The (potential) lies of academic pedigree

While updating myself on several of the blogs I read regularly I came across a few recent posts about the ever-present issue of the job market for history PhDs. Yes, it sucks. We all know that. What really bothers me is what I consider the cheapening of the PhD degree from certain universities. (See comment #34 here). The author of that comment, on the subject of requirements and expectations for graduate students states:

1. These “minimal intellectual attainments” are falling. Only 15-20 years ago graduate students in my field had to know both French and German. Now you can do it without either. My own institution’s doctoral program is anemic, but colleagues in “healthier” ones lament the decline of their incoming students in terms of preparedness, writing skills, analytical ability, self-confidence, and most other indicators of success common to academia and the more promising fields to which gifted students are increasingly attracted. Compare that with the ever more competitive admissions processes at elite undergraduate institutions and law and medical schools.

I cannot argue with all of these statements, but at the same time I think the situation is vastly over simplified. I look at my own academic career as an example. I am by no means an elite thinker, but I have a pretty good head on my shoulders. I admit that my decision to go to grad school was pretty hasty, but I have busted my ass in school to try to make up for any shortcomings I had when I entered. The comment on foreign language really irks me. I have no problem with the requirement for foreign language knowledge. I know that I had to do a lot of French in a short period of time to get up to snuff. But the original poster's comment lacks context. Not all fields NEED foreign language knowledge. Yes, it may be helpful, but it's not always critical. The prevalence of English as a spoken and written language throughout the world mitigates, in many cases, the need for foreign language simply because so many sources are available for the native English speaker. Furthermore, Americanists generally have less need than say Europeanists. My focus in Irish history tends to push me closer to the Americanist camp simply because the sources that I need to conduct my work are in English. The trend toward easing these sorts of requirements is the result of recognizing this situation for what it is. If I was studying French or German history, it would be ludicrous to undertake either without fluency in each respective tongue.

The idea that there are more schools offering PhDs and granting degrees to students that otherwise wouldn't have them is insulting. Especially when you look at the limited number of openings at elite schools. Sure they can remain in their upper-echelon of the Ivory Tower, but to suggest that people from non-elite schools don't do good, important work is ridiculous. Because that is the impression given by commentators such as the one cited.

Intelligence is only one of many factors that determine which universities one applies and gets accepted to. Remember, applications are voluntary, so some really smart people might opt NOT to go to elite schools even if they could get in. Governing factors such as finances, location, program reputation, and, for undergraduates what one thinks they want to study, all color application choices. Personally, I wanted to teach secondary education when I as applying to undergraduate schools. In Michigan the two best programs for secondary ed were generally considered to be Michigan State and Oakland University. Those were the only schools I applied to. In hindsight, I probably should have applied to University of Michigan as well, but their program for what I wanted to study was not as good, so it made no sense at the time. I opted for Oakland University because it was smaller than MSU - I didn't want to be a face in the crowd and have TAs as instructors - and less expensive. Since I was geared toward secondary ed my history curriculum was slightly different than other history majors, and as a result I probably had fewer upper-level history courses, but the difference was probably only 1 or 2 classes overall and I rocked the upper-level courses I did take, generally getting really high grades from the toughest profs in the department.

When I made the decision to go to grad school, because of time constraints, I only applied to two schools - Loyola and Boston College. I got into Loyola and decided to go there. So my academic pedigree is Oakland University > Loyola University Chicago. Probably not the most impressive. But in reality, I have noticed that where you get your degree matters very little, no matter what people say. At conferences I have been amazed at the quality of work from people at a variety of institutions, including really bad work from people at elite schools, and really good work from people at Loyola type schools. Dr. Robert Bucholz, one of Loyola's faculty members who actually gives a crap about graduate students, has said that he'd put Loyola students in the same ring as elite schools any day. I always thought that was a bit of posturing on his end, until I started putting conferences together and seeing the kind of stuff being done. I would agree with him on that point. I know that I am always impressed with my forerunners at Loyola and how well versed they are in the discipline. As this post suggests, different tiered graduate programs serve different purposes. I think that is a better perspective on the issue raised here.

In the end, I recognize that the prospects of finding a secure/rewarding academic job is unlikely and that my opinion doesn't matter on the subject, because as Tim Lacy pointed out here the system for evaluating programs is inherently flawed. I'm not trying to say that Loyola is a top-tier school. Don't get me wrong. But it is a very good school, and there are a number of other factors (size of school/department, funding, necessity for part-time work, etc.) that contribute to Loyola's, and schools of it's ilk, being branded as "inferior" - a label that is then siphoned off to it's graduates in the academy. Are there some bad eggs at Loyola. Sure there are. But I'm sure people would be surprised at the similarities between our department and that of a top flight school, at least intellectually. In the end, isn't that what really matters? No matter where someone goes for their PhD they're going to bust their asses to finish the degree. At the same time, all the literature and commentary indicates that newly minted PhDs shouldn't expect their efforts to be acknowledged by a tenure-track job. Anyone who enters grad school with the mentality that that is the only acceptable situation for them are setting themselves up to fail. But I would hope that during the course of one's training as an historian (or any humanities field) that (s)he would be able to revise their thinking.

Basically I refuse to be labeled as an inferior historian simply because of where I went to school. In the words of W. Axl Rose - "Don't Damn Me!"