Fast-track PhD programs in History?

[a piece of bread]

Hi all,

As far as I know, normally it takes at least 6 years to get a PhD degree in History. 2 years for course load, 1-2 years for language requirements and qualifying examination, and 2-3 years for research and writing the dissertation. In some cases, even 10 years may not be adequate. But I realized that traditionally some schools tend to enable students to complete their doctorates within 4-5 years. Texas A&M University may be counted among them. Do you know any? Do you think it makes sense to obtain the degree in a shorter period? Why do American schools keep it longer while European schools can give it just in 3 years?

Edited April 10, 2010 by a piece of bread

[Dirt]

Hi all,

As far as I know, normally it takes at least 6 years to get a PhD degree in History. 2 years for course load, 1-2 years for language requirements and qualifying examination, and 2-3 years for research and writing the dissertation. In some cases, even 10 years may not be adequate. But I realized that traditionally some schools tend to enable students to complete their doctorates within 4-5 years. Texas A&M University may be counted among them. Do you know any? Do you think it makes sense to obtain the degree in a shorter period? Why do American schools keep it longer while European schools can give it just in 3 years?

First of all, two years is a long time to pass exams. While things vary somewhat from place to place, normally qualifying exams are done in the third year of a doctoral program. If you're really interested in a "fast track," I think it's often technically allowed to do these while still taking coursework. But that's a lot to take on at once, and you don't want one to suffer at the expense of the other.

Second of all, ten years is a long time to complete a Ph.D. in history. It happens sometimes, especially with people who don't need to worry about funding for whatever reason, but I would be wary of any program where this is considered normal or even acceptable. Often this means that they are overworking their students or simply not giving them proper guidance. My department, like others, has recently put in place a firm time limit for completion of the degree. If you go beyond seven years, you may well have to start over under whatever new regulations have been put in place since you started.

I would suggest that five or six years is really the standard, particularly if you already have an M.A. in the field. If it goes longer, it's usually because of the dissertation--which is on the student, not the institution. In theory it might be possible to trim a year or two off of that, but I think this often sacrifices quality of work. Unless you can't get funding--in which case you might want to re-evaluate whether you want to do the degree at all--then I don't think there's any point to rushing things. Best to do it right and make yourself more competitive in an extremely competitive job market.

The reason that British universities have a three-year Ph.D. is that they don't require coursework or exams, and they don't offer teaching assistantships--which is why it's extremely difficult for British Ph.D.'s to find employment in the U.S. They've spent all their time writing what can be a very narrowly-focused dissertation. The process takes much longer in Germany, where you have to write two substantial dissertations in order to qualify for a university-level teaching position. (It's actually illegal in Germany to refer to an American Ph.D. recipient as "doctor.") I can't speak to the French or other systems as they stand at present, but the Bologna process means that five years of graduate study is increasingly the norm for a doctoral degree in Europe as well.

[Sparky]

Hi all,

As far as I know, normally it takes at least 6 years to get a PhD degree in History. 2 years for course load, 1-2 years for language requirements and qualifying examination, and 2-3 years for research and writing the dissertation. In some cases, even 10 years may not be adequate. But I realized that traditionally some schools tend to enable students to complete their doctorates within 4-5 years. Texas A&M University may be counted among them. Do you know any? Do you think it makes sense to obtain the degree in a shorter period? Why do American schools keep it longer while European schools can give it just in 3 years?

Many school doesn't give you 1-2 years solely for language prep. You are expected to shove it in during your other classwork, or do it during summers. Or, more and more, sufficient language prep is a prerequisite for admission, as schools cut their grad-level intro reading courses for budget reasons. People have mentioned this being a factor particularly at the UC schools this year.

At some schools you could probably cut down on the time spent doing coursework by coming in with an MA in hand, but I suppose you would count that towards time spent to get the PhD anyway...

As far as American versus other, I'm not totally sure, but people have alluded to the fact that in the UK, the PhD is purely a research degree--little or no classwork. On the other hand, it is more difficult (not impossible, but more difficult) to get a job at a US university with a PhD from the UK, due mainly to lack of classroom experience (teaching, mainly, I think).

But in all honesty, I don't see what the rush is. The job market is so lousy in history these days that for a lot of us, grad school is going to be either the last time or the last time for many years that we are at a school with super-amazing resources in our subfield and multiple other people who are absolutely passionate about the same relatively obscure topic about which we are passionate. I suppose if you are getting a PhD because you already have a solid job at a high school or museum/archives, are intending to return to it, and are doing it for a pay raise or something, speed could be a factor. And I do accept that some people, particularly older students and/or those with families, might want to be out on the job market and earning more than grad student stipend wage as soon as possible.

