By which I don't want to paint myself as "anti-conference," if there is such a thing; after all, I recently sent out a proposal to a conference whose theme aligns neatly with work I have in process. But I have become more and more "not pro-conference," for a number of reasons--not just because we lost that tax deduction, which leaves everyone unable to obtain sufficient funds for conference travel permanently out of pocket. My qualms have multiplied:
1) Four years ago, I noted that I wasn't really on board with reasons to continue interviewing at conferences. I am now, I think, completely overboard. I really cannot see how we can be justified in expecting graduate students, contingent faculty, and even junior scholars on the move to spend $$$ that will never be reimbursed. As a 70s TV show once said: we have the technology.
2) The obvious corollary to this position is that we need a "honey, I shrunk the MLA" moment. Without the jobseekers, attendance would drop drastically, and not just from the side of the jobseekers--you'd also lose the people who are only attending because they're on a search committee. Fewer attendees = possibility of smaller cities as hosts = more affordable conference for people who want to be there, as opposed to have to be. (And perhaps we could schedule the MLA at a time of year when, you know, the likelihood of being trapped by an INCREDIBLY LARGE SNOWSTORM is somewhat lower.)
3) I believe universities should put the proverbial money where their proverbial mouth is. (I'll note in passing that my own little regional comprehensive has actually done so.) Even if you get a roommate (not practical or desirable for everyone), and spend all of your time eating at McDonald's, tickets, room, and food are still pricey. If faculty must attend conferences to show professional engagement or development or whatever the APT document says it is, then the university needs to pick up the entire tab. That tax deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses let universities off the hook. (Have I mentioned that we lost the tax deduction? Let me mention it again.) Of course, there are other alternatives to paying conference stipends...like raising faculty salaries to compensate. (And salaries for contingent faculty. And graduate student stipends.) Oh, wait--conferences aren't that important, you say? Hmmmm.
4) Well, perhaps conferences aren't that important. And there is such a thing as attending too many conferences, especially at the graduate student level. In years past, folks critical of the publish-and-perish mentality have suggested limiting the number of publications that can be submitted for tenure; in practice, I suspect people might be more willing to get on board with limiting the number of conference presentations. Or simply rendering them optional.
Comments