The spring semester starts next week.
I haven't updated my syllabus.
I have students emailing me ... Nay! ... Begging me to add them to the course.
I am only 50% done with my revised chapter 1. Chapter 2 is momentarily suspended, and chapter 3 might be nightmarish.
And worst of all, football season is almost at an end!!!
Go Pats. To hell with Green Bay.
On Sunday, I took my new Nikon S51 camera out for a run to see what it can do. I decided on the National Air & Space Museum because ... well ... I haven't been there for about several years now. I tested as many features and settings as possible from macro zoom, panoramic shots, white balance, ISO, battery life, ease of handle, shutter speed, shots in a museum with poor lighting, outside on a cloudy day, evening shots, objects in motion ... in short, EVERYTHING. I even got the chance to use the video camera function. You can check out my photos here.
The verdict? Overall, a really great "point-and-shoot" camera; absolutely no fussing about the controls or settings. Most of the shots were done automatically. At first it was awkward to handle the camera; it's the smallest thing I've ever handled, but after some negotiating it was no problem at all. I was very impressed with the anti-vibration technology which made shooting extremely easy. Check out the video below because I know I was bumped by a kid and it never registered on the camera. The evening shots were impressive though there was a distinct bluish-hue even though it was quite dark. I'm wondering if that's due to the ISO setting or the lens itself or whatever it is that captures the colors of the image. Not a big problem. But the one annoyance is the battery life. I took over 100 shots and believe me I could've went for more considering how this camera made photography so easy. But after relatively average use, my battery conked out a little before 2.5 hours. That's not enough time considering I wanted to do some evening/night shots and I have a 2 gig memory card. 100 photos is a mere dent so I'll definitely need to get an extra battery. Other than that, it's a great camera; very flexible, easy-to-use, and extremely compact which is a relief from my old Sony DSLR and my now ancient Nikon EM SLR from my childhood. I am definitely loving it!
On a side note, as I was shooting the Lunar Lander, I overheard what sounded like a Filipino docent leading a tour group. I turned to confirm my suspicions and there he was. An elderly Pinoy comparing NASA and the European Space Agency. For one, I don't see that many minorities leading a tour group, but what really caught my eyes and ears was that he was hilarious!!! I decided to check out the video mode on my camera and record a part of his talk. I just used the lowest resolution because I was unsure of the capacity and impact of video mode on the battery life. But I wish I could've recorded more because he really did add flair to the tour.
I had set a goal of finishing my chapter 2 before the spring semester began because I thought it was the easiest one to do, but I ran into trouble. The obvious difficulty was revisiting something that I had written 3 years ago only to find that I don't agree with what I wrote. Of course, a newly revised and stronger argument that ties my research together changes everything that preceded it, but it's a chore, and somewhat embarrassing, to reread and revise old chapters and old thoughts. I am not throwing out everything, but I am trying to save as much as I can while incorporating my new argument. And that's where my problem lies. I was so excited to write my new section that when I came to my old chapter, I suddenly became myopic.
I tried to write.
And rewrite.
I tried to weave my new argument through the sections I wanted to save.
But it didn't look right.
My original chapter was 42 pages. 13 pages were discarded and a total of 8 new pages were written. It wasn't flowing as I thought it would and I was getting frustrated. The feeling was like jamming a square peg into a round hole. So I did what any good writer would do, and that is to ask another pair of eyes to take a look. I asked my partner to generally read over what I have thus far.
And that added another level of complexity. She does film studies. I'm in political science. She's properly trained in the humanities. Me? In the social sciences. She talks about the "state" in the abstract; I was specifically referring to the federal government. She points out that sexual orientation is already regulated as heteronormative, while I was talking about sexual orientation as an actionable classification (i.e., protected status). We were talking past each other before we finally figured out what was the problem. We are definitely products of our training even though we may use some of the same terms and objects of analysis, but we do talk about them in fairly distinct and different ways. So our remaining time was spent clarifying our terms and talking about what I wanted to do and how to go about it. We laughed in the end because even though both of us have a vested interest in cultural studies research, we are still very much situated in a mode of analysis that is central to our respective projects. I can imagine how a discussion like this could spiral out of control; it does raise an interesting question about interdisciplinarity that I was thinking about for some time now, but that's another post.
Despite the miscues, I decided to stop working on Chapter 2 and start from the very beginning with Chapter 1. In hindsight, I should've done that first since the introductory chapter will not only define the current state of the research (literature review), but also define my terms, the parameters of my research, and my argument so that all the subsequent chapters will fall into place. I thought I could knock out my chapter quickly since I had a fresh argument, but maybe as a productive mental exercise, and an act of prudence, I need to lay out the map of my dissertation first.
Back to the beginning I go then.
