Fueled by a desire to become a teacher, Loren Mayshark entered Hunter College in 2008, with the intention of gaining a master's degree in two years. Six years and tens of thousands of dollars later, he abandoned his studies without attaining the deg...
Oops! This image does not follow our content guidelines. To continue publishing, please remove it or upload a different image.
Professor Rosencrass recommended I attend the conference at NYU in early April, which, along with the meetings, was the reason why I was in New York City on this occasion. The conference was free of charge as long as one registered in advance and it seemed like an excellent opportunity to explore the state of the field and learn from some of its most prestigious professors. Greg Grandin, the closest thing to a celebrity in the field, was one of the keynote speakers.
There were professors from a number of high-caliber institutions such as Yale, NYU, and Wake Forest presenting papers on their particular area of interest, which all fell under the larger theme of "American (Inter) Dependencies: New Perspectives on Capitalism and Empire 1898–1959." They would present their work and a panel would critique it. Then the audience would have an opportunity to ask questions to the presenters, who sat on their own panel, usually in groups of three. The two-day affair would conclude with a plenary panel with heavy hitters like Paul Kramer, Greg Grandin, and Barbara Weinstein.
One theme that stuck out for me was that many historians had done research at the Rockefeller Foundation. I had always been skeptical of the heavy involvement of the Rockefellers in historical research. It was a theme that I had run up against time and again as I delved deeper into the history of US–Latin American relations. The David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) at Harvard University was one of several ways the Rockefellers had been able to influence our perception of Latin American history. It was perplexing to me that the Rockefeller family, who were historical actors, could also shape how the history was being recorded and recounted. Therefore, I asked the presenters: How could the Rockefeller Foundation, where they were doing a portion of their research, not shape their narratives and our perception of history? This was met with some astonishment, but the panelists seemed like kind people and they did their best to answer me. They said that they could only do their best as historians to analyze the information as objectively as possible. One jokingly added that the free meals in the cafeteria of the Rockefeller Center were probably responsible for countless footnotes.
After the panel there was a break and I ran into one of the event's coordinators, Augustine Sedgewick of the University of Toronto. From his incisive introduction it was obvious that he was a highly intelligent man who took his job seriously, but his solemn professionalism was balanced by a playful, razor-sharp wit. He complimented me on my question and encouraged me to participate more. He asked me where I studied and seemed deeply interested in my career path and ideas. He treated me like a fellow colleague, something that was a rare occurrence at Hunter, where I often felt like a nuisance. As the conference unfolded I asked one more question, which was also well received. Several of the presenting professors went out of their way to speak with me and I felt that I was making some solid connections.
The discussion at the plenary panel was riveting and important and the participants were brilliant—well worth sitting through the entire two-day conference. After the plenary panel there was a mixer with wine and cheese. I spoke to several of the professors, and to many I gave well-deserved compliments on their work. Nearly all of them were very cordial and asked me trenchant questions about my thesis and my course of study. It felt very different from most of my interactions at Hunter and all of my interactions with Enrique Caraja and Professor Rosencrass. I left feeling elated and I wrote emails to all of the professors I spoke to at the conference. Each of them replied and kindly said that they hoped to stay in touch and wished me well on my thesis. Unfortunately, the high of the conference burned off too soon and I was back in the Hunter's merciless thrall.
The thesis process felt more painful and impossible than ever. With no certainty that I would ever finish my thesis, I decided to quit. After two years of work on this thesis I had not produced an acceptable first chapter. We simply moved on to my second chapter as my first was "almost acceptable." I had then revised my new second chapter a couple of times and it continued to be a war of attrition. When we finished the discussion on June 16, 2014, Rosencrass reluctantly agreed to look at the third chapter because I assured him that it would put the second chapter into the proper context, something that he said the second chapter was lacking. When I hung up the phone I felt awful. After almost six years of taking classes at Hunter, with graduate school as the main focus of my life, there still was no guarantee that I would finish. I was infuriated and needed to step away from the situation. I spent the rest of the summer away from my studies at Hunter and day by day, a little at a time, my depression started to lift.
