Olive Branches

[BadgerHopeful]

It could just be me, but I have certainly detected a bit of hostility creeping about the History forum lately. I know that this is a stressful time of year - we are all working on our Masters theses, or finishing up undergrad, or generally twidling our thumbs while waiting desperately and anxiously for decisions. Or perhaps we are all just cranky from our New Years diets. In any case, I think it's important to remember that we are all in this together, and hostility doesn't help, well, anything.

Disagreement among historians regarding historical matters is an inevitability. Indeed, disagreement can be very productive, as we learn from each others varying viewpoints. But there is healthy disagreement (a civil discussion of differing opinions) and unhealthy disagreement. Let's make a more concerted effort - all of us - to stay the course of the former.

[TMP]

There is some hostility, yes, due to stress. Internet forums, much like real life, encourages a lot of feeding off. When one person can't stop being anxious and goes on a ramble looking for sympathy, others can feel it and show it as well. Just take a look at History 2010 thread. Don't delude yourselves that you won't make History 2011 look like that. It's the warning I can give you right now. If you're super sensitive to others' feelings, get off the forum now, as StrangeLight suggested a few weeks ago in a thread. You may be looking for a place where people can share feelings about this process but this forum isn't a good place to be if you're sensitive to others' feelings and reactions. It can be counterproductive at times. There were times that I actually wished that I never found this place, simply for this reason.

But after two tough cycles (and another while a first year MA student), I'm basically broken to the point where I'm just happy to be accepted somewhere, anywhere, and know the realities of history admissions. There is so much in there that's totally out of your control. It's far more subjective than you can expect and there are those department politics that applicants don't know about. I think that's what hit me the hardest about last year's cycle. No matter how good I looked or highly qualified I was, department politics just got in the way and every professor whom I've talked to, at my university and programs I applied to, knew it.

We all come from very diverse backgrounds and it's quite difficult to rate anyone's chances or put everything to perspective. It doesn't matter whether you go to a top 10 university or LAC, or have been out working in the real world for a while or went to law school. What adcoms really care about is whether or not you fit in the department with the experiences you have. And we all have very unique experiences so how are we supposed to rate each other? I never, ever rate anyone because I'm not the one who's making the final decision. All I do is just make sure that the applicant has enough language background.

I apologize if I sound snarky at times but what I've said is really the truth. I've become quite pessimistic to the point where I had e-mailed two professors at a top choice school from last year a few months ago for program suggestions to expand my list this year because I had figured that they must be thinking about retirement already and weren't planning on taking new students. To my surprise, they insisted that I apply and one said that he felt that I would be more successful this year. My thought when I read that e-mail? "I'll believe it when I see it." I haven't even thought about that school for most part of the application process except when its application was concerned.

If you don't like what I say on this forums, then you can apologize and thank me later. But just don't put a negative on it just because you don't want to believe what I said.

And now you're probably asking, "Then why are you even applying if you don't seem to care?" My answer? I care very deeply but am just a realist, not an idealist, when it comes to this. I want to spend 7 years of my life doing something that I love to do and get paid for that. I may not get a lot of money but I sure will be able to do things that I love: research, reading, writing, talking shop with other people, and travel all over the world for research and conferences. I don't care about what happens to me after the PhD. And there are other things that I want to do with my PhD beyond academia. And those are the reasons that convinced my professors to write those letters. They never had to talk me out of doing the PhD.

[rsldonk]

There is some hostility, yes, due to stress. Internet forums, much like real life, encourages a lot of feeding off. When one person can't stop being anxious and goes on a ramble looking for sympathy, others can feel it and show it as well. Just take a look at History 2010 thread. Don't delude yourselves that you won't make History 2011 look like that. It's the warning I can give you right now. If you're super sensitive to others' feelings, get off the forum now, as StrangeLight suggested a few weeks ago in a thread. You may be looking for a place where people can share feelings about this process but this forum isn't a good place to be if you're sensitive to others' feelings and reactions. It can be counterproductive at times. There were times that I actually wished that I never found this place, simply for this reason.

But after two tough cycles (and another while a first year MA student), I'm basically broken to the point where I'm just happy to be accepted somewhere, anywhere, and know the realities of history admissions. There is so much in there that's totally out of your control. It's far more subjective than you can expect and there are those department politics that applicants don't know about. I think that's what hit me the hardest about last year's cycle. No matter how good I looked or highly qualified I was, department politics just got in the way and every professor whom I've talked to, at my university and programs I applied to, knew it.

We all come from very diverse backgrounds and it's quite difficult to rate anyone's chances or put everything to perspective. It doesn't matter whether you go to a top 10 university or LAC, or have been out working in the real world for a while or went to law school. What adcoms really care about is whether or not you fit in the department with the experiences you have. And we all have very unique experiences so how are we supposed to rate each other? I never, ever rate anyone because I'm not the one who's making the final decision. All I do is just make sure that the applicant has enough language background.

