Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Blog CXC (200): Honors to the Blog...Again

A note worth making.  Last week's posting set a "In the Service of Clio" record for the most postings in one year. 

Look for a flurry of commentary in the next few weeks as the blog returns to active duty.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Blog CXCIX (199): Reviewing the Official Historian

HONOLULU, HAWAII—A few weeks ago I read an article that John M. Carland, a historian working in the office of the Secretary of  Defense, wrote in Headquarters Gazette, the newsletter of the Society for Military History.  In "Why the American Historical Review Will Not Review Official History and Why It Should" he documented his discovery that the journal of the American Historical Association will not review in its book review section official histories produced by the various armed services.

In his article Carland quoted at length from his correspondence with Robert A. Schneider, the editor of the AHR:  "Indeed, on the face of it, [he continued] there certainly shouldn’t be any distinction between scholarly books based upon their provenance—it’s the scholarship that should count. That is, if the book is scholarly—and if it meets our other criteria, then it should be reviewed by the AHR as well as other journals. The fact is, however, that these 'other criteria,' not the origins or publisher of the book, are often what disqualifies it."  The journal Schneider notes gets a lot of books and basically does not review biographies, collections of documents, edited volumes, textbooks, second editions, or books aimed at a general audience.

In crafting his response, Schneider also turned to his book review editor who was direct, if ill informed.  “It is the commission that is problematic: what are its terms and limitations? How much of the source material is publically [sic] available, and how much requires access only granted to scholars who agree to certain conditions?” In further communication, Schneider doubled down on this point.  The problem with official histories is that they "often rely upon sources that cannot be verified or often even consulted by outside historians. I think it’s reasonable at least to assert this as a potential obstacle. Furthermore, there is the question of the disinterestedness, independence, and autonomy of a historian who is employed by or belongs to the institution or enterprise which he’s investigating."

There are a number of problems with these responses.  First, as Carland discovered, the AHR has over the years reviewed official military history from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Germany and Russia.

A second problem is that it leads the journal to ignore major events on its own home turf.  McNamara, Clifford, and The Burdens of Vietnam by Edward Drea was a volume in the official series on the development of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.  It got a lot of attention for its findings.  “This is not your standard, bland official history,” George C. Herring of the University of Kentucky, one of the leading scholars on the Vietnam War noted in a news story The Washington Post did on the book.  The coverage of that book was nothing compared to Black Soldier, White Army: The 24th Infantry Regiment in Korea by William Bowers, William Hammond, and George MacGarrigle.  The 24th Infantry was one of the last segregated, all-black units in the U.S. Army and many veterans of the unit spent 17 years lobbying the U.S. Army to commission this book, arguing that the first volume of the Army's official history of the Korean War, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu gave a devastating account of the regiment's performance in combat when it stated the regiment broke under fire and ran from the enemy.  When Black Soldier, White Army failed to exonerate the unit, showing that the 24th had indeed collapsed in combat, veterans of the regiment threatened to sue to prevent the release of the book.  This controversy was the subject of news stories in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, and USA Today.  This book was the subject of a four-page review from Russell Weigley, a former president of the Society for Military History, in Reviews in American History.  And yet, nothing in the AHR.  That seems wrong.

