On the other hand, he’s only teaching two adjunct classes.

This is how baseball's hall of fame got way too big.

Pro: "Academically credible"? Just who's the university fooling? Half the classes are taught by graduate students anyway, as they are at any other school. It's the academic racket--slave labor, no recognition, no respect.

Against: see this.

Anyone know his educational credentials?

They should have just made him a guest lecturer, or seminar speaker, or something of that nature. The course shouldn't have been offered for credit.

But then again, this kind of thing does have some precedent. Spike Lee has taught at both NYU and Harvard. Then again, Kumar is nowhere near in the same ballpark, league or sport as Spike Lee.

He has a B.A. from UCLA. 'Ats it.

It's not uncommon for people without "academic" postgrad degrees to guest lecture at top schools. I think many of us are more used to high profile policy people, as opposed to someone from Hollywood. I don't think film crit is the same as the inside of Hollywood, but if you are looking for perspectives on the industry, how can it hurt to have an inside view? Honestly, he's a guest, and the nature of Asian American studies is not the same as many of the older disciplines in the academy. A lot of it is dynamic and ever-changing, and it helps to have a pulse on the contemporary experience of API-As in many areas of the U.S. While I understand what the Daily Penn is saying about not treating Asian American studies like a joke, I think they should see what goes down before going all crazy pants.

And I don't even really like Kal Penn :) (blasphemy, I know).

"Academically credible"? Just who's the university fooling? Half the classes are taught by graduate students anyway, as they are at any other school. It's the academic racket--slave labor, no recognition, no respect.

Hear Hear!

To get more perspective on the issue, I ran both articles by a friend of mine, a desi woman who recently finished her PhD in Cinema Studies, to see what she thought. She put it to me this way: “There’s a big difference between teaching a class on media criticism and teaching a class on what it’s like to work in Hollywood. Grace Kao seems to think they’re the same, but they’re not. It’s kind of like asking Tom Clancy to teach American lit as opposed to creative writing, or asking Arnold to teach public policy analysis as opposed to a course on how not to run a special election. I don’t think either of those things would ever happen at a top twenty-five school.

I'll skip the rank snobbery ("top twenty-five school" etc; that was the number one thing that irritated me about my fellow grad students who seemed to think that they were somehow "better" than others because of that). You don't need a Phd to talk about human affairs most of the time (I realize this just as I am about to receive one). Just plain rationality will do most of the time, and frankly all this talk about "credentials" pisses me off. As a wise man (can you guess?) once pointed out, not much is understood at any deep level about human affairs, but whatever is understood is at the level of common sense; and this holds for all the social "sciences" and humanities.

Honestly, he's a guest, and the nature of Asian American studies is not the same as many of the older disciplines in the academy.

Whoa whoa whoa? I'm not sure Asian American grads would take kindly to this. (I'm not one, but thought about being one). The reason it's not same as older disciplines, is the entire concept hasn't really existed until say 25-30 years ago. You can't dog on something for not even being there.

It comes down to creditation. Are credits available, and are they applicable to a degree? That's all the univ admins care about. If thats the case, then some chops are needed.

I've had some really bad profs, "with appropriate credentials." It was an introductory class too, and the prof was unsure about what he was teaching us....at one of the top 3 universities in Canada! In the long run, I don't think that just because you study longer you're necessarily more knowledgeable about a subject. It helps gain that knowledge, yes, but you CAN learn just as much otherwise. If Kalpen had that stupid PhD, I bet he'd still give a similar course in terms of content because the point of bringing him in was to give hands-on info that he acquired in the industry.

It's all good. There are many ways to secure a teaching position. Kal's got the experience and fame that make him credible to teach the course.

In the long run, I don't think that just because you study longer you're necessarily more knowledgeable about a subject. It helps gain that knowledge, yes, but you CAN learn just as much otherwise. If Kalpen had that stupid PhD, I bet he'd still give a similar course in terms of content because the point of bringing him in was to give hands-on info that he acquired in the industry.

Hello? These universities are academic in nature. There are other institutions and settings where hands-on information supercedes academic credentials but an ivy league university is not one of them! A PhD is an academic credential. So academia clearly has to use it as a significant qualifier when choosing their staff.

