As far as I can tell and what my research has told me is that the main difference between the AG and the CG is scope of focus. The CG is more generalized while the AG specializes in a region of your choice. (I am focusing on Mid-South: North and South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.) The AG process is intense, requiring a minimum of 1000 research hours, at least 500 of which are actual research as opposed to education, and 80 hours in each of the states in the region of choice. Then there is an 8 hour written test, where they test your ability to transcribe and abstract handwritten records, identify different types of records, etc. etc. And then they put you in front of a panel of specialists in that region and they grill you on what you did and didn't do. Basically like a thesis defense. Oh, and I forgot to mention the four-generation project with a 60 page research report.
If you know me, you know I tend to exaggerate. The report only has to be 25-40 pages.
So basically it's scary. And intimidating. I'm taking part in a study group right now with one other student trying to get her AG and two mentors to help us through the process. And by student I mean she has been researching full time for years and is already a CG. (And I was told the CG is harder to get than the AG.) Our mentors are super specialists and extremely knowledgeable about research and about the process of accreditation. They are amazing and I'm so lucky to be learning from them all.
And then there is me.
I think that there is a stigma - and some of it might be in my mind/due to my own self-doubt - about how young I am. It's automatically assumed that because I'm so young, I can't possibly have experience or know what I'm talking about. I was once asked by a researcher to speak to someone more "knowledgeable" than I - and when my supervisor gave the lady the exact same answer I had already given her, I felt validated in the knowledge that I actually do know what I'm talking about. But sometimes, I doubt myself.
And then there are finds like that find I made yesterday that restore all confidence plus some.
George James Smith1 was orphaned at a young age. He was born in 1927 and by 1930, he was in an orphanage, along with his older brother. He remembers nothing at all about his parents. The story goes that they were killed in a car accident. Who are they?
A. Through a series of email correspondence and internet searches, I tracked down the people who are in charge of the records from the orphanage the boys were in. It appears that in order to get the information, I have to submit a request and obtain the permission of the birth parents. Uh... (I have yet to call and speak to someone to explain my goal and situation. I called, but it went to voicemail.)
B. I found a birth certificate for both him and his brother listing a mother's name as Emma Taylor. (spelled differently on each certificate) No father's name listed.
C. I started searching the state death indexes for two individuals with the last name of Smith2 who died sometime between 1927 (birth year) and 1930 (when the boys are in the orphanage).
After more hours of this than I maybe want to admit.... I went back to square one and threw away everything I thought I knew.
What did I really know?
- I know that George Smith was born in 1927.
- I know that by 1930 he was in an orphanage, which means:
- either one or both parents had died
- or both children were given up for adoption.
- I'm going to operate under the guess that one or both parents had died.
- I know that according to the birth certificate, the mother's name is Emma Taylor .
- I don't know that the parents died in a car accident. That's a family story and as we say in my family, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
So with that, I broadened my search. Instead of looking for two people, I started with finding just one of them. Since I knew the mother's name, I started there.
And what do you know.
After searching for the mother, I ended up finding a death certificate for a Phillip James Smith, married to a Emily Tailer. I was 85% sure this was likely my guy. Here's why:
- His death date was in the right range - 1928.
- The wife's name was pretty similar to the name I was looking for - both first names starting with the same letter, last name a logical misspelling of the known last name.
- Last name was the last name that I was looking for.
- Middle name was the same as the individual I started with.
- First name was the same as another boy with that last name in the orphanage in 1930. Another son?
After doing more searching, I'm 99.9% sure that he's my guy.
That was yesterday. And I've already traced four generations.
(said very humbly) Aren't I amazing?
1 Names have been changed to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
2 Luckily, the actual last name that I am working with is a little bit more unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment