Yo Google!

I am going to try and recreate my old site thanks to Google's cache. I'll probably end up missing some stuff or leavings things out, but at least this way I won't feel like it was all forever lost.

Please Stop Calling Them Historians!

I was watching CNN this morning when I heard the anchor refer to Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail as historians. Baigent and Leigh are news-worthy because they are suing Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code for stealing material from their book. While I have no opinion on whether Brown lifted material from The Holy Blood or not, I do not like seeing Baigent and Leigh referred to as historians. Their work does not in any way meet the standards of history.

When Charles Wood of Dartmouth College reviewed Baigent's and Leigh's work in The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, he argued that it was not a "serious scholarly book" and that it did not measure of up to other history texts in terms of "approach, methodology, and research design". In addition, it doesn't appear that either of the authors have any training in history. Michael Baigent obtained a degree in psychology from Canterbury University and worked primarily as a photojournalist before becoming interested in the Templars. While Richard Leigh does have a Ph.D. from Stony Brook University (although I can't find his dissertation listed in dissertation abstracts), it is apparently in comparative literature (according to his publisher), not history.

So neither by training, nor by approach and methodology are Baigent and Leigh historians. Therefore, PLEASE stop calling them that.

You go Big-D!

Donald Rumsfeld recently made the comment that not enough people study history and I couldn't agree more.

He said: "I think the biggest problem we've got in the country is people don't study history anymore. People who go to school in high schools and colleges, they tend to study current events and call it history... There are just too darn few people in our country who study history enough."

I don't know many college history classes that are current event classes, but I know that it is a problem in some high schools. One of my colleagues has a son who just graduated from a local high school and his world history class spent half of their time discussing current events from the newspaper. While I think trying to find ways to link current events to their historical roots could be a interesting approach to high school history - just talking about world events doesn't even come close to addressing the subject. So for once, me and the Big-D agree.

Of course, Rumsfeld made this comment about the study of history as a way to explain President Bush's low popularity ratings.

He claimed: "There's never been a popular war. You can't name a popular war. There isn't such a thing."

"George Washington was almost fired."

"The Civil War was the ugliest thing -- carnage. 10,000, 15,000 people killed in a battle."

"Same thing in World War II... Franklin Roosevelt was one of the most hated people in the country and he was President of the United States. He was Commander-in-Chief. He did a terrific job."

This point I'm not so sure about. While it is true that in all wars there are people who are unhappy about the conflict and struggle, at the same time there were some wars that have been generally embraced by the majority of the American people and could be viewed as popular wars. The two that spring to my mind are the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the Gulf War of 1992. Of course what these two wars had going for them that you can't claim about the Revolutionary War, the War in Iraq, or even World War II -- is that each of them was relatively short and had few American casualties.

The World Turned Upside Down

I read this on a list-serve for engineering professors, but its strikes a good chord for all professors. When I was in band back in H.S., I used to imagine writing a screen-play where it was the band members who were the popular kids in school while the athletes would be the geeks. I figure that idea was, in part, just sour grapes about the way society worked. But there is something appealing about speculating how the world (or if the world) would be different if certain standards were turned on their head.

TEACHING AND RESEARCH: THE TABLES TURNED by Helen Sword

Imagine, if you can, an academic universe in which the roles of teaching and research have been suddenly and magically reversed.

Faculty members emerge from the library or laboratory and heave a sigh of relief: "Thank goodness I've finished all my research for this year! Now I can get on with my real work!" Rushing back to the classroom, they throw themselves with relish into the job they have trained to do through years of graduate study, the labor for which they are recognized and rewarded by their peers and their institutions: the "real work" of teaching.

Committed research scholars, meanwhile, profess frustration at the inequities of the system, but their complaints fall on deaf ears. Indeed, their excessive attention to research is secretly regarded by their peers as a sign of intellectual deficiency. "If so-and-so were a truly talented teacher," colleagues mutter to one another at cocktail parties, "s/he wouldn't waste so much time and energy on research." Newly hired faculty who want to pursue cutting-edge research methodologies are actively discouraged by their department Chairs, who urge them to focus on their teaching instead: "You have to think about your career, you know!"

