The Politics of Advice
Koom! Stop rubbing your butt on me. I’m trying to type!
Ahem. Not a glamorous lead in. The cat likes to make her presence known. Anyhoo. Somehow, as I surfed through various, wonderful websites this morning (which included Howard Stern, today’s Get Fuzzy, Prosportsdaily, and the Chronicle), I came across a critique of George Washington University’s chair of English’s blog post telling graduate students to enjoy graduate school and not fret over professionalization. The chair also offers a very smart follow-up.
Even as one who likes to stir things up from time to time, I gotta say the critique was a bit too harsh. While you strive to be professional, don’t hate your life at the same time. Still, I’m less interested in the quality of either argument (though both are really speaking to each other in the end), and more in the nature of conflicting advice.
Often, I find myself in the role of giving conflicting advice. I know that so and so colleague has told such and such student to do this and that (dang, how’s that for ambiguity?). Then I come along and say: “What? No way. That’s silly. Who the hell told you that? Here’ what you really have to do!” Of course, I think I’m right. And maybe I am. I have specific views on where one should go to school to do something specific, how to write an article, how to prepare for the market, and so on. And some colleagues will disagree with me. The question is how and if such and such student really can or wants to negotiate the conflicting advice or merely yield to whichever is the most persuasive point. Rather than pretend we don’t disagree, it would be nice to do some kind of Gerald Graff thing here and foreground our conflicts, our dissenting opinions, our versions of what it takes to succeed, without confusing or frustrating the students we work with. Teaching the conflicts has limitations, too. At the very least, however, we can address the fact that there is no one best way to get a job, get tenure, earn respect, be good, get published, etc. I’m starting to think that teach the conflicts is better suited for professional advice than for foregrounding ideological issues over how and what to teach. How to do that? Maybe some big cage match where we go at it and grads get to watch. No holds barred. We state exactly what we think it takes to do the job in this profession, being as open as we can about the sites where consensus won’t take hold.
Hrm, speaking of professionalism,
is there any room for grad students to get involved with planning/working at C&W next spring? I’m submitting a paper, of course, but if there’s anything else you guys need….
You might want to mention that it exists at some point in class. I mentioned it in the writing center yesterday and nobody knew it was going to be here. That sort of surprised me (then again, I’m the one who missed the 4Cs deadline like a nincompoop).
Comment by Jill — September 21, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Eh, thanks for bringing that discussion to my attention. I’m a GWU grad, and I know some of the playas. Eh . . . GWU Eng. grads were always . .. eh. I should bite my tongue. [ouch].
Comment by Josh — September 25, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Graduate school is full of conflicting advice, and suspect most grad students realize this. Different things work for different people in different fields, and hiring processes, etc., are changing rapidly. I hope most students realize that any given professor’s advice will probably contradict with that of another. The senior professor who has been on a few job search committees over the decades will have a different viewpoint from the brand new prof just off the market. Both will have valuable, and probably conflicting, advice. The trials, tribulations and, hopefully, successes of peers also serve to instruct on these matters.
The most important advice may very well come before the decision to enter grad school. I wonder how many people know what they’re getting into when they enter graduate school, and how many would actually do it if they knew.
Comment by Erik — September 26, 2006 @ 12:10 pm