APG-L Archives
Archiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1197101443
From: <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Accreditation - Retry
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:10:43 -0600
References: <980547.92497.qm@web31614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Hi Ray:
I'm headed to bed, full of antibiotics, decongestants, and cough syrup, so I
don't feel up to addressing the many and interesting points you make right
now. But before I go to bed, I wanted to make it very clear to you that I,
**in no way,** took this as you casting aspersions on me personally. You
simply struck a nerve regarding the *topic,* about which I'm quite
passionate, and I used myself as an example in refutation of your points. I
really can't go around making assertions about *other* folks, whether they
have a PhD or not; I'd probably be cast out of APG <G>.
And, for the record, I've always been aware of the bias of academics toward
genealogists, since I first began to work in genealogy back in 1978. In
fact, it was one factor that spurred me to enter college for the first time
at age 40, in order to deflect some of this bias by getting more education
(which virtually immediately turned into a quest for the knowledge instead
of even partially for the degrees).
But I have been absolutely flabbergasted in the last few years since I fully
rejoined the genealogical community to find that there is almost as intense
a bias against academics among genealogists! I don't think it has hindered
me (how would I know?), but I feel it. This attitude is not surprising,
perhaps, if you consider the treatment some genealogists get from academics,
some librarians, and many courthouse personnel. I was a trifle defensive in
my attitude towards these types of people also, at one time. And I will say,
that as my academic career progressed, I found more and more historians who
saw merit in family history and local history studies. So the times, they
are a'changing.
Since many people don't know my personal history and former experience as a
genealogist, author, and lecturer (it being in the background for the almost
12 years I was in school), I now take great pains to introduce myself as a
genealogist who BECAME a PhD, and that I AM a genealogist, first and
foremost.
I can only tell you my experience. The distrust or defensiveness or
dismissal of me because I had a PhD wasn't something I was looking for and I
certainly didn't expect it. But it's definitely there. It would be
interesting to hear from other genealogists with advanced degrees to see if
they have the same reactions, but it's possible not many would want to
acknowledge this openly.
An exception to this bias that comes to my mind, however, would be Tom
Jones, who has so firmly established his well deserved reputation in the
genealogical world that he's only seen as a PhD secondarily by
genealogists--thus he's fully accepted, at least as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I *think* that's the case. I'm still trying to figure it out <g>. (I
didn't get a PhD in human nature or psychology . . .)
Perhaps whether we're academic genealogists with degrees or genealogists
without fancy-smancy degrees, we must *all* establish our "substance" before
people can overlook the "form" of our educational level? Would you agree
with that statement?
And, I can't resist responding to your point about your friend with enough
credits for a PhD. There is no such thing as enough credits for a PhD. The
world is full of ABDs (all but the dissertation), which comes before the
dissertation, the intense rewriting and rethinking, and the written and oral
exams, which are the things that *make* a PhD. All the classes in the world
don't equal passing intense final written exams, writing a dissertation, and
being grilled for hours by several professors to determine your suitability
to receive their degree and being forced to defend every word you wrote and
every statement you utter. Classes take up two years in grad school; the
rest takes forever.
Most of the people I entered graduate school with either slowly faded away
after the coursework was done, or could simply never write the dissertation,
and some even got as far as the oral defense and were judged inadequate,
after which some rallied and retried, but many gave up. Some people take ten
to twenty years to finally produce that dissertation (and boy, do I admire
that persistence).
Perhaps one might timidly assert that a PhD, for whatever it's worth, is not
just about what you learn, but is, rather, more about what you can DO with
what you learn . . . if you can use it, assimilate it, integrate it,
correlate it, analyze it coherently, and, after finding something new and
useful to say in a persuasive and well documented and researched manner,
ultimately write an entire book about it that will pass the scrutiny of your
professors.
And one caveat: in all my writing, I am assuming a PhD in a subject area
that complements genealogy. I think we're both talking about training in
something related to our field(s).
Yet I do not in any way refute your assertion that people in general are
capable of learning as much or more in a different venue, such as
self-teaching, reading, experience, and taking classes. Extremely few do,
however, as human nature usually dictates a more focused methodology for
structured learning. BUT, there are so many excellent working genealogists
today who know their stuff inside and out in a thoroughly professional and
extensive way -- and many of these have come to this pinnacle of excellence
through self-learning, reading, experience, and taking classes -- and not
through earning academic degrees. I would take most of them over a PhD any
time, because they've learned to be so damned good at what they do.
