As a teacher, too.... I feel this. My kids often say "the 1900's" and I have to teach them some rules about when to abbreviate the year... (1920's vs 20's. It still makes me feel icky.)
Depending on the field of research, this can be a valid question, especially in fields of science, such as astrophysics, where the information is rapidly evolving.
Boss described a manic client as “vaccinated with a phonograph needle,” then pauses and turns to our youngest and newest coworker: “you probably didn’t get that reference .”
Sincere deadpan response: “Oh no, I used to work in a museum!”
For a primary source in a class in ancient history, something from the late 1900s (CE, I trust) seems to me to be to be WAY past even the most generous cut-off date.
Eventually you become that reviewer who says "you need to cite these 10 papers that were important when I was in grad school. I can fax you the mimeographs on request."
Once I stop crying and wondering where my youth went, I’m thankful to find someone who obviously has a good sense of humor and shares a lot of the same academic interests as me (although someone who did not stop with a minor in religious studies and go to law school, obviously).
I still have my guide to viewing Halley’s Comet, if that helps.
(Turns out the best advice would have been “don’t live in a country with almost perpetual cloud cover”)
I had this moment where I took handoff and the report was “patient is a 30 something y/o…” and then went into the chart and saw DOB and in my head thought report was wrong - still haven’t recovered from realizing it was right
I was confused because initially I read 1900s and was like yeah I just loosely translated a French paper because I saw it referenced in a bunch of papers but never really saw why
Sure, in cursive. Surely no one actually could make sense of those artistic flourishes. But, I mean did people write in a real, human readable language? 😏
It's 20 past midnight here in London, my wife is a wreck, we are 250 miles away, my two brothers-in-law are 200 and 5,000 miles away. Mother-in-law in care home. The last thing in my mind is nuance. Sorry.
To be perfectly fair to them I do race and 20th century and want them to use the newest stuff because OH BOY there are a lot of bad takes out there that they find from earlier lmao
Someone told me that their professor had told them to never cite anything older than five years. Considering citing things from the last millennium is going all in.
Born in 2004. Never knew a childhood during which we were not at war with some Middle Eastern country.
Never knew a world without cell phones. 9/11 was ancient history By the time they were old enough to understand what happened.
I just asked my AmGov class (of about 70 students) if any of them had heard the song Born in the USA, and three of them raised their hands. I am ancient.
True story, I had a brief where I had to cite out-of-circuit precedent for the standard of review b/c the court had no published decisions on that issue since the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 was enacted.
As someone who went to HS in the late 1900s, I need to lie down now. I'm not prepared for my teenage years to be referred to the same way we talk about the Victorian era.
That's a hate crime. I once had a young coworker ask when I planned to retire. I told how much time I had left til I hit minimum retirement age. He was shocked that I wasn't already old enough. Little bastard.
It tells us a lot about (hopefully late) capitalism.
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
The destruction of historica memory is a key ideological instrument of oppression.
About the friendly tone or the date? In sociology or anthropology it would be ok under specific conditions (quoting the original paper that introduced a concept, making a short historical review of how a topic was framed).
Honestly, I argue with my professors in graduate school saying we can’t use works that are more than 7-10 years old all the time! It’s so frustrating. I understand for stats or numbers that need updating, but not in general. So it could be them usually being told not to by other profs.
Comments
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MexRnd7ujG8
I heard some of the sources for that are crazy old—like before cable TV old.
Poor kid should learn to proof read.
😭
😳😭
Sincere deadpan response: “Oh no, I used to work in a museum!”
True story.
Not if I see you first 🤬
Oh. 😂😭👵🏻
(And now I'm falling into a vaporous heap onto the fainting couch... where's my laudanum, I am IN PAIN)
(Turns out the best advice would have been “don’t live in a country with almost perpetual cloud cover”)
😤👹
He might as well have said the late 1800's.
rheumatism. I’m going to end up with dropsy. 👴🏻
C- for inflicting psychic damage on professor
I pointed out I'd had it since before they were born. 🤣
It's 20 past midnight here in London, my wife is a wreck, we are 250 miles away, my two brothers-in-law are 200 and 5,000 miles away. Mother-in-law in care home. The last thing in my mind is nuance. Sorry.
My wit is not very attuned.
That book is not a quick read.
Yes, old people are frail.
Born in 2004. Never knew a childhood during which we were not at war with some Middle Eastern country.
Never knew a world without cell phones. 9/11 was ancient history By the time they were old enough to understand what happened.
Time keeps on Slippin’…
Students, much like my children, keep it real and put me in my place 😂😭
True story, I had a brief where I had to cite out-of-circuit precedent for the standard of review b/c the court had no published decisions on that issue since the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 was enacted.
Like my oldest telling me she loves oldies rock, like the White Stripes/
Me: "Stop, just stop." 🤦♀️
😂
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
The destruction of historica memory is a key ideological instrument of oppression.