New Rule: No Degree, No Books

[Peter Kirby]

http://peterkirby.com/new-rule-no-degree-no-books.html

I have defended the right of the public to weigh in on topics related to the history of early Christianity. It’s a topic with wide interest, and it would be a shame to limit input to those who have pursued a credential in history or in theology. Besides the fact that people with different academic specialties have real value to bring to the table, there is something unbalancing about allowing only the voices of those who have gone through a long and expensive credentialing process, usually with the hope of gaining employment either as faculty or in ministry.

That being said, I am proposing a new rule: If you haven’t got a degree in history or religion, make everything that you want other people to respond to you about available for free online. Otherwise, don’t expect anything but obscurity. You have only yourself to blame for the level of interaction with your published work.

It’s easy to understand why those who have a degree in the subject want to publish books. Nowadays, even if you aren’t on a tenure track yet, the “publish or perish” maxim begins from the moment you start grad school. Your publishing record is a big part of your ability to get any kind of teaching position whatsoever. That’s why you look to find an academic press for your book, and that’s why your books are so expensive. It’s not because you don’t want them to be read. It’s because you hold out hope of finding (or keeping) a job in this field.

What if you are self-publishing or publishing with an obscure, non-academic press? What if you have no degree in the subject, not even a Bachelor’s degree in history? What if both are true?

Then you really have to wonder why you (1) haven’t gotten a degree and (2) have chosen to self-publish a book (which can make scholars envious with the 70% royalties possible – money that they will never see from their books) instead of publishing the same material online. The education is expensive, and the self-publishing process is potentially profitable. It’s also a deterrent to being read, so it makes people tend to assume that you value the potential for profit more highly than your ability to make a contribution on the topic.

Even if that isn’t true at all – especially if that isn’t true at all – it’s time to reconsider publishing a book as an amateur in the 21st century. If you want to make it available for free online and also available as an e-book or paperback, that’s great. If you want to pursue a degree and build a CV, that’s fine too. Otherwise, please don’t make us pay for the privilege of reviewing your arguments. It’s a fairly deplorable business model.

[Mental flatliner]

That being said, I am proposing a new rule: If you haven’t got a degree in history or religion, make everything that you want other people to respond to you about available for free online. Otherwise, don’t expect anything but obscurity. You have only yourself to blame for the level of interaction with your published work.

This, of course would create a class within society, and that would debase freedom.

Society is much stronger when the uneducated have the right and standing to question academics on any topic, forcing them to be accountable for their work. Those who have the education they claim should never be challenged by this. If they have the actual knowledge, questions from simple-minded people are easy to resolve. They simply answer them.

As a person with 5 college level degrees, I have no need of artificial barriers of protection. By far, I prefer to be challenged.

[Peter Kirby]

Society is much stronger when the uneducated have the right and standing to question academics on any topic,

As you would know from reading the first sentence of my post, I agree.

[Mental flatliner]

Society is much stronger when the uneducated have the right and standing to question academics on any topic,

As you would know from reading the first sentence of my post, I agree.

Then your OP is self-defeating.

(Or you agree in theory but not in practice.)

[Blood]

http://peterkirby.com/new-rule-no-degree-no-books.html

I have defended the right of the public to weigh in on topics related to the history of early Christianity. It’s a topic with wide interest, and it would be a shame to limit input to those who have pursued a credential in history or in theology. Besides the fact that people with different academic specialties have real value to bring to the table, there is something unbalancing about allowing only the voices of those who have gone through a long and expensive credentialing process, usually with the hope of gaining employment either as faculty or in ministry.

That being said, I am proposing a new rule: If you haven’t got a degree in history or religion, make everything that you want other people to respond to you about available for free online. Otherwise, don’t expect anything but obscurity. You have only yourself to blame for the level of interaction with your published work.

It’s easy to understand why those who have a degree in the subject want to publish books. Nowadays, even if you aren’t on a tenure track yet, the “publish or perish” maxim begins from the moment you start grad school. Your publishing record is a big part of your ability to get any kind of teaching position whatsoever. That’s why you look to find an academic press for your book, and that’s why your books are so expensive. It’s not because you don’t want them to be read. It’s because you hold out hope of finding (or keeping) a job in this field.