Hey, it could be this.

But on the question of Kalpen, Kobayashi put it right. University teaching is a racket, and editorials in student newspapers are usually composed by undergrads in whose interest it is to think that the education they are getting is not the product of a ramshackle racket, when in fact it is. I'm all in favor of colleges bringing in adjuncts from the so-called real world. It's not like Kalpen is being offered a tenure track position. And if he sucks as a teacher, then they don't have to invite him back.

I guess it all goes back to the question, what makes us 'know' more, experiencing something, or studying it?

I don't really think there is an exact answer, but if anyone chooses only one of those two, I would guess they are wrong. It seems to be a combination of both to me, and perhaps students can learn something from a real life experiences as well as books. Perhaps Academics seem to put too much stock in the reading/sitting in a classroom discussion and not enough in real life experiences.

This is just a general argument, I don't really know Kalpen Modi's credentials.

There are other institutions and settings where hands-on information supercedes academic credentials but an ivy league university is not one of them!

Please don't shout.

It wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of eight non-Ivy league schools that, as a whole, offer a better education than the Ivies. The Ivy League is just that. A sports conference, albeit an old one (by American standards). What's with the fetishism?

Also would you object to a young novelist like (to pick a random example) Kamila Shamsie teaching at a university? What if Anoushka Shankar was invited to teach a class in music theory at Princeton. Would that be a terrible thing? After all, she doesn't even have a PhD.

Kal's got the experience and fame that make him credible to teach the course.

When I think of a brown person qualified by experience to give an inside look at the entertainment industry in the US, I think of Mira Nair. I really don't think Kalpen has been around long enough to really be able to lay out the trends in the industry and then tie them into a modern context. Of course, he is one of the few better known desis in the modern entertainment industry, but unless he's done some serious prep work I don't see him being equipped to teach a course like this based only on his experience.

But who knows, maybe he is a smart cookie, maybe he's been reading this blag, maybe we should just give the kid a fighting chance. Teaching is more about being able to communicate with students than it is about what acronyms you can suffix to your title.

first naina:
love the title.
as for upenn, they have an amazing south asian studies department..and i've taken classes from their so it's not second hand info..

i say give the kid a chance.. see what he has to say..
and then debate...

you can't see what the bannana has to offer without removing the peel.

people get 'honorary degrees' all the time..and sometimes it's not about the degrees after your name but more about 'life experience'..

heck emory is getting the dalai lama for 2 days, and giving him a Presidential Distinguished Professorship..
(no belittling the lama, who is amazig,.. but i'm just saying...)

sometimes it's in order to get a 'big name' on campus to cause a buzz... publicity...and the hoopla surrounding 'fame', alumni donations, and all that jazz.... in the end, it's all about the buck...even though harvard, and all those schools have had an all time high in the number of applicants this year...

Whoa whoa whoa? I'm not sure Asian American grads would take kindly to this. (I'm not one, but thought about being one). The reason it's not same as older disciplines, is the entire concept hasn't really existed until say 25-30 years ago. You can't dog on something for not even being there.

The underlying point was that it is not useful to try to use some elitist ridiculous measuring stick to measure all disciplines. Each has its own nuance and history, and it's important to think of the parts as well as the whole.

Kal's got the experience and fame that make him credible to teach the course.

By that argument, Paris Hilton can teach a course on the social and individual pathologies associated with extreme popularity and media coverage. But she can barely spell her own name, why? Because her brain isn't trained to think about the experiences she's experiencing. That's what a Ph.d demonstrates.

Honorary degrees are usually given to people who've done 100 times the work necessary to achieve a PhD. That doesnt diminsh the degree.

Also would you object to a young novelist like (to pick a random example) Kamila Shamsie teaching at a university? What if Anoushka Shankar was invited to teach a class in music theory at Princeton. Would that be a terrible thing? After all, she doesn't even have a PhD.

Ph.D.s aren't required to teach in a general sense. I never said that. I already stated Spike Lee's teaching duties at NYU and Harvard. In addition, I already said the question is more of creditation, and whether those credits are applicable to a degree. And yes, if an academic institution (ivy league or not) issues a degree, then they should have the right to decide which academic credentials are required for their teachers. How is that a broad elitist measuring stick?

