Comments on History Ph.D.'s: In and Out

• Posted by Donald W. Johnston on January 19, 2008 at 3:00pm EST

• In 1992, I entered a M.A. program in History at the University of Oklahoma. I lasted two years. Though difficult, I remained confident that I had the abilities and work ethic to complete the program and pursue a Ph.D. I still feel the same way. My advisor was helpful as were the other Professors. Two factors influenced my decision directly. First, I did not know at the time that I had a severe chronic illness which sapped my strength and will to put in the time and work needed to complete the M.A. as time went on. I was not diagnosed until two weeks before finals spring semester 1994. The most damaging factor, however, was one professor who made it clear from day one that he felt I was not cut out to be an historian. He stated that by entering the program at age 27, I would never get a job even if I managed to complete a Ph.D. Something that he would do all he could to prevent from happening. Yes, he said this directly and in front of other grad students. His attitude was that I was wasting both his time. Trouble was I could not avoid him if I wished to pursue my chosen subfield of early American History. I had the supreme pleasure of taking courses with this gentleman all four semesters that I attended. Several other students, further along than I, told me that he took pride in telling some of them that he graded my work more harshly than other students and that I would never make it. I do not mean this as a rant against this professor, he has the degree and the tenure so he can do as he pleases. My only regret is that I did not bail sooner. I thought hard work and a good attitude would prevail. Bottomline is this, keep a sharp eye out for those who for whatever reason do not believe in you. I still do not know why he felt towards me as he did. I regret a great deal not being given a fair chance to EARN a higher degree in History, something I had wanted since middle school. Now, at 43, what do you think my chances of getting a higher degree and a job in the field are - nil, perhaps? Congrats to those of you who are able to, and please, make the most of it.
  Thank you for the space to air my views.
  Cordially, Donald W. Johnston
  P.S. Today, I am part owner and Office Manager of three medical clinics, but I still would rather be teaching history in some backwater college somewhere.

• Posted by Uma Asher on August 9, 2008 at 9:20pm EDT

• I agree with who say this article doesn't let one draw any meaningful conclusions. I too find the 5- and 10-year parameters unhelpful. As Bradford Smith noted, the time taken depends as much on topic and field -- language study, overseas travel, grants etc -- as on personality issues. Donald Johnson suggests he was actively prevented from finishing. My own experience as an international student has been similar. I was a hardworking and outstanding student, as evinced by multiple competitive awards at the dept, college, university, and national (US) levels. Yet my mentors interrogated me in two weekend sessions in my advisor's office, at a time when I was struggling to protect myself from a long-time stalker, as to why I had not produced chapters between episodes of stalking. They, along with my department head (I don't know how or why she entered the picture) scheduled my defense for 15 months later, at a time when I had no chapter written. I was told that failure to defend by the deadline would result in the termination of my department-endorsed, university-issued immigration document (required alongside a student visa). All this was accompanied by intimidating tactics, e.g. my advisor asked me abruptly in the hallway once, whether I was "participating in too many anti-war activities". When I "failed" to defend in 15 months, I was forced to leave the US, even though my visa had 2.5 years left. Fellow-grads who had been given the same defense deadline as me (although not with threats of wildcat deportation; also, some of the grads were senior, and had thus effectively gotten more time than I) received extensions of a semester, a year, and, in one case, more than two years. In my home country, it is impossible to finish writing. Then my department said I had not been productive enough and had failed to maintain enrolment, therefore I was no longer part of the program. So, besides tenacity and intelligence, which a previous commenter has highlighted, finishing a Ph.D is also about an advisor's almost absolute power to make or break your career. Mine chose to punish me for being a stalking victim and abuse my immigration status. I couldn't agree more with Gina Hiatt -- the academic community needs to go beyond blaming students for lacking the stamina or motivation to finish, and look at other issues. I am now sufficiently over the trauma and have started looking for ways to finish my degree from a less toxic institution.

