How much variation is there in graduate-level classes?

[TransnationalHistory]

One thing I just thought of as something to ask at open houses is how graduate courses are actually structured. Where I did undergrad, by the time you were taking 300 level courses these all were structured with readings/discussions for the first half to 2/3 of the semester. Then the readings assigned either decreased or were stopped entirely, with the focus being an independent research paper. We'd spend class either discussing how our research was going or a few short assigned readings. I want to assume that graduate level courses will lean even heavier to independent research papers, but I wonder what the range is of graduate coursework. If you've already completed graduate level classes, could you let me know how they were structured? This will help me know what questions to ask during campus visits. Thanks!

[sacklunch]

They vary just like anything else. Many of mine have had a lot of readings throughout the course, with a lot of discussion between students (rather than just all lecture), usually with either a long research paper at the end, or several shorter (7-8 page) papers throughout the semester. So it sounds similar to what you're doing now, only they will be a lot of reading throughout the entire semester.

cheers

[sankd]

There's a lot of variation depending on how much work the professor wants to do, but the basic principle seems to be:

Write a seminar (hence the name) paper. That's the class. Have fun.

"Read" a lot of books, write a lot of reviews, and show up to class to critique books/classmates/authors. The end paper component of this usually is a syllabus or a historiography paper.

Option one taken to the extreme is... writing your dissertation.

Option two taken to the extreme is... prelims.

That's the endgame, after all.

[TransnationalHistory]

Do graduate level classes ever have tests, or are those pretty obsolete across the board (besides of course, the oral exam)?

[sankd]

Do graduate level classes ever have tests, or are those pretty obsolete across the board (besides of course, the oral exam)?

You will never take an in-class essay exam ever again. Well, probably not. You may end up with some cross-referenced undergrad-grad class (this happens some places), but that's pretty much it.

From now on, get used to grading them! Today I had a student grumping about their exam essay.

[Iknownothing]

In my experience as an MA student, I never took a test (except for a foreign language translation test). Don't know if that is the norm, but I think it is.

Two things about graduate school. 1) You will learn more about theory than you ever wanted to know and 2) you will be reading ALOT!!!

[TMP]

They really vary. Seminar papers can either be analytical or research, depending what the professor wants. Research papers are not usually more than 20 pages long. Analytical papers can be anywhere between 10-15, leaning more towards 10. And the workload stays fairly consistent throughout the term unless you have a sympathetic professor who knows it's midterm week and anyone who is a TA needs the time to do all the grading.

But one thing I did wish my UG department would do to prepare me for grad school: Writing a critical/thoughtful/analytical response paper EVERY SINGLE WEEK, even if you have very little to say about the book/articles! It's fairly common at the school you're thinking of.

A better question to ask, I think, is to ask for a rough idea of what historians and books they like to use in their seminars so you can actually get a real intellectual discussion going.

[Sparky]

My classes tend to be:

1. Loads of reading

2. Lots of mini, informal presentations (10-15 min) -- usually as a way of cramming *more* readings down the class's throats without everyone having to read all the books. So, one person will be assigned to read B book or P primary source and basically summarize and critique it to the class. Expect this particularly if language is a factor. If half the class knows German and half knows French, and very little of the scholarship is in English...guess what. Not all of my classes have involved these, but probably something like 75% (over multiple departments at 2 different schools, so I'm figuring this is fairly standard).

3. Seminar paper or historiography paper(s). In my program, at least, these are always coupled with a full-blown class. None of this "all you do for this class is research and write a paper" business here.

4. We have exams in my language classes, but they are mainly translation-based.

[TransnationalHistory]

But one thing I did wish my UG department would do to prepare me for grad school: Writing a critical/thoughtful/analytical response paper EVERY SINGLE WEEK, even if you have very little to say about the book/articles! It's fairly common at the school you're thinking of.

A better question to ask, I think, is to ask for a rough idea of what historians and books they like to use in their seminars so you can actually get a real intellectual discussion going.

Sounds like my UG prepared me well....in 300 levels and above we had to write a weekly response to at least some part in the reading, and e-mail it to the professor and all the other students at least 24hrs before class, as a way to get the discussion going. Anyway, interesting to know there is something similar at Michigan. And thanks for the question suggestion.

Do pretty much all programs let you pick your research paper topics, or are specific topics ever assigned?

[history_PhD]

They really vary. Seminar papers can either be analytical or research, depending what the professor wants. Research papers are not usually more than 20 pages long. Analytical papers can be anywhere between 10-15, leaning more towards 10. And the workload stays fairly consistent throughout the term unless you have a sympathetic professor who knows it's midterm week and anyone who is a TA needs the time to do all the grading.