I'm all for hands on/industry experience, but there are tons of other venues for this, especially in the film world!

Sorry, but as I agree with most of the above comments about U of Penn being an Ivy-League breeding ground, yet Penn not being so worthy of teaching there, we mustn't forget, it is a business like any other institution. It all seems more like a thinly veiled PR stunt to capitalize on his presence. Asian Americans have not been around long enough in Hollywood to warrant teaching a course. Seems to coincidental that Penn has a pilot coming out, 2 forthcoming films, and is trying to further a public image.

Ironically, I just read in Elle magazine how he wants to go back for his Master's Degree. Could this be the admissions test for him?

Mr. Modi will offer a first-hand account of how the current internal structure of Hollywood works to limit roles available to women and ethnic minorities.

This seems to be the main purpose of having Kal Penn present the lectures. Given the severe paucity (or perhaps even complete lack) of ethnic minorities with Ph.Ds and an acting/Hollywood resume, it doesn't seem like such a bad deal to me.

University teaching is a racket, and editorials in student newspapers are usually composed by undergrads in whose interest it is to think that the education they are getting is not the product of a ramshackle racket, when in fact it is.

HMF #18: "By that argument, Paris Hilton can teach a course on the social and individual pathologies associated with extreme popularity and media coverage. But she can barely spell her own name, why? Because her brain isn't trained to think about the experiences she's experiencing. That's what a Ph.d demonstrates."

I agree. Having the real world experience and being able to repurpose it to teach others are two very different things. I have worked both sides of the street - a ton of real world experience and a little of adjunct teaching experience.

But she can barely spell her own name, why? Because her brain isn't trained to think about the experiences she's experiencing. That's what a Ph.d demonstrates.

Absolutely a phd can demonstrate this but it's not necessary. According to Asian American Studies Program Director Grace Kao, Kal has been brought on to, "Mr. Modi will offer a first-hand account of how the current internal structure of Hollywood works to limit roles available to women and ethnic minorities."

Like chickpea said, let's see what the bananna has to offer after removing the peel.

Ok, being the foreigner who doesn't understand why an Ivy League university is so special (even after throwing it through Wikipedia), I think, give the man a chance. One of the best classes I sat through, as an theatre undergrad, was Hone Kouka's (leading NZ playwright) class on Maori theatre. As a pracitioner, his experiences, knowledge and contacts with the industry proved to as valuable and insightful on the overall history of theatre as what we were learning from our tenured Lecturers.

The two classes Kalpen Modi is teaching - "Images of Asian Americans in the Media" and "Contemporary American Teen Films" seem apt for his experience. It would, IMHO, make for interesting papers as he has experience as both observer and participant.

Somewhere in Illadelp, Mrs. Silence Dogood cries lonely teardrops on a park bench.

I hope the introduction to "Images of Asian Americans in the Media" is "From the man who brought us Kumar Patel and Taj Mahal Badalandabad..."

Also, has the Mutiny seriously explored the possibility of getting a mole to enlist in the class and live blog it? I would pay a subscription to the site for that.

HMF #18: "By that argument, Paris Hilton can teach a course on the social and individual pathologies associated with extreme popularity and media coverage. But she can barely spell her own name, why? Because her brain isn't trained to think about the experiences she's experiencing. That's what a Ph.d demonstrates."

I agree. Having the real world experience and being able to repurpose it to teach others are two very different things. I have worked both sides of the street - a ton of real world experience and a little of adjunct teaching experience.

I disagree. I think the statement conflates two distinct points. People may or may not learn from their life experiences, just as students may or may not learn from their academic experiences. The point is a that a PhD--at least in the so-called social sciences and humanities-- is neither necessary nor sufficient for gaining a tolerable understanding of human affairs. The same qualities and propensities (intellectual independence, willingness to challenge "authoritative" wisdom, and rational thinking) that allows one to learn from books also allows one to learn from life experiences. Believe me I have met enough clueless Phds from top departments and enough very smart and perceptive people without much formal education to disabuse me of the notion that you have to be "smart" to get a PhD (this applies to most of the social science and almost all humanities disciplines). By "enough" I mean a more or less random sampling--meaning the only selection effect I could think of was region-- of people (n= > 50 for each group).