• Unfinished Business
• Posted by Franklin Harvey at Graduate Theological Foundation on January 5, 2007 at 10:20am EST

• Recommended reading on this topic is Unfinished Business: The Terminal All-But-Dissertation Phenomenon in American Higher Education by John H. Morgan.

• further evidence
• Posted by PS on January 5, 2007 at 10:20am EST

• This is just further evidence that professors at doctoral/research universities don't care about and, at best, are indifferent to students. Why worry about completion rates when you have tenure, no accountability to anyone (including yourself), the reward system discourages working with students, and earn an average of $108,000 (the average salary of a full professor at a Doctoral institution) for writing articles that no one will ever read and have little impact on anything?

• How Shocking! It takes longer than 5 yrs to finish a Ph.D.!
• Posted by Jay Bernstein , Asst. Prof. at Kingsborough Community College on January 5, 2007 at 1:50pm EST

• The author writes that it takes most people longer than five years to finish a Ph.D. like that's news. It's been a very long time since people routinely finished in less time than that. What needs to be examined is what happens to people who drop out after several years of progress in a program. This means leaving after having made a huge commitment of time, money, and life. Did they settle into other jobs they were happy with that have nothing to do with history? Are they still nursing their intentions of finishing the dissertation? Are they women who married guys who make enough money that they don't have to get their Ph.D.'s? Is there a psychology to having an unfinishable Ph.D. project? These are some of the questions that should be looked into.

• Posted by QuakerProf on January 5, 2007 at 1:50pm EST

• Hm... might the prior comment about faculty being to blame be from a disgruntled former graduate student?

  Anyone who has been in a doctoral program knows that being admitted is not a promise that you will graduate. Moreover, it's not free for graduate departments to admit students who end up dropping out. Such students use funding, and more importantly a lot of time with faculty. I would say that a poor graduate student requires at least twice (probably more) as much time as a good one.

  In my own program, I was the only person of five in my subfield cohort to complete the Ph.D. (some are still working after 7 years), but the other students left not because the faculty didn't care, but because they simply weren't ready for doctoral-level work or decided to pursue other careers (one was highly competent and switched disciplines). All of the students received a huge amount of time and work from the faculty, often getting reprieves that no one would expect.

  Just as students graduating with debt often do so because they chose to attend unfunded programs, students who drop out of graduate school often do so because they are simply in over their heads. No one is entitled to a Ph.D. any more than they are entitled to a recording contract with BMG. Blaming it on faculty side steps the responsibility of students for their own futures.

• THE INFLATIONARY OCTOPUS
• Posted by ClioSmith , Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College on January 5, 2007 at 1:51pm EST

• I take this article as good news. Earning a terminal degree in history is difficult! This suggests that history departments in large part still regard their craft as the extremely challenging and time-consuming discipline that it in fact is. In reality, there are precious few people who are willing to make the sacrifice that is required for a terminal degree in history to have much meaning. Some unfortunately enter these programs with little understanding of the extent of that sacrifice.

  To spell it out simply, becoming a historian means to become conversant--and sometimes fluent--in the events, languages, and cultures of eras that are as alien to our own as those of any present-day foreign country. For most people this takes enormous time and effort. In most cases, I believe that the inherent difficulty of the process far outweighs any arbitrary hardships piled on by uncaring professors.

  It would be interesting to compare the rates of enrollment and completion of doctoral programs in history with doctoral programs in education. I suspect one would begin to see fundamental differences in not only the rigor of the programs, but in the very conceptions of scholarship that underly those requirements.

• random professor insult generator
• Posted by cacambo on January 5, 2007 at 1:55pm EST

• I'm wondering if somewhere on the Insidehighered site there is a random professor insult generator. It seems that pretty much any comment thread, whatever the topic of the original article, will contain at least one rant about how professors are: lazy, arrogant, overpaid (and suckling at the public teat, to make matters worse) irrelevant, incapable of making it in the "real world," etc...etc... The verbiage is so tired and repetitive--hence the suspicion that it is computer generated.

