M.J.P. Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 The anecdote about Harvard Law was meant to demonstrate how many institutions (English PhDs included) attempt to succeed on their "aura" above anything else. However, it was mentioned anecdotally and parenthetically for a reason. And everything you said exactly proves my point. The vast majority of the students that do apply don't have the luxury of being able to devote themselves to their applications full time. My response was directed at the assumption that the applicant that devotes the most time to their application is the most worthwhile student. That the applicant with all of the opportunities--whether resource, time, or faculty members--should be considered the "baseline" for all other students to be compared to. It does prevent a number of students--worthy, intelligent students--who do not come from areas of the country that lack these resources from succeeding in academia. And while I agree that it is possible to overcome these disadvantages, the biggest hurdle to overcome will always be the financial. How is the student that works full-time, that cannot afford the internet or to take personal time to visit libraries or archives or just to go to public internet access points, able to compete with those that are? How is that same student going to find the resources (such as this website) when no university publishes them or when they may not have access to faculty members that can guide them in the right direction? I'm not sure that ancedote about Harvard Law is relevant to this discussion, which focuses on the particularities of English PhD programs. Harvard will always have an aura for "layman"...but I think that's exactly part of what we are trying to circumvent. You mentioned that you applied while working full-time. If I may interject, you're not the only one. I don't necessarily see that as a uncircumventable disadvantage, though it certainly makes the application process harder. Undergrads who apply while in school are at a disadvantage (though time pressure is by no means the only issue at play--scholarly maturity has as much or more to do with it). It's a matter of marshalling one's time and energies, prioritizing carefully and taking risks, as we all do. I'm not sure that one can draw a simplistic connection between quality of applications and the amount of time you spend on them. It's a fine balancing act of time, knowledge, aptitude, scholarship, networks, etc, etc. For what it's worth, I also worked extensively (60-100 hours a week) during the summer before my first round of applications, while working on my writing sample and SoP. I left what was a relatively lucrative job that fall (which for me, meant moving onto a friend's couch) when I realize that I needed to devote more time to applications. I do have middle-class parents who would have helped should I ask, but I'm not someone who would ever ask. During this most recent round, I overloaded on graduate-level classes, while working and commuting over 2 hours every day. My applications did suffer to some degree (I did not apply to one school because, after 24 hours of working straight, I could not marshal the energy to finish my fit paragraph in time), but I still have no reason to complain. And I'm definitely not the only one. Most of my colleagues and friends who applied (particularly this round) were juggling other commitments and demands--which often includes a family (one friend gave birth during this process!) and a current career. In short, while time to devote to applications is a luxury, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. One does need to learn to compensate for the lack of time (and to plan accordingly--which probably means starting early), but this may be why many of us who better on later rounds. You keep using the term "a privileged few"...and I'm trying to understand what you mean by it, or what their precise advantage in this application might be. I have no doubt that applicants who need not devote time to supporting themselves during this process, who went to well-respected schools, have close relationships with well-respected professors, who have easy access to library and archival resources...etc, etc...do have an advantage. What I'm suggesting, however, is that bulk of that advantage isn't unique--while one might have to do a bit more work, it is possible to be competitive against these "privileged few" if one arms oneself with knowledge and preparation. That is, after all, part of where websites like these come in. Strong Flat White and kandeya 1 1
wordslinger Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 I'm going to have to throw my perspective out there simply because it's dramatically different from the ones I've read here. First, when I started the PhD application process, I talked to my mentor and developed a list of people with whom I'd want to study. We turned that into the list of institutions to which I applied. I did not and still do not have a sense of what "ranking" is held by any of the schools to which I applied. I know that the school I'm going to is not the upper echelons people discuss here. But it was number one on my list because of the teachers with whom I'll be able to work there. So, just so you know, not everyone is applying based on "top 50 schools." It may be that I am totally naive and should have paid more attention to these sorts of political situations. Instead, I've thought about what I want to study, what work I want to do. These thoughts drove my SOP. Happily, I got into the school I wanted. Happily, I'll be able to do my work. Now, it may be that I'll wish I'd paid more attention to all of these politics and numbers once I've graduated and am looking for a job. Cheers until then. And just to reiterate the comments of others, you are all wonderful, articulate, interesting people. Thanks for putting it out there!
M.J.P. Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 First, congrats! Second, I think that your's was probably the most personally rewarding and (dare I say) strategic way to apply to schools. I think that the majority of people who were successful probably applied based on some variation of what you mentioned--going where the people are, rather than the rankings or the name of the institution. I don't think anybody has mentioned yet that the most problematic thing about the rankings is not the rankings themselves but the methodology used to reach them. They have an absurdly low return rate, which just makes for sloppy and insubstantial conclusions. Not only that, but it's all based on perception within academia--which, perhaps leads to some of the aura around Ivies that was mentioned. I think what soxpuppet's original post was arguing for was that scholars are no longer considered successful because of where they received their PhD, but for the work they are producing, which leads to a more equitable and level playing field come job-hunt time. Although, I would counter that a student who attends a PhD program for a SINGLE professor is definitely at a huge disadvantage, in the long run. That student is not going to be very well-rounded or challenged by a single professor, no matter who it is. Part of the reason I turned down one of the institutions I was accepted at was because they did not have enough scholars in my major field (Victorian), and one of the two that they did have was rumored to be retiring soon. I'm going to have to throw my perspective out there simply because it's dramatically different from the ones I've read here. First, when I started the PhD application process, I talked to my mentor and developed a list of people with whom I'd want to study. We turned that into the list of institutions to which I applied. I did not and still do not have a sense of what "ranking" is held by any of the schools to which I applied. I know that the school I'm going to is not the upper echelons people discuss here. But it was number one on my list because of the teachers with whom I'll be able to work there. So, just so you know, not everyone is applying based on "top 50 schools." It may be that I am totally naive and should have paid more attention to these sorts of political situations. Instead, I've thought about what I want to study, what work I want to do. These thoughts drove my SOP. Happily, I got into the school I wanted. Happily, I'll be able to do my work. Now, it may be that I'll wish I'd paid more attention to all of these politics and numbers once I've graduated and am looking for a job. Cheers until then. And just to reiterate the comments of others, you are all wonderful, articulate, interesting people. Thanks for putting it out there!
wordslinger Posted April 10, 2010 Posted April 10, 2010 First, congrats! Second, I think that your's was probably the most personally rewarding and (dare I say) strategic way to apply to schools. I think that the majority of people who were successful probably applied based on some variation of what you mentioned--going where the people are, rather than the rankings or the name of the institution. I don't think anybody has mentioned yet that the most problematic thing about the rankings is not the rankings themselves but the methodology used to reach them. They have an absurdly low return rate, which just makes for sloppy and insubstantial conclusions. Not only that, but it's all based on perception within academia--which, perhaps leads to some of the aura around Ivies that was mentioned. I think what soxpuppet's original post was arguing for was that scholars are no longer considered successful because of where they received their PhD, but for the work they are producing, which leads to a more equitable and level playing field come job-hunt time. Although, I would counter that a student who attends a PhD program for a SINGLE professor is definitely at a huge disadvantage, in the long run. That student is not going to be very well-rounded or challenged by a single professor, no matter who it is. Part of the reason I turned down one of the institutions I was accepted at was because they did not have enough scholars in my major field (Victorian), and one of the two that they did have was rumored to be retiring soon. M.J.P.- Thanks! And I definitely agree with you that going to school for a single professor would be a mistake. That was one of the items on my list for the visit... it turned out, in my case, that there are many profs who'll be interesting with whom to work. Good point, also about the rankings and how they are determined. I personally do tend to distrust quantitative data as opposed to qualitative. Numbers so easily masquerade as "facts." We all have our biases as researchers.
