Sigaba

Every graduate program is different. A department is a collection of black boxes. Some of which are inside of other black boxes. Thus far, you've been an outsider looking in. From such a vantage point, talking about the way things should be is easier because one doesn't have to focus on the way things are. Among other things, you've not experienced first hand, as a graduate student, the subtly with which professors can communicate, the pressure which makes decoding comments from professors difficult, or the sweep of emotions that graduate students can experience. It is your prerogative to privilege your experiences and opinions to the point where you feel comfortable giving a graduate student potentially career-altering advice with, based upon the time stamps of your posts, very little reflection. However, IMO, your practice, no matter how well intended it may be, is ill considered. The OP is having difficulty completing assigned tasks. The OP argues that the cause of the problem is external; the inability to complete the assigned tasks is due to the professor's instructional methods. The OP argues that the solution is to be given the freedom to perform more complex tasks. The supporting evidence that is being offered is from outside the program and in different fields of knowledge. That is, a graduate student who is admittedly under performing should be given more latitude because the student knows a business owner who was a bad manager. Is it a realistic to expect the argument the following argument to convince an advisor? "Although I've not done what I've been tasked to do, I would do better work if I were allowed to do want, and if you don't accommodate this request, you're taking away my autonomy." Is this OP's situation really about autonomy or is it about accountability? IMO, the greatest obstacle in @GingerNeuro's way is GingerNeuro's anxieties. While it is certainly reasonable to expect an advisor to support a graduate student's efforts to navigate obstacles, IMO, it is not reasonable to expect an established professional to give a student the keys to the car. Going to talk to other faculty members without having heart to heart discussions (that is, more than one) with the advisor is, MOO, irresponsible guidance. YMMV.

https://www.cravetv.ca/show/34584

Square the circle. Redo your due diligence on the programs to which you're applying. Look for opportunities to do your outside field in the school of education in a department or field that emphasizes teaching. As education programs are not known for their rigor, you'll have to keep yourself motivated to work as hard as you can to get all you can out of the classes. During your first couple of summers, find teaching/mentoring programs that will welcome your participation (as you work on your language skills--and why not find a program in which you're tutoring a community that is an inheritor, if not originator, of the dynamics you want to study). When it's your turn to work as a ta, you'll have plenty of opportunities to slack your thirst as a teacher. The thirty second time you hear "Will this be on the midterm?" will be your first of many opportunities to assess your commitment to teaching young people.

Ever been to Letterkenny?

If you're an aspiring or new graduate student and you think you may end up in the private sector, I recommend carefully researching the industries in which you might want to work, the potential impact of AIs and ASIs on those industries, and then using your outside field to develop skills that aren't going to be replaced by an app on a cell phone in the next twenty years. Simultaneously, I recommend that you locate and read the (in)famous STFU thread over at the CHE fora as well as other resources that will help you learn the fine art of drinking STFU and staying in your lane. Ultimately, work in the private sector is about generating revenue while cutting costs and keeping your bosses happy. Often, the historian's skill set can collide with those objectives, especially when you're convinced that you're right and that your bosses just need to understand where you're coming from so that you can save them from themselves. In these situations you'll be Cassandra to Mr/Ms. You Can't Tell Me Shit/Figure It Out and Get It Done. What then? On top of that, there will be the tension between your political/philosophical viewpoints and the hard reality that vast swaths of the private sector are right of center because Republican politicians promise tax cuts and deregulation. And did your CEO just quote the Great Orange Overlord? Did your managing principal just go on a rant with racist undertones about Americans exercising free speech during the playing of the national anthem? Did the Galadriel of your organization just make a nativist statement in an email to everyone in your division? Yes, yes, and yes and yes! Now, get back to work, and don't forget to fill out your time card project tracking report .

A way to keep the process on track would be to use tactics similar to those used by panel moderators/reviewers. Person A gives Person B a writing sample. Person B writes a summary of A's sample as a form of read back. This summary would allow both parties to understand if the sample's basic argument was clearly written and rested on a good foundation of primary sources and secondary works. Person B then would offer feedback in an agree/disagree format. The key here is to avoid sharpshooting or brawling. The objective is to enable Person A to make the best form of an argument, even if that argument is antithetical to Person B's take on the topic at hand. Person B would end with a handful of general recommendations that would enable Person A to write a stronger piece. General recommendations for this exercise are appropriate as it is, IMO, better to avoid by miles any potential boundaries of academic/intellectual integrity. An example of a general recommendation is that rather than striking out word-limit killing prepositional phrases and passive verbal constructions, one instead recommends "finding ways to write more efficiently and use the savings in words to detail crucial arguments." The crucial elements here are trust and professionalism. If Person A wants to take an "orthodox" approach to the origins of the Cold War, then Person B needs to act in good faith by bellying up to the bar and supporting that effort, even if Person B agrees with everything Bruce Cummings has ever written or said about John Lewis Gaddis. Concurrently, Person A needs to approach the exercise with a level of sensitivity to the ongoing historiographical debates over the origins of the Cold War with a commitment to professional "objectivity" (what ever the heck that is). Still, there will be risks to both parties, especially if there's a great disparity in levels of skill. What then?