"It all seems more like a thinly veiled PR stunt to capitalize on his presence. Asian Americans have not been around long enough in Hollywood to warrant teaching a course. Seems to coincidental that Penn has a pilot coming out, 2 forthcoming films, and is trying to further a public image."

while i have no idea whether this is a pr stunt or whether kal penn is qualified to teach or not, i would have to disagree about the asian-american presence in hollywood. sabu, sesue hayawaka, merle oberon (who had to hide her asian side), pat morita, nancy kwon, duke kahanamoku, george takei, sajjid khan (even though he wasn't american at the time) and several others represent a longstanding asian-american presence in hollywood - at various levels of stardom and types of roles played and each probably faced some of the issues that asian-american and other minority actors still face today in hollywood. i think a course is warranted, although the debate over who is to teach it is another matter.

"Believe me I have met enough clueless Phds from top departments and enough very smart and perceptive people without much formal education to disabuse me of the notion that you have to be "smart" to get a PhD"

I wasn't advocating a teaching credential, whether a PhD or similar, as a prerequisite for being able to teach. Certainly even an uneducated person with a deep real world knowledge of some subject could be a better teacher than someone who had acquired a PhD in the same field. My point was that real world experience does not automatically transfer to teaching, and in some cases, may not at all.

A similar uproar was caused when Northwestern's B-school invited Oprah Winfrey to teach a class on entrepreneurship in media. Some students were complaining that she didn't have academic credentials, a ridiculous concern given that the MBA degree is meant to be practical and who better to teach such a course than a woman who created an empire out of nothing. But I'm not sure how I feel about these two proposed undergrad courses. They don't seem substantial enough for a humanities degree, which serves a different purpose than an MBA, at any school. What does an adjunct class at Penn mean ? Does this mean it's a noncredit/1 credit lecture series...or is this for "real" ?

Certainly even an uneducated person with a deep real world knowledge of some subject could be a better teacher than someone who had acquired a PhD in the same field.

I would say something about penn@penn if I could

but

I'm from a state (Tamil Nadu) in which every iconic actor/politician has a doctorate except Rajinikanth:

Dr. M. Karunanidhi
Dr. M.G. Ramachandran
Dr. Jayalalithaa
Dr. Kamal Hassan

etc. etc.

I understand the argument that Kal Pen teaching at Penn might paint South Asian Media Studies as not a true field of technical academia. At the same time Naina's argument that Kal Pen is only there for one semester, so will not likely get in the way of those with PhDs getting positions, makes a lot of sense to me also.

hmm... dude said in an interview that the fact that Gogol is Indian is not at all interesting... that puts in question his "deep knowledge"...

There's real world knowledge and a certain charisma or knack for teaching (neither of which requires a PhD) and then there's the background in theory and in a discipline that allows one to teach a subject in ways that relate it to wider academic questions/literatures, and training or experience in teaching methods, which is really not obvious. You don't need to have finished a PhD to adjunct, but you generally need to have passed your comps and had some experience running a class, usually as a TA, and to be able to calibrate reading and assignments to the level of the students and to the norms of the school. It might look easy but believe me it takes a lot of planning and preparation. Anyone who has taught/adjuncted knows that it's something that takes a few tries and some practice. Many schools hire a "star" as a visiting distinguished prof or whatever, but they don't teach a full class, they do a series of guest lectures or master classes - and that's what it sounds like Kalpen Modi should be doing.

Certainly even an uneducated person with a deep real world knowledge of some subject could be a better teacher than someone who had acquired a PhD in the same field.

As someone with a PhD, I'm vaguely hurt by this, but I'm not sure exactly why.

All I can say is that you cannot generalize about PhDs in quite this way. In some fields of endeavor, acquiring deep real world knowledge of a subject may actually require a PhD. I also think that there are fields where a PhD often does bring more to the table (or lectern) that someone with "deep real world knowledge" (whatever that is).