A final problem with the AHR's criteria is that it is based on ignorance and a tad bit of exaggerated self-importance.  In most ways, the official history program is designed to help large government agencies learn about what worked and what did not work, and why.  The program—at least in the U.S. Army—has been implemented to facilitate historical coverage, not offer sanitized version of what happened that glorify the military.  General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower made this point clear in the order authorizing the U.S. Army in World War II.  Historians working for the military—who almost always have Ph.D.s—have often been concerned about being considered court historians.  Ronald Spector, the first civilian ever to serve as the chief of Naval History and now a professor at George Washington University, pushed back against the court historian view in a famous article: Ronald Spector, "An Improbable Success Story: Official Military Histories in the Twentieth Century" The Public Historian vol. 12, no. 1 (Winter 1990), 25-30.  As Spector shows, the system they work in mitigates against such a development.  The regulations governing the official histories, require detailed citation to the documents.  These historians can use any source material they wish; memoirs, oral histories (that they often conduct themselves), and official documents.  If they use documents that are still classified, the publication of the official history becomes grounds for those documents to be declassified.  Forrest C. Pogue, who is considered by many public historians to be a pioneer in the field, said one of the reasons he worked on the official Army histories was to facilitate the declassification process.  One final point: many things make policy: state interests, politics, etc.  History is not one of them.  At least in the United States.  The Secretary of Defense—and his staff—are busy people, dealing with difficult issues involving Russians in the Ukraine and Iran's interest in nuclear weapons.  They do not really have time to worry about Black Soldier, White Army: The 24th Infantry Regiment in Korea or even McNamara, Clifford, and The Burdens of Vietnam.  If the people at the American Historical Review think that historians have that kind of influence, or that components of the military that are dealing with contemporary issues are concerned about events from four to seven decades past, they are fooling themselves.  Americans—even those in the in military—just do not hold on to historical issues for long.

As you might tell, I have mixed reactions to this little controversy.  First, I am a book review editor myself for Presidential Studies Quarterly and I understand the American Historical Review perspective.  I really do.  We do not get the volume of books the American Historical Review does, but one of the first things you learn as an editor is how much of the literature you do not know.  If I am facing this problem with books about Theodore Roosevelt—is this book important? Who do I ask to review the book?—I suspect the folks at the AHR are facing this problem on a much, much larger scale.  The second thing is that you will get books that are just not appropriate for the journal.  You have to have criteria for saying no.  It must be professional in nature, and you have to be able to explain it clearly to people that are going to be disappointed with your reply.  (All of this has happened to me.)

On the other hand, it is the AHR.  Although people like to claim that this journal is the flagship publication in the historical profession, it is not.  There are just too many people, working in too many diverse sub-fields for one journal to claim to be the publication of record for all historical time periods and topics.  The AHR made sense the 1910s when the history departments at major schools like the University of Wisconsin or the University of Texas had four and five members, and one of them might have been "the Europeanist" or "the Americanist."  Even after the journal outlived its usefulness, book reviews in the AHR still served a real purpose when it reviewed major works in various fields.  The purpose of a book review is to let you know what books you need to read, and which ones you do not.  A journal that offered a comprehensive and broad collection of books about various historical topics and time periods was really, really useful.  The AHR managed to do that until sometime in the early to mid-1990s.  You can have a good career without getting reviewed in the AHR.  Of my five books, all listed to the side, only one—the Olympic book—has been reviewed in that journal. (This point was driven home during a research trip I took in August to the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.  I was waiting for the archivists to deliver some documents I had requested and was thumbing through several journals that were available on the rack of current periodicals to which the Library subscribed.  The AHR was one of them and I went to the book review section, and was stunned at how nothing in the entire section seemed even slightly relevant to my research, teaching, or simple history buff interests.  Maybe that is just me, but it is generally not a good reaction for a journal that wants to be the main publication in the field of history.)

The criteria that the Review uses also seems to be counter to its own interests.  The AHR does not review biographies.  That seems quite shortsighted to me.  I do not even understand why.  There is an entire Pulitzer Prize category for biography.  Another wrong call, is the refusal to review books that are aimed at the general public.  Some of these are simplistic trash, but others are quite innovative and have significant impact on the historiography of their field.  Even if they are not that good, they get attention that the field has to respond to, if for no other reason than to dismiss it, and one of the ways it does that is through the review process.  Bad reviews have utility. Just to repeat myself: the purpose of a book review is to let you know what books you need to read, and which ones you do not.