But one thing I did wish my UG department would do to prepare me for grad school: Writing a critical/thoughtful/analytical response paper EVERY SINGLE WEEK, even if you have very little to say about the book/articles! It's fairly common at the school you're thinking of.

A better question to ask, I think, is to ask for a rough idea of what historians and books they like to use in their seminars so you can actually get a real intellectual discussion going.

Most of my undergrad classes tried to do this-- either multiple book reviews (6-7, usually) or weekly reading questions and quizzes requiring us to address and critique an author's argument.

[NewEnglandNat]

My reading classes have had a load of about 1 book and 1 scholarly article per week per class for the entire sixteen weeks of the semester. Some a few books lighter, some a few heavier. Heavy discussion of the books, though what is discussed about them depends on the professor. A couple short papers (5-7 pages) in the middle of the semester and a 15 page histrographical review at the end.

My research seminar had one reading book (the Craft of Research) and than a bunch of intermediate assignments on the way to writing an archive based research paper of between 25-30 pages. In my program it's understood that the research seminar paper done in year one will be the basis for a masters thesis written in year two.

I've not taken an exam since undergrad.

ETA: I should also add that my UG department was obsessed with the 1-2 page reading response paper every week. Damn those things were evil. Especially the "1 page limit" ones.

Edited March 9, 2011 by NewEnglandNat

[StrangeLight]

my program used to have readings seminars and research seminars, but now we only do the readings seminars and the research is done individually with your advisor, formally or informally.

readings seminars will have you read a book a week, plus one or two articles, usually so that the reading load falls somewhere between 300 and 500 pages. some profs will ask for 400-word weekly summaries/responses, others won't. all told, each class assigns about 20-30 pages of writing, but that's broken down in different ways. three 5 page papers and one 10 page paper; three 10 page papers; six 3-4 page papers; one 25 page paper. they're all historiographical papers, based on the course readings only, which make up your comps lists.

then we have a writing seminar once a year where people work on their masters thesis or dissertation overviews. you have students from every subfield working in the same room, and no one really has a common pool of reading or theory to draw from, so the format's not terribly useful. this has been communicated to the department and DGS on an annual basis but, because we're a very small program, i doubt it'll ever change. if they went to regional/thematic research seminars, some subfields would only have 1 or 2 students in them.

i know that michigan, for example, does (or did, a few years ago) research seminars with the idea that one of the research papers would be expanded into an MA thesis.

[breakfast]

At my university it usually depends on how the professor chooses to format the seminar. Most of the time, though, there are readings for the first 1/2 to 2/3 of the class, then we work independently on our research projects. These can either be historiographical or primary research. Sometimes you have a choice, sometimes you don't (although, if you don't have a choice, it is almost always a historiography paper). Some seminars have reading up until the last week of class, but usually the papers you write in those seminars have lower page requirements and are much easier (in terms of assignment and expectations).

Research seminars are different. In those you work on your own project from day one, and the class meets once every few weeks to touch base and talk about their projects/discuss broad general readings. I don't know as much about these, since I have yet to take one. That is coming up next semester.

Sometimes the seminar is cross-listed with an undergraduate course, but even then, that only ever happens with the senior-level capstone seminar courses, so there are never any exams.

[Jeppe]

My experience doing an interdisciplinary MA was that there was a pretty big difference between departments, and I'm sure this is also the case between universities.

In our history department, we had two basic type of graduate seminars - Reading seminars and Research seminars.

In a reading seminar we would read between one and three books a week, write either six 3-page response papers or weekly 1-2 page reviews on the readings, and then produce a 20-25 page historiographical paper at the end of the seminar.

In a research seminar we would read about one book a week, and produce a longer (25+ pages) research paper based on primary sources. The format was much like the 300-level UG seminars you describe, with the readings stopping about 2/3 or 3/4 in and being replaced by student presentations of their final research papers.

I think the requirement for doctoral students is that they do at least three research seminars, and the advice people get is to not take more than one per semester.

[vtstevie]

i'm wrapping up my MA as we speak at a small, terminal MA program at a major state university and have had a few different experiences...

Lots of independent studies; generally these consisted of myself and two or three other grad students reading a book per week, meeting together with the prof administering the course and presenting what we read and writing two small (~10 page) analytical or historiographic papers per semester. I also did two independent studies one on one with a prof, one of which culminated in a large (25 page) research paper with an eye toward publishing, the other was more along the lines of what I outlined before.