Certainly even an uneducated person with a deep real world knowledge of some subject could be a better teacher than someone who had acquired a PhD in the same field.

As someone with a PhD, I'm vaguely hurt by this, but I'm not sure exactly why.

Having a PhD doesn't free one from the demands of ego.

Don't be hurt by it. It's the simple truth.

Kobayashi beat me to it. But I was going to say that as a soon to be PhD (in a "social science" discipline), I have exactly the opposite reaction.

It's not the demands of ego so much as the unearned (and in some cases, uninformed) derision on here that I find odd.

I actually think that derision of PhD-clad (especially in the humanities, but also in many social sciences) people is a very healthy sign.

I actually think that derision of PhD-clad (especially in the humanities, but also in many social sciences) people is a very healthy sign.

Well, not all PhDs are in the social science, which is why I indicated in #36 that the principle isn't generalizable across all fields of endeavor.

I'm not denying that there's a certain elitism associated with the academic "PhDs only" stance. But to say that the PhD holds no value greater than deep real world experience goes too far. In fact, in some fields, the PhD is approximately equivalent to real world experience (and maybe even a prerequisite to it).

But to say that the PhD holds no value greater than deep real world experience goes too far.

Yes it goes to far. That's why no one said it.

I beg to differ:

Certainly even an uneducated person with a deep real world knowledge of some subject could be a better teacher than someone who had acquired a PhD in the same field.

It doesn't specify social sciences, so how is it not a generalization?

Er, never mind #43. Point taken.

I'm not denying that there's a certain elitism associated with the academic "PhDs only" stance. But to say that the PhD holds no value greater than deep real world experience goes too far.

Then we don't disagree as much. This is what I said:

People may or may not learn from their life experiences, just as students may or may not learn from their academic experiences. The point is a that a PhD--at least in the so-called social sciences and humanities-- is neither necessary nor sufficient for gaining a tolerable understanding of human affairs.

True this probably does not hold to the same extent for the physical Sciences, since given the expensive equipment etc. involved, it is very difficult to gain independent knowledge (in which controlled experiments play a crucial role) outside the universities (difficult, but not impossible). Therefore increasingly, one is unlike to meet good scientists who do not have PhDs.

Never mind....

Don't I feel like a moron now?

Or, to paraphrase Mr. Kobayashi, having a Ph.D. doesn't free one from being an idiot. ;)

As a prof. myself, I think this is fine, especially if the courses are part of a balanced slate of offerings, and the syllabi he's using are produced in consultation with the established faculty in the AAS department and Cinema Studies programs at Penn.

The fact that U-Penn is an Ivy League school is not irrelevant, though not in the way you might think. Because the students at Ivies are often really eager and ambitious, they often need less direction from a "strong" faculty presence than do many other college students. They will probably be satisfied with the course, as long as the discussions are intelligent.

I'm tempted to write Grace Kao and ask her if she could forward a simplified version of the syllabus -- so perhaps we could learn more about what Kal Penn has in mind in terms of reading and organization. (I've been tempted to do an SM post where I give my own idea of what could be in a course like this -- we would start with Sabu, back in the 1940s!)

One other thing I should add -- I recently was the moderator at a screening of "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle" at the university where I teach. It was part of a "Jewish diaspora" film series! (The writers of Harold and Kumar are Jewish, as is I believe the director.)

The fact that U-Penn is an Ivy League school is not irrelevant, though not in the way you might think. Because the students at Ivies are often really eager and ambitious

Because the students at Ivies are often really eager and ambitious, they often need less direction from a "strong" faculty presence than do many other college students

The implication being that students as Podunk State U. are probably less eager and ambitious, and therefore require more direction?

Kal Penn didn't just randomly get hired by Penn without any thought. He had to present a syllabus to the dean and other higher-ups, in addition to proving his competency to teach the subject. If they thought his course was worthwhile, then his course is probably worthwhile. Yes, it's a media ploy, sure. Penn's ASAM department currently doesn't offer a degree--only a minor. It was hard enough getting it started in the first place. They need funding and attention just like any other young program, and this seems to be a good way to get it. And I guess just for fun:

Half the classes are taught by graduate students anyway, as they are at any other school.