intextrovert Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) I’ve been following this thread with interest, and thanks to soxpuppet for gracefully extracting the most productive part of that other conversation! I’ll repeat what everyone has said, which is that this sort of exchange is exactly what excites me about entering grad school and academia in general – it's thrilling to get to call all of you people colleagues! Which has sort of made me think about forums like this one, and the role of the internet and online communities, which has been mentioned in passing. Financial disadvantage is always going to be the big one that affects and/or determines other types of advantages, period, but that’s another animal. But there are other types as well, I think, so I wanted to talk about those – I think that’s how the conversation started, thinking about the “hegemony” or lack thereof perhaps, of well-established and well-respected programs in the field, including but not limited to Ivies. From hanging around places like this, I’ve really noticed a correlation between the type of undergrad institution and how well-prepared and thus successful applicants are. This is certainly not deterministic – there are plenty of applicants from lesser known schools who do well (holla, diehtc0ke!), but I’m talking about correlation. As strokeofmidnight has pointed out a few times, this is not necessarily due just to name recognition and prestige, but what sorts of resources and opportunities for scholarly development come along with being attached to one of those institutions. It really seems to me like that is mostly true. But it hasn’t been just prestigious undergrad institutions in general, but ones that also have at least respectable graduate programs, with faculty very much immersed in the current state of the field. Here’s what I mean. Disclaimer: I know that this is a totally different discipline, so I’m using it as an analogy more than as an example or as anecdotal evidence, but I do think in this capacity there are likely some correspondences. I went to what is generally considered an “elite” school, a top-ranked SLAC. My best friend was the star of our undergrad econ department – multiple profs doted on her, she won awards, and has done some really incredible work in her field since graduation, and will be first-author on a publication. Heck, a country’s government even used some of her research to determine policy! She has been working for an Ivy League department, and recently sat down with one of her bosses to talk about applying to PhD programs. Basically, he told her that she’d have almost no shot at this school. If an applicant comes from an undergrad department outside of one of the respected (top ranked) econ grad programs/research institutions, the adcom doesn’t know anything about your department and is unlikely to think it has prepared you for any serious work in the field. Additionally, my undergrad institution’s departments tend to not think about pre-professionalizing or even providing the option for it (it’s all about love of knowledge! is the constant refrain), and thus she had gaps in knowledge and background that are considered essential for those programs. This is particularly bad for econ, which requires a lot of math that my undergrad institution didn’t (I think of that as analogous to the fact that we come across almost NO theory as English major except for one catch-all class isolated from any other work we did, and I literally never read a literary scholarly article for class, or have ever been told how to use secondary sources. It was all close reading). She’s going to apply in poli sci now, but some of the disadvantages of coming from an undergrad department that is NOT at a research institution are still going to apply. So you see, there’s a mix of old-school elitism as well as legitimate concerns about her background that would prevent her from getting in to the Ivory (Ivy?) Tower. Now, this is one school, and I think English departments tend to be significantly more open than that. But the point is that I only realized from frequenting these forums that there was a lot I didn’t know I didn’t know, about (pre)professionalization, current discourse, theory, academic parlance, whatever. And how can you remedy the gaps in your knowledge if you don’t know what you don’t know?! My undergrad has people who see themselves mostly as teachers, and are thus somewhat removed from the current discourse. My advisor, who I’m close to, told me that my thesis was “clearly of publishable quality,” that I approached my work like a scholar, and she along with a few other profs encouraged me to apply to grad school. But the truth is, while they’ve offered support, they haven’t really been able to offer advice, or connections. They don’t really know much about who is doing what at what school, or what different departments are like, or have extensive connections. They’re mostly detached from that world. Knowing what I know now, I think it’s insane that I was told my senior year that my thesis was publishable – I clearly have a long way to go before that’s true. Which brings me to the role of online communities. The answer to the above question (“How can you remedy gaps in knowledge if you don’t know what you don’t know?”) is to make contact with people who do know what you don’t know. The internet gives you access to resources you would not have access to otherwise – mostly in the form of well-informed people who are a part of that discourse, whether through their undergrad institution or other connections/opportunities they’ve had. (Of course, I recognize that if you can’t get access to internet/time to research, the economic disadvantage trumps this potentially equalizing tool). As I’ve mentioned a lot, I was rejected my first round, probably for a lot of reasons, but the major one is that I went into it blind. My undergrad profs had only a vaguely better idea than I did about what I was up against, or what I needed to do. The curriculum had been aimed at helping students find literature meaningful and enrich our lives, not prepare us to engage in any sort of discourse or enter any scholarly community. Another (talented) friend from my undergrad essentially had the same experience this round, with the same results. This time, though, I sought out advice. I got names of scholars whose I might want to check out, knowledge about programs’ tilts that I had no idea about. I read about the sorts of projects others were working on, the angles they were approaching from, and investigated schools of thought I didn’t even know existed. Obviously, I had to do the work of actually reading and researching and reframing and refocusing, but I could do that with a baseline framework to start from. No one can do the work for you, but they can tell you what that work is. I really think that the internet has the potential to really even the playing field in that way, where applicants who, for whatever reason – their undergrad institution, their socioeconomic status, their life situation, whatever – don’t have that knowledge and have found themselves out of the “club” that soxpuppet talks about, now have the opportunity to acquire it (due to altruistic strangers), if they do the work. Having said all that, I don’t know that in my situation anything about it was really unfair, per se. It's just the way it is, and I accept that because of my academic background, there are some gaps in my knowledge and preparation. I accept that I had and still have some catching up to do. I sure as hell wouldn’t trade my undergrad experience for the world, despite the disadvantage at which it may or may not have put me. But I may not feel that way if I didn't have any way of getting that information in order to catch up. I mean, I ended up doing fairly well this season by my standard, and I really do owe a lot of that to what I learned from people like a lot on this forum. Do I think I might have done better if I’d had a different background? Sure, maybe, but I also might have done better if, say, my parents were different people, if I’d studied a different language, or I had a different job, or even a different mind! Who knows – you can’t go down that path, you can only deal with what you are and what you’ve done, and it’s fallacious to think any other way. Anyway, I think it is interesting what’s happening now, because of the ease of dissemination of information. I’ve mostly been talking about people with different academic backgrounds, but even on top of that I think the greater availability of info means that people can get enough info about programs, people, etc. to make decisions based on things other than perceived prestige or ranking. I would say during my first round, I would have been a lot more likely just to choose the highest-ranked program, just because I didn't know much more, but now I have about a zillion more important aspects to consider. I mean, we have enough access to information that we can say to our advisors and profs, “No, maybe X University was like that 10 years ago, but not now” and make decisions accordingly. That in itself is amazing, and has to challenge the rules of the game. Edited April 11, 2010 by intextrovert soxpuppet and strokeofmidnight 2
