Comments on: Measuring the Glass Half Full http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:39:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: THE RUSSIAN FRONT » Military History is Not Dead Yet http://russian-front.com/2007/08/30/measuring-the-glass-half-full/#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-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.

]]>