The biggest reason the AHR and its staff are wrong is that the history profession might be on the verge of undergoing a fairly large transformation.  Back in October 2011 Anthony T. Grafton and James Grossman, the president and executive director of the American Historical Association wrote an article "No More Plan B: A Very Modest Proposal for Graduate Programs in History" in which they said history departments need to realize that that many or maybe most of their graduate students would end up pursuing non-academic jobs and careers.  I was a bit skeptical about that article, but it does seem that the AHA has increased efforts to support initiatives in this direction.  If the AHA is serious about supporting scholars in non-academic careers, then the Review needs to be serious about treating scholars doing non-academic work seriously.  If people are writing about history and getting an audience, even if it is not through peer reviewed publications, the AHR needs to be offering assessments of those works.

Then again, maybe the Association is not serious about its Plan B efforts. Or maybe there is a schism in the AHA that I am not aware of; one branch of the AHR might be refusing to support the effortr of another branch.  I do not know.  One thing is clear: for their own good and the good of the profession the staff and editors of the AHR need to rethink their policy and/or offer a better explanation.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Blog CXCVIII (198): Should You Take Out Debt to Finance a Ph.D. in History?

The answer to that question really should be an unqualified, "No." Reality, though, is a bit more complicated.

Karen Kelsky, a tenured professor in anthropology at the University of Oregon and then the University of Illinois, directed attention to the debt issue when she decided to conduct a crowdsourcing survey on her website. Kelsky left academia and is now an academic consultant. Her project drew a stunning number of responses due in part to news coverage of it in Slate, The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education. According to the story in The Atlantic Ph.D. debt is "the dirty little secret of the ivory tower."

"I thought it would be illuminating to create a crowdsource document that solicited information about how much people owed," Kelsky told the Chronicle. "I was amazed and startled as the numbers started to come in."

That is putting it mildly. The inputs are depressing. It is not uncommon in this study to see students to be $50,000 or $100,000 in debt. A professor with a Ph.D. in psychology wrote:
I am currently working as an assistant professor in upstate NY. I make $55,000 a year. I am presently on the IRB program with the hopes of getting Public Service Loan Forgiveness in 10 years. However, that clock hasn't even started. My loans have been in forbearance since I graduated. I am currently trying to pay off credit card debt that I accrued for living expenses while in graduate school so I can pay my $500 a month student loan payment. Rather than saving for a house, I will spend the next 10 years saving to pay the taxes on the balance of my loans that will be forgiven. As most of the money from my loan payments will only cover interest I will likely have around $170,000 left on my loan balance when it is forgiven. Unless something miraculous happens I will never be able to save enough money to pay the taxes on that debt forgiveness. I honestly don't know what I will do. I just try to take it one day at a time.
The financing of grad school comes from loans, credit cards, and family financial support. The support from family general comes from two sources: a working spouse, and/or parents/grandparents. People had parents offering loans, paying insurance, buying plane tickets for the holidays, or making car payments for them. One respondent noted that his parents still bought his clothes until he turned 32. Other grad students compensated a little by working part-time, or by having roommates. One recent graduate, said he was still living like a 20-year old even though he was in his early forties. I know that feeling.  I was living in a fraternity house when I went to my high school ten-year reunion. A fact I did not share with anyone at the reunion. What is painfully clear is that graduate school for most is not feasible on fellowships and teaching assistant positions that many graduate students have. "You end up with the message that graduate school is only really financially feasible if you have family resources to fall back on," Kelsky remarked.

Students are financing their degrees but also day-to-day living with these loans. Often times these expenses include car repair, unexpected health and dental care, tuition and day care for children, rent, travel, and unusual events like weddings.

This type of funding is highly, highly irresponsible. When you owe money at this level, it has enormous long-term ramifications. It forces people to put off having a family, and makes buying a car or a home extremely difficult since they probably will not qualify for a new loan. A reduced standard of living also affects your family. Paying for dance classes, or summer camp, or college for your children becomes difficult, if not impossible. Heavy loan loads limit vacation opportunities and even makes going to conferences and research difficult without a generous grant. A friend of mine who finished off his Ph.D. with credit cards and is over $50,000 in debt and had to stay in a job he disliked even when he had another offer which was in his main area of training, with a lighter work load and at a better school because he could not afford the moving expenses and could not afford to take a slight reduction in pay.