Strong Flat White Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 ... Good point, also about the rankings and how they are determined. I personally do tend to distrust quantitative data as opposed to qualitative. Numbers so easily masquerade as "facts." We all have our biases as researchers. Well said. Distrusting quantitative data is what makes you a critical thinker. I have really internalized a preference for qualitative over quantitative and has a lot to do with my decision to switch fields. Most social sciences are taking a hard turn towards qualitative, and I firmly believe this to be a mistake. At first, I took a look at my GRE scores and writing, and just thought I wasn't cut out for anything involving numbers (words, however, I can do!). So in the beginning, my switch was purely based on what I thought was a play to my strengths - a personal utilitarian method that ignored one aspect of what a good academic should be able to do. But as I began to reflect, I began to resent the blind leap into behavioral quantitative methods in social sciences. I began to not want any part of it, because it's this almost cult-like fundamentalist mindset, laden with assumptions that go unquestioned. I thought that my comments to all of you and to various professors, advisors, and department chairs about preferring qualitative over quantitative would be taken as naive and tolerated with a well-intentioned politeness. But actually everyone in this field has (so far) embraced my sentiments and given me no reason to think that I'm off base. In fact, I've made these comments and have gotten rather enthusiastic agreement across the board: quality over quantity, dear friends, and I haven't wanted to push it, for the reasons mentioned above. But now I kind of do want to push it a little further, to get your thoughts. We're all English people here, right? I don't think we run the risk of offending our social- and hard scientists (which, if they stumble across this, I hasten to add that of course individual academics in those fields are not kool-aid drinkers - well, some of them are, but I am merely categorizing large academic movements based on personal observation. Most scientists I know are actually much more philosophical about their approach than this post would indicate, kudos to them all!). I am curious to know, then, if we can legitimately categorize this field as the last purely qualitative, non-quantitative holdout - something I'd like to think is more than accidental. Thoughts? Or is this wishful thinking on my part? Strong Flat White 1
GK Chesterton Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 It strikes me as indicative of the sort group circle-jerk taking place in this thread to create this opposition between quantitative and qualitative analysis and then congratulate your field for being the "only one" to resist it - a rudimentary investigation beyond the very superficial demonstrates that what you appear to be upset with is a prevailing orthodoxy of opinions that makes claims go unchallenged, and not a strict qualitative/quantitative distinction. Then, you make a straw man of quantitative data while freezing both "methods" in time. Look at the outrage that developed in the wake of reader/response theory in English criticism, or the manner in which people HATE deconstruction (which, not incidentally, undermines the claim you make about distinctions between qualitative and quantitative analysis). What do you see as the salient difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis? Cultures of reception and interpretation are just as rigid and just as empirically/epistemically grounded in humanities as in social sciences; indeed, many of the criticisms of "Canon" advanced from minorities have attempted to strike at the overwhelming blindness in the humanities' beliefs that they represent some sort of open-minded universal. Further, if we perhaps suggest that "quantitative" methods (again, how vague!) are characterized by their attempts to abstract or make representable individual or unique features, what, pray tell, is narratology? What is philology? English uses genres, plot motifs, literary devices, themes, etc. etc. as classificatory systems to abstract complex data in precisely the same way. What is an author? ask Foucault (and Barthes); more importantly, what is post-structuralism, and how has (or should) this inform your understanding of what it means to engage in "qualitative" analysis? Think of Terry Eagleton's famous comment about throwing the masses a few novels so they don't put up barricades. With that in mind, the general tone of this thread strikes me as perhaps all the more insidious, in its vague references to TS Eliot and the importance of noblesse oblige. A bunch of people moving from "prestigious undergraduate institutions" to "prestigious graduate institution" writing about their professors being on a first name basis and trying to pretend as if these are not only not class privileges but not the inculcation and extension of this very same system of class divide (and wealth creation). Believe whatever you want about Harvard and its support for poor students (the comment about not everyone being cut out for higher education is telling in this regard), but the fact remains that Harvard's endowment is large enough to send millions of kids to university for free, should they so choose. People who talk about the generosity of merit-based institutions often forget that merit is defined by the people who already have the money, and generally reflects their view of what "merit" is and how it will best serve them. In any case, I find that a number of people trying to objectively create a reason for the superiority of the schools they are attending (and schools which have long been dominated by wealthy white men, and only now seem to be opening the doors to wealthy people of other genders or colors) seems to be precisely the attempt to "speak from nowhere", that is, to take one's own subject-position and experience and treat it as a surmountable obstacle to objectively assessing the situation, that legitimizes these practices. Would it not be more significant (like Henry Louis Gates Jr. did when he called Duke "The Plantation", or when Cornel West left Larry Summers) for the people at these places to be actively criticizing them - to test just how far they were committed to being objective? I suspect there is still an extremely strong correlation between the assets of your parents at the time of your birth and your future graduate institution - but that, of course, would be falling back into that "cult-like fundamentalism" of quantitative analysis (which it should be noted was often used to support progressive arguments that the upperclass qualitative analysis resisted; namely, that they did enjoy significant material advantages). Christian O., Pamphilia, strokeofmidnight and 3 others 3 3
mudgean Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) I don't understand the qualitative vs quantitative debate when it comes to this discipline, and even less your response to it. You seem to be throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, and perhaps trying to impress us with your knowledge of theory. I'll only respond to the TS Eliot/noblese oblige part since I'm the one who wrote that. I didn't think I had to spell out exactly what I meant by that because I think pretty much everyone understands that the noblese oblige thing really didn't mean much to the poor. It seems clear that throughout history the wealthy have not done that much to help the masses. If this were a thesis I would back this up with references to Marx, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, Galeano...but this is a thread, right? My point was simply that, hey, people have wanted a meritocracy and now we have one. Elitism of the upper class is now replaced by the elitism of superior intelligence and education. That's a good thing. It's too bad people feel the need to be snobby and judgmental based on the name of their school, but it seems that much of humanity feels the need to be snobby and judgmental about something. When it comes to resentment of the Ivies, I say, life isn't fair in a million different ways so get over it. If you don't want to get over it, put it in its proper perspective and become a social worker. (Anyway, I've been in the trenches for ten years teaching at-risk kids in a severely underfunded state school system, so really, don't worry me believing in noblese oblige) I understand Soxpuppet's main point much better now thanks to many insightful posts. I have learned a lot reading these threads. I like the a certain amount of vitriol too because it keeps things interesting. Edited April 11, 2010 by mudgean Strong Flat White 1
Samux Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 In my response to diehtcOke I tried to argue (though not very clearly) against a conception of “privilege” as a necessarily tainted category. (Putting forward the assumption that the majority of applicants enjoy the kind of advantages that diehtcOke did was in retrospect not the right way to go about making my point).I want to highlight that I am not trying to deemphasize the adkvantages of privilege. Attending a solid undergraduate institution, having the opportunity to connect with established professors, having free time to work on applications and so on are advantages that undoubtedly give a person a leg up on those who do not have them. But, nevertheless, in the context under discussion (getting into grad school), merely possessing certain privileges is not a guarantee of success. Socio-economic advantages can be instrumental in getting you into a prestigious undergrad institution but unless you work hard and do well you will not get into grad school. Again, I understand that for the privileged doing well is not solely a function of working hard, but it is a major component, proven by the fact that tons of privileged people who apply to grad school don’t get in. Needless to say, none of this is put forward to suggest that “anybody who does not have the privileges to devote themselves [to the application] is somehow less deserving” of acceptance. It takes some real imaginative work to see my argument as bearing such a viewpoint. Academia is a capitalist institution and as such it is grounded in economic prejudice. Having the right pedigree of course gives you certain advantages, but these are not so instrumental as they are in other systems. Treating academia as though it were no different from any other capitalist institution leads to simplistic conclusions about the nature of the place – that top programs are filled with people who attained their success merely through privilege that they refuse to acknowledge. Surveying any top program will reveal that there are plenty of students who have not enjoyed significant class privileges and that those who have did not float in on a cloud of money. Academia is a system in motion, more so than others. Ignoring this fact makes it impossible to understand the dynamics of privilege in the context of academia and inspires unfortunate knee-jerk reactions. An example is the characterization of this thread, which is rife with self-awareness, and demonstrates that its participants don’t shy away from analyzing the particularities of the system they are about to join, as insidious and willfully ignorant. intextrovert 1