A handful of graduate student only courses; these consisted of a seminar that met every week in my school's special collections department where we'd mostly discuss research methodology for the first half of the semester and, after choosing a research topic, we'd meet only periodically to discuss our experiences and present our findings. These ended with a major research paper (25 pages or so).

A bunch of undergrad, upper level seminars; usually a dozen to 20 students (only a few grad students per seminar, but we're a small program) who would meet weekly and discuss a book or group of articles. Grad students would be expected to participate extensively in discussion and write a longer analytical or historiographic paper than the undergrads, and typically we'd present one monograph as well.

This is just my experience the last two years, but I hope it helps!

[paint]

Reading seminars: 1-2 books or 1 book + articles/week. Sometimes response papers too.

Research seminars: intended to produce an article-length paper (35-45 pages). sometimes w/a reading load, sometimes not.

Then there are classes in other departments or schools or advanced undergrad classes which may have a lecture + extra work as a grad student.

[Riotbeard]

Book+ a week for most of the semester (I have had teachers who lighten the reading load for the last week or two but not much) plus a 20-25 page research paper. I have had one take home midterm essay, some profs will make you do a book review or two, and brief weekly reading responses. Your grade hangs on contributing in class and very much on your seminar paper. You may not see a grade the whole semester until it is posted.

[boringusername]

One thing to keep in mind is that graduate school is not merely an extension of your undergraduate experience. The coursework phase is brief (usually 2 years, sometimes 3 depending on your program). Even at huge R1 universities, graduate level course offerings tend to be limited and of a very uneven quality.

You might be excited about the prospect of taking grad seminars now, but once you're a few months into it you'll probably find yourself eager to move on to quals/prelims, research, and dissertation writing. Don't go around thinking grad school is all about the coursework; it really isn't at all.

Here's a suggestion: be extremely selective about the courses you take. If the course offerings don't jive well with your research interests, enroll in independent reading courses instead. This is especially important if the professors you want to work with aren't teaching graduate classes. The coursework phase isn't so much about absorbing new material, it's about making good faculty connections.

[Jeppe]

Here's a suggestion: be extremely selective about the courses you take. If the course offerings don't jive well with your research interests, enroll in independent reading courses instead. This is especially important if the professors you want to work with aren't teaching graduate classes. The coursework phase isn't so much about absorbing new material, it's about making good faculty connections.

I would certainly agree with this, but also add that the first two years of coursework is one way for you to get at least somewhat proficient in material that you can potentially teach. Even if a reading course in Early American History might not relate to your dissertation project, it might very well benefit you if you plan to market yourself as someone who can teach undergraduate courses in that area later. Just a thought.

[Riotbeard]

One thing to keep in mind is that graduate school is not merely an extension of your undergraduate experience. The coursework phase is brief (usually 2 years, sometimes 3 depending on your program). Even at huge R1 universities, graduate level course offerings tend to be limited and of a very uneven quality.

You might be excited about the prospect of taking grad seminars now, but once you're a few months into it you'll probably find yourself eager to move on to quals/prelims, research, and dissertation writing. Don't go around thinking grad school is all about the coursework; it really isn't at all.

Here's a suggestion: be extremely selective about the courses you take. If the course offerings don't jive well with your research interests, enroll in independent reading courses instead. This is especially important if the professors you want to work with aren't teaching graduate classes. The coursework phase isn't so much about absorbing new material, it's about making good faculty connections.

I am going to mostly disagree with this. While at time seminars can be a pain (and I definitely feel that right now as I work on grant proposals and thesis exploratory research etc.), you get exposed to a lot of things that give you a much better rounded context for your own research. Plus, I think seminars (amongst other things) are a really important time to build report with your cohort (and faculty for that matter), and form really helpful relationship (like when you want another pair of eyes on your grant proposals). While I definitely sometimes feel like I am wasting my time in my seminars instead of independent studies, I think am mostly more prepared so far because of it.

[qbtacoma]

I'd like to hear more opinions on the relative value of taking classes outside one's area of study vs. independent reading seminars. Obviously any choices I make will be discussed with my advisor and so forth, but since a lot of seminar reading is gutting books for their arguments, wouldn't it be valuable to make theoretical connections with subjects outside one's research?

[Sparky]

I'd like to hear more opinions on the relative value of taking classes outside one's area of study vs. independent reading seminars. Obviously any choices I make will be discussed with my advisor and so forth, but since a lot of seminar reading is gutting books for their arguments, wouldn't it be valuable to make theoretical connections with subjects outside one's research?

I think it depends on what you want to get out of your graduate education.

