Comments on: Measuring the Glass Half Full http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:37:02 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kevin Brisson http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-777 Kevin Brisson Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:40:43 +0000 http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#comment-777 In the second paragraph of Why Study War?, Victor Davis Hanson notes "Today, universities are even less receptive to the subject [of military history]." I would like to know exactly which universities are allegedly 'less receptive.' Moreover, I would like to know precisely who have been trying to introduce military history as a new discipline and why they are encountering such obstinate resistance and by whom? What are the official reasons these schools cite? Hypothetically, even if it were true, what efforts are needed to remedy this? In the second paragraph of Why Study War?, Victor Davis Hanson notes “Today, universities are even less receptive to the subject [of military history].” I would like to know exactly which universities are allegedly ‘less receptive.’ Moreover, I would like to know precisely who have been trying to introduce military history as a new discipline and why they are encountering such obstinate resistance and by whom? What are the official reasons these schools cite? Hypothetically, even if it were true, what efforts are needed to remedy this?

]]> By: THE RUSSIAN FRONT » The State of Military History http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-771 THE RUSSIAN FRONT » The State of Military History Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:31:48 +0000 http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#comment-771 [...] by a subscription firewall, but many of my arguments have been presented in this blog earlier, like here and [...] [...] by a subscription firewall, but many of my arguments have been presented in this blog earlier, like here and [...]

]]> By: THE RUSSIAN FRONT » Oh, Woe is Us . . . http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-246 THE RUSSIAN FRONT » Oh, Woe is Us . . . Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:28:10 +0000 http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#comment-246 [...] rather than military history.  This does have at least a little bit of quantification (one of my perennial complaints) behind it, with regard to the proportion of departments who have a diplomatic historian [...] [...] rather than military history.  This does have at least a little bit of quantification (one of my perennial complaints) behind it, with regard to the proportion of departments who have a diplomatic historian [...]

]]> By: THE RUSSIAN FRONT » Military History is Not Dead Yet http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-10 THE RUSSIAN FRONT » Military History is Not Dead Yet Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:20:38 +0000 http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#comment-10 [...] up on David Stone’s “Glass Half-Full” piece of 30 August, I submit the following conclusion to a commentary that will appear in a special [...] [...] up on David Stone’s “Glass Half-Full” piece of 30 August, I submit the following conclusion to a commentary that will appear in a special [...]

]]> By: jgamble http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/comment-page-1/#comment-2 jgamble Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:41:11 +0000 http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#comment-2 As a humble graduate student, the question that always comes to mind when I hear this debate is: so what? What, really, is the point of complaining – particularly with no evidence – about a decline in “academic” military history? Clearly Professor Stone has demonstrated there is no *quantitative* decline, so what is the point to the incessant complaining? Do people enter military history PhD programs with dreams of easy money or because they have a deep interest in history? If the latter is the case – and one is talented – it seems one will always find work. If serious money is one’s goal, it should be rather obvious that academia is not the place. TIAA-CREF is only going to do so much. If anything, I would argue that the endless complaining about the rocky road facing military historians does nothing but discourage bright people from pursuing a history education. Why would an undergraduate invest in a PhD education when some professors are incessantly bemoaning the death of the profession? I’d rather see professors and upper-level graduate students encourage undergraduates to explore the idea of a quality post-graduate military history education. This might be particularly effective with the loathsomely titled “non-traditional” students. One shouldn’t ignore the negatives, but I believe it could only help the field to emphasize the academic and (equally importantly) non-academic lines of work available to one with a quality military history education. As a humble graduate student, the question that always comes to mind when I hear this debate is: so what? What, really, is the point of complaining – particularly with no evidence – about a decline in “academic” military history? Clearly Professor Stone has demonstrated there is no *quantitative* decline, so what is the point to the incessant complaining?

Do people enter military history PhD programs with dreams of easy money or because they have a deep interest in history? If the latter is the case – and one is talented – it seems one will always find work. If serious money is one’s goal, it should be rather obvious that academia is not the place. TIAA-CREF is only going to do so much.

If anything, I would argue that the endless complaining about the rocky road facing military historians does nothing but discourage bright people from pursuing a history education. Why would an undergraduate invest in a PhD education when some professors are incessantly bemoaning the death of the profession?

I’d rather see professors and upper-level graduate students encourage undergraduates to explore the idea of a quality post-graduate military history education. This might be particularly effective with the loathsomely titled “non-traditional” students. One shouldn’t ignore the negatives, but I believe it could only help the field to emphasize the academic and (equally importantly) non-academic lines of work available to one with a quality military history education.

]]>