Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:00:46
From: Luba Slabyj <romanframe-AT-v-wave.com>
Subject: Re: Luba and Liano


Alexander:

You simply amaze me. If sheer stamina in front of the computer screen is
any index, I can well understand why you're thriving while I've faded on
the vine. BTW, I willingly concede your point about trying another
university program; I made the deadly mistake of continuing on at the same
place for this third degree not realizing how suicidal this decision was,
but in all fairness to myself, I was very (too?) young when I committed to
the PhD here, and no one advised me to do otherwise except for one man who
I didn't think wished me well anyway. (Yes, I know, excuses, excuses.) Ours
is still largely a parochial institution which despises itself for, and
disavows, its parochialism while rarely hesitating to perpetuate it. I'm
afraid I can't go into any detail here: risking hurting myself is one
thing, but in making some of the points I want to make I risk hurting
people against whom I have no grudge personally and who come into the
matter only as beneficiaries of this institution's/departments inequitable
funding and hiring practices. See, I'm saying too much as it is. I'll shut
up now. :)

Luba 


At 04:20 PM 6/16/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Dear Luba,
>
>     Points well taken.  Especially concerning your insistence that
>students "have been, are presently being, 'persuaded' to leave
>academe"--and not because they are "bad" students (i.e., students who
>do not love scholarship, or who are "Nazis"), but just because the
>intellectual system can't tolerate their views.  If this is the case
>(and I confess that I've not seen it happen this way--though I do
>believe you), then I sincerely apologize to any students out there who
>feel themselves to be the victims of this kind of exclusion. 
>
>But of course, I too know people who, as a result of things like
>"internal transfer" and M.A. programs, have not "made the cut," so to
>speak, even though they most certainly deserved (i.e., were smart and
>passionate enough) to make it.  Last year I myself was enrolled in an
>M.A. program, and had the opportunity to apply for internal transfer
>to the Ph.D. program there.  At the last minute I decided not to
>apply.  I'm quite sure that, despite high grades and strong
>recommendations, I would *not* have been accepted (there were, after
>all, a great many students all applying for the same slots, and they
>*all* deserved them *at least* as much as I did).  A good friend of
>mine did apply, and was turned down (despite the fact that he was, in
>my view, not only one of the most intelligent students in the
>department, but without doubt one of the most talented writers I have
>ever had the pleasure to read).  But as I see it, these things are not
>really the fault of some insidious institutional pressure, or even of
>mean-spirited professors weeding out the students that disagree with
>them (and I'm not really sure whether or not Luba is suggesting that
>this is the way it happens--I'm just trying to draw a contrast
>here)--I think the criteria by which students are accepted/rejected
>from programs are really extremely complicated, often random, and
>typically fraught with difficulties that any good professor will be
>highly sensitive to, and precisely insofar as they seem to be
>unavoidable (no department can accept everyone--there has to be *some*
>measure by which to decide).  However, the reality that there are
>students who are already settled in a program but whom their
>professors actively try to weed out because they are too "radical" or
>because they attempt to step outside of the institutionally enforced
>frameworks is, as I have said, a genuine tragedy.  I myself have not
>seen this happen--not, that is, to any students who *also* could
>perform the "groundwork" tasks of, say, explaining Kant's arguments
>for the unity of apperception, or of developing a sound exegesis of a
>Shakespearean text, or of tracing historical patterns in U.S. foreign
>policy, etc.  Students who are already "in" a program, and who
>demonstrate basic proficiency (I know, the standards are vague and
>arbitrary--but I'm not sure there can be a university without such
>standards), are not likely, I was inclined to say, to be "persuaded"
>to leave.  Still, after Luba's post, I am sad to say that I must be
>wrong about this (though I would be interested in hearing some more
>anecdotes about such cases).  Again, I apologize if I scoffed too
>readily at others' genuine (and tragic) experience.