No. All Penn classes, with the exception of a few writing seminars or night courses, are taught by professors. Discussion sections are sometimes moderated by grad students.

Half the classes are taught by graduate students anyway, as they are at any other school.

Not at small liberal arts colleges with no grad students.

My concern with Kal Penn is not that he's not educated enough, lacking a PhD, but that he's just plain not smart enough in the right way. Obviously he's talented. But he seems to not have a grasp of sociological nuance. He thought, for example, that his role in 24 would encourage people to question racial profiling when in actuality it more likely reinforces the idea behind racial profiling. That to me betrays a lack of understanding but an attempt to create meaning where there is none. Is he going to be spouting that kind of stuff in his classes? And does he know anything about theory in sociology? If he were to teach an acting class at Penn, I would be all for that. But him teaching this class would be like me teaching a class on health policy--just because I live with the practical ramifications of health policy every day doesn't mean I can actually teach others about it, or that I even understand its politics. If I were a student at Penn, though, I would take his class. I imagine it will be interesting but not particularly meaningful. But maybe I'm underestimating him.

The kids at Penn are still sore they didn't get in to Harvard, and are acting out their insecurities. Pay no heed.

A PhD is an academic credential.

But few people get far in life solely based on academic credential. That's why we use résumés, isn't it, to display other things besides our education that would make us valid candidates for any position. It just comes down to whether the person is willing to judge you for what you're worth on an individual basis, or if they want to go down the system's ordered list of "requirements" to approve of you. :-/ I don't think there's a right position to argue about, because on one hand Kal Penn is one of few Asian Americans in the industry so he would know a bit more than someone who's only researched about it from a theoretical perspective, but on the other hand it's true that most people get their jobs because of their academic qualification, so why make an exception for him.

I believe there are two very distinct skills to teaching - the ability to present/communicate/enlighten etc. and the ability to develop a student's understanding of the subject. In other words, teaching is a two way, interactive mission. Student development is perhaps the more elusive skill, whereas presentation is what gets the accolade.

"But he seems to not have a grasp of sociological nuance."

Oh right on! You have to have your head up your ass to some extent to even make it in Hollywood so in a way his insights could be usefull.

As an Asian American Studies student, I would hate if Kal Penn were commissioned to teach in my program unless another professor was co-teaching the class. Mr. Penn has qualifications to teach on acting as he was a TV, Film, and Theater student at UCLA. He also has some basic grounding in Sociology as he majored in that as well.

But, while he may have basic qualifications to run a seminar or discussion-based course, I shudder at the thought of a lecture hall of kids listening to him kvetch about the film industry without someone there to contextualize his stories with sound theory on media and race theory, etc. Penn kids pay a lot to go to school there, and they are ambitious in that they want their money's worth. I am willing to bet that the newspaper containing the complaints against his teaching there is a reflection of that.

And, yeah, it must suck for those *newly hired* faculty in the SAS/ASAM/Cinema Studies departments cuz Mr. Penn just whipped his SAG card out his pants and got ahead of them in line. And he's prolly gonna get the better lecture hall and the best timings for class too, hahaha...sorry i didn't mean to laugh out loud :P

"The kids at Penn are still sore they didn't get in to Harvard, and are acting out their insecurities. Pay no heed."

but i bet you didn't go to harvard either. projecting insecurities much?
and also, i chose to attend my ivy league school...i did not choose harvard as i found it useless for someone like me going into the sciences. cornell's is the best ivy for that aside from princeton and maybe columbia.

I know Dr. Allyn Miner - sitar instructor in the Department of South Asia Studies in UPenn. She studied sitar and Indian classical music in Banaras for 11 years, and then pursued further training under Ustad Ali Akbar Khan in Calfornia for a number of years. Since Penn has such high standards for music, I would expect the same for film and media too. In my opinion, inviting Kal Penn to "teach" a media-related course is like inviting Bappi Lahiri to teach a course on Indian music.

