The PhD Octopus (1903)

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by kazinator on Friday March 24, 2017 @01:34PM (#13950650)

It's the same though; if you proclaim that a Ph. D. (i.e. some more or less objective demonstration of competence) in philosophy is not relevant to teaching literature, you are in fact saying that philosphy itself is not relevant to teaching literature. If philosophy is relevant to teaching literature, then the instructor's level of achievement matters in some way. If it is relevant, then knowing next to jack squat about philosphy is objectively worse contribution of relevance than being an expert in it with a extensive background. If the level of achievement matters, then so do whatever hoops we use for measuring and accrediting it, like "Ph. D".

Since the school chose an instructor with a philosphy background, they asked that he have an objective certificate of high achievement in that respective field. That was arguably better than asking for a Ph. D. in literature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by cafard on Friday March 24, 2017 @04:19PM (#13951928)

Without claiming to know what the administration of an anonymous college thought a century and some years ago, James's clause "after supporting himself by literary labor for three years" suggests to me that the college may have hired this man for his literary reputation rather than his philosophy background.

I do not say that philosophy itself is irrelevant either to literature or the teaching of literature. I will say that there have been very competent philosophers whose judgment in literature is at least suspect--think of Kant quoting the poetry of Frederick the Great, generally regarded as pretty bad stuff--and that there have been very competent writers on literature whose grasp of philosophy isn't strong.

Shall I go home and remove from my shelves the criticism and poetry of T.S. Eliot, who never bothered to show up and defend his Ph.D. thesis at Harvard?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by kazinator on Friday March 24, 2017 @05:12PM (#13952254)

The about face suggests that, as can be expected, more than one person was involved in the decision. At one point, Administrator X, being a principal influence in the hiring decision, was swayed by the literary reputation and influenced the hiring decision. Then later along comes Administrator Y and notices, "we hired this person who has no Ph. D, OMG!". Viewed from the outside, the school exhibits a kind of disordered, fickle personality: hiring someone for literary reputation without considering paper credentials one moment, and then fussing about the paper credentials the next moment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by tomrod on Friday March 24, 2017 @05:19PM (#13952296)

Spot on.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by Retric on Friday March 24, 2017 @06:17PM (#13952675)

No, you can argue that a PHD has zero correlations with teaching.

Picture a ven diagram where A overlaps with B, B overlaps with C, but AC does not overlap with A. Remove B and you have two circles that don't overlap at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by kazinator on Friday March 24, 2017 @08:56PM (#13953449)

But you also have a different diagram in which B has been removed; a different object.

Purge from your mind a whole aspect of who you are, and some other two parts become disconnected: uncontroversial to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The PhD Octopus (1903) by Retric on Saturday March 25, 2017 @10:44AM (#13955887)

The example also works the other way. In a hypothetical example of two non overlapping circles teaching and PHD don't suddenly overlap just because you draw a new circle encompassing some 3rd idea.

Saying A relates to B and B relates to C says nothing about A relating to C.

[ Parent | on HN ]