comments on other people’s blogs that you won’t acknowledge as your own? Like I said, I realize the importance and downright necessity of anonymity, sometimes. I know that it’s dangerous to expose yourself through your writings to the entire world. But here at UVenus, we have untenured, tenure-track, full-time, part-time, faculty, staff, graduate students, all willing to take that risk; even though we have ourqualms. With a click of a button you can read our profiles, go to our home institutions, read our research, look us up on Facebook or even read student comments about our teaching! But we expose ourselves to the commentary out there and even become topics for other people to blog about, because we believe that what we have to say is worthwhile. We believe that what we are doing is worth putting our full names to. And we believe that if it came down to it, we can defend our views, our statements, and our commentary. We are not ashamed of what we write. You protect your identity and keep your name a secret because you cannot publicly stand by what you write. And that is why, Anonymous, I decide not to engage you in conversation, even though you momentarily catch my attention.

Your anonymity probably makes you feel powerful—a sense of devilish pleasure and freedom as you write a nasty comment or blog and sit back, narcissistically enjoying each sting, each jab, each word dripping with sarcasm and vitriol. But, you see, the very invisibility that gives you a sense of power now is going to be your eventual downfall. How long can you wear the cloak of invisibility and still wake up and see the person that you used to be?

Until you come out,

Afshan