When asked by administrators and promotion committees to develop measures for demonstrating research competence, faculty rise up in anger. "How can anyone really measure or evaluate good research?" they demand. "Research is a private matter, a matter of personal style." These same scholars have no qualms, needless to say, about subjecting their teaching to collegial scrutiny and rigorous peer review. Indeed, they love to fly off to far-flung conferences where they can engage in lively disciplinary debates with teaching colleagues from around the world, leaving behind the drudgery of their research obligations.

Top universities maintain their international stature by offering generous funding for innovative teachers, with additional support from government and industry sources. Academic units devoted to the promotion of research excellence, by contrast, remain consistently underfunded and understaffed. University administrators do pay a certain amount of lip service to the importance of supporting stellar researchers; but under their breaths, they all recite the same mantra: "This is a teaching university!"

Andrew Jackson and Wile E. Coyote

Wile E. Coyote - Super Genius

I was lecturing on Andrew Jackson the other day and when I got to the part about his war on the national bank, I mentioned that Jackson probably thought he was a genius when he decided to weaken the bank by pulling out federal deposits. Almost immediately, the picture of Wile E. Coyote calling himself a 'super-genius' popped into my head. Within the space of 2 second I had decided that this might get me a laugh if I shared it with my students. So I said, 'Like the coyote who chases road-runner, Jackson too thought he was a super-genius.' Rather than break out in laughter, my students started to argue with me that Wile E. Coyote never talks.

Now I'm not a super-genius but I remembered seeing at least one cartoon where Wile E. Coyote talked. So after class I hopped on the computer and began my search. At first all I was able to find were some sound clips of the Wile E. calling himself a super-genius. But after days of looking I finally found a copy of the entire cartoon. So of course, I downloaded it and brought it into class. I made them sit through the last 30 seconds of the cartoon, so they could hear Wile E. Coyote talk and watch what happens to people who brag about being a super-genius. The class backed down, but not before after asking me when these cartoons were made (trying to make me feel old I assume). But I got them back by ending the class with the comment, 'Now you can never doubt anything I say again.'

Smartest President

One of the guys in political science and I just got in an argument about who was the smartest president. I went with Thomas Jefferson, Jimmy Carter, and James Garfield (who apparently could simultaneously write in Greek with one hand and Latin with the other).

He was arguing for Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I would agree that Lincoln and Roosevelt were bright and effective, but I'm not sure their IQ scores would be in the genius range.

Perhaps this is a different point of view between historians and political scientists. Maybe they think to be smart a present also has to accomplish something, while historians assume if a president is REALLY smart he will probably be ineffective.

Faculty Awards

I served as a member of an awards committee last week and found the experience to be very disappointing. We were giving awards to the student, staff, and faculty member who does the most to represent the culture of the school and serves as a means to unite people around campus.

While the student and staff awards were fairly clear-cut, I was upset with how the faculty award was decided. The two top candidates were both well-deserving individuals who are excellent colleagues. However, the person who ended up getting the faculty award teaches less than 1/2 time. The other 1/2 of the time that person is involved in running a program in the Dean of Students office. Through this program the award recipient comes in contact with almost all of the incoming students. In fact the main arguments for giving this person the award was that program is run so successfully and does so many innovative things to bring the campus together. I brought up the point that this person's job was to do these things for the program and that how would any 'regular' faculty member ever win, unless they too had some administrative post. But in the end I was out-voted (of course full-time faculty were a minority on the awards committee).

Is it too much to hope that the people who are given faculty awards actually spend most of their time teaching?

I'm Back and I Have Tenure!

I abruptly deleted my blog Dr. History last semester after I got a message that lent me to believe that someone had figured out my identity. I figured that I didn't want to risk discovery on campus before my tenure decision came out, so getting rid of the blog seemed the quick solution.

This morning, however, the Dean came into my office and brought me a letter from the Provost. My hand shook while I was opening it, but the news was good! I have tenure! The weird thing is I don't feel all that different. I'm still holding office hours. I still taught my classes like normal. I am still going to bring stuff home to work on this evening.

