To the best of my knowledge this is still correct - I've even heard it said that we're more lucrative to have than undergraduates. Of course, undergraduates don't leave dirty mugs in the staff tea room, so it's probably a wash.
All the best,
Ben
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:08:39 +0200, N.W. Azal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The Aussies here can correct me if I am wrong, but it used to be that for
>each Ph.D student a given department put out at an Australian university,
>the Australian Federal Commonwealth government paid a handsome grant for
>the doctorate on its completion. The money went to the department itself. I
>am fuzzy on the full details of how this worked exactly but something like
>this was going on downunder at one point. Certainly a remuneration scheme
>such as this is never a loss for a given institution.
>
>N
>
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Dr Dave Evans <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> : ) having done a job including handling all of the paperwork for a large
>> number of co-supervised phd students i will attest that it is LOT of admin,
>> way too much
>>
>> phds are loss-makers for universities in purely business terms (the income
>> from student fees compared against staff and resources costs to run the
>> degrees) and that is part of why departments do not wish to share the
>> student, and thus the small income across the campus if they can help it. A
>> cross-disciplinary co-supervised PhD means twice the admin and half the
>> income for each department...
>>
>> the intellectual value of a phd is why universities continue to run them;
>> with the occasional exception of a phd physics or engineering student or
>> similar who invents something amazing that can be patented and sold for big
>> bucks to industry, but in our field we tend not to have that kind of
>> output, sadly....
>>
>> Dave E
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Ben McDonald <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I know a PhD student at a major Australian university who wanted to work
>>> with supervisors from different departments, her work being
>>> interdisciplinary. She was discouraged by her primary from doing so
>>> formally; it would be, she was told, "too much paperwork." Thus, all her
>>> dealings with faculty from the other department have to be done off the
>>> record, partly for reasons of bureaucracy and partly, I suspect, to
>>> maintain rigid disciplinary boundaries. After all, who knows what sort of
>>> nonsense they believe on the other side of campus?
>>>
>>> In light of the recent discussion, I'd suggest that the tendency towards
>>> departmental factionalism is one of the more unappealing products of the
>>> academy. Ivory tower within ivory towers, as it were!
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:18:21 +0300, Dr Dave Evans <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Indeed. But there is also a more practical issue on straddling academic
>>> >boundaries- if someone is, for example, doing a PhD on the economic
>>> history
>>> >of pagan publishing (not outside the bounds of a possible project, an
>>> >in-depth study of Llewellyn Ltd, perhaps) they will have to be
>>> >administratively and physically housed under one of a history or business
>>> >studies university department. That department pays for lead
>>> >supervisor/advisor, and such costs as the student attending conferences,
>>> >having a computer, maybe a photocopying account, library access etc, and
>>> >that department bills the student for tuition fees.
>>> >
>>> >Interdisciplinary study as a methodology is not entirely a comfortable
>>> fit
>>> >with the nuts and bolts ways that university departmental structure is
>>> put
>>> >together and managed. Then when the doctorate is granted, it has to be
>>> >counted for admin purposes as History *or* Economics, and each department
>>> >will want a successful completer ticked off on their performance record,
>>> >thus occasional bunfights ensue as to who the student 'belongs' to. Joint
>>> >honours degrees (BA, BSc) such as Business + a Foreign Language also fall
>>> >foul of this sometimes.
>>> >
>>> >Dave E
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Sue/Shya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> **
>>> >> Of course academic disciplinary boundaries are artificial constructs
>>> used
>>> >> to study and analyze traditions grouped under that particular
>>> definition.
>>> >> And of course where those boundaries are placed continue to expand and
>>> >> contract as definitions are debated and evolve. Nothing new to anyone
>>> on
>>> >> this list serve.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is indeed the case with Western Esotericism - from Faivre's form
>>> of
>>> >> thought, Verluis's emphasis on gnosis, von Stuckrad's discourse of
>>> >> methodology and higher knowledge to Hanegraaff's exploration of the
>>> Grand
>>> >> Polemic Narrative - see Forbidden Knowledge: Anti-Esoteric Polemics and
>>> >> Academic Research in Aries 2005, Vol 5#3. I haven't read his latest
>>> book -
>>> >> trying to download it now - but sounds as though he expands on this.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think this approach is fruitful - I think it picks up on Magliocco's
>>> >> comment that "Neo-Paganism and revival Witchcraft are esoteric,
>>> ecstatic
>>> >> magical traditions whose roots in Western culture can be traced to
>>> ancient
>>> >> times." This also accords with Ronald Hutton's contention that
>>> neo-pagan
>>> >> witchcraft is part of the lineage of ceremonial magick.