So it's just NOT an either-or situation. You can have zero formal education
and be a truly qualified and professional genealogist and you could also be
a PhD who knows zip, or any level in between the two. It's not all or
nothing. We all have choices about our learning methods, and many recognize
a benefit from an academic education. (I would say ALL benefit from an
academic education, but you'd probably cut me to shreds <g>.) Maybe some who
take a course or two at Akamai will learn something new and valuable, even
if they don't pursue the degree. But I feel quite certain in my own heart
that anybody who DOES persevere to the BA will benefit personally and
professionally from the experience and the knowledge gained.
Good night, and thanks for a stimulating discussion. I love to discuss
(although my ex-husband insisted on calling it "arguing" <G>). If you're
still up, tell us what you think of those who are planning on taking
advantage of the opportunity offered by Akamai University's new BA in
Genealogical Studies, or the Associate Degree. Do you think it could turn
out to be valuable or do you think that graduates will only end up putting
form over substance? Or do you think, merely based on your experience of Dr.
Blount's writing abilities, that the program cannot possibly be any good or
succeed? Do you think I should just give up now and decide it's all
worthless to the genealogical community instead of investing my heart and
soul into a direction I think our community needs to take?
All interesting questions that will certainly inspire discussion (or
arguments <g>).
Regards, Carolyn Earle Billingsley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Beere Johnson II" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [APG] Accreditation - Retry
> Carolyn;
> Although I agree with a few of the points
> you make to a certain extent, they don't address
> the central point of my message. I stipulated
> there are members of the APG who do value
> substance over form, and my statement doesn't
> suggest every person with a Ph.D. lacks ability,
> or puts on airs because of their degree.
> Since it was concerning a message you did
> not write, I am not sure why you seem to have
> taken it as a personal attack. I assure you it
> was not written, or sent, with you in mind. I
> address your points, in specific, below.
> Ray Beere Johnson II
>
>> While I was getting my education, I was
>> appalled to learn that not everybody
>> with advanced degrees had all the skills the
>> uninitiated expect them to have. That doesn't
>> necessarily mean they don't have superior
> skills
>> in their own particular areas of expertise. No
>> one gets a PhD without a great deal of
>> time, effort, study, reading, writing, and
>> ability. And, truthfully, some get their
> degrees
>> from institutions with more rigorous standards
>> than others, although it's never a slam-dunk,
>> do-it-in-your-spare-time-with-little-effort
>> undertaking..
>
> While it does not *necessarily* mean they
> don't have "superior" skills in their area of
> expertise, it does not necessarily mean they do,
> either. There are those who hold a Ph. D. who are
> nevertheless far from outstanding in their
> supposed area of expertise. Some of the problem
> may be due to institutions with lower standards,
> admittedly, but money and politics come into
> play. The real problem is the fact that anyone
> who earns a degree acquires a certain bias, a
> tendency to uphold the value of their achievement
> by denying the reality of such cases. (Before you
> object - what about the professor who not long
> ago publicly stated blacks were "sun people" with
> predominantly positive qualities, and whites were
> "ice people" with predominantly negative
> qualities? Do you really wish to defend his
> ability? His statements were just as absurd, and
> just as indefensible, as the pontifications of
> any Nazi professor of "Race Science".)
> In addition, even if a given individual
> truly earned their Ph.D., that is *not* a
> guarantee another individual might not be just as
> informed and able, even though they never
> obtained a degree. When it comes down to it, no
> matter how much "time, effort, study, reading,
> [and] writing [...]" a degree candidate invests
> in obtaining their degree, someone else could
> invest just as much on their own, and with enough
> ability, gain as much or possibly more real
> benefit from their efforts.
>
>> But, as in every other arena, some are better
>> at one area than in others. I find that,
>> USUALLY, those with degrees in history, for
>> example, have better writing and research and
>> analytical skills, because those are the most
>> important aspects of doing history. In other
>> fields, you can get a PhD and be a great
>> psychiatrist, for example, or an incredible
>> biologist, or a business whiz, or a wonderful
>> engineer, or the best CPA on the block, and
>> not be able to write worth a damn.