medicine Posted April 11, 2010 Posted April 11, 2010 (edited) Now, this is one school, and I think English departments tend to be significantly more open than that. But the point is that I only realized from frequenting these forums that there was a lot I didn’t know I didn’t know, about (pre)professionalization, current discourse, theory, academic parlance, whatever. And how can you remedy the gaps in your knowledge if you don’t know what you don’t know?! My undergrad has people who see themselves mostly as teachers, and are thus somewhat removed from the current discourse. My advisor, who I’m close to, told me that my thesis was “clearly of publishable quality,” that I approached my work like a scholar, and she along with a few other profs encouraged me to apply to grad school. But the truth is, while they’ve offered support, they haven’t really been able to offer advice, or connections. They don’t really know much about who is doing what at what school, or what different departments are like, or have extensive connections. They’re mostly detached from that world. Knowing what I know now, I think it’s insane that I was told my senior year that my thesis was publishable – I clearly have a long way to go before that’s true. Intextrovert, you’ve inspired me to post. I’ve been following gradcafe for several months now, but haven’t said anything yet. My own experience confirms what you’ve said. I went to a school much like yours for undergrad, except that mine wasn’t even prestigious. I then applied to a few Ph.D. programs with what was hardly even an SOP, was somehow admitted to a pretty poor school or a rather directionless MA, at least until my last semester there (a bad decision, I realize now, but at least it gave me a little time to figure out a few things I wanted to study). The professors there had low expectations and (with one exception, my advisor) didn’t challenge us at all, and students weren’t interested in getting Ph.D.s. Basically, its was the not a place where people were doing much “work” or “research” at all, much less publishable stuff that spoke to current critical questions. This means that only now am I really figuring out that my research needs, in some way, to address questions that others care about. Hopefully, the gradcaffeinated will have helped me to do so when I reapply next year. (I got into three programs out of 12 this year- two okay ones, one pretty good one with less than ideal funding, no top 20 ones- but because of a family situation I can’t matriculate this fall). My professors, unfortunately, seem to think that getting into graduate school is a breeze, and told me to go ahead with what I see now was a pretty weak writing sample. My friend who is finishing a Ph.D. at Chicago gave me some pointed advice right before I applied, without which I suspect I would have been turned down everywhere. I guess I just want to affirm what intextrovert is saying and add that the majority of English majors in this country are not taught being how to write and think about literature with reference to a scholarly community. I don’t regret (much) not being taught to do so as an undergraduate, but this fact means that it’s the rare student who “breaks out” of a no name school, if only because the concept of what academics do at all takes quite a while (it took me at least 2 years, including my time as an MA student.) Sorry this is so long. I’m trying not to sound aggrieved or bitter (I’m not), but as someone who attended less than prestigious institutions, I have certainly found that I was not trained to do what many of the excellent students posting on these boards have been (all of these students, of course, are also exceptional in that they have put in much hard work to take advantage of that training!) Edited April 11, 2010 by medicine
GK Chesterton Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 In my response to diehtcOke I tried to argue (though not very clearly) against a conception of “privilege” as a necessarily tainted category. (Putting forward the assumption that the majority of applicants enjoy the kind of advantages that diehtcOke did was in retrospect not the right way to go about making my point).I want to highlight that I am not trying to deemphasize the adkvantages of privilege. Attending a solid undergraduate institution, having the opportunity to connect with established professors, having free time to work on applications and so on are advantages that undoubtedly give a person a leg up on those who do not have them. But, nevertheless, in the context under discussion (getting into grad school), merely possessing certain privileges is not a guarantee of success. Socio-economic advantages can be instrumental in getting you into a prestigious undergrad institution but unless you work hard and do well you will not get into grad school. Again, I understand that for the privileged doing well is not solely a function of working hard, but it is a major component, proven by the fact that tons of privileged people who apply to grad school don’t get in. Again, it's not a matter of how "privilege" improves your chances, but how the very nature of the system is one that reproduces these systems of privilege. You note that 'merely possessing certain privileges is not a guarantee of success." You're precisely right here, but they are in most cases pre-conditions of success. Certainly not all people from the top 5% of income in the US get "in" to grad school - not all of them want to, nor are they all qualified. But I would make a significant wager that an exponentially greater percentage of people from the top 5% of the US get accepted, and at higher-ranked universities, than from the bottom 90% of the population (again, as a percentage.) There are a number of considerations that probably fall outside the daily thought-process of people here when considering grad school - if you came from a poor family, could you afford to basically sacrifice any reasonable shot at higher earning potential by attending graduate school? Neither my parents nor myself have any debts to pay off; all of my siblings will likely also be financially successful, so I can afford to indulge an interest in Nietzsche or whatever. This is probably not the case for others, especially in light of the opportunity costs - if I came from a poor background, got a 1600 on my GREs, attended a fancy-schmancy undergrad and got a 4.0, you know what I would do? Not apply to rhetoric at Berkeley, I would consult. I would do administrative consulting, make a few million in my first 5 years on the job market, and spend that money on my family. Needless to say, none of this is put forward to suggest that “anybody who does not have the privileges to devote themselves [to the application] is somehow less deserving” of acceptance. It takes some real imaginative work to see my argument as bearing such a viewpoint. Whom are you quoting here? I didn't suggest this. Academia is a capitalist institution and name='Samux' date='11 April 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1271018930' post='146090']Treating academia as though it were no different from any other capitalist institution leads to simplistic conclusions about the nature of the place Huh? Bizarre on two levels - the contradiction and the obvious point that academia comes from the greek akademeia, which is decidely precapitalist both institutionally and etymologically. I haven't advanced the claim that academia is a capitalist institution, in part because that IS a simplistic conclusion - it overlooks a number of forces involved in the institutional history and linkages with the rest of society. [simplistic conclusions] that top programs are filled with people who attained their success merely through privilege that they refuse to acknowledge. Surveying any top program will reveal that there are plenty of students who have not enjoyed significant class privileges and that those who have did not float in on a cloud of money. Academia is a system in motion, more so than others. Ignoring this fact makes it impossible to understand the dynamics of privilege in the context of academia and inspires unfortunate knee-jerk reactions. An example is the characterization of this thread, which is rife with self-awareness, and demonstrates that its participants don’t shy away from analyzing the particularities of the system they are about to join, as insidious and willfully ignorant. Would this really be the case? I suspect that a survey of graduate students at Harvard, Princeton, UChicago and Yale would reflect mostly white students whose parents have an annual household income of over $150,000. Do you think that this is not true? Furthermore, I dispute the claim that "academia is a system in motion more so than others." How long do certain thought-paradigms exist in academia? The academy is a very conservative place, and there is little in the way of incentive (and much against it) for people to change their positions. Indeed, one does not advance quickly in a university by picking out sacred cows and slaughtering them, the way that one might be able to in a business environment. Again, as I think this rebuttal shows, this thread is decidedly NOT rife with self-awareness; rather, with something masquerading as self-awareness that either legitimizes or makes invisible the way in which systems of privilege and oppression are reproduced in higher education. I am advancing the claim that what mudgean calls "meritocracy" is basically a system in which the people who used to have all of the wealth and power by virtue of jus sanguinis had to legitimize this in response to growing complaint from the rabble (or middle class, as the case may be) in order to keep their heads. Thus, they developed a system in which they named as "meritorious" all of the things that they were in a particularly good position to do, and to do well. Note that "merit" generally means high GPA at a private high school and high standardized test scores, not "having grown up in a single parent household" or "beat up by other kids because you have a funny looking face." Consider that the reliance on SAT scores, nominally "meritocratic", tends to disadvantage women and non-whites and legitimizes their exclusion. Again, I refer you that paragon of higher-academic "democratization" Larry Summers, who justified inequality in female professorships with the claim that IQ tests may indicate that men are more intelligent than women in certain field and situations. Consider that the schools where "grade inflation" is significant are often those where people pay the most to get in - thus, a meritocratic evaluation of a candidate from Harvard and a candidate from UW would suggest that the Harvard student had a higher GPA, higher GRE scores, and better-known professors with a better understanding of the graduate field. These are all "meritocratic" criteria, and they conveniently continue to select the exact same group as before while justifying a total historical break with the histories of oppression and discrimination - against women, against people of color, against non-heterosexuals, against non-Christians - that have shaped American academia. Should it be surprising that those who often invoke the idea of a meritocracy are those who do so to argue against affirmative action? Full disclosure: I am currently on a merit-based scholarship. callmelilyb, strokeofmidnight and kandeya 2 1