What again does tenure change?

Ah yes, I remembered about an hour ago... I can blog again.

Co-Authored Articles

I've always been highly skeptical of co-authored articles in the sciences, business, and education. People in these schools continually claim that a co-authored article should count the same as an article with only one author when it comes to making tenure or promotions decisions. Can you really tell me that eight people working together on one 20 page article are doing the same amount of work as one person in the humanities who produces a single authored 20 page article? I really doubt it.

As I sweat away on this summer's article, I ran across this wonderful cartoon about co-authored articles in the sciences. It confirms all my suspicions. Now I must find a way to get this into the Provost's hands without him knowing it came from me.


The real meaning behind the list of names in co-authored articles.

A Computer for a Professor Anyone?

How long until administators don't need to hire adjunts or people to teach general education courses? Not long according to this Chronicle of Education article.

Right now an enterprising computer programmer somewhere is probably designing instructional software that could completely eliminate professors as we know them, says John C. Miller, director of the Algebra Courseware Project at the City College, part of the City University of New York.

Mr. Miller delivered that threat -- or promise, if you're an administrator rather than an instructor -- on Sunday at Innovations 2005, the annual conference of the League for Innovation in the Community College, which is being held here through Wednesday.

His best guess is that the programmer is probably in India, home to what Mr. Miller said are the world's best computer programmers and the world's best technical university, the Indian Institute of Technology.

The worldwide cost of "secondary" mathematics instruction -- pre-algebra through elementary calculus -- is somewhere in the neighborhood of $50-billion annually, and most of it goes to instructors' salaries, he said. The enterprising programmer would find a ready market for instructional software among cost-conscious college and school administrators."

The technology is ready," Mr. Miller said. "It's a question of when, not if."

Community colleges have in recent years adopted instructional software widely, mostly in developmental English, reading, and math courses, but the software now available commercially is supplemental. In most cases, an instructor still guides students through the course and answers questions that software cannot.

If they can do it for math and English, they can eventually do it for history. If computers take over teaching most of the content and you use multiple choice exames, you could probably get away with hiring on Ph.D. to "teach" and answer questions from 200-500 students a semester, maybe more.

History Quote from the Movie Rainman

I was watching Rainman this weekend and found the scene in the Doctor's waiting room pretty funny. While Tom Cruise if filling out paperwork for his autistic brother, there is an old guy sitting there 'expounding' on his knowledge about the pony express.

My favorite line was:"I might not have the names right or the dates right, but I know a little something about the history of the United States."

Sounds like a disclaimer that should be at the bottom of student's midterms.

AHA 2005 - Saturday

I just returned from the AHA in Seattle. The trip was a pretty good one, although I am exhausted from the long flight out there and back.I arrived on Saturday morning and registration was very easy. All the staff seemed in a pretty good mood and I even had someone greet me when I entered the registration area and point me to the right booth. Unfortunately, my room was not yet clean so I had to haul my bag around for the next couple of hours. The good news was the hotel gave me a free upgrade to the "club level" which put in a nice room, high up in the hotel, with a view of the mountains. It was really stunning.

I eventually made it over to the book exhibit. The highlight was that some press was giving away free cake. I also ran into a friend from graduate school and we made plans to get together that night for drinks and dinner. For lunch I went to "Game Works", which was like a cool Dave and Busters. The meal was just okay, but it did give me some time to review my paper.

I made it one session in the afternoon. It was a talk on Graduate School Fellowships. I ended up at it because I knew someone on the panel and wanted to show my support AND it was in the building I needed to be in for a 4:00 meeting. Luckily the session had some good things to say about applying for funding in general and it wasn't just focused on graduate students. Some of the helpful comments included:- be able to answer the “so-what” question- persuasive in broad terms- know enough to show mastery without having finished the research- research practical and restrained- don't present research as filling a gap- needs to be jargon-free- you can get a grant even if you aren't at a research institution- start months early- explain how your work fits in your field- don't fill your proposal with unanswered rhetorical questions- have someone to read it who is outside of academy- don’t whine about how if you don't get the grant you won't be able to do the project- don’t compare yourself to mega-scholars- proof read.

