The Dumbing-Down of the Dissertation

Dissing the Dissertation

by Scot Jaschik

The average humanities doctoral student takes nine years to earn a Ph.D. That fact was cited frequently here (and not with pride) at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association. Richard E. Miller, an English professor at Rutgers University's main campus in New Brunswick, said that the nine-year period means that those finishing dissertations today started them before Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Kindles, iPads or streaming video had been invented.

So much has changed, he said, but dissertation norms haven't, to the detriment of English and other language programs. "Are we writing books for the 19th century or preparing people to work in the 21st?" he asked.

Leaders of the MLA -- in several sessions and discussions here -- indicated that they are afraid that too many dissertations are indeed governed by out-of-date conventions, leading to the production of "proto-books" that may do little to promote scholarship and may not even be advancing the careers of graduate students. During the process, the graduate students accumulate debt and frustrations. Russell A. Berman, a professor of comparative literature and German studies at Stanford University, used his presidential address at the MLA to call for departments to find ways to cut "time to degree" for doctorates in half.

Read more: Inside Higher Ed

Real Science Versus Post-Normal Science

A little over a year ago I wrote an article titled “Wanted for Premeditated Murder: How Post-Normal Science Stabbed Real Science in the Back on the Way to the Illusion of ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Global Warming.” The article explained the difference between real science and “post-normal science” and referred to another article on the subject by British scientist Kevin McGrane. Understanding that difference is, I believe, one of the most important things for Christians—indeed for everybody—to grasp in today’s world, for a great deal of dangerous nonsense now masquerades as science and undeservedly gets the respect real science has earned, and the consequences for mankind are deadly.

Now another scientist friend, John Swayze, a research chemist, having read about the hyper-politicized, misanthropic views of the editors of one scientific journal, has written two paragraphs that state that difference between science and “post-normal science” about as clearly, simply, and concisely as anything I’ve seen:

Traditionally, science worked something like this: "I was curious, asked a question, and had an idea. So, I tested that idea through experiment and observation, obtaining some results. Those results caused me to ask more questions, posit more ideas (including some which contradicted one another), and test them all through further experiment and observation. After examining all the data, I have reached this conclusion which I am sharing with you. Feel free to examine my data and conclusions, have alternate ideas, test yours and mine, and reach your own conclusions, even if they contradict mine. Eventually, a range of ideas and conclusions may coalesce into a coherent whole, which we will regard as true until a countervailing argument is found to be more compelling. I acknowledge that this process may take generations, also knowing that an upstart with new ideas may upset the applecart at any time. That is a good thing."

Unfortunately, the system has been transformed in many ways to be this: "I had an idea. I liked it a lot because it could transform politics and economics, in ways I would like, if people believed it. So, I set out to find only those data which supported it. When I found data which didn't support my idea, I sought other sources which would allow me to reach the conclusion I wanted. By combining some sources of data and information, and ignoring others, I was able to support the conclusion I had already reached. By joining forces with like-minded others and obtaining public support from news media and politicians, I was able to claim ‘overwhelming scientific consensus,’ drowning out voices raised in disagreement. As I had become a prophet uttering profound oracular claims, it was both reasonable and necessary to stifle dissenting views. The truth is what I say it is. Anyone who disagrees is, therefore, a liar and a scoundrel. It is reasonable to use both the courts and the court of public opinion to silence heretics."

Read more.

Superfical Scholarship

Our superficial scholarsBy Heather Wilson

For most of the past 20 years I have served on selection committees for the Rhodes Scholarship. In general, the experience is an annual reminder of the tremendous promise of America's next generation. We interview the best graduates of U.S. universities for one of the most prestigious honors that can be bestowed on young scholars.

I have, however, become increasingly concerned in recent years - not about the talent of the applicants but about the education American universities are providing. Even from America's great liberal arts colleges, transcripts reflect an undergraduate specialization that would have been unthinkably narrow just a generation ago.

As a result, high-achieving students seem less able to grapple with issues that require them to think across disciplines or reflect on difficult questions about what matters and why.

Read the whole article.