>>> >>
>>> >> Working on a couple of papers right now arguing that perhaps
>>> neo-paganism
>>> >> should come under the umbrella of Western Esotericism - how's that for
>>> a
>>> >> contentious, turf-war topic?!
>>> >>
>>> >> Shya
>>> >>
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> *From:* Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> >> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2012 6:58 PM
>>> >> *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Walking the Boundaries
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't have any problem with Hanegraaff's scholarship,
>>> >> but I also have issues with the category of Western
>>> >> Esotericism. I am starting to think that it really isn't
>>> >> that useful to worry about whether things are Western
>>> >> Esoteric are not, and thus that the category of WE
>>> >> in general isn't especially helpful in explaining this stuff
>>> >> or more importantly, in figuring out the problems. I don't
>>> >> buy various aspects of the narrative that links the various
>>> >> currents that get roped into WE; seems like it's just a
>>> >> collection of stuff that scholars of WE like with various
>>> >> broad and otherwise problematic common features. But
>>> >> I'm very much looking forward to his new one. His work
>>> >> on my renaissance magic guys is usually quite good.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Noah Gardiner <[log in to unmask]
>>> >wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I have my complaints about Hanegraaff and the mantle of 'Western
>>> >>> esotericism' of which he's become the leading spokesperson,
>>> particularly
>>> >>> with regard to questions like, 'Why is Christian Kabbalah
>>> Western-esoteric
>>> >>> but Jewish Kabbalah isn't?', 'Why are medieval magical traditions
>>> (European
>>> >>> and otherwise) excluded from the Western-esoteric?', etc. I have to
>>> say,
>>> >>> however, that, as of about halfway through, I'm really impressed by
>>> his
>>> >>> newest book, _Esotericism and the Academy_. In fact it's quite
>>> pertinent to
>>> >>> the academic/practitioner kerfuffles that always erupt on this list,
>>> >>> insofar as he's looking at the history of ways that 'respectable'
>>> modern
>>> >>> Western knowledge has been constructed in contradistinction to
>>> 'esoteric'
>>> >>> knowledge. Also pertinent to the most recent kerfuffle, I think it's a
>>> >>> great example of modern academia's occasional ability to
>>> self-deconstruct
>>> >>> in fruitful ways. I'm curious if anyone else has had a chance to look
>>> at it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - Noah
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Noah Gardiner
>>> >>> Doctoral candidate, Dept. of Near Eastern Studies
>>> >>> University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 4/23/2012 7:56 PM, Sue/Shya wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am always interested in academic writing that walks the boundaries
>>> >>> between the academic and practitioner worlds, at the same time
>>> playing by
>>> >>> the rules of both. Susan Greenwood's book The *Anthropology of
>>> Magic*has been mentioned. To this I would add Sabina Magliocco's
>>> >>> *Witching Culture, *and Emma Wilby's *The Visions of Isobel Gowdie*. I
>>> >>> found the latter a brilliant combination of scholarship and
>>> speculation
>>> >>> based on sound academic scholarship, always acknowledging when
>>> speculation
>>> >>> oversteps the bounds of evidence - but using it to drive the question
>>> of
>>> >>> "why of the witch trials" - a breath of fresh air in a very well
>>> researched
>>> >>> topic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have not read Singing to the Plants, and have just added it to my
>>> "to
>>> >>> read' list. Sounds fascinating.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am always puzzled by the bad press Wouter Hanegraaff' receives for
>>> >>> his insistence on playing by the rules of the scholarly game. I don't
>>> think
>>> >>> he is at all closed to different approaches, only approaches that are
>>> not
>>> >>> founded in some type of scholarly rigour. Isn't that academia's
>>> >>> contribution to knowledge?
>>> >>> I would reference in particular "Altered States of Knowledge: The
>>> >>> Attainment of Gnosis in the Hermetica" published in the International
>>> >>> Journal of the Platonic Tradition, 2008 Vol 2, pp 126-163
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Shya Young
>>> >>> MA in Religious Studies and lecturer at the University of Alberta ;)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *****************************************
>>> >>> "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear.
>>> >>> Optimism is better than despair.
>>> >>> So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we�ll change the
>>> world."
>>> >>> Jack Layton: 1950-2011
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
|