12th Night musings

[hrj]

12th Night was. I went to first court to see aastg's court barony and stand up for the pelican ceremonies. (Although the way they'd individualized the choreography for the second ceremony, I was beginning to wonder whether the Order was going to be invited to participate or not.) Saw the play and the artisans' display then snatched a semi-early dinner with duchessletitia, which was a good choice because the cafe wait line got really awful later and I wanted to be nice and relaxed and set up with the harp for the dance band for the Duchesses' Ball. I didn't quite get blisters on my fingers, but I'm definitely out of practice these days.

Sunday morning, callistotoni had an informal little salon for talking about Laurel standards and whatnot and somewhere in there I tossed off a comparison between the Laurel and a PhD that thread_walker made me promise to write down.

You usually hear a comparison of getting a Laurel vs. getting a PhD in a negative sense, e.g., "You practically need a bleeping PhD to get considered for a Laurel in X" or "Nobody'd meet your standards unless they had a PhD in the topic." But when you stop thinking in terms of absolute levels of work and knowledge and think in more conceptual terms, I think there's a very useful comparison between the two. Consider. As part of your preparation for a PhD you should:

* Have a solid grounding in the basic knowledge of your field. Know the major publications and studies.
* Know who the major players are and what they have contributed to your field.
* Be familiar with the general historic development of your field: What have the key theories and movements been? What interpretations have already been tested and discarded?

Within your particular area of interest you should:

* Have a relatively detailed knowledge of the available data.
* Have competence in interpreting that data.
* Not only know, but be in dialogue with other people currently active in the field.

Your body of work, at the time of your rite of passage should:

* Demonstrate both your knowledge and competence to the satisfaction of your prospective peers.
* Build upon the existing knowledge in the field to contribute either new data or new insight.
* Serve as a beginning, rather than a climax, to your career in the field.

(There are a few other parallels on the pragmatic side, such as "You need to be aware of and work around the specific quirks and prejudices of the gatekeepers who will be evaluating your work." But we'll leave those for now.)

Comments

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

From a strictly outside viewpoint of the Laurel (albeit inside of the PhD), it seems to me that there's at least one sense in which a PhD is easier to obtain than a Laurel: The prospective PhD can typically get by with a mere scholarly knowledge of a subject, while the prospective Laurel is far better appreciated for producing something tangible and attractive in addition to such knowledge.

Of course, the dirty little secret of academia is that getting a PhD isn't really all that hard. It's more a matter of persistence than innate skill.

[cellio]

(Laurel yes, PhD no.)

it seems to me that there's at least one sense in which a PhD is easier to obtain than a Laurel:

Another: with the PhD, you set out to achieve the goal from the start, have feedback mechanisms along the way to tell you if you're veering too far off course, and have reasonably transparent criteria. Sure, there's politics, but the expectation is that if you get into the PhD program and don't screw up badly, you will get the PhD eventually. There's no SCA equivalent of entering the Laurel program. (Apprenticeship is different.)