soxpuppet Posted April 12, 2010 Author Posted April 12, 2010 I am grateful to you for making this a challenging discussion and seeking to elevate us above the level of, as you'd have it, mutual masturbation. It's certainly the case that amiable discussions can stray and lose their substance, and perhaps that has happened here to a degree. I think it's inevitable that it would happen to a certain degree, as at this point in the process, for most of us our engagement is limited to the level of imagining positive possibilities. Given the current climate, I personally feel this is a worthwhile project, but you're right that it's certainly not the most engaged approach and can come across as fuzzy and abstracted. Would it not be more significant (like Henry Louis Gates Jr. did when he called Duke "The Plantation", or when Cornel West left Larry Summers) for the people at these places to be actively criticizing them - to test just how far they were committed to being objective? Again, I think most of us aren't yet qualified to criticize from within. I also think that, for those of us who value the core work of our programs, I personally feel that constructive congratulation can do as much or more work than the kind of criticism you describe. I think both need to exist and that one is not necessarily more valuable than the other. It IS important to think about what the Humanities does right, that the project should be as much explaining how we are relevant as seeking to match the current definition of relevance. Could you point to the exact place someone congratulated the field "for being the 'only one' to resist" the quantitative vs. qualitative opposition? I read the general tenor of response to be celebrating the fact that we do seek to attend to the problems with such terms, not denying that anyone else does or even asserting that we do so perfectly. I've certainly read such assertions made on behalf of the humanities, but I don't feel it's really been part of this discussion. I'll admit that this forum, and many of the posters in this thread, including myself, can be seen as making "a straw man of quantitative data," but this attitude is probably limited to assertions made in this community. It's largely a response to many posters who enter with an unhealthy obsession with statistical data whose origins they do not understand (that most of us will admit we do not understand fully either). So as a whole, as an effort to counter this, many of us do err on the side of denigrating "quantitative" data - but in such critiques we sloppily intend a very specific kind of misapplication of evidence. Personally, I'd be really interested to see an informed, subtle, thoughtful discussion of such data and how it could be productively incorporated in our analysis rather than simply dismissed, but the attitude you see here is at its roots a response to a generally low level of discourse surrounding quantitative issues, not, I think, to quantitative data itself. I had significant privileges. All of us had certain advantages we could point to. And it's fair to point out that the "democratization" we speak of has some pretty steep limitations... but I actually tried to indicate that above, that we are really only speaking of a slight broadening of the definition of elitism, a limited but potentially significant expansion. To a large extent, you seem to be irritated that we're not putting more effort into exploring the limits and failures of democratization. I think there's also plenty of room to debate as to what we see as the ideal result of such an equalizing trend. My intention was really to begin a discussion that explored what we've noticed in terms of developments in our discipline, not to characterize its ideal form and measure it against such an ideal. My other main point in beginning this thread was to question the value of reactionary judgments (in this case, a fairly common assessment that "elite" schools value qualities only possessed by those privileged beyond the character of mere mortals, qualities the common man doesn't even perceive as having significant value). You've pointed out that to make this point we've really just shifted the target of our reaction, committing the same error with respect to a different object, and that's a very useful point to consider. I would still assert that your argument fails to attend to the connotations and context of many remarks and as such is mistaking a very particular error for a more pervasive cancer in our discourse, but I take your point that this discussion has unwittingly wandered into certain false oppositions, fuzzy terminology, and unsupported prejudices.
Strong Flat White Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 It strikes me as indicative of the sort group circle-jerk taking place in this thread to create this opposition between quantitative and qualitative analysis and then congratulate your field for being the "only one" to resist it - a rudimentary investigation beyond the very superficial demonstrates that what you appear to be upset with is a prevailing orthodoxy of opinions that makes claims go unchallenged, and not a strict qualitative/quantitative distinction. Then, you make a straw man of quantitative data while freezing both "methods" in time. Look at the outrage that developed in the wake of reader/response theory in English criticism, or the manner in which people HATE deconstruction (which, not incidentally, undermines the claim you make about distinctions between qualitative and quantitative analysis). What do you see as the salient difference between qualitative and quantitative analysis? Cultures of reception and interpretation are just as rigid and just as empirically/epistemically grounded in humanities as in social sciences; indeed, many of the criticisms of "Canon" advanced from minorities have attempted to strike at the overwhelming blindness in the humanities' beliefs that they represent some sort of open-minded universal. Further, if we perhaps suggest that "quantitative" methods (again, how vague!) are characterized by their attempts to abstract or make representable individual or unique features, what, pray tell, is narratology? What is philology? English uses genres, plot motifs, literary devices, themes, etc. etc. as classificatory systems to abstract complex data in precisely the same way. What is an author? ask Foucault (and Barthes); more importantly, what is post-structuralism, and how has (or should) this inform your understanding of what it means to engage in "qualitative" analysis? Think of Terry Eagleton's famous comment about throwing the masses a few novels so they don't put up barricades. With that in mind, the general tone of this thread strikes me as perhaps all the more insidious, in its vague references to TS Eliot and the importance of noblesse oblige. A bunch of people moving from "prestigious undergraduate institutions" to "prestigious graduate institution" writing about their professors being on a first name basis and trying to pretend as if these are not only not class privileges but not the inculcation and extension of this very same system of class divide (and wealth creation). Believe whatever you want about Harvard and its support for poor students (the comment about not everyone being cut out for higher education is telling in this regard), but the fact remains that Harvard's endowment is large enough to send millions of kids to university for free, should they so choose. People who talk about the generosity of merit-based institutions often forget that merit is defined by the people who already have the money, and generally reflects their view of what "merit" is and how it will best serve them. In any case, I find that a number of people trying to objectively create a reason for the superiority of the schools they are attending (and schools which have long been dominated by wealthy white men, and only now seem to be opening the doors to wealthy people of other genders or colors) seems to be precisely the attempt to "speak from nowhere", that is, to take one's own subject-position and experience and treat it as a surmountable obstacle to objectively assessing the situation, that legitimizes these practices. Would it not be more significant (like Henry Louis Gates Jr. did when he called Duke "The Plantation", or when Cornel West left Larry Summers) for the people at these places to be actively criticizing them - to test just how far they were committed to being objective? I suspect there is still an extremely strong correlation between the assets of your parents at the time of your birth and your future graduate institution - but that, of course, would be falling back into that "cult-like fundamentalism" of quantitative analysis (which it should be noted was often used to support progressive arguments that the upperclass qualitative analysis resisted; namely, that they did enjoy significant material advantages). Wow! So, I guess to answer my questions, yes, I am way off base and I am thinking wishfully. Um, I don't really know how to respond other than to reflect a little further. A lot of your comments are something I would agree with wholeheartedly, and seem to suggest that my preference for qualitative is hypocritical. That may be. That's actually what I was wondering aloud, here. On the other hand, there is a bit of a rant here that doesn't really even address my post at all. TS Eliot? Ivies? Merit? I've provided no meaningful commentary on any of these subjects - I've just read with pleasure what others have posted. I think I could take one direct question seriously - if I am to interpret you as actually asking me for my opinion, which I'm not sure is the case - and that would be what I see as salient differences between methodologies? I'll think before posting, but I'll remind you that I don't see much difference to begin, other than I personally suck at one and excel at the other. As for the rest of it - circle jerk, insidious, etc - I don't really think that I'm wrong to observe a cult-like fundamentalism in any area, whether it be zealots of religion or politics, or, well, academics. And if that cult-like fundamentalism exists on the quantitative side of things, which I believe it probably does, I suspect it may also exist on the qualitative side. I'm not ruling it out, I'm just picking sides, admittedly according to personality. The reaction goes a long way toward answering my question. There are, GK, people like you who exist. People like me find that really interesting. Pleasure to meet you. Strong Flat White 1