What if you are self-publishing or publishing with an obscure, non-academic press? What if you have no degree in the subject, not even a Bachelor’s degree in history? What if both are true?

Then you really have to wonder why you (1) haven’t gotten a degree and (2) have chosen to self-publish a book (which can make scholars envious with the 70% royalties possible – money that they will never see from their books) instead of publishing the same material online. The education is expensive, and the self-publishing process is potentially profitable. It’s also a deterrent to being read, so it makes people tend to assume that you value the potential for profit more highly than your ability to make a contribution on the topic.

Even if that isn’t true at all – especially if that isn’t true at all – it’s time to reconsider publishing a book as an amateur in the 21st century. If you want to make it available for free online and also available as an e-book or paperback, that’s great. If you want to pursue a degree and build a CV, that’s fine too. Otherwise, please don’t make us pay for the privilege of reviewing your arguments. It’s a fairly deplorable business model.

I think it has more to do with the imagined "permanence" of books versus the impermanence of the Internet.

Plus, doing a lot of research and writing and then giving that all away on the net is not a very good business model, either.

I haven't seen much self-published stuff on religion that's impressive. But of course a lot of academic publishing is not so great, either.

[Blood]

As a person with 5 college level degrees, I have no need of artificial barriers of protection. By far, I prefer to be challenged.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your degrees in, and from what institution? You've brought it up more than once here, so I think we have a right to know.

[Mental flatliner]

As a person with 5 college level degrees, I have no need of artificial barriers of protection. By far, I prefer to be challenged.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your degrees in, and from what institution? You've brought it up more than once here, so I think we have a right to know.

I prefer you challenge me more directly.

The possession of even one degree, bachelor level, implies that a person has a broad education, a disciplined logic, and can discuss a wide variety of topics as an informed participant.

If I am as educated as I claim, it will be self-evident. I have no need to spread my resume around town.

There is no accountability that I'm willing to reject. Any error you can point out is to my benefit.

[Blood]

As a person with 5 college level degrees, I have no need of artificial barriers of protection. By far, I prefer to be challenged.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your degrees in, and from what institution? You've brought it up more than once here, so I think we have a right to know.

I prefer you challenge me more directly.

The possession of even one degree, bachelor level, implies that a person has a broad education, a disciplined logic, and can discuss a wide variety of topics as an informed participant.

If I am as educated as I claim, it will be self-evident. I have no need to spread my resume around town.

There is no accountability that I'm willing to reject. Any error you can point out is to my benefit.

In other words, you're not going to provide any evidence of your education and qualification to discuss these topics, even though you make a point of lording it over everyone that you have five degrees. That actually decreases your credibility.

[Peter Kirby]

Society is much stronger when the uneducated have the right and standing to question academics on any topic,

As you would know from reading the first sentence of my post, I agree.

Then your OP is self-defeating.

(Or you agree in theory but not in practice.)

Or none of the above.

[Peter Kirby]

I think it has more to do with the imagined "permanence" of books versus the impermanence of the Internet.

Plus, doing a lot of research and writing and then giving that all away on the net is not a very good business model, either.

I haven't seen much self-published stuff on religion that's impressive. But of course a lot of academic publishing is not so great, either.

If an amateur wants the permanence of a book, I do suggest that they could both get a book together (complete with ISBN and available on Amazon) and put it up for sale while also making their arguments available to read online. That's not a great business model, but that's the point. With the financial motivation out of the picture, those who review the arguments don't have to buy crap written for the sake of a buck. And the writer gets to be more widely read.

In other words, better motivations and better outcome. The only difference is that you can't make a living out of it, but if you wanted to make a living out of it, you really should go to school for it. Wanting to make money off it and not going to school for it are two signals that something is wrong with the motivation for writing it.

Last but not least, in the age of the Internet, the writer and their fans bother all and sundry to read the arguments. That would be less annoying if they would just put these arguments up online as well.

In short, it's a good thing for everybody but the hack who wants to make a buck on the public's interest in this subject.