Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:36:18 -0500
From: "J. A. Madrigal" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fwd: Frank Domínguez: Re: Literatura
  y los programas  académicos
To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]>

My two cents...Frank is right (hi Frank) except when he blames the
administration. It is our fault, and only our fault, because we forgot
that we went into this profession to study literature, not philosophy,
political theory and other disciplines that should complement what we do
and not become our core.
When we interview the future scholars of our profession, and specially
from the better PHD programs, it is embarrassing how little literature they
know. In most occasion, I find myself talking to them about works they
don't know in their own field. Incredible that someone in Golden Age
sometimes is better read than they are in their own fields. But Frank,
you are right, only three fields exist today: Spanish American Prose,
Contemporary Peninsular literature and Linguistics. The rest is old and
boring.
Also, the only individual in my Department who teaches Theory beginning
with Plato is me...Anything before the Contemporary period is as
dead...
Retirement from this profession is a welcome change!!!
Tony

***********************************************
                    J. A. Madrigal
                Castanoli Professor
        Dpt. of Foreign Languages
                  and Literatures
    Auburn University, AL 36849-5204
               Fax: 334-844-6378
            Phone: 334-844-5183
***********************************************


>>> "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]> 11/04/2007 21:25 >>>

>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:31:23 -0400
>From: Frank Dominguez <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Literatura y los programas académicos
>To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]>
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>
>Dear Robert:
>
>I seldom participate in listserv discussions,
>but Nancy D'Antuono's comments (hi, Nancy!) have
>moved me to add my two cents. I agree that the
>preparation of today's students in every area of
>pre-18th century literature (and I am really a
>medievalista rather than a Cervantista) has
>become woefully inadequate. But, it is not their
>fault. It is ours for permitting programs to be
>streamlined to fit students' natural desire to
>concentrate on the modern to the exclusion of
>the older periods and for watering down the qualifying exams.
>
>In part, this was a reaction to pressure from
>the administration which, working from a
>business model, wanted student training
>accelerated so that they could complete their
>MA/PhD in 5 years. But, what seemed fine for
>English, because they could build on a solid
>undergraduate background, or History, because it
>did not have language problem, was and is a
>disaster for us in language and literature
>departments. The upshot is that we are
>graduating a generation of students that do not
>realize that they are hopelessly unprepared.
>
>Today, I sat on a good dissertation on feminine
>writing as a coping mechanism for loss. However,
>the candidate could not answer how writing had
>been conditioned by loss from time immemorial.
>Perhaps I was wrong in asking, but before, any
>student worth his or her salt could have
>anticipated a question such as mine, even if
>their main concern was the application of Cixous's theories.
>
>The answer is to insist that students have a
>good background in every period (I too am
>grateful to Glaser!), that their qualifying
>exams cover all periods, and that we do not hire
>faculty who are so deficient in the earlier
>periods, that they do not see the value of a
>rounded preparation or can participate fully in
>the discourse of a department. This last is
>particularly critical, because the person you
>hire today will be making decisions about
>programs in the not too distant future.
>
>Frank Dominguez