Oral Examinations Reading Lists

[kdavid]

I know this will vary widely by institution and advisor, but I was wondering if anyone would like to start a thread in which we could post our lists?

I ask because I know not all departments have a standard list of texts that they hand to their graduate students. It would also be useful for looking at other related, but not major, fields.

For example, my first field is in modern China, but I'd love to know what first fields in Japan and Korea read as well. Ideally, these lists could be used both for those preparing for orals and aspiring grads to show them what the seminal texts in each region are.

If there's a strong interest, I'm happy to get the ball rolling....

[kotov]

Oh man, this was two and a half years ago, so I really don't remember what exactly was on my reading list for comps. My major field was Modern Europe, and my minors were Holocaust Studies and Modern Middle East. I could try and dig those up if you're actually interested.

[thedig13]

The fields that I'm crafting for myself are as follows: 20C US (major); Race in the City; Nation/Race/Empire; US-Pacific Transnational.

PM me if you want to peek at a (tentative) list of my readings.

[Scaluni]

thedig13, I'm interested in seieng your US-Pacific Transnational and Nation/Race/Empire lists.  I'm currently applying to programs and I'm looking to do French colonial history, namely in the Pacific Islands.

kotov, do you think I could see your Modern Europe list?

I will PM you both.

[Chiqui74]

I'm a first year so I'm still about a year away from when I NEED to start reading for my exams but in my program the students make their own lists in conjunction with their divisors.  There is no set list, no standard book everyone in a certain field must read.  I like it that way.  I have very different interests from the other people in my cohort, even within in my own field, and that's the case for everyone.  An individualized list, IMO, helps the student drudge through the insurmountable amount of reading better than a list in which they have no interest.  I mean, there are still topics and areas that must be covered, and you must know the general history of your time period/geographical place, but there's more room for your own interests than if the list was the same across the board.  Plus, exams and the reading for them are supposed to help you with your dissertation, which choosing books that advance your understanding of your particular area of interest does.

 

Also, we do not have oral examinations, only written.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Chiqui74

[ashiepoo72]

We don't have set lists either. We go to our comps committee members with a list, and they might subtract things they don't like or (very likely) will add books they think are important, but we are supposed to structure it. My adviser suggested I start thinking about books that'll help ground my research more broadly, and to include those on my modern U.S. list.

We have a timed written exam and then an oral examination on what we wrote.

[TMP]

In my program, there is no set list either.  Each committee member will have his or her own idea of what MUST be included on the list and will offer suggestions for refining it once you've included that said committee member's books and your own.  

Some people don't like the chore of creating individualized list because it is a lot of work.  It's no more work than being given a set list.  It's how you'd like to work-- spend more time doing research on the books you want to include on  your list and think about historiographical questions that tie a few together, or the other way... which is having your teeth pulled constantly by books you aren't particularly excited about.

Eventually, as you move through, you'll realize that there are a lot of "classic" or foundational works that weren't included but were certainly helpful for the scholars you've read and you'll put those on your "need to read" list :)