It's my understanding from reading your posts that you've been admitted to programs and you're about to enter your first year. Is there something I am missing? In any case, it's Nisei Week, so in honor of Noriyuki "Pat" Morita...

Are you currently in a graduate program that gives you insight into how the training is done?

You are assuming that you're as good of a scientist as you are as a musician. However, your own posts in this thread suggest that's not quite the case yet from the POV of those who matter the most. Every moment you spend recycling the same argument is another moment spent going down the same path that is causing you unhappiness. I think that you need to find a way to subordinate yourself to the training you're receiving, complete the tasks you have on your plate, and hit pause on the loop saying that you're not free.

When you were a musician making a living off your craft, would you have put your reputation at risk on the say so of someone claiming to be ready to play an extended solo during an important gig but unwilling to perform basic tasks you had set forth to establish his ability to play unaccompanied? You are receiving professional training in a complex domain of knowledge. You are resisting that training because it's not tailored to your individual preferences and needs. You can either figure out how to get around that rock in your path or keep walking into it.

Budget for twice as much Imodium.

MOO, @GingerNeuro, your advisor has given you a path to secure a higher level of autonomy. You have before you the opportunity to get what you want. The challenge you face is that the path appears rocky. What skills do you need to improve to navigate the obstacles? How might realigning your constellation of motivational factors improve your effectiveness. I don't agree that bringing additional members of your department into this situation as suggested above is a good tactic at this point. "I don't tick that way" is likely to get a different response than one prefers.

I would recommend the relevant essays in Peter Lowenberg, Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach 2nd Edition. IRT the hardships of graduate school, I don't know that they're necessarily worse/better than those in the private sector. My friends who are veterans of the armed services have shared first and second hand experiences that make the most dispiriting day in the Ivory Tower look like an all expenses paid vacation to Disneyland. As long as interpersonal relationships are a component of human activity, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for disappointment, humiliation, and other wonderful feelings.

I would be very surprised if this municipality would actually hire a historian who did not also have years of planning/policy/program management experience.

MOO, the emphasis on number of posts is ill considered given the nature of this BB. A member could drive up one's post count in a number of existing pass the time threads. Another member could easily confuse the post count as an indication of knowledge and credibility and, in his haste, accept uncritically guidance that does not reflect "best practices" for securing admission to graduate school. I understand that the new ownership purchased TGC to make money. I think that the ownership team should invest more time developing an understanding of this BB and the needs of its members and, from there, develop a sustainable plan that squares the circle of increasing traffic without diluting the overall quality of the posts. My $0.02.

I very strongly recommend that you find ways to rephrase this note of self introduction. The description of research interests gets vaguer as the second paragraph unfolds. I recommend the elimination of jargon. I recommend adding at least one sentence that indicates an awareness of ongoing historiographical debates.

MOO, you would be best served working on this task yourself. I recommend using a physical copy of the AHA directory of history departments and going through the faculty rosters of (almost) every department that has graduate programs. Do quick research on any and all scholars who specialize in your areas of interest without worrying too much about a perfect match. Instead, try to see if departments offer a significant amount of overlap. Make files (physical or digital) of your findings. if you perform this (time consuming) exercise well, you will start to see patterns. In turn, those patterns will allow you to identify professors, departments, and programs that may help you get to where you want to go. You will also develop your understanding of historiographical debates and professional developments, which will, in turn, inform essays and papers you'll be writing as a graduate student. Concurrently, you might want to continue and intensify the process of identifying archival resources you would visit when you write your dissertation. You may encounter names of historians who are off the beaten path because they're spending an incredible amount of time cataloging, curating, and editing private papers.

I think that you should strive for a healthy balance of unbridled optimism and endless optimism. Visualize yourself developing as a historian this coming year, kicking ass and taking names during the application season, and earning admission to your preferred doctoral programs. Invest more time into your relationship with history so that your engagement with the past is more than passion. Keep working on your critical thinking skills, your abilities as a researcher, and your writing. Put aside for now your doubts, fears, and concerns. (There'll be plenty of time for such feelings when you're preparing for your qualifying exams.)

When a farmer sits down for a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is dedicated and the pig is committed. Will farmers who pay for bacon be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when they find out that they've gotten more eggs?

Please keep in mind that some professional academic historians may view this plan as a lack of commitment to the craft. Historians in this group are more interested in the creation of new knowledge than the teaching of the craft.

I strongly urge you to develop a broader constellation of motivational factors. Passion can wane, fade, ebb, and die. As can love. You might be able to address the point TGF raises by doing your outside field in education.

I don't think that this consideration is at all "silly." It takes a lot of time and money to fill a position. Hiring someone who may be able to get a much more lucrative position can be a costly mistake.

MOO, the OP on Reddit isn't the best form of the argument. The ensuing circling of wagons by the moderators doesn't help, either. My $0.02/YMMV.

HG-- I honestly think that you should consider using the search function more often. There is a wealth of information and points of view on this and many other topics of interest to members of TGC.

It's going to be a long application season.