Where to draw the line?

No, "draw the line" is not intended as a reference to the hit-or-miss Aerosmith album from 1977. Rather, it's a question about the reciprocal commitment of graduate programs to their students. Granted, some doctoral institutions are blessed with large faculties that can easily or even reasonably accommodate changes to student's study plans, but what about smaller departments? It's not unreasonable for incoming freshmen to change their intended major 4-5 times, on average so why would it be different for graduate students to adhere strictly to their proposed course of study when they enter the program. When students are accepted into a program they make a commitment to that school and that department. At the same time, the department makes a commitment to the student as well. Especially if a student performs well and is in good standing academically, the department should do everything possible to accommodate the student in accordance with their academic interests. Naturally, for smaller departments, this might be more difficult. Sometimes exceptions can be made, wrinkles implemented, and favors granted, but what are students to do in the rare instance that their program fails them? Attrition rates measure the the inverse relationship, but it seems reasonable to ask how prevalent this situation is? I would assume it's rare, but that does not make it any less tragic when it occurs. I can speak from personal experience, that I faced some difficulties with finding an advisor at my school, but I was eventually able to work out a situation mutually agreeable to myself, the department, and the graduate school. It's just very unfortunate that smaller departments face these issues and that a small minority of students are negatively affected by them.

Music, Pop Culture, and Irish History

I was reading Tim Lacy's History and Education blog the other day and he had an interesting post about a class at UMass-Amherst that used the Grateful Dead as a lens for studying American Culture since the 1960s. I found this intriguing for a number of reasons: 1. I'm a huge DeadHead and would love to take that class, and 2. I'm continually interested in the role that music plays in a society's culture. I have two separate projects in mind along these lines for Ireland - neither of which I'll touch for a couple years because I'm sure the dissertation will get in the way.

The first project would be to investigate the Blues and R&B scene in Ireland, specifically the North, in the 1960s and 1970s. During a period where ethic/sectarian differences became extremely volatile, music provided a milieu for co-mingling, and relatively peacefully at that from some of the material I've read. It'd be interesting to contrast the trajectories and impact of two popular artists - Van Morrison and Rory Gallagher (Protestant and Catholic respectively) to examine this question.

The second project would be similar to the way that scholars tend to approach the 1960s in America by looking at Irish counter culture. I recently finished reading Christy Moore's book "One Voice." What struck me was the amount of anti-Government sentiment in Ireland during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. I think that in many ways, Irish folk or ballad singers provided a steady challenge to the state's agenda because singers were common, played in pubs, which meant that they reached a wide array of people at little cost. It seems there was plenty of exposure to these artists throughout the island, and their liberal leanings must have had some reverberations throughout society writ large. With a government trying to dig itself out of a pre-modern nationalist agenda in the 20th Century, and a Church that often turned a blind eye to endemic social problems, i.e. both were conservative entities, that really left pub culture and balladeers as a sizable, relatively uncensored form of popular culture and opposition (film, literature, and published music were more susceptible to the censorship laws in Ireland).

These are just the germ of the ideas at this point. Any comments (if anyone reads this) are welcome.

Veterans/Remembrance Day

No matter how you stack it, all veterans are worthy of remembrance. Taking the time to recognize the sacrifices veterans have made for their country is important not only for understanding contemporary events, but also how we understand the past. One or two days per year may be enough for the general population, but remember that there are families and individuals that are affected daily, and they make an important contribution to how we understand the memory of the past.

Semper Fi

Final Thoughts on Comps

So yesterday I had the oral exam that comprises the second part of the major field comprehensive at my school. It was basically what I expected; two of the three professors asked useful questions that were broad in scope and allowed me to demonstrate a knowledge of the literature, while the third asked very specific questions, looking for specific answers that did not lend themselves to an historiographical discussion. The highlight was when I was asked by this professor to discuss a counter-factual and its implications on a specific nation's history. This made for some unpleasant and uncomfortable moments in an already nerve-racking experience. But at least I was not surprised. That's the way this faculty member approaches everything. They cannot simply ask the broad question and let you answer. Regardless I no longer have to work with this person and I am glad to have finished the exam process.

Since I have passed all of my exams now I think it's fair to call into question the way that they are handled at least in my department. For the PhD one takes a minor field exam and a major field exam. Fair enough. The minor field is a three-hour written exam with two examiners. You get 4 questions, pick two and write on them. The major field is split into written and oral components. There are three examiners and the written is five hours, while the oral is two. Furthermore, students are not allowed to use and notes during any of the tests. This last point is an issue of contention with me. I don't understand what the problem is with using notes. Clearly you know the material if you're taking the exam, and you've got so much information in you head it seems at least fair to have a copy of your reading list in the exam with you. Plus, having your notes is not the tipping point between knowing the historiography and not. If you don't know it your notes won't help you anyway, but if you do they can help you make tighter arguments quicker, enabling you to write more and more accurately. Besides, when is a professor without notes of some kind? In lecture they might not use them, but at least they have their notes at the ready in case they need them (generally). I was browsing another department's website (as I often do) and saw that their major field exam was eight hours, could be on or off campus, and was open note. This seemed to me like the optimal conditions for doing the test. It gives enough time to think about, write, and revise your answers. With the five hours window at my school you're locked in an office alone with a computer. You don't really have time to eat or use the restroom. Hell, there's barely time to stand, stretch, and shake the carpal tunnel out of your wrists. If one has more time to write better answers then the oral exam, in some ways, is rendered obsolete. There will always be questions regarding specific parts of your answers, but it is likely that there would be less in a modified system. Is is necessary to formally discuss these questions as part of the exam? Or would it be better to simply address them informally as necessary, but not have that constitute part of the exam process? It just seems that the process in my department is a bit over-complex. That's not to say that it can't be successfully completed; it can. Rather, it's impossible to complete without thinking, "how is this useful to me" or "how does this prove my abilities as an historian" at various junctures.