Are you there to get in, do your dissertation, get out, as fast as possible? Or are you there because you love history and actually want to learn something? More practically (if we are in the business of being "practical" rather than "Oh my gosh I can take a class with [groundbreaking historian not in your field]?!?!?! THAT WOMAN IS A GODDESS AMONG MORTALS!") :

1. It will help your teaching a lot. People fall in love with history because of the little, totally random bits of knowledge a professor can pop out. It's so much better when that can happen throughout the year or semester, instead of clustered around one chapter and then the rest of the lectures straight from the textbook.

2. Comps. Yeah, I study late medieval religious movements, but I don't think my comps committee is going to be happy if my proposed exam fields are {a} Franciscans {b} beguines [c] devotio moderna. Especially if you are at a program that requires you to come up with your own reading list for comps, coursework is invaluable.

3. I have made some really awesome connections in my own topic by studying totally random things. I *guess* YMMV a little (I mean, I do study medieval Christianity, and let's talk about how much Middle Ages stuff can't be related to religion in at least *some* way), but I think this is paramount.

4. Exposure to different methodologies. Vital. If you've only read the work that has been done on your particularly subject, you will end up a historian muddled in your field. Sure, you can do a grudge work dissertation. But the most interesting historical scholarship tends to be the innovative stuff, and that usually means new methodologies, not just new subjects.

5. Dude. It's graduate school. This is our chance to have access to top scholars. 90% of us will be teaching high school or community college or at small colleges in the middle of nowhere. (I'm not knocking those jobs, y'all--in fact, I want and intend to teach high school). 99% of us are in a program at a school better than we will ever teach at. WHY would you turn your nose up at the chance?!

All of that said, I do think it's important to keep your telos in mind throughout the seminar, especially when picking a paper topic. I probably do twice as much reading for each paper as I do for the class itself. I've found that a lot of professors are willing to work with you to find a way to formulate a paper topic that fits with your own general research interests, even if they seem totally divergent at first.

[Sigaba]

IME, graduate courses in history centered around either (i) reading or (2) preparing a research paper.

Courses falling under the second category generally had regular meetings the first several weeks as students did some assigned background reading, figured out a topic, and started doing the research. After the halfway point of the semester, class meetings were held intermittently to talk about outlines and drafts. This phase also saw one-on-one conversations with the professor. Towards the end of the semester, we'd talk about the finished product.

Courses in the first category generally had readings in common from a syllabus (a monograph and some articles) along with two or three book review assignments and, sometimes, presentations. (One professor offered a specific class only during the summer and we were required to write an essay for each meeting and to make a presentation.) These courses often required the preparation of a longer essay that was due at the end of the semester. (FWIW, I did have a professor who structured his seminars to include lectures and final exams based upon his lectures.)

Independent reading courses centered around tasks negotiated with the professor supervising the work.

Er...ah...um. When I started my coursework as a graduate student, I failed to understand the fundamental differences between studying history as an undergraduate versus studying history as a graduate student. Consequently, I did not get all I could out of my initial coursework even though from the perspective of my grades, I did all right. (The core issue was that I was indifferent to the importance of historiography and of theory to the profession of academic history.)

Although my professors and a mentor took turns standing on my head, the light did not go on until well into my second year of course work and, later, as I prepared a report to earn a master's degree. (The Forty Acres required graduate students to earn a M.A. before being admitted to candidacy for a Ph.D.)

For reasons beyond the scope of this post, I changed schools after earning a MA. I took this change as an opportunity to focus more on historiography and on theory. This focus caused some conflict with my primary POI. (But then he had issues with all of his graduate students for one reason or another. And I'm not bitter. ) But the focus opened other doors. (For example, I had the privilege of reading a draft of a professor's manuscript--an opportunity that I would never have had with my POI.)

My point here is that I strongly urge graduate students in history programs to take very seriously seminars that center around reading--even if the course itself is not centered around your core interests. There's an ongoing discussion about the (over) specialization of historians--especially Americanists--and the role that (over) specialization plays in the declining prestige of professional academic history . While the craft is now far too complex to be a generalist, casting a wider net during your coursework may improve your ability to communicate effectively with historians outside of your core areas of interest.

As for the requirements for an outside field, after changing programs, I took two graduate-level courses in a different school at the university. The first class was an "Introduction to X." The second covered an aspect of X in greater detail, it required assigned readings, and the preparation of a long essay. Both classes were taught by the same professor. He agreed to let me write the long essay on a topic related to history and to sit on my qualifying exam committee. He also tasked me to formulate the questions I wanted to see on a written exam.

HTH.