But keep in mind that the longer you are in grad school (to a point, of course--I am not arguing in favor of 10+ years), the more time your scholarship has to mature before you are on the job market. That means you have more chances to publish, more chances to present at conferences; and hopefully, the quality of your articles and scholarship will be higher as well simply due to experience.

Also, some students opt to drag out the dissertation process if they cannot find a job the year they had originally planned to finish. In some accounts, this was part of what accounted for a lower number of spots this year at top programs, which had less funding to offer incoming students as they were forced to continue to offer it to students who would normally have moved on but elected to stay an extra year. The idea of grad school as a shelter from a lousy economy is, unfortunately (or fortunately), not a myth. A program with a reputation for rapid progression to the degree might not look so favorably on students attempting this, and you may find yourself out of grad school and out of a job.

[Squawker]

Another reason that the UK PhD is shorter is that the MA is a prerequisite, and undergraduate work is significantly more focused instead of covering more varied liberal arts topics. It's just my own personal opinion, and probably goes against what most people think, but personally I'd say that UK institutions offer better preparation for the PhD, but don't offer quite as strong PhD programs (that's not to say the bachelors degrees are better, just more specifically oriented towards a future academic career in one traditional subject). Obviously in the US, a large number of PhD students earn their MAs first as the Brits do, but there is at least the possibility of starting right out of a bachelors degree, in which case more coursework is needed. Although I'm not exactly familiar with how this works on a practical level, many programs say that some coursework (perhaps a year) can be waived if a student has already completed an MA and learned the necessary material. So, a PhD program that's supposed to take 6 years could actually take 5 if you time everything right.

I'd be wary of going for an unusually short PhD program, just as I'd be wary of enrolling somewhere where it's normal for students to take 10 years to complete their degrees. Judging from how knowledgeable my younger professors have tended to be, the PhD years seem to be where you pack in an insane amount of knowledge and deep understanding of the topic at hand. I'd prefer to do it well and do it right than to get it over quickly and find myself in a dismal job market with few publications and a rushed dissertation.

[StrangeLight]

if you enter an american PhD program straight from your BA:

you will complete three years of coursework. after year 1 or 2 (varies by school) you will be awarded an MA. you may have to write a thesis for the MA or you may not, that also varies by school, but my understanding is that most programs require the thesis or research paper. at the end of year 3, you will write your comps. you will also prepare your dissertation overview, which you may write at the end of year 3 or during the summer between 3 and 4.

you then spend the next however many years just working on your dissertation. year 4 is archival research abroad, year 5-? is writing your dissertation. how long this process takes depends upon you and your dissertation committee. most combined MA/PhD programs offer 4 or 5 years of guaranteed funding. if you go past year 5, it's up to you to find those funds on a yearly basis. you can probably convince your department to let you teach a stand-alone course or do another TAship after year 5, but that varies by department.

the language requirements? you usually have to prove proficiency in your first language by the end of year 2 and your second language by the end of year 3. you do this while doing your coursework, meeting your TA responsibilities, writing your masters thesis, writing your dissertation prospectus, and writing your comps exams. sounds like a lot of work, right? that's why a lot of programs want students to already have one language proficiency in the can before arriving so they've only got to get one more language under their belt while they work through the program. a lot of the top programs also want to see that you've begun the second language, in addition to knowing the first. "getting your languages" is, ideally, something you did before graduate school, not during.

if you enter an american PhD program with an MA in hand:

many programs will recognize your MA and then give you 4 years to completion of the PhD instead of 5. you may have to re-sit your MA thesis defense at your new school or jump through some other administrative hoops, but that varies widely by school. you will have 2 years of coursework (comps and overview at the end of year 2), one year of research, one year (or more, that's on you) of writing. since most MAs take 2 years, this puts you at a minimum of 6 years to degree instead of 5. what's more, a handful of ivy league schools (because they're special!!) will not recognize your MA, so you'll have to write a new one at their school. they also will not transfer most (or any) of your existing completed graduate credits, meaning you're starting over on coursework as though you had entered straight from a BA. but, often, you can't really gain entrance to these ivy league schools without already having an MA. so they make you get a degree they will then pretend you don't have. bullshit? maybe. but there are a handful of schools, some in the top 10, that operate on this principle, so if you're coming in with an MA degree, check their graduate handbooks carefully.

the UK degree takes 3 years because, quite frankly, their requirements for the degree are much lower. american schools know this, so if you want to teach in the states, you'll have a harder time finding employment. even oxbridge graduates are underrepresented in history departments in the US. you'll need to come from the TOP UK schools, under a very well known advisor, and with some great research to your name. also, at UK schools you're paying for the degree yourself. at US ones, they (usually/used to) fund you fully for 5+ years. it makes less sense to rush through a degree when you're already earning a salary for your work.

[Riotbeard]

Some schools like where I am starting in the fall fund over 12 month period and expect you to continue taking courses during the summer. Also Duke and I think UT Austin have eliminated comps in favor of a portfolio defense which can speed things up. Also places that give partial non-service fellowships will helps you speed up, because you only have to do service half the time and can devote more time to course work and later dissertation research (smaller private schools are more often able to do this (Tulane does and a lot more really, as opposed to at a big state school they really need the TA's so you will probably have to work more unless you get a really rare fellowship).

[MsScarlet]

(It's actually illegal in Germany to refer to an American Ph.D. recipient as "doctor.")

Why is that? I was under the impression from my German friends that the requirement is simply that for the PhD to be considered complete it must be published, but not that in the US we are not Doctors, assuming that the publishing requirement is met.

[Dirt]

Why is that? I was under the impression from my German friends that the requirement is simply that for the PhD to be considered complete it must be published, but not that in the US we are not Doctors, assuming that the publishing requirement is met.

Here's the story I was referring to:

http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-Up-Doc-German-Law-/40636/

While The Chronicle says that the law was changed only for "holders of degrees from designated American universities," the following article doesn't seem to include that restriction:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,540459,00.html

Edited April 11, 2010 by Dirt

[Highfructose]

"Another reason that the UK PhD is shorter is that the MA is a prerequisite, and undergraduate work is significantly more focused instead of covering more varied liberal arts topics. It's just my own personal opinion, and probably goes against what most people think, but personally I'd say that UK institutions offer better preparation for the PhD, but don't offer quite as strong PhD programs"

This hits the nail on the head. I think history training in the UK is probably a bit better at the undergrad level. BA's take only 3 years, but ALL of the coursework is history coursework and usually specifically in your speciality. They expect you to work out pretty early what you want to do. Also there are no combined Masters/Phd programs and so it is a requirement to get a Masters in the Uk.

In the end i think it's actually about the same amount of coursework for a UK or US Ph.D. In the US you have (approximately) 2 years of history during undergrad after having done your General education requirments, and then probably about 2 during your MA/PhD for a total of 4 years courswork. In the UK you have 3 years undergrad, and 1 year Masters for about the same.

The UK Ph.d officially takes 3 years but it's not uncommon to stay for a 4th (thought the 4th year is a hard deadline). It is 100% thesis, usually by the end of the first year your expected to have a draft chapter, and your application is less a statement of purpose and more of a direct research proposal.

You could frame this a number of ways, personally i find it a bit threatening to have to come into the program guns blazing already working on your pHD thesis, but at the same time since that is the sole focus of the program i've heard it argued that the UK facilitates better dissertations, which is of course contentious. The key and probably decisive difference is that US Ph.D's often give way more teaching opportunities. Though there are still some forms of teaching experience in the Uk, usually Ph.D's have a few undergrad supervisees that they advise on paper topics and occassionally you can even teach a class or two. Maybe postdocs are more relevant in the UK for this reason?

As far as UK Ph.Ds having trouble getting a job in the States there may be something to that. An element of it is probably the different (though i wouldn't go as far as some here have and claim lesser) requirements for postgrad work, especially the lack of teaching experience. Another element is possibly regionalism or nepotism. As in it seems to be that it is advantageous for aspiring history professors to get thier Ph.D.s in regions that they would like to work, and to utilize thier advisors friends or contacts which are possibly not transnational. Many people have cited that UK Ph.D.s seem to be in short supply in American universities, but the inverse is also true, most professors in the UK got thier Ph.D.s here. So if you want to work in the UK probably getting a Ph.D from Oxbridge/LSE isn't so insane. Also the academic job market in the UK for history ph.ds appears to be not as flooded as in the States, which may be somethign to take into account.