Strong Flat White Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 ... Again, I think most of us aren't yet qualified to criticize from within... Very key point to make. When I asked about the qualitative/quantitative divide, I did so with an obvious bias, but I also did so wearing my newness to the field on my sleeve. I think I have found that the forum encourages me to ask questions about the field if for no other reason than most people give a lot of thought to the answers, and are on the whole pretty encouraging. That's cool. There is some hostility, some of which I can understand, some of which is a little harder for me to understand. I know that academia is filled with very strong opinions (and that I'm a key contributor to this!). My unfounded opinion about qualitative is that it happens to be a good place for me. I seek to know more about this opinion. Given the magnitude of what that represents for me, I come seeking advice and perspective. Like Manatee, I think GK underestimates epistomological approaches by, say, me, when I ask a question like this. I have no doubt that strange and crazy things are going on in many departments, but ... from where I'm sitting, it does seem safe to assume that I can find my qualitative niche here in English. Would you, GK, object to that hopeful observation? I'd be really curious about that. As to circle jerking and mutual masturbation, vitriolic responses tend to provide a visual. I can see you spazzing out in traffic or in your home, rolling your eyes, wondering how on earth morons like me can be even considering grad school. I'd ask you if you need a hug, and would gladly give it, but I suspect your needs go deeper than that. Think of jerking and tugging and other such motions. Strong Flat White 1
mudgean Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 GK Chesterton you are totally right about how the system of "meritocracy" is used to legitimate exclusion, using SAT scores and all the rest. I feel that there is a much greater class warfare going on, and the topic of education is where it all comes to a head. Something like 75% of the wealth in this country has been transferred to the top 1%. This reality is what's shaping everything else. I probably don't need to explain how all this affects student attendance, dropout rates and under representation in college. When Soxpuppet was talking about the democratization of the discipline, it seems like he was talking about people already in the field, who are attending top graduate programs but not the Ivies. It's unfair how they don't get published as much, or are less able to get jobs at R1s. Some others and myself were talking about people who have finished their BA's and are applying to graduate programs. There is some inequity as as access to information and knowledge about how the system works. Still, a group of people who have finished their BA's should be able to compete based on merit provided they can find ways to get information, which these days seems very possible. I think the GRE is one kind of equalizer. Otherwise, people could say, this A from the guy at Yale is way better than this A from the guy at Chico State. The GRE is straight up vocabulary and basic math. Look, on the SAT the highest I ever got was a 560 verbal, and that was after taking it 3 times. I didn't study because people kept telling me it was an IQ test. Just last October I took the GRE for the first time and got 710 (98th percentile) verbal. That's because I've been reading a lot and learning words over the years. I'm sure I could get better math scores too if I cared. There is no mystery here. Besides, it's all about the SOP and writing sample. The field is what it is and you must have great writing skills. One of my friends from the liberal arts college I went to is from a very poor family in Jamaica. The learning curve for her was really steep, but in four years time she closed the gap. She now has a PhD. I don't think she wanted any breaks at the graduate level for being a woman or a minority. I am all for affirmative action at the college level, for the reasons you mentioned. At the graduate level, I don't know. I could say more, but I have a stack of papers to grade.
soxpuppet Posted April 12, 2010 Author Posted April 12, 2010 When Soxpuppet was talking about the democratization of the discipline, it seems like he was talking about people already in the field, who are attending top graduate programs but not the Ivies. It's unfair how they don't get published as much, or are less able to get jobs at R1s. Hm, I actually meant both/all. And I really did not intend to make any comment on fairness or unfairness. Mainly, I wanted to comment that from what I have observed and been told by professors and other students, current and prospective, the field seems to offer a broader range of opportunities for "success" (whether that be in applying, getting hired, getting published, whatever) than I assumed when I applied, even as statistically such successes have become more difficult to achieve. Admittedly, it's difficult to call this phenomenon "democratization," and it was probably an error to carry the term as it was used specifically in the Year 3 thread over to this one where I placed it in a more nebulous context.
GK Chesterton Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Sigh. Now I look like an immature brat. Well played, sox and strong. It always pleases me to be reminded of how effective maturity is in internet arguments. Edit: Missed a few posts. Apologies all around - obviously I come from a part of the internet where manners and the community are different, and I regret having been rude to people who are obviously much more open-minded than I gave them credit for. Sorry. In any case, Sox, I didn't mean to bash the thread in general - I thought there was some very interesting material in it. I agree that there is democratization, but I think that this is, to some extent, linked to the rise of the social and hard sciences in universities, in that people are offered relatively accessible statistical and mathematical tools to present arguments that contradict prevailing wisdom - that is to say, it defines a discourse in which argumentation relies upon a system that places less value on matters of taste (as, say, aesthetic or literary questions might) and more on an ability to produce significant observations (what does a T-test or an F-test say about this hypothesis? An interesting example would be that our question of democratization would be aided by a statistical analysis of this sort; if universities have democratized, then perhaps we could test this through looking at the concentration of Nobel prize, major research grants, distribution of GRE scores, significant research projects, etc. taking place at non-"powerhouse" universities and determining if there has been a significant change). However, in the area in which I suspect we do diverge is that I think perhaps the most important position to occupy is always that of the negative, to be in opposition. I tend to agree with the Frederick Jameson line on the dialectic - or even back to JS Mill, who in "On Liberty" wrote "If counter-arguments do not exist, it would be necessary to invent them" - and think that you have to have these sorts of arguments to make any advance in thinking. To that end, I am more skeptical of the role that praise plays in hardening patterns of thinking that should optimally be left pliable (or unstable - Rick Roderick has this great quote on Nietzsche, where he says the Nietzschean mantra is "If it's shaky, push it over!"). In a moderated defense of my post, although really my behavior was not very good in any case - the comments about TS Eliot and merit were directed at another poster, not you. In a further twist that no doubt makes me look like an asshole, I am graduating undergrad with two degrees in social sciences and I am trying to go to humanities grad-school to do something theory intensive (for many of the reasons you list), so I am perhaps (likely) a huge hypocrite. I just think it's especially important to be critical of oneself, and to be skeptical of the things one takes for granted or as givens - this was my somewhat cryptic reference to post-structuralism, in which I renounce claims to being responsible for my views/beliefs/accomplishments, at least in the sort of Cartesian subject sense. This is a somewhat radical view I think, in that for example I don't really believe that being capable "hard work" is a decision that one can make - I think it's much more contingent than that and related to one's environment. In answer to your question about the question I posed you (tongue-twister, phew): I think the benefit and the curse of qualitative thinking is that it operates in an "open field," so to speak - whereas quantitative analysis sets out very clearly the conditions for its investigations, what may be measurable as success and what findings are significant, qualitative analysis leaves its investigations much more open ended and less rigidly defined. This makes them susceptible to a radical critique on the one hand, but also to a radical orthodoxy, if we refuse to question our intuition on these things and simply go by what "seems" logical or common-sensical. What are your interests in rhetoric? I am interested in the rhetoric program at Berkeley (love Butler). Edited April 12, 2010 by GK Chesterton
