Comments on: Disparity Studies http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/ The Korea History Group Blog Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:30:30 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Korea.com | Gateway to Cyber Korea » Why isn’t Korean Studies as popular as Japanese Studies? http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/comment-page-1/#comment-77342 Korea.com | Gateway to Cyber Korea » Why isn’t Korean Studies as popular as Japanese Studies? Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:09:54 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/#comment-77342 [...] Anyways, this question as to why Korean Studies are but of a shadow of Japanese studies is brought up and I wanted to quote from it (Original Source) [...] [...] Anyways, this question as to why Korean Studies are but of a shadow of Japanese studies is brought up and I wanted to quote from it (Original Source) [...]

]]> By: Neil Choudhury http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/comment-page-1/#comment-47257 Neil Choudhury Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:59:39 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/#comment-47257 Sorry, but as for the person who commented that UCLA was the only real serious Korean Studies Dept. in the US, I strongly beg to differ. The 2 strongest programs by far are Harvard and the University of Washington, with Washington coming a very close second to Harvard. Sorry, but UCLA is a distant 3rd at best. Not only does UW have the oldest Korean Studies dept. in the country, it also has one of the oldest language programs. The overwhelming majority of Korean history PhDs have come out of UW in the last 2 decades, all of whom studied under Dr. Jim Palais, considered the top Korean historian in the West, and perhaps even in the world. His "Palais Mafia" of PhD students teach Korean history across the US and Korea. The Korean Studies dept. at UW was also recently awarded a huge grant from the Korean gov. (with no strings attached as far scholarship goes), beating out Harvard, Oxford, UC Berkely, and yes, UCLA. UCLA has a good language program and a decent history program, but that is it. When I talked to my professors about pursuing my PhD in pol sci (with a research focus on Korea and Northeast Asia) none of them recommended UCLA if you want to study Korea. Go UW!! Neil Choudhury Univ. of Washington MA 2007 Korean Studies Sorry, but as for the person who commented that UCLA was the only real serious Korean Studies Dept. in the US, I strongly beg to differ. The 2 strongest programs by far are Harvard and the University of Washington, with Washington coming a very close second to Harvard. Sorry, but UCLA is a distant 3rd at best. Not only does UW have the oldest Korean Studies dept. in the country, it also has one of the oldest language programs. The overwhelming majority of Korean history PhDs have come out of UW in the last 2 decades, all of whom studied under Dr. Jim Palais, considered the top Korean historian in the West, and perhaps even in the world. His “Palais Mafia” of PhD students teach Korean history across the US and Korea. The Korean Studies dept. at UW was also recently awarded a huge grant from the Korean gov. (with no strings attached as far scholarship goes), beating out Harvard, Oxford, UC Berkely, and yes, UCLA. UCLA has a good language program and a decent history program, but that is it. When I talked to my professors about pursuing my PhD in pol sci (with a research focus on Korea and Northeast Asia) none of them recommended UCLA if you want to study Korea. Go UW!!

Neil Choudhury
Univ. of Washington MA 2007
Korean Studies

]]> By: Overthinker http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/comment-page-1/#comment-43648 Overthinker Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:32:22 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/#comment-43648 That is interesting, and while it wouldn't stop serious scholars (any serious scholar of Chinese or Japanese history should be able to read original texts from their period of speciality) it does raise the entry barrier somewhat higher. What would be the reason for this lack of typeset collections? I can think of a few possibilities (eg 1910-45 occupation, postwar nation-building issues, Korean War issues that might affect the development of historical scholarship), but would be interested to hear what people who might actually know have to suggest. That is interesting, and while it wouldn’t stop serious scholars (any serious scholar of Chinese or Japanese history should be able to read original texts from their period of speciality) it does raise the entry barrier somewhat higher. What would be the reason for this lack of typeset collections? I can think of a few possibilities (eg 1910-45 occupation, postwar nation-building issues, Korean War issues that might affect the development of historical scholarship), but would be interested to hear what people who might actually know have to suggest.

]]> By: Sukhee Lee http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/comment-page-1/#comment-43512 Sukhee Lee Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:58:06 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2007/10/disparity-studies/#comment-43512 Thanks for the thoughtful opinion. The issue is very complicated indeed. As a Korean graduate student who is tudying Chinese history in the US (please excuse my English!), I would like to add a very simple fact that the current status of Korean studies in Koreakeeps foreigners from an easy access to its complex and rich history. Let me take some examples. For those of you who study Chinese or Japanese history, Hanyu da cidian/Dai kanwa jiten/Nihon gokugo dai jiten (a Japanese OED) must be all too familiar. But there is no Korean equivalent to Hanyu da cidian or Nihon gokogo dai jiten. (Well, Dankook university has been compiling a multiple volume Classical Chinese-Korean dictionary. But that is essentially a Korean tranlation of all the entries in Hanyu da cidian AND Dai kanwa jiten) Almost all Korean books written in classical Chinese before the 20th century are only available in photocopy forms of the original woodblock printing. Although simple punctuations are provided for lots of literary collections (moonjip or wenji in Chinese) from the Chosun dynasty, there is no comparison to the quality of collation and detailed punctuation so easily available in Chinese and Japanese texts. Of course, many of literary collections of Chosun authors as well as the Veritalbe Records of the Chosun Dynasty have been translated into "modern" Korean by the collecctive efforts of many low-paid, hard working researchers. But their Korean translation is anything but modern. Neither classical Chinese nor modern Korean, it may require foreign researhers a special training to read these translations. Given this kind of weak foundation, it is rather miraculous that Korean scholars have produced some extremely fine historical works. But it seems very unlikely to me that the future of Korean studies, especially history and literature of "traditional" Korea, will continue to thrive, whether home or abroad, on this same foundation. Thanks for the thoughtful opinion. The issue is very complicated indeed. As a Korean graduate student who is tudying Chinese history in the US (please excuse my English!), I would like to add a very simple fact that the current status of Korean studies in Koreakeeps foreigners from an easy access to its complex and rich history. Let me take some examples. For those of you who study Chinese or Japanese history, Hanyu da cidian/Dai kanwa jiten/Nihon gokugo dai jiten (a Japanese OED) must be all too familiar. But there is no Korean equivalent to Hanyu da cidian or Nihon gokogo dai jiten. (Well, Dankook university has been compiling a multiple volume Classical Chinese-Korean dictionary. But that is essentially a Korean tranlation of all the entries in Hanyu da cidian AND Dai kanwa jiten) Almost all Korean books written in classical Chinese before the 20th century are only available in photocopy forms of the original woodblock printing. Although simple punctuations are provided for lots of literary collections (moonjip or wenji in Chinese) from the Chosun dynasty, there is no comparison to the quality of collation and detailed punctuation so easily available in Chinese and Japanese texts. Of course, many of literary collections of Chosun authors as well as the Veritalbe Records of the Chosun Dynasty have been translated into “modern” Korean by the collecctive efforts of many low-paid, hard working researchers. But their Korean translation is anything but modern. Neither classical Chinese nor modern Korean, it may require foreign researhers a special training to read these translations.

Given this kind of weak foundation, it is rather miraculous that Korean scholars have produced some extremely fine historical works. But it seems very unlikely to me that the future of Korean studies, especially history and literature of “traditional” Korea, will continue to thrive, whether home or abroad, on this same foundation.

]]>