>
>     Still, looking back on the M.A. program I was in, I can see that
>it really wasn't the best place for me, nor for my friend (with whom,
>alas, I've lost touch).  I think it's very important to realize that
>not every student can get along in every department.  Being a student
>means that you have to be prepared to move around, to try new stuff
>out, to quit, to start over again.  The fact is that there are a lot
>of different programs out there.  And to be sure, if what you want is
>a department where you can just do anything you want, and not bother
>with any historical knowledge of what has been done before you (as
>Liano seems to want), then you're certainly *not* going to be very
>happy at a place like, say, Yale, or Princeton, or any other place
>known for its "traditional" orientation.  This is not to say that
>there are no programs out there which *do* encourage absolute
>creativity from their students: I think there are such places,
>although they might not get the high ranks from amusing sources like
>the "Gourman Report" or "US News" (which no one should really care
>about anyway).  And in fact, one of the few benefits from having such
>an overflow of would-be professors in this country is just that even
>the less "prestigious" schools all have some great teachers.  In fact,
>there are really smart people teaching just about everywhere. I find
>this encouraging; you just can't give up too quickly. I think students
>should be prepared for a lot of disappointment and shuffling around
>before they finally get to a place where they feel comfortable. 
>Again, chalk this up to the (I think unavoidable) fact that different
>departments have their own different atmospheres, specialties,
>orientations, etc., none of which are going to suit *every* student. 
>Accepting this fact was a difficult, though valuable, learning
>experience for me.  
>
>After leaving the M.A. program, I applied to a bunch of other grad
>programs and got rejected from all of my top choices, and even from
>some of my "secondary" schools. I confess I was hurt.  There was even
>a period where I convinced myself that I was too "radical" for them,
>that my writing was just to "unconventional" for their conservative
>ways, and that the whole institution was against me.  But one thing
>was for sure: I wasn't satisfied with the offers I received; I
>couldn't bear the thought of "settling" for a program that I wasn't
>sure about.  So, I took a year off, worked as little as possible, read
>as much as possible, worked on my writing samples, and applied again. 
>This time, interestingly enough, I got *rejected* from *all* my
>secondary schools, but got accepted to *two* of my top three choices. 
>Was there an institution at work here? I'm not sure.  Seems more
>random than anything else--and I think the reason why it seems random
>is just because, despite what we sometimes like to think, there really
>are *thousands* of *really* smart people out there, and they *all*
>write really well, they all have really interesting things to say, and
>they all want to be in a grad program.  I know I was very lucky to
>have gotten the offers I received--but (and here is the superficial
>Nietzsche in me again) if I had been rejected again, I would not have
>hesitated with my decision: I would have taken *another* year off, and
>would have worked even harder to improve my writing, my test scores,
>etc.  Again, this would not entail "conforming" or "mimicking" what
>others have said: it entails becoming a better writer, knowing more
>books, being more comfortable speaking of history, having more support
>for your beliefs, etc. 
>
>I guess my point is just that almost every student should be prepared
>to make *at least* one move in their graduate career, and in any case
>should be prepared for what will seem like utterly random
>acceptances/rejections.  You can't assume that, if you don't
>immediately get what you want, it's because there are hidden forces
>working against you.  There's some hubris in that attitude, no? 
>Because if you WERE accepted, then somebody else would have to be
>rejected, and what about that person?  It's NEVER fair, and it can't
>be.  If, fresh out of college, you land in a grad program that really
>suits you, then consider yourself REALLY lucky.  Most of the rest of
>us will find, however, that graduate school is about being gutsy,
>about taking off and starting all over again, about sticking to your
>guns, about working your ass off for very little external reward (and
>why? because you love scholarship).  If you're not prepared for that,
>if you're not willing to spend a lot of years just getting to a place
>where you can finally follow your own path, then you shouldn't bother
>applying.