>
> However, many posters to this list have made
> the point that expressing yourself clearly is an
> essential skill for a genealogist. Also, with the
> possible exception of a few fields that rely
> *solely* on pure mathematics, I stand by my
> belief that writing ability reflects, to a
> reasonably large extent, the ability to also
> think clearly.
>
>> No one on this list with a PhD has ever, to my
>> knowledge, evinced any air of superiority over
>> the folks with no degrees. There are many
> people
>> on this list with far greater skills than I
>> have, even if they have no degrees and I
>> have a bunch. As always, we have to judge
>> people on their merits first. I can attest that
>
>> LaWanna Blount is supremely qualified to do
> what
>> she is trained to do and that doesn't
>> necessarily include writing that doesn't make
>> your fingers itch to edit. And I always try to
>> remember that some very gifted people never
>> learned to type worth a damn or never conquered
>
>> technology to the degree you have.
>
> If a person is going to use their Ph.D. in
> their message, and term it a "paper", the least
> they can do is proofread it. If it weren't for
> that consideration, I might have ignored the
> spelling error and egregious comma as possible
> spelling mistakes. However, using the wrong form
> of a word is not a simple typing error. Finally,
> if someone is not skilled at writing, why would
> they post a "paper", publicly, using their name
> and degree, without seeking help from someone who
> *was* good at writing. Surely the purpose of that
> "paper" (and I do find that word pretentious in
> the context it was used - it is perhaps the one
> clear example of a Ph.D. on this list putting on
> airs) was to persuade others? Surely someone with
> great ability should at least understand their
> shortcomings, and leave the persuasive writing to
> others better able to cope? That said, I don't
> know LaWanna Blount - all I have to judge her by
> are the messages she has sent to this list, which
> are not very impressive.
>
>> Well, Ray, I'm not at all impressed with making
>> more money after acceptance in academia
> (because
>> I can make more money in genealogy) and the
> only
>> way the prestige helps is in accessing
>> academic-type archives where they
>> stereotype both genealogists (bad) and
>> academics (good). I have no control over that
> at
>> all. And I seriously doubt that anybody reading
>
>> this would go through the hell of getting a PhD
>
>> merely for that benefit. And, speaking to the
>> issue of prestige, have you honestly
> experienced
>> enhanced prestige for PhD's among genealogists?
>
>> Au contraire: I find a bias against them,
>> intriguingly enough.
>
> I never presumed to name you, or to suggest
> I knew your motive for obtaining a degree. I
> specifically pointed out that there are members
> of the APG who do not think this way, and at the
> end of my message made it clear my greatest
> problem was with the direction the leadership was
> taking. Also, I am aware of the unfounded
> academic bias against genealogists (in my
> opinion, one more reason not to take their
> opinions too seriously), and never suggested you
> or anyone else had any control over that.
> To be specific, the entire issue began last
> year with a series of posts urging that
> genealogists be licensed, and more education be
> *required*. These posts were by James W. Petty
> and his wife, and in at least one of them, James
> Petty specifically mentions that his father was a
> doctor, and that he considers his profession
> equal and would like the same money and prestige.
> Since it was after that so many members of the
> APG, and posters on this list, began discussing
> education more seriously, I assume that post
> struck a chord with at least some.
> It is also the case, in most segments of
> society, that anyone with a degree is
> automatically presumed more able than someone
> without. I haven't surveyed genealogists to
> determine how many of them share this attitude,
> but in light of the chord James Petty seems to
> have struck, it would seem at least some of them
> believe it is true.
>
>> You are stating a false premise: that the
>> reason to get a degree is for money and
>> prestige, not for the purpose of becoming a
>> better genealogical researcher. The correct
>> premise is that: the reason to get a degree (in
>
>> an appropriate field) is to ENHANCE your
>> abilities as a genealogical researcher and to
>> acquire a greater sophistication of method and
>> understanding of genealogy.
>
> Do you really believe most people who obtain
> degrees spend the time and money required
> *unless* they think there will be some return on
> their "investment" in the form of higher pay or
> greater prestige? I don't deny there may be some
> individuals who think differently, but most
> people just won't invest that much time and money
> without some reasonable expectation they will see
> some tangible benefit in return.
