Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

Sigaba · 04-28-2009, 22:13

Many of his observations are correct--if not timely--historians have been debating the relative merits of monographs and narrative works for decades.

Many of his specific recommendations are sound. Many doctoral programs require candidates to do a field outside of their department to encourage an interdisciplinary approach. Many departments allow graduate students to do course work at nearby schools and even to have faculty members of those schools sit on qualifying exam and dissertation committees.

Ultimately, my issue is that Mr. Taylor is attempting to deconstruct (a la Derrida*) the university system under the guise of reforming it.

A quick word about his suggestion that footnotes undermine the utility (i.e. marketability) of a work. If one wanted to talk about a 'water program' as if it were some new brain child rather than a topic that was already well-covered when Patricia Nelson Limerick claimed that it was 'new' in 1987, it makes a certain amount of sense to frame documentation as an anachronistic inconvenience. (And if he's really so opposed to the conventions of scholarly publications, maybe he should end his relationship with the University of Chicago Press which, by the way, established and maintains the standards for documentation with its Manual of Style.)

Do I sound bitter? Blame it on Rumsfeld.

___________________________________________
* If one wishes, one may compare the obituaries of Derrida offered by the New York Times (here) and The Economist (here) to Professor Taylor's view (here).

04-28-2009, 22:13	#8
Sigaba Area Commander Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Southern California Posts: 4,478	Many of his observations are correct--if not timely--historians have been debating the relative merits of monographs and narrative works for decades. Many of his specific recommendations are sound. Many doctoral programs require candidates to do a field outside of their department to encourage an interdisciplinary approach. Many departments allow graduate students to do course work at nearby schools and even to have faculty members of those schools sit on qualifying exam and dissertation committees. Ultimately, my issue is that Mr. Taylor is attempting to deconstruct (a la Derrida) the university system under the guise of reforming it. A quick word about his suggestion that footnotes undermine the utility (i.e. marketability) of a work. If one wanted to talk about a 'water program' as if it were some new brain child rather than a topic that was already well-covered when Patricia Nelson Limerick claimed that it was 'new' in 1987, it makes a certain amount of sense to frame documentation as an anachronistic inconvenience. (And if he's really so opposed to the conventions of scholarly publications, maybe he should end his relationship with the University of Chicago Press which, by the way, established and maintains the standards for documentation with its Manual of Style.) Do I sound bitter? Blame it on Rumsfeld. ___________________________________________ If one wishes, one may compare the obituaries of Derrida offered by the New York Times (here) and The Economist (here) to Professor Taylor's view (here).
Sigaba is offline