>
>Now, I know it sounds like I'm doing just what Luba warned me against,
>that is, blaming the students for being "lazy" or "nazis" or just
>plain "bad."  I don't know exactly how to respond to this except by
>insisting that this is most assuredly *not* what I'm saying; I'm
>saying that even the best, most deserving students often won't be
>happy in a given department, will feel excluded or ignored, maybe even
>"persuaded" to leave--but when that happens they have to call upon
>their Nietzschean reserves; they have to pack it up, leave, and start
>all over again.  Take that adversity as a blessing--that is, as a sure
>sign that you're on to something, that maybe you really *have*
>developed a radical position, something certainly worth working even
>harder for.  I know it will sound reactionary, but if you're *not*
>willing to do that, then maybe you don't believe strongly enough in
>what you have to say.  And if you don't know exactly what you have to
>say, then keep reading; do the assignments your professors ask you to
>do--chances are they're not idiots, and they probably do have stuff to
>teach you.  I most definitely reject the genetic fallacy (of which
>Foucault was sometimes guilty) that *everything* which has its origins
>in a flawed source is in itself flawed (i.e., that everything born of
>capitalism is bad, or that everything born of "the tradition" is bad,
>etc.).  I personally feel that I can learn from *anyone*, and in fact,
>I think that's part of what being a student is all about: opening up
>your ears, letting the other speak, trying to understand what he has
>to say.  Only then will you find your own voice, your own conscience,
>and have stength enough to assert yourself.
>
>Which brings me to Liano's post, since it seems wholeheartedly to
>reject this idea that students should be willing to learn from everyone:
>     I would definitely disagree with Liano's apparent rejection of
>the necessity of learning the history of one's field.  Yeah, I *do*
>think that, if you want to be an academic, then it is necessary for
>you to understand what has been done by your predecessors; this whole
>I-don't-need-to-learn-any- history-to-be-smart attitude is fine and
>dandy, but it's just not what *scholarship* is about.  I *do* think
>that you need to know some Plato in order to read Deleuze (even the
>most cursory reading of Deleuze should show you just how fascinated,
>and how influenced, he was by ancient Greek philosophy); I *do*
>believe in demonstrating your ability by performing certain tasks and
>writing assigned papers that you do do not find especially fascinating
>(note that I do not say you should ever side with an argument that you
>do not agree with: there's a big difference between meeting relatively
>boring requirements and being a hypocrite; and if you don't agree with
>this, then you've just called every person on the planet a hypocrite,
>including yourself, in which case the term seems to lose its critical
>force).  
>
>Now, let me just make clear what I *don't* believe:
>
>I *don't* believe that the ONLY way to learn is through "emersing
>[sic] oneself in 'the tradition.'" (I'm not really sure where I gave
>this impression--I thought I've been pretty clear: my point has been
>that if you want to be a grad student or a professor, then you are
>pretty much obliged to learn the history of your field.  If you don't
>want to learn that history--and believe me, I don't think you *have*
>to learn it in order to be smart or in order to learn more generally
>(hell, we learn everyday, from virtually every aspect of our
>experience)--then the university is probably *not* where you belong. 
>(Certainly Deleuze, along with Derrida and Serres and Foucault and
>just about everybody else, believed very strongly in learning the
>tradition.  One could argue that without that learning, they would
>never have written the books they wrote.)  If you don't care to bother
>with any traditions, if you just want to read whatever you feel like
>and write whatever you feel like without any reference to shared or
>past practices, then why would you want to go to the university in the
>first place?  My best friend barely graduated high school.  He is also
>one of my favorite writers, and a highly unique and remarkable
>thinker.  My conversations and correspondence with him have been some
>of the most important learning experiences of my life.  In many
>respects I think of him as well above me; he has taught me more than
>anyone.  He is someone who would probably take the same attitude as
>Liano: that is, that you don't need to go through past arguments in
>any displined fashion in order to learn.  BUT: he also has no interest
>in going to a university.  He knows that, for what he wants to do, he
>doesn't need it: there is nothing to stop him from reading and writing
>and learning on his own, wholly outside the strictures of university
>life, yet which Liano seems to think is what should take place *in*
>the university.  I'm not sure I can accept this: to be sure, learning
>on one's own is already a *part* of university-education (and again, I
>find it hard to buy Liano's picture of the university as a place of
>robotic programming).  Learning what others have to say, what has been
>said, what the history of your field has been like, these are also
>necessary parts of university-education.  In fact, I don't see any
>other reason why you would want to go to a university, if not to learn
>about and engage in and contribute to this kind of practice.  