To be blunt: if you have to go into debt a lot that is probably a sign from the universe that a Ph.D. is not for you. Going a $100,000 into debt for a MD is one thing. A physician is going to earn enough to pay off that loan, a Ph.D. in history will not, ever.

But I qualified my answer at the beginning of the essay. Sometimes debt is necessary. I took out two loans for fairly small amounts. One allowed me to earn my MA. Then, five years later, I took out another one to finish writing my dissertation. Even then, it took ten years to pay off the debt. If you find yourself in looking at debt as a way to finish, then you need to look at the average yearly income for an individual in your field. That must be your absolute ceiling of debt. (After you go past a full year's salary--and given today's job market assuming one can get a job is a big if--it becomes unlikely that you will ever pay off the debt.)  Even then it should probably be a lot less.

The entire Kelsky survey is available here.

Administrative Post 41

The blog will be returning to active duty in a few days.  Classes have started at the U.S. Naval War College, but my summer break continues for well over a month (the schedule at the NWC is not like other schools; we use trimesters and even then they overlap).  Writing on several projects has been an ongoing effort and continues, but we will return to discussing the state of history in higher eduction shortly.  Stay tuned.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Blog CXCVII (197): The Rating Game

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN—The Obama administration is backing down on its effort to rank colleges and universities. It sounded like a good idea, but the administration quickly discovered that what sounds good at first, is often quite difficult to turn into a real plan.

Ted Mitchell, the undersecretary of education, was the administration official left to explain this policy retreat to the public. He said efforts to combine many measurements of a school into one score became exceptionally complicated. The administration also wanted to avoid “a black box that would be hard for consumers to penetrate and understand and that actually would not be an advance on the state of the art.” He explained further that the supposed simplicity of a single score “would belie a lot of complexity students and families need to understand. And it would mask some very big differences among institutions.”

Mitchell is right. As a historian, what do I care about the status of the business school. There a lot of other factors. Do students interested in Harvard or Yale really care much about graduation rates for transfer students at those institutions—which probably are very few? Mitchell probably knew that this effort was a foolish one. He is a former president of Occidental College. It has a strong tradition in the liberal arts, but it is not a place you would go to an engineering degree.

Why then, did this blog like idea of ranking history departments in the Clauset, Arbesman, Larremore article, “Systematic Inequality”? The short answer is that article had a specific criteria—the employment of history Ph.D.s at other Ph.D. granting institutions. Even then it had some serious flaws. Strong departments in European history, might not be the right place for an Americanist.

There are some big problems in academia, and some real strenghts.  The main driving force behind the Obama initiative was a good one—to make the system more transparent. Maybe they should have focused on that—standardizing reporting—instead of trying to create a lot more work for a bureaucracy, or to help with the real issues in higher education.    

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Administrative Post 40

There are even more additions to Blog CLXXXII.  These videos represent 60 departments from universities in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  All in all, it makes for interesting comparative viewing.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Blog CXCVI (196): Honors to the Blog

A couple of events transpired in the past few weeks on this blog that are worth noting.  In April "In the Service of Clio" set a record with 10 postings in one month.  That broke the record of seven that was set in December 2010 and then matched in January and November of 2011. In June that record got broken again.  This posting is the twelfth in the month.

The second thing worth noting, over the previous two years, the number of postings on the blog waned.  Each was a new low: 23 in 2013 and 11 in 2014.  This year, though, we published the thirty-fourth post on June 18 with Blog CXCII (192): Sarantakes vs. Canary.  In short, in this past month we surpassed the total for all of last year.  When combined with the other entries made this year, this month took 2015 over the top for the total of the last two combined.  That was the original goal when this year started.

We are not even close to being done, though.  There is a lot in the pipeline.  It will slow down a bit this summer as I work on my next book project, but more is coming on a lot of different topics, and given what is currently planned we should set a new record for postings in a year.

Stay tuned.