5 ms·

They have primary advisors, but (based on experience working in an administrative position at a US university) I get the feeling humanities programs are very di

They have primary advisors, but (based on experience working in an administrative position at a US university) I get the feeling humanities programs are very different from STEM subjects. The decision on whether one's work is "correct" and worthy of a phD is so subjective, and prevailing theoretical trends are so arbitrary and subject to change, that it's easy to reject a dissertation based on cliquish whims. She may have believed, plausibly given her experience, that her primary advisor would take Dr. Mao's side like everyone else. (If Dr. Mao wasn't her primary advisor, which it kind of sounds like they were, since it was their job - which they did not do - to send the dissertation to the rest of the committee?) Based on quick Googling, it looks like humanities phD completion rates are around 50% at best - which makes it sound like no one is all that "invested" in these students' successful completion.

scott_s 9y ago
Based on those sentences, I had concluded Dr. Mao was not her advisor: "I had to email my dissertation mostly un-read by my advisor to my entire committee (a scandal in and of itself), because, as my advisor wrote in a terse email to me, they did not have time to read it. Despite the gross negligence that this brazen declaration signaled, I was relieved by this, because it meant that I would go straight into my defense with a very high chance that Dr. Mao had not discovered what I feared they would." I took that to mean that since her advisor told her that her committee was unlikely to read her dissertation before the defense, she took comfort in believing Dr. Mao - a member of the committee but a separate person from her advisor - would also not read it.
- upvotinglurker 9y ago
  Yes, the sentence can be read either way (as "the advisor" and "Dr. Mao" both referring to the same person, who had not read the dissertation, or two different people). Dr. Mao's role seems to be kept almost deliberately vague - possibly in response to her lawyer's advice as stated in Part III? She does seem to state that her defense was conducted by three people - Dr. Mao, Dr. Hortense (who she did "go to" and got an unhelpful response), and "The third person in the room, another professor on my committee" who appeared surprised by the proceedings.
  - kmill 9y ago
    > kept almost deliberately vague I think it's a mix of lawyer advice and a disavowal of Dr. Mao as her advisor -- a way to maintain some dignity. The member of the dissertation committee who is most likely to be "impossible" to remove is the chair. More evidence for the roles: "I told Dr. Hortense in this November email that I was worried about my ability to pass my defense, especially if Dr. Mao was not going to read it prior to sending it out to the entire committee."
    - scott_s 9y ago
      Yes, I now agree with you and upvotinglurker. That also explains the mystery, and the hidden horror: her advisor plagiarized her.
      - vkou 9y ago
        She also mentioned that she would have been elated if Dr. Mao had just credited her in a footnote when he published her work. I imagine that this is shitty, but common in student-adviser relationships.
pfooti 9y ago
in the humanities, it is often the case that your "advisor" is someone with whom you meet a few times a semester. this is quite unlike STEM fields, where your advisor is often also your employer (usually you're in their research group as a researcher).
gozur88 9y ago
>The decision on whether one's work is "correct" and worthy of a phD is so subjective, and prevailing theoretical trends are so arbitrary and subject to change, that it's easy to reject a dissertation based on cliquish whims. The other half of the double-whammy is there are a lot of humanities degrees with no marketplace value beyond "has a degree" unless you have a PhD, so anybody in the position to impede your doctorate has more power than he would in a STEM field.
jseliger 9y ago
Former humanities grad student here. This is completely correct. One of the (many) reasons to avoid humanities grad programs is because a single person can so easily block or retard your progress: http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-opportunity-costs http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befor...

scott_s 9y ago

Based on those sentences, I had concluded Dr. Mao was not her advisor: "I had to email my dissertation mostly un-read by my advisor to my entire committee (a scandal in and of itself), because, as my advisor wrote in a terse email to me, they did not have time to read it. Despite the gross negligence that this brazen declaration signaled, I was relieved by this, because it meant that I would go straight into my defense with a very high chance that Dr. Mao had not discovered what I feared they would." I took that to mean that since her advisor told her that her committee was unlikely to read her dissertation before the defense, she took comfort in believing Dr. Mao - a member of the committee but a separate person from her advisor - would also not read it.

upvotinglurker 9y ago
Yes, the sentence can be read either way (as "the advisor" and "Dr. Mao" both referring to the same person, who had not read the dissertation, or two different people). Dr. Mao's role seems to be kept almost deliberately vague - possibly in response to her lawyer's advice as stated in Part III? She does seem to state that her defense was conducted by three people - Dr. Mao, Dr. Hortense (who she did "go to" and got an unhelpful response), and "The third person in the room, another professor on my committee" who appeared surprised by the proceedings.
- kmill 9y ago
  > kept almost deliberately vague I think it's a mix of lawyer advice and a disavowal of Dr. Mao as her advisor -- a way to maintain some dignity. The member of the dissertation committee who is most likely to be "impossible" to remove is the chair. More evidence for the roles: "I told Dr. Hortense in this November email that I was worried about my ability to pass my defense, especially if Dr. Mao was not going to read it prior to sending it out to the entire committee."
  - scott_s 9y ago
    Yes, I now agree with you and upvotinglurker. That also explains the mystery, and the hidden horror: her advisor plagiarized her.
    - vkou 9y ago
      She also mentioned that she would have been elated if Dr. Mao had just credited her in a footnote when he published her work. I imagine that this is shitty, but common in student-adviser relationships.

pfooti 9y ago

in the humanities, it is often the case that your "advisor" is someone with whom you meet a few times a semester. this is quite unlike STEM fields, where your advisor is often also your employer (usually you're in their research group as a researcher).

gozur88 9y ago

>The decision on whether one's work is "correct" and worthy of a phD is so subjective, and prevailing theoretical trends are so arbitrary and subject to change, that it's easy to reject a dissertation based on cliquish whims. The other half of the double-whammy is there are a lot of humanities degrees with no marketplace value beyond "has a degree" unless you have a PhD, so anybody in the position to impede your doctorate has more power than he would in a STEM field.

jseliger 9y ago

Former humanities grad student here. This is completely correct. One of the (many) reasons to avoid humanities grad programs is because a single person can so easily block or retard your progress: http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-opportunity-costs http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befor...