This past weekend I got a letter in the mail from Loyola. I knew what it was when it arrived and had a pretty good idea what it contained. It was a rejection letter for the Schmitt Fellowship. The Schmitt is a fellowship for ABDs that is essentially the same thing as the fellowship I currently hold; it pays you to do nothing but work on your dissertation. One of the best parts of either scholarship is that they cover all school expenses in addition to having a stipend. Therefore, this means that next year I am basically F'd. The History department actually got 3 Schmitt fellowships, which makes it even more frustrating. It's pretty ridiculous that these sorts of things pit colleagues against each other, but oh well. What can you do, right? I saw two of the winners at the Dissertation Writing Group meeting last night and at least those two went to folks that I know and respect (the other winner is a nice enough person, but has been fully funded with no teaching obligations for four years. I mean come on. Spread the wealth a little bit!)
All of this means that now I'm going to be headed back in to the wonderful world of student loans. I threw my name in the hat to pick up a class at Loyola, but I'm sure it's no easy chore for a first time teacher to get one. Even one or two classes per semester would be a huge boon and pretty much keep me on, or close to, my current fiscal situation. More to the point though I'd really like (and need) the teaching experience. If I can't even manage that I'll probably be forced to either take a HUGE loan (which I don't want to do) and/or try to find a part-time job in this current shit economy we find ourselves in.
If I do manage to get a class or two, I have a pretty good feeling that I will get really close to finishing my dissertation in the next year. The only other thing to figure out is when I can get back overseas for a few weeks to fill some research gaps, but I think it's feasible. I spent a few days last week going through some research material, and I think the burn out is starting to fade a little bit. So when I get back from the honeymoon at the end of the month I think I'll be ready to crank out some more writing. I was able to get a page or so written today, which was good.
Showing posts with label Departments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Departments. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Saturday, July 12, 2008
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!"
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!"
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Grateful Impatience
Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for my dissertation committee. Everyone on it helped me out of a major bind at my school. Nevertheless, it is amazing how difficult it has been to schedule a two hour meeting with all four committee members. I understand the need to fulfill familial obligations, but I'm talking about a one-time, two hour meeting. Needless to say, I'm currently a bit frustrated. So be forewarned, that the most difficult aspect of writing your dissertation proposal can be getting a proposal defense date scheduled!
Friday, December 14, 2007
Building solidarity
Last night I spent some time with colleagues discussing various aspects of our collective graduate school experience. One of the topics we discussed is something that I have been actively trying to change this year - the lack of camaraderie in our department. It seems to me that this problem stems from a number of factors. First, we're a relatively small department. That means that cohorts are not very big and one if lucky if they have someone with a similar research project to bounce ideas off of. Second, we are an urban school in Chicago with people spread out over a large area. This creates a motivational issue for people to actually get out of their houses and participate in various activities (especially with the current shape of the CTA and the winter weather). As the president of our department's graduate student association I've made concerted efforts to increase interest in our organization and foster a sense of community amongst the students in the department. It seems like this action won't pay off for another few years as it will probably take a few more years of sustained advocacy to get our department where it needs to be. Providing opportunities for people is only one half of the equation. The other half involves people actually taking part in them. One can offer as many services as they like, but if no one uses them what is the net benefit? It seems both sides are deprived of positive opportunities. What are some ways to get people more involved? How does one go about getting people to show up to meetings, workshops, or even the bar? These are some of the issues my department will continue to face for the foreseeable future.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Follow up
After meeting with the new GPD last week, I discovered that the graduate student representative at the faculty meetings is selected by the GPD. This task was officially given to the HGSA for which we plan to have a democratically nominated individual represent the history graduate student body.
Personally, I'm excited at the level of involvement being afforded the HGSA by our GPD and the increased amount of transparency in departmental issues. I would encourage all graduate students, regardless of discipline, to join your department's graduate student association (or equivalent) or to establish one if there isn't already. Not only does it provide camaraderie but access to departmental information that might otherwise not be immediately forthcoming.
Personally, I'm excited at the level of involvement being afforded the HGSA by our GPD and the increased amount of transparency in departmental issues. I would encourage all graduate students, regardless of discipline, to join your department's graduate student association (or equivalent) or to establish one if there isn't already. Not only does it provide camaraderie but access to departmental information that might otherwise not be immediately forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)