HT: MH

My Sentiments after attending the Same Set of Conferences

Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism

~ Dan Wallace ~

Last week nearly 10,000 people invaded the French Quarter of New Orleans for a three-day conference. It wasn’t a convention of Mardi Gras mask-makers, a congregation of Bourbon Street miscreants, or an assembly of Hustler devotees. No, this was the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. This is a collective of the world’s religious scholars. SBL is the largest society of biblical scholars on the planet. The program of lectures and meetings is the size of a phone book for a mid-sized city. Too many choices! So many great biblical scholars were there: N. T. Wright, Jon Dominic Crossan, D. A. Carson, Bart Ehrman, Stanley Porter, Frederick Danker, Alan Culpepper, Craig Evans, Robert Stein, Joel Marcus, April Deconick, Elaine Pagels, John Kloppenborg, R. B. Hays, Peter Enns, Buist Fanning, Harold Attridge, Luke Timothy Johnson, Peter Davids, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington, Rikki Watts, Robert Gundry, Emanuel Tov, Walter Brueggemann, Eric Myers, Eugene Boring, J. K. Elliott—that’s just a small sampling of the names. Liberals and evangelicals, theists and atheists, those who are open and those who are hostile to the Christian faith—all were there.

N. T. Wright--Start by Understanding Salvation

Start by Understanding Salvation

'Being saved' and 'doing good works' sounds like a low-grade version of the classic Reformation stand-off between Luther and the other reformers on the one hand and the Roman Catholicism of the late mediaeval period on the other -- and, of course, Luther and his followers saw this stand-off as the re-run of the battles Paul had with his opponents, particularly the so-called 'Judaizers' in Galatians.

This important set of arguments has become fairly thoroughly confused in the last hundred or two hundred years because it's got muddled up with various others, including (a) the Romantic notion that genuine religion is all about inwardness rather than externals ('How I feel deep down' vs 'What I do outwardly') and (b) the existentialist notion that 'authenticity' consists in being true to what one finds within oneself rather than conforming to outward regulations etc. Unfortunately, these four things (Paul's battles, Luther's battles, Romanticism and existentialism) are simply not the same as one another, though it would take a long article, perhaps a book, to spell all this out (I have tried elsewhere: see e.g. my commentary on Romans in the New Interpreters Bible (Abingdon Press) vol. 10).

Read the whole column.

Thank you, faculty colleagues.

When I grew up, trophies were not handed out to everyone. We were not viewed as delicate children in that we predated the self-esteem movement. Awards and trophies had to be attained the old fashioned way, by earning them. As a sophomore, I was a member of our high school baseball team which won the conference and district trophies, not that I contributed much to our great season. As a senior, I was a member of our high school basketball team which won the conference championship trophy, again, not that I provided much on-court prowess. Besides these three, I do not remember having a part in winning any other trophy.

As valedictorian of my high school graduating class I did not receive either a trophy or a pin. Nor was there any mention of either the valedictorian or salutatorian in the commencement program, not even a press release. Our principal had decided that the year I graduated there should be one "class speaker" elected by the whole class instead of having the traditional valedictory and salutatory addresses awarded to those who achieved those honors. So, I missed out on commendation, even though I had achieved the highest honors of my graduating class. At the time, I was actually relieved because my natural inclination was to retreat from public view. Even if the speech I might have written would have been worthy of public delivery, my delivery would not have been up to expectations. Since high school days, this introvert has changed a bit, if I say so myself.

Along the way, I have received honors, such as magna cum laude upon receiving my B.A. and my M.Div. and summa cum laude upon receiving my Th.M. All these awards, however, were awards that others achieved at the same time, so I did not stand out from the crowd.

The award that I received on April 24, 2007, is the award that stands out the most for me, thus far, in my career either as a student or as a professor. I am deeply humbled and grateful to have received the award of "Excellence in Scholarship" for the year 2007. It is an award of recognition given by my faculty colleagues who are all scholars in their own right. Among my colleagues at Northwestern College, one can hardly achieve the faculty award for "Excellence in Scholarship" and be an achiever in scholarship divorced from outstanding character and reputation, also. Christian character is an integral and essential quality for any faculty member to be awarded such an honor. Thus, it is particularly gratifying to receive the award this year because it reflects a strong vote of confidence at a time that I have most needed the support, endorsement, and acclaim of my faculty colleagues. My colleagues know and understand whereof I speak.

Thank you, dear colleagues! I am greatly humbled by your generous and gracious honoring of my achievements in scholarship.

For announcement of the award, among other awards listed, including awards for achievement among our students, look here. My Teaching Assistant, Brooks Waldron, received the Department of Biblical & Theological Studies Award in Ancient Classical Languages. Congratulations, Brooks! Congratulations to my faculty colleagues Dr. Randy Nelson for attaining the "Excellence in Service" award and Dr. Cheryl Kelley for her achieving the "Excellence in Teaching" award.

Our granddaughter, Anna, joins me for a picture in my office.

Should Blogs Contribute to Tenure

It's a new world for academics. Mark Goodacre has a couple of entries that are intriguing for academics. First, he asks, Should Blogs Contribute to Tenure. He follows this with Blogging and Tenure 2.