Am I blowing it? B+ in my first quarter of a PhD

[Chechecheche]

I just finished my first quarter in a top-ten humanities phd program and received my first grade for the introductory theory class. I got a B+. The prof sent us feedback with the grades, which I really appreciated. Then I realized that he bumped me down because he thought I didn't take his class seriously. I may have cracked a couple jokes about how abstruse some of the texts were, but I did contribute to discussion every day, turned in all the assignments, and tried my damnedest to figure out what the point of each set of readings was. I'll admit I expected an A- due to the fact that I didn't get everything, but I didn't expect such a low score. Grades normally wouldn't concern me too much, but the fact that I need a 3.7 to maintain my funding for the next few years is freaking me out. My advisor seems really pleased with my work in the class I took with him, and I did really well in the other class too. What do I do about this theory class? I'm not particularly interested in working with critical theory (Foucault, Derrida, and a bunch of other dead men who normally don't make many appearances in my field). Should I still be reading this grade and this prof's low opinion of me as a sign that I'm blowing it in this program? I have to take another class with the guy third quarter, and now he thinks I'm garbage. I sent him an email apologizing for the remarks and asking how I might improve in the future. Is there anything else I can/should do?

[Loric]

The way things work..

 

Group A has a theory of life, the universe, everything. They mate, mingle, etc.. and Group B is born.

 

Group B reads what Group A wrote about life, the universe, everything. Declares it rubbish and comes up with their own theory.. notably anti-Group A in ways that are not neccessarily rational. Group C is born of Group B.

 

Group C looks at Group B and draws the same conclusions as Group B did of Group A, and further they look back at what Group B was against and decide, being also against Group B's stance that there must be fundamental truths in the work of Group A. So group C creates a new theory in rebellion against the standard thought of Group B, harkening back to Group A in some ways, but different because Group C, B, and A all valued individualism and progress.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.. for ages.

 

And that's why Foucault and Derrida are important to you. You don't know where you are until you understand where you've been. Your modern and contemporary theories didn't just spring up from the ground as ripe fruit for the picking by currently renouned theorists. No, the seeds were planted ages ago by past theorists and cultivated with time, toil, rebellion, romanticism and disagreement.

 

You need to understand their work to understand your present mode of thinking. You've probably never truly questioned why things are how they are in your field.. which while in and of itself a bit dismaying, you can now course correct and begin to comprehend what came before.. which once understood you can decide it's rubbish and rebel, create new theories, and then in 100 years have students sitting in class making snide comments about your ideas as well.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Loric

[Sigaba]

 I have to take another class with the guy third quarter, and now he thinks I'm garbage. I sent him an email apologizing for the remarks and asking how I might improve in the future. Is there anything else I can/should do?

 

Chechecheche--

 

Please clarify. Is the professor in question a member of the history department?

[Chechecheche]

Yeah, it's the history department... The vagueness was an attempt to remain somewhat anonymous.

[Sigaba]

Yeah, it's the history department... The vagueness was an attempt to remain somewhat anonymous.

 

Okay. 

 

IMO, the professor was sending you at least two messages: dial down the humor, dial up the intellectual intensity when grappling with important topics/subjects.

 

In regards to the former, I tended to make jokes in seminar and offer "witty" remarks in my writing. A couple of professors stood on my head to convince me of the limitations of those two practices and I disregarded much of the guidance.

 

To some degree, I was able to get away with it because, over time, the light went on IRT to theory. Like you, I was very skeptical of the importance/relevance of many theories because I didn't see the relationship between them and my fields of interest and (in my wisdom ), I thought some of the theories were poo poo.

 

Over time, I came to understand that I needed to take theory more seriously because so many trajectories of historiography are informed by theoretical innovations of the last several decades. I also came to understand the terrible price my fields (naval/military/diplomatic) of history have suffered for not taking these innovations more seriously. That is to say, while senior military historians are saying "Theory Z is not useful and nothing more than a fad," a critical mass of the profession has decided otherwise. So while more and more conversations across more and more fields of study are informed by Theory Z, traditional fields are finding themselves increasingly isolated.

 

At one level, the ongoing emphasis on theory might be seen as a political issue in which certain groups of historians are using it as a means to exert power in the profession. But I submit to you that the emphasis may also be due to the fact that a historian can greatly benefit from studying theory for its own sake. For me, the benefits have been a marked improvement in my ability to understand a wider range of historical works with greater efficiency and an ability to build good rapport with historians in other fields. IMO, these benefits are important because academic history is more about the debate over what happened in the past than what happened.

 

My advice to you is three fold. First, find ways to dial down the humor for the balance of this academic year. For example, you could jot down your quips in the margins of your notes and let your laughter shine through your eyes even though the rest of your face remains dead serious. Or, when you're writing, you can write what you want in a draft but then edit comments out at the last minute.

 

Second, I recommend that you develop a frame of mind that allows you to put aside your skepticism about some of the training you're receiving and to instead embrace it. If you can manage this task, you may find yourself in situations where establish historians listen to you talk about their work as they give you a look that says "YOU GET IT! YOU GET ME!" even though you may disagree with what they're saying and how they're saying it. The ability to build this kind of rapport can end up being an invaluable resource as you progress towards your qualifying exams.

 

Third, show and prove to this professor that you're making adjustments. Go to his office hours and talk to him about theory and history. Make the focus of these discussions what you understand and what you don't understand and how a given theory can inform your own work as a historian. (If you don't like a particular theory, try the following approach--imagine someone showing you how to use a drill even though you may never need a drill yourself. You may never use a drill, but you will likely be using some other power tool, so there's going to be something in the discussion that is useful.) In these conversations, think thrice before you offer any additional apologies or explanations. 

 

#HTH

 

Hey, as long as you're here, how about stopping by the History forum? There's always room at the table in the House of Klio.

[Chechecheche]

This was really helpful, thanks! I feel less like I should just give up.