>
>If you are already so sure that the tradition of shared practices is
>worthless, or that they have nothing to teach you, then why go to
>school?  Really, how could you even arrive at this conclusion unless
>you had *already* studied the tradition?  Because some
>post-structuralist thinker already did it for you?  If, on the other
>hand, you do care about these things, then that's why you go to the
>university.  If you want to participate in these practices with
>others, then you must learn them and their histories.  Otherwise, just
>do whatever you want: but don't demand that the university should
>oblige your every whim, or else be a place for pure unguided free-play.
>
>Liano asks me:
>
>"Are you telling me you never had a so-called educational institution,
>or even a well meaning professor, *decide for you* what to study and
>when and how and how to report what you'l "learned:, complete with
>regulation punishments for not complying?"
>
>Not at the graduate level, no.  Most classes assign certain texts, to
>be sure (though I have already taken a class whose reading list was
>compiled entirely by the students), and certain work to be done (you
>have to write a paper, etc.); but I don't think that any graduate
>level class I've taken actually *decided* for me what topics I was
>going to write about.  If ever there were essay topics suggested, they
>were just that: suggestions, guidelines, general possibilities.  My
>writing assignments thus far have been more along the lines of, "At
>least 15 pages," or "an essay in literary history," or "make sure you
>use at least two of the texts read in class," or, my own personal
>favorite, "Yeah, I guess I expect you to write something before the
>end of the semester."  A class I took in 18th century
>literature--probably my best experience thus far--became largely
>concerned with literary history: I decided to write for my final essay
>an historical account of late 20th century literary criticism (i.e.,
>it had nothing to do with the 18th century).  The paper was one of my
>best, and the professor wrote me a great recommendation.  I'm not
>exactly sure what kind of oppressive strictures Liano is talking
>about--but it makes me fear that maybe I've been REALLY lucky thus
>far, and that every other university in the world is just some factory
>where everyone is forced to write identical essays, lest they be
>laughed out of school.  I sincerely hope Liano's experience does not
>reflect many others'.
>
>Another question that I want to answer because it's simple:
>
>"...how many paper topics do you get to choose rather than having had
>them assigned, as if you couldn't come up with something interesting
>to write about?"
>
>Answer: All of them.  I've *never* been "assigned" a paper topic in
>graduate school.  I've been given some guidelines, some suggestions,
>but never anything absolutely binding.  I've always written about what
>I wanted to--though obviously so long as it related to the class (I'm
>not going to write a physics paper for a literature class).  
>
>One more, just because it seems to stress the great differences
>between our respective experiences:
>
>"In your lit departments, what would a professor say if a student
>walked in and said, "well, I know you assigned a paper on *War and
>Peace* which we just finished, but I wrote a paper on Tolstoy's
>politics based on direct biographica information and literary analysis
>of some of his other writings instead because I think it's important
>to look at how he lived in relation to what he wrote, but *War and
>Peace* didn't turn out to be central to my focus."
>
>Answer: If it was a good paper, with strong arguments and was written
>well, then I can't imagine any of my professors being anything but
>pleased.  I feel sorry for you that you feel your professors would
>have punished you for it, but again, I am tempted to say that you just
>need to go to another program.  (I'm almost tempted to ask you where
>it was that you received such shabby treatment--but then, I think that
>might be unfair to anyone who *likes* that particular dept.)
>
>Finally:
>
>"If you must always place your thoughts within and/or in relation to
>what has already been thought, is this not a...crippling constraint?"
>
>Answer: No.  (Not unless you are so arrogant that you think no one in
>the past has anything to teach you.  And by the way: when I say
>would-be scholars *must* learn the tradition, that does not mean that
>*everything* they think at *all times* must be "immersed" in the
>tradition. Personally, I don't even know what that would mean.)
>
>But again, I am really sorry if my comments seemed a little too rosy
>for those whose experience at the university has been anything but. 
>If it's any consolation, I myself have not yet felt "settled"
>anywhere; but then, I'm not afraid of picking up moving on if necessary.
>
>
>Alexander
>
>
>(And I'm not even going to bother apologizing for dragging on and
>on--no one has to read this who doesn't want to...)
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>