I then went to visit with a publisher who had seen my paper title and wanted to talk about the book I am working on. I 'pitched' her my idea, but she didn't seem that interested. But when I later talked it out with some other historians, they seemed to be more encouraging. I definitely am not ready to abandon my plan.

Early in the evening, I met up with my grad school advisor and one of my former classmates to discuss what has been going on at the school since I left. Lots of changes, but at the same time it almost feels like I never left. Same old controversies and problems as ever. I then had dinner with some other grad school friends. They all seem to be doing well. It is so nice to see people from my old department getting several job interviews and being successful at landing teaching positions. I swear that when I started in the program it was much rarer for a student to successfully go on. Then it seemed to be the exception rather than the rule when someone got an AHA interview. At least now, it seems to be much more common.

I'll write about Sunday in my next post.

Conserative Students, Liberal Profs

This is what I was talking about a few posts ago. While it is totally unacceptable for professors to grade students on their political views or make them feel intimidated from speaking up in class, at the same time I wonder how many of those people who are complaining actually have an argument to back up their views? I know that if I have a student in class who wants to argue that FDR was an awful president... they need to have some information to back it up. If they can point to stuff like court-packing or that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression great, but they need more than just their opinion... they need the information to back it up and they need answers to their opponents arguments. If they can't support their arguments and they are just mad that their opinions aren't getting them good grades -- too bad. You need evidence, not just opinions.

Top 10 Myths About Thanksgiving

In honor of the upcoming holiday, I located this list of common myths Americans hold about Thanksgiving.

I like to refer to it as the top 10 things you should know about Thanksgiving.

1. The Pilgrims did not hold the first Thanksgiving.
2. Thanksgiving was a multicultural community event.
3. Thanksgiving was a secular event.
4. The pilgrims ate deer at their Thanksgiving meal.
5. The Pilgrims landed at Provincetown, not Plymouth Rock.
6. The Pilgrims lived in wood clapboard houses not log cabins.
7. Pilgrims did not dress in black, wear funny buckles, or black steeple hats.
8. Pilgrims and Puritans are not the same thing.
9. Puritans welcomed sex as a God-given responsibility.
10. Puritans welcomed laughter and dressed in bright colors.

More Historical Precedents to Influence the 2004 Election

The Staff at the History News Network has the following list of historical precedents that were supposed to help predict the election one way or the other.

Bush would win ...

Because ... Incumbents usually have an advantage. In the last century ten incumbents won a second term while just five lost.

Because ... Americans have never turned out of office a president in the middle of a war. (This explanation conveniently overlooks the fact that two presidents declined to run for re-election in the middle of wars that were going badly: Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson; both faced the prospect of certain defeat.)

Because ... In a crisis Americans rally around their president and Americans remain so fearful of terrorism that they were willing to continue rallying around President Bush.

Because ... Only two sitting senators have ever been elected president (Warren Harding and John Kennedy).

Kerry would win ...

Because ... The tallest candidate usually wins. Only a few presidents have been shorter than the average height of their fellow citizens--and since William McKinley not one has.

Because ... Minority presidents (those elected with less than 50 percent of the vote in their first election) rarely win re-election. Until 2004, only three minority presidents won re-election: Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

Because ... No president has won re-election when their approval ratings were under 50 percent going into the fall campaign.

Because ... Elections are referendums on the incumbent and Bush had faced a string of reversals in the prior six months.

Because ... No president has served two full terms following another two-term president since the administration of James Monroe.

Because ... Incumbents usually either win or lose by large margins and no one expected President Bush to win by a large margin.

Because ... As John Zogby stated, undecideds tend to vote for the challenger and enough voters remain undecided going into the election that Bush's re-election was in doubt.

Because ... President Bush was perceived to have lost the presidential debates and no president who had generally been perceived as the debate loser ever won the general election.

Go here to read the entire article.