  In response to PS, many (although certainly not all) professors at top graduate programs tend to be far from indifferent about their proteges, if not out of the goodness of their hearts, at least out of a desire to see their intellectual influence spread far and wide.

  Whether the survey you cite is "further evidence" of the misdeeds of the professoriate is debatable. It might also be evidence that it is hard to write a history dissertation.

• Respose to Jay Bernstein
• Posted by Gail H. Casper on January 5, 2007 at 2:20pm EST

• How insulting to say in this day and age that a woman drops out of a doctorate program because she found a rich husband to take care of her. I hope that you are not a professor at Kingsborough CC teaching a Women's Equity course. You obviously are clueless about the advancements of women in the last 35 years or of bright educated women who pay their own pay.

• Posted by Second Line , Not The Whole Story on January 5, 2007 at 3:50pm EST

• I wonder how many of that 53%, 59% and 61% respectively got tenure track jobs within, say, three years of completing their degrees. To me, that's the far more telling statistic.

  And on the drop-out rate, I'm surprised it isn't higher. These days, the smarter move is to drop out of, not complete a Ph.D. program.

• Posted by Tim Lacy on January 5, 2007 at 4:40pm EST

• Dear QuakerProf,

  You said: "Just as students graduating with debt often do so because they chose to attend unfunded programs, . . ."

  In assuming that all decisions are able to be made with full information, and under prescient conditions (i.e. knowing how a history department will function for the 7-10 years it will take to complete the history PhD), I must assume you are an economist. The real world is not that rational.

  History departments in particular are irrational places - by nature and by practice. Their budgets are not under the control of the department chair. And one should take into account the current climate with regard to humanities funding. Based on the underfunded status of humanities in the U.S., and the undervaluing of the humanities in general in the U.S., the 'rational' decision would result in few to no new Ph.D. candidates each year.

  But the humanities and history draw a certain number of applicants and practitioners because the subject compels and demands study. The situation here in the U.S. doesn't reflect human needs, namely the craving for knowledge and understanding.

  For instance, don't the Culture Wars cry out for historical understanding? If more people agreed about cultural priorities, wouldn't the U.S. be an improved place in which to live? How would we monetarily value that improvement, and should a portion of that money be dedicated toward humanities funding? - TL

• Posted by QuakerProf on January 5, 2007 at 6:20pm EST

• I think the issue of funding is not the main problem, but to respond to TL, I would hope that most applicants would ask around about how consistent funding has been, what's available outside of TA stipends, etc. before entering a graduate program, history or otherwise. If the funding situation is that bad in history, then it might actually be best for there to be fewer history Ph.D.s coming out for a while. You know, the market and all.

  On the other hand, I see the normative value in having historians around, if only to support the tweed industry (joking). Still, do you think that funding is really what pushes most students out of programs? I suspect that it is not, and that instead it is simply that students discover that they are not interested enough, or willing to work hard enough, to finish what is meant to be a very difficult process.

• Research on causes of graduate school attrition
• Posted by Gina Hiatt , Dissertation and Tenure Coach at Academic Ladder on January 5, 2007 at 7:25pm EST

• In addition to Franklin Harvey’s excellent recommendation, I recommend Leaving the Ivory Tower: Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study, by Barbara Lovits. She studied 816 graduate students at two universities, in a variety of departments (including history). She found, as had many previous researchers, that high grad student attrition rates are mostly attibutable to experiences that the students have in the culture, structure and process of graduate school, as opposed to student characteristics at the time of admission (such as intelligence or undergraduate grades.)

