Friday, January 20, 2012

APA Eastern Meeting Dates Changed

You probably already heard about this, but the APA has agreed to try moving the Eastern APA meeting to the end of the first full week in January for the 2015/16 academic year. I think this is good news, whether or not it ultimately works out. It's good to try new things.

One question I have is, what are they going to do for the 2016/17 academic year? Suppose the first full week in January doesn't work out. Suppose that's a really bad time to have the meeting. Since Eastern APA meetings have to be scheduled years in advance, does that mean we'll be stuck with the early January meeting time until 2018 or 2019? Or are they going to try a range of dates over the next several years? I think they should try a range of dates.

In a related note, our old friend Chris Alen Sula sent me an email last night, saying,

You may have seen the recent APA announcement about the Eastern APA date effective 2015/16. When I looked at the crosstab results at http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/Eastern_Division/Eastern_Division_Meeting_Survey_Results.aspx, I noticed there was also data about the question of whether in-person interviews should be a primary function of the Eastern APA meeting, with responses broken out between regular, student, and international members. With that question, more than all the others, I noticed a difference in the pattern of responses among these three groups.

I re-expressed the values as percentages for each group and visualized them [in the chart below]:




This is interesting. It seems that a lot of people don't care whether job interviews are a primary function of the Eastern meeting, but you are significantly more likely to think job interviews should be a primary function if you're not a student. Hmmm.

Many thanks to Dr. Sula.

--Mr. Zero

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

What are the groups, and how are they coded by the colors?

Mr. Zero said...

I guess the column is too narrow for the entire width of the chart to fit; click on the image and the whole thing will show up.

Anonymous said...

"You are significantly more likely to think job interviews should be a primary function if you're not a student."

Or equivalently, you are significantly more like to think job interviews should be a primary function if you don't have to pay out of pocket to travel to and stay at the conference.

Anonymous said...

My APA login isn't working despite the fact that I'm paid up. Is there a way to get to the JFP without logging in?

Anonymous said...

3:09, as far as I can tell, the JFP is completely inaccessible right now. Even if you can log in. I think the site is fucked up again.

Can anyone access the JFP? If so, do you have a link?

Anonymous said...

It looks to me that regular members are more likely to agree with interviews as a primary function and also more likely to disagree. Students are more likely to be neutral. If regular members are blue, then they are more concentrated at the extremes, while students are higher in the middle, meaning they either don't care (less likely, in my mind) or are conflicted (more likely, I believe).

Anonymous said...

8:40, I think you're not looking at the document correctly. If you were to run a trend line (or whatever it's called...) through blue (the regular members), it would show that a plurality agree, followed by unsure, followed by disagree. They aren't concentrated at the 'extremes.'

Anonymous said...

I'm okay with us being "stuck" for a few years with the early January dates, as it will give us a chance to figure it out (and, given the complaints about the status quo, I'm having trouble thinking it will be WORSE). MLA have their conference the first week of January, and they also do interviews (although I have a friend on the market this year, and she's had at least 4 Skype interviews plus MLA interviews, so it seems like Skype interviews have gained more traction there). MLA was also in Seattle this year, and it rotates regionally each year, which is awesome (although as I understand it, there is just the one MLA conference, not the three APA ones that we have).

Anonymous said...

I didn't say they were concentrated at the extremes. I said they were more concentrated at the extremes, meaning that the concentration of regular members at each extreme is greater than the concentration of student members at each extreme, and the concentration of student members in the middle is higher than the concentration of regular members.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone else still unable to get to the JFP? Or does this mean that my account developed a problem at the same time that everyone else lost access to the member resources too?

Anonymous said...

2:18 - I still have no access. I emailed the APA several days ago to check on the problem, and have (obviously) had no response. Now that I think of it, I've never had *any* response to any email I've ever sent to anyone at APA headquarters.

Anonymous said...

I'm also still unable to get to the JFP, although I am paid up. If paid-up members aren't even able to log in, then the JFP ought to be made publicly available.

FemFilosofer said...

Not sure it will work, but here's the link:

http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/Members_Only/JFP/Web_Only_Ads/Volume_192_Web-Only_Ads.aspx

Anonymous said...

femfilosopher: nope, i get an "access denied" error message.

also, re: this chart, don't you have to include the statement with which survey respondents are agreeing or disagreeing in order for the results (on the likert scale) to make sense? without that information, i don't know what this chart says.

as for the dates themselves, great, so now i have to pay for two entirely cross-country plane tickets, one home and one on spec, in the dead of winter. apa = still winning.

Anonymous said...

Update on the JFP situation: apparently the APA erroneously thinks people haven't paid their dues. You can see the JFP. If you pay your dues. Again.

Fuck. The. APA.

Mr. Zero said...

Hi anon 2:03,

Would you mind providing more details? It's not that I don't believe you--I totally, totally believe you--it's that if I were to run a post about this, I'd like to be able to include some details, and have a clearer idea what they said.

Anonymous said...

Hi. 2:03 here. It's not so much what they said. Rather, it's a suspected glitch on their website.

They dropped a new announcement (which can now be viewed) that only paid members can see the JFP and they have the 'Resources' tab such that 'Member Resources' (i.e. where you get the JFP) is only visible to paid members and not just anyone who can log in.

The trouble is that they seem to have dumped some paid members off their list and thereby removed their access to the JFP. So, they have to pay again to get their access returned.

Again, I think it's just incompetent accounting or a web glitch rather than any actual malice. I'm also not pushing the issue too hard, because I realized that I don't have any conclusive proof that I've paid my dues for the year. I'm almost certain I have, but, again, no proof.

It would be interesting to see if it's an issue for anyone else. We seem to have a second person in the thread, but no one else has said anything...so maybe it's not a big issue (or maybe I'm just a big dummy and forgot to pay my dues).

Anonymous said...

I can log in to the site just fine, and it's showing the JFP, but it wants me to log in again to the paper submission section, and my login isn't working there. It can't even find my account. Yet I'm actually logged in.