soxpuppet Posted April 12, 2010 Author Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Sigh. Now I look like an immature brat. Well played, sox and strong. It always pleases me to be reminded of how effective maturity is in internet arguments. In any case, Sox, I didn't mean to bash the thread in general - I thought there was some very interesting material in it. I agree that there is democratization, but I think that this is, to some extent, linked to the rise of the social and hard sciences in universities, in that people are offered relatively accessible statistical and mathematical tools to present arguments that contradict prevailing wisdom - that is to say, it defines a discourse in which argumentation relies upon a system that places less value on matters of taste (as, say, aesthetic or literary questions might) and more on an ability to produce significant observations (what does a T-test or an F-test say about this hypothesis? An interesting example would be that our question of democratization would be aided by a statistical analysis of this sort; if universities have democratized, then perhaps we could test this through looking at the concentration of Nobel prize, major research grants, distribution of GRE scores, significant research projects, etc. taking place at non-"powerhouse" universities and determining if there has been a significant change). However, in the area in which I suspect we do diverge is that I think perhaps the most important position to occupy is always that of the negative, to be in opposition. I tend to agree with the Frederick Jameson line on the dialectic - or even back to JS Mill, who in "On Liberty" wrote "If counter-arguments do not exist, it would be necessary to invent them" - and think that you have to have these sorts of arguments to make any advance in thinking. To that end, I am more skeptical of the role that praise plays in hardening patterns of thinking that should optimally be left pliable (or unstable - Rick Roderick has this great quote on Nietzsche, where he says the Nietzschean mantra is "If it's shaky, push it over!"). You're cool. Really. The challenge should be welcomed - that's my point, I think, though I keep giving overlapping accounts of what "my point" is I just don't think the "dialectic" of opposition is in practice as productive as it is I guess in Jameson's formulation. We can adopt habits/personas of complimenting or criticizing for ourselves, but I think we should ultimately strive to achieve a perspective that is capable of both maneuvers. I tend to gravitate toward compliment and you tend toward criticism. I'd argue that we'd both do well to learn a few of the other's skills. I also think my apparent lack of skepticism might be misleading. Skepticism is one of my particular intellectual interests, and in moments of pure devotion to the method, I've led myself down some incredibly unproductive paths of thought. Basically, I don't think of skepticism as a position inherently devoted to the negative - I think doubt can be productive, but only if applied carefully and directed toward your own person in the sense that it helps create an openness to revising your own opinion. So I'm more skeptical of myself, perhaps, than I am of the discipline because I know myself better; I become more skeptical of the discipline the more I become a part of it, but in becoming a part of it, I also see more opportunities to engage in constructive revisions. I'm less inclined to doubt others than I am to seek to encourage them to doubt themselves. But I do see the merit in your perspective, and I think you have indeed accurately characterized our central divergence. Edited April 12, 2010 by soxpuppet
soxpuppet Posted April 12, 2010 Author Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Sorry, double post. Edited April 12, 2010 by soxpuppet
intextrovert Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) I agree with you, Chesterton, that self-examination and critique is always a good thing, but I don't think that means that it's impossible to remark on trends that might actually be positive. For the most part, I agree with your arguments, and the privilege that got a lot of us to the level where we can even think about grad school is undeniable. But I do think (optimistically) that things are changing for the better, and don't think it's wrong to talk about that while of course keeping in mind the systemic problems that remain up and down the education system. (And yes, it's amazing how far a measured tone can go - I sometimes need to be reminded of that as well!) I would disagree, however, with the part where you say that democratization is linked to work done primarily in the social and hard sciences. I wouldn't disagree with you that work being done there has been crucial for some of those advances, but so is the work of many people using more qualitative methods - theorists, for example, of race or class or gender have done much to challenge and question the way society thinks about inequity. I would disagree also about some of those assumptions about qualitative vs. quantitative analysis. I have nothing against either and think that a good analysis of any issue can benefit from both. But you seem to suggest that quantitative data are inherently more objective, and that is operating on certain assumptions that can be dangerous. Quantitative analysis is also susceptible to bias and is conducted based on a certain set of assumptions that need to be questioned every bit as much as any qualitative analysis. And it is all the more problematic because we tend to more easily accept numbers as something that stands above human bias - the very trap you seem to be worried about in qualitative analysis, where intuition sits unquestioned. Quantitative analysis doesn't escape the fact of its human origin. See The Bell Curve as one of many examples, right? I actually think that theorists, etc., or people employing qualitative methods to reach conclusions can provide standpoints from which to look critically at quantitative data that seems otherwise unquestionable (because of those common-sense intuitive senses you're talking about, which new theories, sometimes reached qualitatively, can challenge). Anyway, I think we lost sight of the context from which this debate arose, which was about the value of rankings and all the quantitative data that goes into them versus more qualitative data about the strength of programs. Both of those are flawed, and so one should be skeptical while using both. Soxpuppet acknowledges at the beginning of the thread that we have relied on that quantitative data so some degree, as many of us didn't seriously look at programs outside the "Top 50." Though I'd say after that, qualitative data became equally as important. Edited April 12, 2010 by intextrovert
intextrovert Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Argh, sketchy internet strikes again. Sorry for the double post. Edited April 12, 2010 by intextrovert
diehtc0ke Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 (edited) Anyway, I think we lost sight of the context from which this debate arose, which was about the value of rankings and all the quantitative data that goes into them versus more qualitative data about the strength of programs. Both of those are flawed, and so one should be skeptical while using both. Soxpuppet acknowledges at the beginning of the thread that we have relied on that quantitative data so some degree, as many of us didn't seriously look at programs outside the "Top 50." Though I'd say after that, qualitative data became equally as important. Because I don't really feel it necessary to get into the qualitative/quantitative debate because what I was going to say pretty much echoes inextrovert's comments, I'd like to speak briefly in response to this paragraph. With these "rankings" that we keep talking about (and I can only assume that we're all speaking of the annual US News and World Reports' "America's Best Graduate Schools" issue), I was under the impression that, at least for English graduate programs, their methodology was to use a simple numbered ranking system which was meant to reflect some sort of qualitative consensus amongst administrators, professors, etc. The question runs something along the lines of "What is your opinion of the quality of Program X?" and those "experts" rank that program 1-5. Whereas, for law, medical and business programs, the magazine takes more quantitative data than these questionnaires into account for its ranking system, the ranking for English programs (which CLEARLY are not important enough to be given a more substantial consideration, am I right?) uses them as the only criterion. If this isn't the case (I have no idea where my copy of the issue is), I stand corrected but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes. If this is the case, I feel like this graduate school heirarchy is even more shoddily constructed than we've imagined it to be. I found out the 2011 rankings come out in three days. I'm (not) holding my breath in anticipation. Edited April 12, 2010 by diehtc0ke