I'm just finishing up my previous post on some remaining vacation highlights that I now remember. Some of them I had conveniently forgotten for obvious reasons. =P
Fiddling with my blog again before I actually do any serious work. I already removed the "Continue Reading ..." footer since not every post is long enough to be expandable. I thought it was annoying anyways. I'm also entertaining the idea of going back to a two-column format to give my posts some extra room, and a new color scheme from the black background.
By the way, I'll get to everyone's emails. I think I'm still in vacation mode.
Bah! After Chicago, and spending a week with my partner's family in Wichita, KS, I arrived back in Arlington Washington, D.C., Monday night. Some quick highlights:
My partner and I made it to Chicago without a hitch even though CNN was reporting that National was having at least 30 minute delays. We checked our flight on the departure/arrival board and saw no delay from any airline at all.
We arrived late in the afternoon, checked in, and we had lunch at Eleven City Diner. It's a wonderful old-time diner with a "cheery Chicago attitude" (read: not New York). I immediately get the sense that there's some historical/cultural rivalry between Chicago and New York. I don't know if I'll have time to explore that on this trip, but I will tread carefully in the few days that I am here. Anyways, I ordered a patty melt and Wisconsin cheese cheddar fries. Very satisfying and huge portions!
Afterwards, we headed over to Shedd Aquarium which was very near Soldier Park. Everything was in walking distance from our hotel so there was no need to grab a cab or rent a car. The air was cold, but not frigid, no precipitation or the famous Chicago winds. At the aquarium, we were able to see Chicago's stunning skyline, and the evening twilight made the view spectacular; stars in the urban sky. It definitely reminded me of San Francisco and New York. It was just nice to be in a proper city again.
This morning we woke up to snowfall. Temperature is cold (to me it's always cold) and the winds have picked up. It's not a storm, but it's a steady downfall which might make sightseeing somewhat difficult today. Hopefully we and another friend/colleague who is also interviewing for another position will be able to check out The Field Museum and their exhibit on maps. Yeah I know it sounds weird but Foucault did talk about geography and the field is entertaining some of his concepts and theories. So at least it'll be inside.
-----
I'm keeping up with the latest news on Benazir Bhutto's assassination yesterday. The latest report suggests that she was not killed by shrapnel or a bullet, but from physical trauma like hitting her head (???). I watched the press conference by the secretary of the interior (?) who then showed the last known video of Bhutto. That was seriously disturbing to watch because you know what happened next. But frame-by-frame, Bhutto moved offscreen as the camera panned to the right, and a second later you can see the people in the crowd react instantly to the blast.
Bhutto was buried today and no autopsy was performed on her for cultural and religious reasons. Which means no one can confirm the actual cause of death.
At that moment, I realized that the assassination is already having some eerie similarities to JFK.
I bet you of all the things to do on Christmas Day, watching the premiere of Aliens v. Predator: Requiem was not one of them. But we did. It was my idea to watch the movie considering I'm a big fan of both franchises, but it was a counter-intuitive choice. Of course, thanks to my partner we rationalized the choice as an act of recalcitrance against the maniacal consumerism that Christmas generates every year. And on that note, we watched the film.
*SPOILER ALERT*
For a film that we knew beforehand would be stupid, it was worse. Not disastrous because there were a few moments that I liked, namely being scared to my wits and watching victims writhe in pain as "chestbusters" break out of their hosts.
That was cool to watch, but also shocking because the victims also included children and pregnant women. That was truly different in this film because we normally attribute feelings of protection to children and pregnant women. Horror movies are constructed in a way that gives heroes and heroines a reason to survive and fight off whoever or whatever is gouging, cannibalizing, pummeling, ingesting, or decapitating them. Obviously, the word "killing" is a foregone conclusion, but the manner in which victims die is central. Anyways, children are very useful to instill the drive to stay alive by soliciting your paternal/maternal instincts. Think of the relationship between Newt and Ripley in the second Aliens installment. But in this movie, one of the first victims was a father and son, in which we got to see the kid's chest pulse and explode, and the screech of the pre-adult alien slithering out in a pool of gushing blood. Another scene had the "predalien," the alien/predator incarnation from the first AVP, stalking a bunch of newborns in a hospital. *Shudders* And finally, a scene which still freaks me out, a hospital ward full of pregnant women who become impregnated by the "predalien." Needless to say, what came afterwards was absolutely grotesque. Oddly enough, my partner wasn't even phased ... something about alien-on-human violence that is more bearable (and entertaining to watch) than human-on-human violence. Go figure. That scene still unnerves me.
Anyways, we're off for the MLA conference in Chicago. We'll be staying for about 3 days. Mostly work related stuff and maybe a day to do the tourist stuff. I've got a deadline to submit a call for papers in a proposed anthology, and one or two job applications before the end of the month. And on top of that, another chapter to finish. Then it's off to Kansas to stay for another few days to visit my partner's parents. It'll be cold and freezing, but we'll have lots of home cooked meals. I can't wait!
