Here's a fun question: anyone got some scary job market stories to share around the campfire?

Here's the worst one I know of: a close friend of mine applied for a tenure-track job, made it through the whole many-month waiting/interviewing process, and was told that there might not be a job (contingent on funding) but if there was, he had it. OK, that's an annoying but at least transparent situation. Then they told him that the funding had come through and he had the job. A number of the faculty were with him at a public event and told him that he should announce that he had the job and was starting in the fall — it was a done deal, even though the offer letter hadn't officially gone out yet. Great, so he announces it, is thrilled, has gotten a tenure track job in a tough economy.

Buuuut... (turns on flashlight under face) a few days later he gets a call, is told that even though they thought the funding was approved, the whole thing has been yanked, and so there is no job after all. Now he is once again jobless. Some say if you listen closely at night, you can still hear him cursing.

There's a quiet little discussion going on in AskAcademia that I'd like to bring over here.

Notes. Do you take notes when reading? How do you take them? How do you organize them?

I have read the term "post-Saidian era" or something along these lines a few times now. Unfortunately, none of the authors cared to expand on it. I'm familiar with Said's work and I'm guessing that post-Saidian historiography would be less focused on clear-cut "Othering". But I'm still left with a lot of questions. Who wants to gain some postcolonial street credibility?

1. How do you write history in the "post-Saidian era"?
2. What are some key works that demonstrate how writing "post-Saidian" history should look like?
3. What are some of the most effective criticisms of Said's work?

Has any had to do poster presentations? I'm currently in a Research Seminar through my university, and at the end we're suppose to give a poster presentation. The program, unfortunately, is geared more towards the STEM academia, so this is right up their alley, but for history it seems kind of odd to do without putting paragraphs of info on it.

I posted this in yesterday's thread, I was told I should post it here instead:

How do historians treat accounts of historical events written by famous historical figures, if there's no counter or correlating evidence? For example, if George Washington or Adam Smith writes about an event in the 1600s, would historians treat it as fact? And for that matter, does the reputation of the writer matter?