  Despite this evidence, graduate deans, faculty, and recent Ph.D. graduates tend to blame attrition on the student. (This is illustrated in some of the responses to this article.) Lovits was able to show that advisors who had many successful Ph.D. students were more likely to be accessible, warm, quick to provide feedback, interested in and enthusiastic about their students, and helpful and supportive on the financial and emotional fronts, among many other positive attributes, than were advisors with few successful students. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the sense of community in a department, and the completion rate of its graduate students.
  These types of findings have led me to create online “writing clubs,” in order to provide the sense of community and support that is missing for so many graduate students, especially in the humanities. Students who drop out of graduate school pay a huge emotional and financial price. I believe that academia needs to take measures to reduce the ridiculously high grad school attrition rate and stop placing all the blame on the students.

• Posted by Delaney Kirk , Dr. at Drake University on January 5, 2007 at 8:35pm EST

• Interesting stats. Would be nice to get a further breakdown. I finished my Ph.D. in Business in three years while a single mom. My son-in-law recently finished his (in History) in four years. Entrance requirements don't take into account motivation levels of Ph.D. candidates. I've always said it's as much about tenacity as intelligence.

• Posted by Bradford Smith , chair, division of history, politics, and international studies at Oglethorpe University on January 7, 2007 at 10:30am EST

• Reading through the comments, I would say that in my experience, failure to complete the dissertation derives from any number of factors, many of which are not directly related to either the student's academic proficiency or the character of the faculty supervisor and department. Aside from that, there is something misleading about the 5/10 year parameters in the study. One of the major distinctions has to do with the subject of study. Clearly, it will take much longer to complete a dissertation that involves extensive research overseas, especially if the project requires the student to devote a year or more to intensive language study. More than that: in some cases, because of their skill at securing grants, some of the best students are able to extend the period of research and writing beyond that of their peers. All in all, I'm not really sure that the study tells us that much. Topic and field are significant factors in determining the time to completion, at least as significant than the personality issues raised by several commentors.

• Posted by Anon , Asst. Prof on January 7, 2007 at 3:35pm EST

• This sort of article would be more helpful if it provided comparisons between statistics for history and other disciplines.

  In my grad school cohort, I am the only one to have persisted and found a tenure track job. 50% dropped out.

  My understanding is that this is pretty typical. I do not believe it was due to lack of faculty interest or institutional support. Studies at the time related competion time to money, but among my cohort, most didn't persist because they found other, more immediate interests and opportunities. For example, one took a job as a statistician because he was tired of being poor. Another became an insurance actuary after gaining the Ph.D., for similar reasons.

  Doctoral programs prepare people for industry, not solely academia. Why is it regarded as a failure of the program when someone takes their degree into the private sector?

• Teaching, Research, Writing and the Dissertation
• Posted by James Rhem , Executive Editor at National Teaching and Learning FORUM on January 8, 2007 at 2:30pm EST

• When I wrote a syndicated series of articles on this topic back in the early 1980s, few wanted to believe the best data available then that suggested it was already taking many graduate students six years or more to complete their degrees.

  In part they didn't want to believe it because a significant part of the reason seemed to be the kinds of teaching and the general culture of graduate schools. It's my belief that there has been a genuine improvement in teaching and attitudes toward understanding teaching and improving teaching since I wrote that series. At the same time, I believe that improved teaching, teaching that teaches continual self-assessment as an integral part of learning, teaches the mental heuristics of good research as coincident with the whole dynamic of real teaching and learning, the dissertation will come to seem what it is intended to be -- a natural extension of graduate education from course work to fully original research.

  There will always be some loneliness in the work of completing a dissertation, but a supportive community oriented toward genuine interest in its students' research rather than toward a sense that they are supposed to be going through a trial by fire or "proving themselves" can help with that too.

  James Rhem
  The National Teaching and Learning FORUM

• Completion time?
• Posted by CC on January 9, 2007 at 4:55pm EST

• Most articles I've read on time for dissertation completion don't specify whether they are talking about MA+PhD or just time for the PhD. My program, and many others, are combined MA/PhD programs, and students count their time to completion from the time they begin their MA coursework. However, in other cases, MA and PhD programs are separated and while students may still have orals, they don't have nearly as much coursework. How are times to completion calculated?