I read and saw the testimony of Jaime Leigh Jones before the House Judiciary Committee who was gang raped by KBR employees in Iraq. I am absolutely horrified at what she endured at the hands of her co-workers, and moreover, utterly sickened by the apparent cover-up. I could be wrong but contractors are under the jurisdiction and protection of the DoJ, yet the DoJ is not responding to this crime and perhaps countless others. The DoJ didn't even bother to send someone in which Representative Conyers slammed them for their particular absence and silence.
Seriously, WTF?! When is the DoJ going to start to stand for justice?!?
So I received word that two universities that I applied for have hired someone else. They sent nice thank you letters stating that the applicant pool was "exceptional" and that my "qualifications" was exemplary, and while the choice was difficult under these circumstances, they believed they found the right candidate ... besides me. Of course, I'd feel better if I made it on to the short list. That's the real recognition. Out of, say for example, 200 applicants which is a conservative number, being on the short list of 2-4 finalists means a whole lot more. At this point, I'm just happy to be on anyone's short list. Two jobs down ... about 24 more to go, if they ever send a notice anyways.
'nuff said.
Final grades are done for both sections.
Scantron machine was still broken.
Second section's grade results was very similar to my night class. Here's the quick comparison:
Section 1: Final = 73.2%; Midterm = 87.8%.
Difference: 14.6%
Section 2: Final = 72.4%; Midterm = 84.3%.
Difference: 11.9%
I ended up curving the results after all ... A LOT ... just to save the few who were hit pretty hard.
But it's done and over. This semester is officially at an end for me.
So going into finals, I realized that I had way too many "A" students. Part of the inflation is how easy the midterm was which I think I need to redo. So in order to really discern the "A" students from everyone else, I had to make the final exam much harder. I added more multiple choice questions, elevated the complexity of the wording of the questions, and changed the final essay section to focus on the Iraqi Constitution. Obviously, the final exam heavily emphasized the lectures and in-class discussions so students would be in good shape if they were attending. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that students in attendance knew what was going on and that discrepancy showed. For the most part, the exam was hard ...
It was *A LOT* harder.
I think it was way too hard.
Average final exam grade from one section was 73.2%.
Compared with their midterm grade it was 87.8% so a 14.6% difference.
So I accomplished my objective and found out who the "A" students were. But the dedicated and solid students were also hit hard, dropping almost a full grade which really sucks. In general, the students were weak in one of two areas: the multiple choice questions, or the essay section. That was intentional and the differences really came through as students with excellent writing skills scored very well in the essay section, and those with strong deductive skills scored high marks in the multiple choice section. The 2 or 3 that did well in both received an "A." Unfortunately, there were those that did poorly in both sections, and when that happens you've hit the bottom hard.
Like rock bottom.
Like Age of Dinosaurs bottom.
Like so far down below there would be no point in trying to dig you back up ...
Not even for your skeletons.
I'll find out what happens tomorrow in my last section and see if the pattern remains true. If it does, then I'll have to evaluate my choices.
One class is done and another tomorrow morning.
If there's one thing I hate more about final exams, it would be a broken scantron machine.
So the last class of the semester ended last Thursday with a nice round of applause from my students. I even got to hang around after their student evaluations and chatted with them as they exited the building. Little did I know that I spent over two hours talking with them about everything. Certainly not time wasted, but it was damn cold outside.
I also got a notice from the chair of my program indicating that my time is almost up. I had to send my abstract, recent conversations with my committee, and a schedule of completion before he authorized an extension of time for my degree. He approved of the extension but I was a bit unnerved at the ordeal. To waste close to ten years is not something to laugh at but to be extricated from the program is aggravating. So the clock is ticking; I have the Spring 2008 semester to finish. I am near completion but I've got some editing and revising to do.
And I've got no choice but to finish it now.
This is why I hate snow. You figure people will have the common sense NOT to drive. But they do.
I'm highlighting a new blog called YAF Watch, a blog dedicated to monitoring the activities of the YAF chapter at Michigan State University. The SPLC and many other anti-hate organizations recently categorized the MSU chapter of YAF as a hate/extremist group, one of the first and only student group to be on the list.
Get a Cash Advance
A really great article from the NY Times about the average length of graduate students to complete their dissertation and move on with their lives.
Exploring Ways to Shorten the Ascent to a Ph.D.
by Joseph Berger
Many of us have known this scholar: The hair is well-streaked with gray, the chin has begun to sag, but still our tortured friend slaves away at a masterwork intended to change the course of civilization that everyone else just hopes will finally get a career under way.
