More permanent postdoc-level positions would 1) reduce the amount of ECRs on the hunt of any position as long as it pays the bills and 2) give more time to evaluate and write coherent and deliverable funding proposal for third party funding (since you're not worried about stability and pay)

Much of this could very easily be alleviated by *more* third-party funding, as a matter of fact: a lousy 300k grant was my ticket out of this treadmill. Yet the sums dedicated to good third-party schemes are dwarfed by those earmarked for creating new Engzell problems.

The way this looks *inside* the system is that graduates are constantly told that their highly specialised skills are worthless outside the tiny world of academia ("You can never leave"). And of course we never invest in offering graduates alternative career paths outside the uni!

The reason I didn't address precarisation of junior faculty that much is that I wanted to point out that this system is largely home-made (ie, there are *already* alternative options to it, no need to wait for someone else to save us). But of course this wouldn't work without insecurity.

This was covered in the previous T-shirt.

Also loads of mixed metaphors, from cans to bucks to loans. Hope I'll be able to fix this next time I write about this.

For most matters and purposes it is safe to treat the Roman Empire and its provinces as a civilised state in the modern sense (dito its inhabitants). People or their brains haven't really changed since then, only institutions have, and not in a one-directional way.

Bin gerade etwas erschüttert darüber, was man als Gutachter an privatem über Wildfremde (und Kolleginnen und Kollegen) erfährt und wünschte, die Fördergeber würden das effektiv unterbinden statt es zumindest implizit zu verlangen.

Wild claim: a similar thing will happen to all the analyses of neofascism, authoritarianism and populism at one point

Thanks!

What makes it formally impossible?