There's a reason why Wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source for most papers we (and I assume the same for others) write for academic-related courses. Even if it might give much more info than one may not find anywhere else. A qualification does matter to some extent - it isn't the only thing that matters, but it can't be ignored either. Even if Kal Penn does do a decent job at teaching the course, it would still be wrong to marginalize the value of a degree.

Also, has the Mutiny seriously explored the possibility of getting a mole to enlist in the class and live blog it? I would pay a subscription to the site for that.

Love it!

And I would pay to see Prof. Modi in those glasses... Yeah I'm no better than H&K...

I think this is a really interesting discussion for many reasons. I don't care a whole lot about Kal Penn teaching at Penn, but I do thing it brings up a lot of important questions about who is qualified to teach. As a former graduate student I honestly think the deeper I got into my coursework the less connected I felt to teaching undergraduates. I do think Ph.d's train you to focus (in a very meta way) on how you think, which is a difficult and sometimes gratifying process, but it is one that doesn't necessarily translate into useful teaching skills. Having said that I do think AAS (although multi-disciplinary) is different from having experiential knowledge in Media/Film, and thus I don't really see the fit between Penn and the department. I think (make that KNOW) there are lots of fresh Ph.d's in AAS who would love to have a chance to teach at Penn, and who could easily perceive him being there as an insult to the profession in some ways. The academic job market is cut throat (and often hugely depressing) so the resentment makes sense to me. I guess all of this is a roundabout way of saying that a Ph.d doesn't equal a good teacher, but it is part of a professionalization process that should be respected.

There is nothing a PhD program in the social sciences--but especially the humanities-- can teach that cannot be learned on your own. I think a lot of PhD classes in the humanities are bs anyways.

Sigh - have you trained in an academic program in the US in the social sciences or humanities? With due respect, it doesn't sound much like it. Academic credentialling and training is always going to be somewhat subjective but that doesn't mean it's useless - you have to develop a rigorous understanding of the literature in your field and show you can teach it, and most programs require you to develop some teaching experience. Rekha makes some good points about the surfeit of people more qualified than KM to teach Asian American Studies at Penn.

I'm surprised to hear comments so dismissive of graduate studies and the training they offer here, I thought there were lots of academics/grad students on this board.

sourav: (#58), I know Dr. Miner too.. we were all in India together for a program years ago.. she is an amazing musician, and I understand your point...about your views to those with the degreest to the 'flash in the pants' hollywood types..

it would've been nice if kal penn had come as a guest lecturer for 1-2 days integrated into some course already on the penn books..but again, i think this is for media, getting the course and the school out into the media forefront, etc..

is it just me, or do the other ivy league schools always feel they are stepchildren of harvard (god, i know i'm going to get lashed out for this statemet) and have to do things that will get them noticed?

anyways, dr. miner is awesome, and hopefully you got to study with her or take part in the fantastic s.asian studies department that penn does have..

maybe i'm a bit biased, good friends of mine new kal pretty well when he was an undergrad at ucla... i don't know what he can teach... i don't know... but we can't jump the gun... until the bullet is shot..

Look, I did not want to get into my personal background, (as a PhD student in an U.S. university or not)which you hypothesize as affecting my comments; but since you asked, yes, as I mentioned above I am about to get a PhD from a so-called "top 25" university (I could give you the name, but I am teaching a class this semester, and I suspect some of my students read this blog). Look, I also have an M.A. in Philosophy (my PhD will be in a slightly different discipline) and my interests in this area concern the philosophy of social science: especially the relationship between ontological assumptions about causality and the methodology used (i.e. regression analysis, especially probability models, or case studies and natural experiments and other quasi-experimental designs, if you are interested in further evidence I can even send you some of the papers I have presented at conferences...sheesh I hate that I have to even defend myself this way). I am saying all this because (a) if I were not to, someone would ask for my credentials to talk about these things (as you did) (b) as much as I loathe (a), i.e. the fact that you have to show your credentials before talking intelligently about anything, I do think that my training in analytic philosophy has something to do with my dislike of lit theory,criticism, and the like. I have sat in on a few grad lit criticism classes (in one of the best lit departments in the country no less. I sat in on one because I had heard that they apparently discuss Wittgenstein, Godel and Foucault in the same class. I kid you not, there were exactly two people in the class who thought that there was something wrong with the picture. The prof. had not idea what he was talking about; he had a very poor understanding---i am being chartable here-- of both Wittgenstein and Godel. This kind of thing generalizes to all the lit classes I sat in on (there were two more; one on postmodernism, which in my opinion is very bad restatement of some stands of Hume's thought). I have more entertaining anecdotes, if anyone is interested. By the way, I still stand by my statement above.