I apologize if I sound snarky at times but what I've said is really the truth. I've become quite pessimistic to the point where I had e-mailed two professors at a top choice school from last year a few months ago for program suggestions to expand my list this year because I had figured that they must be thinking about retirement already and weren't planning on taking new students. To my surprise, they insisted that I apply and one said that he felt that I would be more successful this year. My thought when I read that e-mail? "I'll believe it when I see it." I haven't even thought about that school for most part of the application process except when its application was concerned.

If you don't like what I say on this forums, then you can apologize and thank me later. But just don't put a negative on it just because you don't want to believe what I said.

And now you're probably asking, "Then why are you even applying if you don't seem to care?" My answer? I care very deeply but am just a realist, not an idealist, when it comes to this. I want to spend 7 years of my life doing something that I love to do and get paid for that. I may not get a lot of money but I sure will be able to do things that I love: research, reading, writing, talking shop with other people, and travel all over the world for research and conferences. I don't care about what happens to me after the PhD. And there are other things that I want to do with my PhD beyond academia. And those are the reasons that convinced my professors to write those letters. They never had to talk me out of doing the PhD.

Yes, this. This is the reality. If you don't like it, perhaps you aren't prepared for a career in this field. Professors don't get along, they fight, they disagree, they hold grudges. I much prefer someone who isn't going to blow smoke up my ass and tell me how it really is to someone who is looking to make me feel better.

[qbtacoma]

I agree with BadgerHopeful that there's been a lot of hostility happening, but I don't think that it is from the stress of applying or people making comments about rating each others' chances. Rather I think it is coming from the rather intense conversations on the future of history thread and others where basically people seem to be dismissive or aggressive with no provocation. We should all be capable of disagreeing about theoretical things without getting derisive with each other or voting down others for opinions we disagree with (rather than bad forum behavior). Just because people do hold grudges or are nasty in real life doesn't mean we have to create that environment here. Making our own positive discussion environment isn't "lying about the way the field is."

To start the positive interaction process: thumbs up for all!

Edited to add: Also, if in any way what I've said anywhere on the forum has felt like a personal attack, I'm sorry. It is difficult sometimes to correctly convey meaning over the internet, and I have been at times careless with my language.

Edited January 9, 2011 by qbtacoma

[history_PhD]

And, it is important to recall that academia is not about agreement. Historiography's purpose is to identify the different (sometimes radically so!) interpretations of historical events. This of course does not mean that academics are unable to get along with those that hold opposing viewpoints!

[Ardea]

Yes, this. This is the reality. If you don't like it, perhaps you aren't prepared for a career in this field. Professors don't get along, they fight, they disagree, they hold grudges. I much prefer someone who isn't going to blow smoke up my ass and tell me how it really is to someone who is looking to make me feel better.

Nothing turns off students, particularly undergraduates, more than arrogance, and that distasteful trait is often acquired in graduate school. The presence of backstabbing in academia doesn't mean one needs to begin sharpening a knife now. With a PhD completion rate often under 50% in history departments, it stands to reason that quite a lot more can be achieved through mutual support than competition. It's one reason, in fact, that I chose the department I did.

There's also the fact that such bitter disagreements are often downright embarrassing when viewed by the greater public, particularly since many of these issues are viewed as trivial matters.

[BadgerHopeful]

Nothing turns off students, particularly undergraduates, more than arrogance, and that distasteful trait is often acquired in graduate school. The presence of backstabbing in academia doesn't mean one needs to begin sharpening a knife now. With a PhD completion rate often under 50% in history departments, it stands to reason that quite a lot more can be achieved through mutual support than competition. It's one reason, in fact, that I chose the department I did.

There's also the fact that such bitter disagreements are often downright embarrassing when viewed by the greater public, particularly since many of these issues are viewed as trivial matters.

Agree. Just because we will inevitably disagree, rsldonk, doesn't mean we can't be civil about it.

And kemet, Sword in the Stone is perhaps the best movie of all time.

[meo03]

And, it is important to recall that academia is not about agreement. Historiography's purpose is to identify the different (sometimes radically so!) interpretations of historical events. This of course does not mean that academics are unable to get along with those that hold opposing viewpoints!

I agree, but I think that that is only one half of the story. There is absolutely a collaborative effort to history; despite the fact that history is massively competitive, both in terms of our competition within the academy, and the competition and power struggles of the past that we historians seek to describe and explain. Scholarly efforts do tend to build on each other, even in revision.

I think it cuts both ways, and no question-- not even this one-- ever gets settled for long. Consensuses are arrived at, and torn down, for myriad reasons. But the human element is ever present, and should never be discounted, in historiography, in dealing with the application process, in dealing with our colleagues, on this message board, ect. and ad infinitum.

And I rather enjoy the irony that I am somewhat, though not entirely, disagreeing with you on this point.

[gradwoes]

Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion at hand, but

[werthersoriginal]

Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion at hand, but

LOVE YOU.

[kotov]

Yum, vodka. I <3 everybody!