> For the record, I had a friend, who died
> recently, who truly was interested in improving
> his knowledge. He had more than enough college
> credits for a Ph. D. - except that he never
> bothered to take the "right" courses, and in fact
> never obtained any degree at all! He simply took
> the courses he wanted in order to learn more
> about the subjects he was interested in. I
> believe he had to struggle a few times to gain
> admittance to certain advanced classes, but
> somehow he managed. *In general*, I would find
> any person's claim to have pursued an education
> for the sake of improving their knowledge rather
> than monetary gain or prestige much more credible
> if they had followed his example.
>
>> Do you honestly think I spent 11.5 years in
>> college in two states, three universities,
>> learning in two plus languages, and on two
>> continents, taking innumerable classes, and
>> reading over a thousand books and even more
>> articles in my fields of history and
>> anthropology, in addition to writing
>> dozens and dozens of papers (many peer reviewed
>> and published, plus a published book from my
>> dissertation) and I didn't come out of that
> with
>> some higher degree of understanding in
> history,
>> analysis, citation, research, and writing? All
>> of these are the skills I needed to become a
>> better genealogist.
>
> Do I think *you* did all those things
> without learning anything? No, not at all, and I
> never said that. What I *did* say was that
> possession of a degree proves nothing. First,
> while I will agree that you, as an individual,
> are a genealogist worthy of respect, that does
> not prove that another genealogist might not
> possess a degree that depended heavily on factors
> such as their family's money or influence, their
> athletic abilities, "help" they got from others,
> even their physical attractiveness if they were
> not above using that to get ahead. All of those
> things are known to occur - whether or not they
> explain a given degree can only be discovered by
> looking at the individual's abilities.
> In addition, while I do agree that, in the
> case of reputable institutions, such cases
> usually are the exception and not the rule, my
> point was not that you learned nothing. It was,
> instead, that your degree in no way proves
> someone else could not have learned as much by
> studying privately, on their own. The only way to
> prove ability is to test ability. Your degree may
> *suggest* you *probably* got something out of
> what you put into your education (and in your
> case, I have already agreed that you did), but it
> *cannot* prove *what* you got out of it, and it
> is not, and can never be, a guarantee someone
> else might not have managed to learn more even
> without following a formal process. The fact that
> formal education is the most common form of
> learning in our society today does not mean it is
> the only effective form.
>
>> Have you even READ my book? Do you honestly
>> think I could write that book
>> and make the contribution to the fields of
>> genealogy and history that many
>> have posited had I not worked toward my PhD,
>> with all the work and study
>> that entailed?
>
> As I already pointed out, this message was
> not aimed at you personally, and it was not meant
> to attack your reputation. It was meant to
> counter the attitude that there is reason to
> shift to requiring degrees of professional
> genealogists, that a degree is, in itself, proof.
> Your book, and your contributions, which you
> mention, are far better tools for convincing me
> of your ability than the simple fact that you
> hold a degree. If someone without a degree
> contributed as much, I would respect their
> ability as much. That is all I am saying.
>
>> I've read nothing on this list that indicates
>> anybody values form over substance. That surely
>
>> comes from your own preconceptions.
>
> I have already pointed out, above, that I
> believe a degree, in itself, is form, and real
> ability is substance. I was also thinking of
> other issues, not directly relevant to this
> thread. For example, the APG member who violated
> copyright on this list. I filed an ethics
> complaint, and it was rejected on the basis that
> the violation never happened, when any objective
> review would make it plain it *did* happen, and
> the offender simply settled the legal issues
> after the fact with the copyright holder and
> posted a vague and misleading message to cover
> appearances. That person is now the "Information
> Officer" of the APG. To me, that means the APG
> officially validated form, in other words a quick
> and 'professional' cover up, over substance, or
> what really happened. Would you want to hire a
> genealogist who glossed over the birth of an
> ancestor to an unmarried couple simply because
> they got married quickly afterwards and made
> vague statements that could be taken to mean they
> were already married? Before that incident, I saw
> the trend towards form over substance, and that
> just confirmed my worst fears.
> Ray Beere Johnson II
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
This thread: