HELP! I'm ABD and I want to change programs.

[academic4life]

Situation: 

My doubts about graduate school have resurfaced and become more potent. While I am in my third year at a top ten university, I no longer think my department is right for me given my change in interests and disposition towards theory. The department is largely tilted towards early modern Europe while I am interested in near contemporary Europe. I accepted admission because it was the best offer and because I identified three faculty who worked on contemporary Europe. When I began coursework, I realized one of them had no interest in graduate students--I had very much wanted to do a field with them. Too bad, I told myself. Another had accepted to co-advise me, but, on the first day, told me he wasn’t my advisor. Ok...The third is my advisor. We get along fairly well and he's a cool person. My advisor is a brilliant historian of the time period I’m interested in studying, but his interests have shifted increasingly towards postmodernism. While I was initially enamored with postmodern thought, I no longer have any interests in postmodernism as a subject or as theory—the realization was gradual, but it’s clear as day now. My interest has shifted towards the history of a libearlism as a political philosophy and a political project in the same time and space. My advisor is not a foremost expert on the subject.

Given the abysmal job market, it doesn’t seem rational to remain at a program that doesn’t provide me with the intellectual environment to produce the best research I could even if resources like funding are casually thrown around. I was foolishly ignorant when first applying to graduate school. With a bolstered resume (MA, languages, grants) and knowledge of what I’m actually doing as a historian, I could get into a better program that can better train me, advise me, and prepare me for the type of research and questions that interest me. This might include doing a JD PhD in order to have the legal wherewithal to address my questions. Although it would mean having to restart from scratch, I would know exactly what I would be getting myself into. I would thus be better positioned to finish a new program in five years, meaning I’d have spent nine years total combined in graduate school (since I wouldn't be able to apply until next year). The number seems high but the returns would be greater I think. I'll also have the peace of mind that I did everything within my abilities--no regrets. 

I am considering emailing a professor with whom I would love to work to get their opinion on my work and avenues of exploration. Perhaps this might lead to a better chance to get into said program. Competition is obviously tight at the top three, but an ardent advocate on the inside would be helpful. I’ve also considered contacting my undergraduate advisor and anonymously emailing department representatives at other universities to ask them their opinions regarding PhDs that transfer.

Concerns:

1) I"m concerned about burning bridges with my advisor and maybe other professors even though I feel justified. 2) I would need letters of recommendation. I presume two professors with whom I did fields would grant me those, but I am not sure I should trust a letter from my advisor. 3) I'm not sure how graduate committees weigh a student who has dropped their program after four years, though my department recently took one on. 4) The top dogs know each other and the paranoiac in me wonders if my embittered advisor who spent years teaching me would hurt my chances. 5) Obviously, there's no guarantee I get into a better program. I would say that I received two unofficial phone interviews with Princeton the first time around that did not lead to an official interview. I'm not surprised: I told the professor I was uncertain about my subject and bluntly told them that it might not be in his time period. Again, I had no idea what I was doing the first time around. However, they seemed interested in my potential as an undergraduate. 

I feel awful that my department spent over 150k dollars funding me so far and that I would most likely need a fourth year (50k) of funding while I semi-secretly begin to apply elsewhere. 

[academic4life]

I should add that I am the only graduate student studying my time period in my general area (europe) and my specific country.

Edited March 24, 2019 by academic4life

[ashiepoo72]

Wow, I'm sorry you're in this anxious position, and I hope you're able to find a satisfactory way out of it. 

I don't have any insight into switching PhD programs within the same discipline post-comps and know very few people who successfully did this post-admission (although I hear it happens on occasion). However, I did want to mention another option: outside readers. Is there any way you could get in contact with people who are experts in your area of interest and have them as outside readers on your committee? This might make up for your adviser's shifting interests and the program's emphasis not matching yours if switching programs proves untenable.

[TMP]

I'd stay in the program. Once you are in the dissertation stage, you are much, much more free to explore your own interests and meet others who share the same questions.  This can be done by going to conferences, reading conference programs and journal articles, and reaching out to scholars in your vicinity of your archival research.  It is expect that you expand your knowledge and network beyond what you've been exposed to during your coursework years. 

There are plenty of professors supervising dissertations outside of their own inquiries because students change directions and that's perfectly normal.  A good adviser will be honest with you and say, "I'm sorry, I can't supervise this kind of dissertation."  It sounds like your adviser is still confident and wants to keep guiding you.  Have faith.

Even if you try to transfer at this late stage, you'd still be looking at 2 years of coursework elsewhere and then another year of comps studying.  That's not a good way to do the PhD unless ALL of your advisers have left the program, which it sounds like everyone on your "committee" has stayed. They may not be interested but you can find mentors elsewhere, even within early modern Europe.  Are there other historians sharing similar questions?  To be competitive on the job market, you need to be able to interact across geographical and temporal fields. 

I know it's lonely to be the only one in your program in your own field (same!) but that's why you need to make an effort to get yourself out there and make connections with graduate students and professors in other schools.  I've been doing that and am finding amazing support from them than I would have if I wasn't proactive.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TMP

[Regimentations]

15 minutes ago, TMP said:

I'd stay in the program. Once you are in the dissertation stage, you are much, much more free to explore your own interests and meet others who share the same questions.  This can be done by going to conferences, reading conference programs and journal articles, and reaching out to scholars in your vicinity of your archival research.  It is expect that you expand your knowledge and network beyond what you've been exposed to during your coursework years. 

I'll bite here. How do you recommend reaching out to other professors that may not be in your university but that you believe have overlapping interests? How would you recommend that someone in this situation determine who serves on dissertation committee if interests have changed since you first started? Assuming that there are several people who might make a good fit, what factors would you consider when choosing your primary?

[TMP]

43 minutes ago, Regimentations said:

I'll bite here. How do you recommend reaching out to other professors that may not be in your university but that you believe have overlapping interests? How would you recommend that someone in this situation determine who serves on dissertation committee if interests have changed since you first started? Assuming that there are several people who might make a good fit, what factors would you consider when choosing your primary?

You start off by introducing yourself and your work and mention how you found out about this person (read his/her journal article? Saw their paper in a conference program?).  Make direct connection between your research and theirs and you hope to discuss this more.  If you know you will be in the person's area or you live a major city which people come through regularly (i.e. New York), suggest you meet for coffee. If neither is an option, ask about upcoming annual conferences where you might be able to get together.

I would never ask someone to look over any of my work until they got to know me and express interest.  Nobody is going to offer to read your materials unless they have time an genuine interest to do so. At this stage, the idea is to share and exchange ideas and knowledge of sources.  

If you know graduate students in the program of the faculty member you're interested in, ask them about this prof's style/personality/workload.  If your long term goal is to have the person sit on your committee, make sure  your adviser likes him/her first.

[ashiepoo72]

I want to second @TMP‘s suggestions. My committee fits my project well, but even they suggested I find interlocutors outside our university because our discipline is all about that networking. You email professors of interest and ask them about their work, meet people at conferences, go to book talks etc. It’s all about building genuine rapport. Everyone should be doing this, especially if there’s a gap in their committee they’d like to fill.

I have an outside member on mine, so I’d be happy to chat more about that whole process if you end up going that route.

[AP]

On 3/24/2019 at 8:57 AM, academic4life said:

 

1) I"m concerned about burning bridges with my advisor and maybe other professors even though I feel justified. 2) I would need letters of recommendation. I presume two professors with whom I did fields would grant me those, but I am not sure I should trust a letter from my advisor. 3) I'm not sure how graduate committees weigh a student who has dropped their program after four years, though my department recently took one on. 4) The top dogs know each other and the paranoiac in me wonders if my embittered advisor who spent years teaching me would hurt my chances. 5) Obviously, there's no guarantee I get into a better program. I would say that I received two unofficial phone interviews with Princeton the first time around that did not lead to an official interview. I'm not surprised: I told the professor I was uncertain about my subject and bluntly told them that it might not be in his time period. Again, I had no idea what I was doing the first time around. However, they seemed interested in my potential as an undergraduate. 

I feel awful that my department spent over 150k dollars funding me so far and that I would most likely need a fourth year (50k) of funding while I semi-secretly begin to apply elsewhere. 

From what you are saying, I am not convinced you have a good reason to leave. Many of us realize after exams or fieldwork that our advisors are not the experts that we need, but I don't see why you would need to leave. In my own case, I don't think anyone in the US studies my area in my time through my perspective, but I came out with a committee that has experts in each of these areas separately.

Having people outside your time period or geography can benefit you in the sense that they can help you keep a broadest perspective. You can bring the experts from outside. Build yourself a good committee with two outside readers from this people in other universities. That will hurt you less than leaving in your fourth year. 

Further, I am not sure the situation of the job market is a good reason to leave, on the contrary! 

Finally, why do you think your interests are tied to your advisor's? The fact that their interests shifted doesn't mean they can't advise you.