We even have a name for this sometimes pitied species — the A.B.D. — All But Dissertation. But in academia these days, that person is less a subject of ridicule than of soul-searching about what can done to shorten the time, sometimes much of a lifetime, it takes for so many graduate students to, well, graduate. The Council of Graduate Schools, representing 480 universities in the United States and Canada, is halfway through a seven-year project to explore ways of speeding up the ordeal.
For those who attempt it, the doctoral dissertation can loom on the horizon like Everest, gleaming invitingly as a challenge but often turning into a masochistic exercise once the ascent is begun. The average student takes 8.2 years to get a Ph.D.; in education, that figure surpasses 13 years. Fifty percent of students drop out along the way, with dissertations the major stumbling block. At commencement, the typical doctoral holder is 33, an age when peers are well along in their professions, and 12 percent of graduates are saddled with more than $50,000 in debt.
These statistics, compiled by the National Science Foundation and other government agencies by studying the 43,354 doctoral recipients of 2005, were even worse a few years ago. Now, universities are setting stricter timelines and demanding that faculty advisers meet regularly with protégés. Most science programs allow students to submit three research papers rather than a single grand work. More universities find ways to ease financial burdens, providing better paid teaching assistantships as well as tuition waivers. And more universities are setting up writing groups so that students feel less alone cobbling together a thesis.
Fighting these trends, and stretching out the process, is the increased competition for jobs and research grants; in fields like English where faculty vacancies are scarce, students realize they must come up with original, significant topics. Nevertheless, education researchers like Barbara E. Lovitts, who has written a new book urging professors to clarify what they expect in dissertations; for example, to point out that professors “view the dissertation as a training exercise” and that students should stop trying for “a degree of perfection that’s unnecessary and unobtainable.”
There are probably few universities that nudge students out the door as rapidly as Princeton, where a humanities student now averages 6.4 years compared with 7.5 in 2003. That is largely because Princeton guarantees financial support for its more than 2,000 scholars for five years, including free tuition and stipends that range up to $30,000 a year. That means students need teach no more than two courses during their schooling and can focus on research.
“Princeton since the 1930s has felt that a Ph.D. should be an education, not a career, and has valued a tight program,” said William B. Russel, dean of the graduate school.
And students are grateful. “Every morning I wake up and remind myself the university is paying me to do nothing but write the dissertation,” said Kellam Conover, 26, a classicist who expects to complete his course of study in five years next May when he finishes his dissertation on bribery in Athens. “It’s a tremendous advantage compared to having to work during the day and complete the dissertation part time.”
But fewer than a dozen universities have endowments or sources of financing large enough to afford five-year packages. The rest require students to teach regularly. Compare Princetonians with Brian Gatten, 28, an English scholar at the University of Texas in Austin. He has either been teaching or assisting in two courses every semester for five years.
“Universities need us as cheap labor to teach their undergraduates, and frankly we need to be needed because there isn’t another way for us to fund our education,” he said.
That raises a question that state legislatures and trustees might ponder: Would it be more cost effective to provide financing to speed graduate students into careers rather than having them drag out their apprenticeships?
But money is not the only reason Princeton does well. It has developed a culture where professors keep after students. Students talk of frequent meetings with advisers, not a semiannual review. For example, Ning Wu, 30, a father of two, works in Dr. Russel’s chemical engineering lab and said Dr. Russel comes by every Friday to discuss Mr. Wu’s work on polymer films used in computer chips. He aims to get his Ph.D. next year, his fifth.
While Dr. Russel values “the critical thinking and independent digging students have to do, either in their mind for an original concept or in the archives,” others question the necessity of book-length works. Some universities have established what they call professional doctorates for students who plan careers more as practitioners than scholars. Since the 1970s, Yeshiva University has not only offered a Ph.D. in psychology but also a separate doctor of psychology degree, or Psy.D., for those more interested in clinical work than research; that program requires a more modest research paper.
OTHER institutions are reviving master’s degree programs for, say, aspiring scientists who plan careers in development of products rather than research.
Those who insist on dissertations are aware that they must reduce the loneliness that defeats so many scholars. Gregory Nicholson, completing his sixth and final year at Michigan State, was able to finish a 270-page dissertation on spatial environments in novels like Kerouac’s “On the Road” with relative efficiency because of a writing group where he thrashed out his work with other thesis writers.
“It’s easy, especially in our field, to feel isolated, and that tends to slow people down,” he said. “There’s no sense of belonging to an academic community.”
Some common sense would also hasten the process. The dissertation is a hurdle that must be cleared, not a magnum opus, the capstone of a career. Princeton’s Mr. Wu has made that calculation.
“You do not want to stay forever,” Mr. Wu said. “It’s a training process.”
E-mail: joeberg@nytimes.com
Correction: October 4, 2007
The On Education column yesterday, about efforts to shorten the time it takes to earn a Ph.D., misstated the number of graduate students at Princeton University. There are more than 2,000 — not 330, the number of Ph.D degrees the university awarded last year.
