[1] From: MLLMIKEM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (6)
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
[2] From: Norm Holland <NNH@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU> (58)
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
[3] From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705" (29)
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 07:07:24 -0500 (EST)
From: MLLMIKEM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
Maris Roze is right, of course, to point to the situation of younger
scholars yet again. MLA has been voluminously and actively concerned with
their problems for the past 20 years, more actively, I would submit, than
most of the US's academic disciplines because the MLA's areas are pretty
much the canaries in the coal mine of academe. Some of the best thinking
on the topic can be found in the MLA's annual publication "Profession
[year]", especially in "Profession '94". Michael Metzger - Buffalo.
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 96 11:35:26 EST
From: Norm Holland <NNH@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
I think Roze has raised a most important point (see below). The last
statistic I saw (NYTimes) was that 30% of our profession is now in
temporary, i.e., part-time or non-tenture-track, jobs. That is a
shocking figure and testifies to the way university administrations
are profiteering on the young. These people are paid on a per-course
basis, often with no health plan or other benefits. And what future
do they have, with a new cohort of Ph.D.s always in the wings?
I think Roze is absolutely right about reducing the numbers of grad
students we admit. As for myself, I have been urging my grad studnts
whose job prospects look minimal to find another line of work. It
would be better not to admit them in the first place, but Roze is right:
departments are very hypocritical about this. When I entered the
profession some forty years ago, we were all more candid: the basic
purpose of a Ph.D. in English was a union card to enter the profession.
To say now it is learning for its own sake is to confuse graduate degrees
with undergraduate. And this attitude sets up those students to be
taken advantage of. Ultimately, we will see tenure disappear and with
it the ability to teach and expand knowledge that I and other senior
members of the profession have enjoyed.
Another concrete measure: we need to fight the horrible bleeding of
higher education in the name of budget. In Florida this year, budget
for prisons has finally exceeded budget for higher education. I
would point out that estimates say 40-60% of the people in prison are
there for drug-related offenses. So which is the luxury? Higher
education or our mindless "war on drugs"?
It is time for us to speak out against the disgraceful greed, hypocrisy,
and plain foolishness in the setting of priorities at the state and
national level. I don't know whether college professors can educate
a public that is continually being bamboozled by the corporate media,
but we had damn well better try.
--Best, Norm
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Norman N. Holland Department of English / P. O. Box 117310 |
| University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611-7310 |
| Tel: (904) 377-0096 Fax: (904) 392-0860 |
| (904) 392-7332 INTERNET: nnh@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 20:21:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705"
Subject: Re: 9.433 the fate of young scholars
Maris Roze is missing the point, kind of, and the issue of
training more students than will find jobs is not a clearcut
ethical issue at all. If I get the tenor of the remarks right,
there is a suggestion that Graduate Schools should be stricter
gatekeepers, arbitrarily limiting the numbers of students to
be enrolled because of the assumption that some of them won't
get jobs later on. Cut 'em off at the pass. But that hardly
seems fair to those who want to try, and would not be at all
fair in practice, I am sure, even if it were fair in theory.
I direct a graduate program; I know for a fact there are late
bloomers who are now very successful teachers (and the converse,
for sure--those who looked great on paper, super grades,
publications, but did not turn out to be the kind of teacher
I'd want my kid to have, even though they flew through the
program with stellar academic work). The degrees, the
credentials, as Maris Roze says, may provide students with
an expectation that they will find work, but ultimately
schools hire (should hire) not credentials but human beings.
Admittedly it would be nice to be able to distinguish up
front not just who might succeed academically, but who will
wind up the sort of person you'd want to hire, yet I am
not sure that I would be able to do that and I don't know
if anyone can. The question is not whether there are more
properly credentialed people applying for jobs than there
are jobs to go around--everyone knows that. The real
question is whether there are enough really good human
beings to fill the jobs being offered.
Of maybe I am just temporizing, waffling, and looking the
other way. Malcolm Hayward, Director, Grad. Program in
Literature, Indiana University of Pennsylvania