some typos: should be had no idea and strands of Hume's thought

Sounds rather painful, sigh :) I asked about your training not so much out of a desire to establish your "credentials" but because it's only too common for those outside a field to dismiss what it takes to qualify in it, and that's particularly true of a lot of folks in the natural sciences who figure that as the methodology used in the social sciences differs from methodology in their own field, graduate training in these fields must surely be arbitrary and completely subjective, and research in these disciplines can be dismissed as "my five year old could have painted that." Well, I'm in social science so I can't really speak for philosophy, having long recovered from an undergrad infatuation with postmodernism. But do you really think that there's nothing to be said for graduate training in the social sciences and humanities, setting aside one's feelings about the ultimate BS-ness of some of the material, and do you think just anybody could teach this stuff? Could anybody without graduate training in your field teach your diss material, for instance?

Hey, no problem. I don't think--or didn't say-- that you cannot learn anything in a PhD program. But I do think:

that a PhD--at least in the so-called social sciences and humanities-- is neither necessary nor sufficient for gaining a tolerable understanding of human affairs. The same qualities and propensities (intellectual independence, willingness to challenge "authoritative" wisdom, and rational thinking) that allows one to learn from books also allows one to learn from life experiences.

"I think (make that KNOW) there are lots of fresh Ph.d's in AAS who would love to have a chance to teach at Penn, and who could easily perceive him being there as an insult to the profession in some ways. The academic job market is cut throat (and often hugely depressing) so the resentment makes sense to me. I guess all of this is a roundabout way of saying that a Ph.d doesn't equal a good teacher, but it is part of a professionalization process that should be respected."

Rekha this is only to start a debate ....why should a 'professionalization process", "be respected.." from the POV of a PENN student? I don't much care for Kal's work to date..but I respect his HUSTLE big time. Making it to any degree in Hollywood is one of the hardest tasks imaginable....harder than earning an advanced degree from Harvard (trust me I know 3 A.R.T. grads who are waiting tables). Kal has done something in the real world...even if he is not organizationally up to par, It would seem that his anecdotal insights would be gold for an AAS student...or at least silver :)

Making it to any degree in Hollywood is one of the hardest tasks imaginable....harder than earning an advanced degree from Harvard (trust me I know 3 A.R.T. grads who are waiting tables). Kal has done something in the real world

I'm still undecided about whether Kal should teach at Penn or not, but I'm not too sure about the above statement. It paints a pretty stereotypical picture of academics and advanced degree holders. I mean, I know a woman who came to America as one of those infamous "boat people" from Vietnam. She went from eating rats on the boat and living in grinding poverty to earning an MBA from Harvard. You could argue that that is way more difficult than a middle-class Indian kid from NJ who went to drama school and theater school at UCLA. I'm not denying that Kal had to struggle to get to where he is today, but Hollywood is also famous for bestowing a certain amount of luck upon those who happen to be at the right place at the right time.

Some doctoral students are indeed privileged children of the arts, but others have been through extraordinary struggles to get to where they are (I can tell you about the physics PhD I know whose family suffered through Chernobyl, etc.). The line between academia and the "real world" is thinner than you think when you consider these stories.

trust me, if mike erik dyson is qualified to teach at penn then kal penn definitely is too. obviously this ivy league school places significant priority on academics who are crossover showmen. even if they are not academics.

Isn't Kalpen Modi a candidate for grad school at Stanford University? Granted, before watching his performance in "The Namesake," I might have written him off as a sophomoric one-note wonder, given his string of success in collegiate comedies, but he has proven himself a vary capable and thoughtful spokesperson on the issues of the representation of South Asians in media.

DJ Rekha is Teaching Pop Culture: South Asian in the US. Kal is a biter.