Strong Flat White Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 ... I would disagree also about some of those assumptions about qualitative vs. quantitative analysis. I have nothing against either and think that a good analysis of any issue can benefit from both. But you seem to suggest that quantitative data are inherently more objective, and that is operating on certain assumptions that can be dangerous. Quantitative analysis is also susceptible to bias and is conducted based on a certain set of assumptions that need to be questioned every bit as much as any qualitative analysis. And it is all the more problematic because we tend to more easily accept numbers as something that stands above human bias - the very trap you seem to be worried about in qualitative analysis, where intuition sits unquestioned. Quantitative analysis doesn't escape the fact of its human origin. See The Bell Curve as one of many examples, right? I actually think that theorists, etc., or people employing qualitative methods to reach conclusions can provide standpoints from which to look critically at quantitative data that seems otherwise unquestionable (because of those common-sense intuitive senses you're talking about, which new theories, sometimes reached qualitatively, can challenge). Anyway, I think we lost sight of the context from which this debate arose, which was about the value of rankings and all the quantitative data that goes into them versus more qualitative data about the strength of programs. Both of those are flawed, and so one should be skeptical while using both. Soxpuppet acknowledges at the beginning of the thread that we have relied on that quantitative data so some degree, as many of us didn't seriously look at programs outside the "Top 50." Though I'd say after that, qualitative data became equally as important. I want to first say that I lost sight of nothing: when I began this maelstrom of qualitative/quantitative, it had nothing to do with rankings and everything to do with the field in terms of methodology. Granted, I took a quote from rankings context, but my post that fired off GK's lame-ass vitriol was a redirection and a synthesis. To wit: I ask about our field. Now getting to assumptions and original points and underlying assumptions, let me please quote from my brilliant wife's MA thesis in medical anthropology, an admitted social science that struggles between qualitative and quantitative methodology. This is a good quote: "'Athough qualitative and quantitative methods are often viewed as contrasting, mutually antagonistic paradigms, according to Oakley, 'the oppositional use of the terms "qualitative" and "quantitative" is relatively modern.' Additionally in actual research practice, the two models are far from mutually exclusive, and no clear boundary exists between qualitative and quantitative methods." ~ Nicole Marie Frank, University of Otago, 2006, Negotiating Treatment Adherence: A Qualitative Study on the Experience of Living with PKU in New Zealand. So then. I ask anew, and it has nothing to do with rankings. It's an idea. This idea of mine, I'm curious. I got nothing in terms of quantitative, if I am to contribute quantitatively to academia, I should quit now. That's one of the reasons I'm leaving IR. Is there room for me in English? It seems like a go, but I am here for encouragement and/or advice (not a gang-bang). Strong Flat White and intextrovert 1 1
GK Chesterton Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 I would disagree, however, with the part where you say that democratization is linked to work done primarily in the social and hard sciences. I wouldn't disagree with you that work being done there has been crucial for some of those advances, but so is the work of many people using more qualitative methods - theorists, for example, of race or class or gender have done much to challenge and question the way society thinks about inequity. I would disagree also about some of those assumptions about qualitative vs. quantitative analysis. I have nothing against either and think that a good analysis of any issue can benefit from both. But you seem to suggest that quantitative data are inherently more objective, and that is operating on certain assumptions that can be dangerous. Quantitative analysis is also susceptible to bias and is conducted based on a certain set of assumptions that need to be questioned every bit as much as any qualitative analysis. And it is all the more problematic because we tend to more easily accept numbers as something that stands above human bias - the very trap you seem to be worried about in qualitative analysis, where intuition sits unquestioned. Quantitative analysis doesn't escape the fact of its human origin. See The Bell Curve as one of many examples, right? I actually think that theorists, etc., or people employing qualitative methods to reach conclusions can provide standpoints from which to look critically at quantitative data that seems otherwise unquestionable (because of those common-sense intuitive senses you're talking about, which new theories, sometimes reached qualitatively, can challenge). So you begin to see the appeal of the dialectic Again, I think that if I had to make sweeping claims about the nature of quantitative and qualitative analysis, I think that quantitative structures are formed within the prevailing, broader discourses that frame qualitative thought - we create the Freedom House Index for democracy, for example, because we think that we know what democracy is and how to test it and how to interpret this and so forth. This could, in turn, depending on the data we use, be turned back on the paradigm that made it - we might realize that the US, which holds itself as the beacon on the hill or whatever, has much greater wealth inequality than most other western democracies. We might engage now in methodological debates about the best indicators of democracy, but a thousand years ago, it would have seemed dumb to select leaders based on anything other than divine right. However, as your example rightly shows, the Bell Curve was a quantitative analysis that operated within such and such a framework of quantity or of measuring test scores - and from that perspective, only its methodology is impeachable. But from a broader qualitative one, we can assess the underlying beliefs that structured the very questions that a quantitative method chooses to ask and what it finds significant - that is, to poke around the foundations. I do not make the claim that quantitative data is universally objective; only that it can make claims to objectivity relative to the framework it sets out for its investigation - e.g. If we say that GDP per capita is our statistic for wealth of a country, period, then the only debatable facts within this framework are what GDP is and what the population is. An examination of what wealth means, how this money is distributed, etc. would have to involve some qualitative assumptions; the line is not hard and fast, is what I'm trying to say, in most social science disciplines. So, I perhaps subordinate quantitative analysis to qualitative judgments, but I think that they are both capable of critiquing one another, and probably both necessary. With regards to your comments, Strong/Flat/White, at the risk of engaging in "lame-ass vitriol" or a "gang-bang", what precisely is your question? Are you still asking if English is the one qualitative field remaining? This is confusing to me, because you seem to be offering a great deal of evidence to the contrary - your wife's quote, for example. If you are continuing to suggest that English is a solely qualitative analysis, how would you explain the breakdown of literature into genres, the study of narratology, the various fads in interpretation, the categorization of authors into literary movements, the determination of what counts as "literature," etc. You don't see, in your frequent attempts to zone off "English" as "our field," the same abstracting quantitative drive to already establish categories and divisions? It strikes me that although you are reluctant to do so, you are going to need to make solid, hard and fast distinctions between quantitative and qualitative analysis, and I honestly don't see that project as being successful.
GK Chesterton Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 As a further thought on my response to S.F.W., the question more significantly I think is not "Is English the only qualitative field remaining?" but to import some sort of significance to that. Again, you seem to be concerned in your first post in this thread that there is a naive cult of number-worship that takes place in social science fields; I presume that you are not making the counter claim that naive cults should only worship certain authors or texts, but instead that naive cults are less likely to or don't at all exist in qualitative judgments. To this, I would ask you why opinions on authors seem to come and go with times, why Nietzsche is to some the terrible harbinger of Fascism and to others the affective anarchist, why some religious scholars read the Bible metaphorically and some read it literally, why some people think Derrida and de Man are brilliant and some think that they're the end of western civilization. As an amusing side project to this, I would ask how you would approach the problem that Derrida suggests when discussing a scrap of paper found among Nietzsche's effects, with a simple note scribbled upon it - it raises interesting problems for claiming that English is a discipline that deals strictly with non-dogmatic, universal qualitative analysis. I quote Rick Roderick on this one: Well, among Derrida’s… I mean ah – what a slip – some people will appreciate that… among the fragments of Nietzsche’s work, they found a slip of paper and on it was written the following brilliant, perhaps brilliant aphorism. It might have been Nietzsche’s most brilliant aphorism; it says “I have forgotten my umbrella”. So the issue arose, should this be included in the complete text of Nietzsche. Is this an aphorism that should be numbered and put in “The Will to Power” for example, or left as an unnumbered aphorism? In general it raises the issue of how should it be interpreted. Is it part of the complete text of Nietzsche? Well, if the complete text of Nietzsche means, in the straightforward sense – as some buffoons think – everything he wrote, then of course it should. But if a text is this special canonical thing that captures the truly lasting and enduring legacy of Nietzsche, then one might want an argument why “I forgot my umbrella” should be included, right? I mean, you’d expect to have such an argument. Well, this problem wouldn’t come up with a normal writer. I mean, otherwise it would be just “Oh well, it’s a fragment, throw it away” just a fragment. But because Nietzsche writes in fragments, aphorisms, and various styles, you have got to pause for a moment before throwing away “I have forgotten my umbrella”. Now how would one go about solving this puzzle about whether to interpret the slip “I have forgotten my umbrella” as part of Nietzsche’s text or not – part of his complete works – how would one bring his works to completion in that way. Well a famous argument here is in “Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles”, a book by Derrida, where believe it or not he writes… a small book on this one fragment. [crowd laughter] Now, the interesting thing about Derrida’s joke is this: by writing a whole book on this fragment, he has surreptitiously, sneakily, included within the text and the overlapping history of interpretations of Nietzsche this otherwise undecidable fragment, which has now become a fragment of his text, which is now part of the history, you see, of the interpreting of the text of Nietzsche, so there’s a little joke behind the joke.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now