Education of Historians for the Twenty-first Century: Related Documents
The Breadth of Current Graduate Programs
How important is it, in the opinion of the profession, that doctoral candidates in history' become competent in a field or fields beyond their particular specialization? For evidence on this question, the AHA's Committee on Ph.D. Programs in History earlier this year circulated two questionnaires. One, probing the opinion of the profession at large, was mailed to about 500 members of the AHA and the OAH, on a random sample basis, and the response numbered 346, or 70%. Given the circumstances, this was a generous response, for which the committee is most appreciative. The second questionnaire, on current practices, was mailed to 113 chairmen of departments granting the Ph.D. in history, and this not surprisingly yielded an even higher percentage of responses: 96 questionnaires returned and usable, or 85% of those mailed. The 96 departments were together responsible for 87 of the doctorate production in 1967-68, the last year on which figures are now available.
Questions and answers in the main body of the opinion questionnaire, sent out to members generally, are given below in full. Responses to the first question indicate that the profession feels it most important that graduate level study include at least one field of history beyond the field of specialization. This is confirmed by the strong negative response to question #3; and the shift here to specifying requirement, in place of simply importance, has no effect upon the firmness of the opinion. The questionnaire to chairmen shows that in fact 91, or all but 5, of the departments responding do currently require work in one or more fields of history outside the field of concentration.
These responses by chairmen, despite complexities in some cases to do with "areas" distinguished from "fields," indicate further what this means in practice. Two-thirds, or 63, in listing "major fields offered" name United States history as a single field-which corresponds to the hypothetical program specified below in question #3. Out of the 63, 13 require three other fields of doctoral candidates and 23 require two, these 36 corresponding roughly to the pattern that was normal a generation or two ago. But 22 reduce the requirement to one other field, and the remaining five have no requirement-the same five mentioned earlier.
At the other pole, only four of the departments responding have shifted to a scheme of major fields not basically national and chronological in character. These are strikingly few innovations. But 28 departments have divided United States history into two or more major fields, in most cases ending up with eight to fourteen major fields in all, and 16 of them require of each student three or more of these fields beyond his field of specialization.
Are these 28 departments-which are ready, apparently, to except a second American history field as satisfying a requirement of breadth-in institutions away from the allegedly Europe-oriented Northeast? Nine of them are located in the South, and seven in the Far West and the Rockies. But the remaining 12 include four departments among the top 23 in a convenient prestige listing by the American Council on Education; half of these 12 are public institutions, but the other half are well-established private institutions.
The rigor of distribution requirements that prevailed two generations ago has therefore not been much modified, nor according to any obvious pattern. The answers to question #4 below support this impression. The program specified which actually resembles one currently in force, is as structured a requirement as any reported. Only one-quarter of the responses felt that its provision of breadth was excessive, and 12 actually thought its provision inadequate.
The questionnaires give less specific information on the subject of work in departments other than history. Question #2 below, drew responses insisting that graduate-level study of this sort was at least strongly desirable. The responses from department chairmen show only 38, of the 96 departments, specifically requiring a minor field or some work outside of history (exclusive of language training). Evidently less than 50% of the students in the other departments undertake such work. (88 of the responding departments require some foreign language competence of all students.)
The remaining responses on the opinion questionnaire to members (below), however, suggest that the field of specialization is regarded as necessarily leaving only a small amount of course study open for work in other fields of history and in other departments. According to the responses to question #6, nearly all feel that the field of specialization should take up at least 50% of the total courses taken. So it is perhaps worth adding that among the responses to a supplementary list of opinion probes (accompanying the opinion questionnaire) was a three to two disagreement with the flat statement that "The one finally reliable route to understanding history as a whole is study in depth of a substantial but limited period of history."
Several responses to the questionnaire sent to department chairmen, on other matters, deserve brief mention. Only three departments require of all students some work in quantitative methodology, and in those other departments where it is optional, few students avail themselves of the opportunity. A total of 27 departments report requiring of all students some formal training in teaching techniques. Asked about any changes the students would like to have made, chairmen most often reported expressions of desire for more attention paid to teaching. Yet there was a wide variety of discontent reported. One chairman said he thought student expressions came down to a desire to "shorten the program, ease the requirements, increase financial support, and cut responsibilities: They resemble their mentors and the rest of us."
Questionnaire Results
1. How important should the profession consider graduate-level study in at least one field of history other than the field of specialization (geographically or chronologically different from the field of specialization) in the education of Ph.D.'s in history? Please check one of the following:
188 Indispensable
97 Strongly desirable
32 Desirable
4 Moderately important
17 Not very important; should be left to the student's discretion
3 Important, yet no time for it
2 Unimportant
343
2. How important should the profession consider graduate-level study in at least one department other than history in the education of Ph.D.s in history? Please check one of the following:
65 Indispensable
120 Strongly desirable
82 Desirable
21 Moderately important
43 Not very important; should be left to the student's discretion
6 Important, yet no time for it
6 Unimportant
343
3. By checking one or more comments below, please indicate your impression of a hypothetical Ph.D. program in which all required graduate-level courses would be taken in a single field of history, the field options being defined as follows: United States, Latin American, English, Russian, Asian, ancient-medieval, or modern European history, no work in a second field of history or in another department to be required of all students.
10 Highly desirable degree of specialization
14 Desirable degree of specialization
9 No strong feelings pro or con
68 Moderately undesirable because lacking in breadth
237 Highly undesirable because lacking in breadth
338
4. Similarly, please indicate your impression of a hypothetical Ph.D. program in which graduate-level course-work could be in a major and three minor fields, one of the latter being a field much earlier (or later) than the major field, and another in the history of another culture.
78 Highly desirable combination of specialization and breadth
128 Desirable combination of specialization and breadth
31 No strong feelings pro or con
12 Undesirable because provision of breadth inadequate
87 Undesirable because provision of breadth excessive
336
5. How many semester hours of graduate-level courses (including courses of all types and all levels, and inclusive of semester hours of credit earned toward the M.A. degree) should be viewed as a norm (not necessarily as a minimum requirement) for Ph.D. candidates in history? If your norm is in other terms, please convert it to semester hours for purposes of this answer.
12 30
1 33
19 36
7 39
13 42
22 45
46 48
6 51
28 54
7 57
91 60
49 More than 60
301
6. Regardless of the answer you checked to question 5, what percentage of the total courses should be taken outside the history field of specialization (in other fields of history and/or other departments)?
6 0%
7 10%
17 15%
46 20%
46 25%
31 30%
35 35%
36 40%
5 45%
68 50%
2 55%
5 60%
3 65%
3 70%
320
7. Assuming the desire to have full-time graduate students complete requirements or norms for the Ph.D. within the first two years of graduate study, assuming also a load in a given semester of varied courses (lecture, proseminar, research seminar, etc.), and assuming further that each course counts three semester hours of credit, which of the following should be the normal load carried by a full-time graduate student in a semester during the regular academic year?
8 6 semester hours
100 9 semester hours
170 12 semester hours
42 15 semester hours
320
Current Employment Situation
The American Historical Association's Committee on Ph.D. Programs in History, in view of the apparent employment crisis facing historians, sent, in May, 1970, a brief questionnaire to the 122 Ph.D.-granting history departments in the United States. The results below and on the facing page represent the answers from 114 of 117 respondents.[1]
1. How many individuals for whom your department feels responsibility have been seeking full-time employment as historians during this academic year? 1904
2. How many of these have found satisfactory jobs as of June 1? 1084
3. How many of the total specifically have the Ph.D. and are still unplaced as of June 1? 147
For purposes of a closer look, the respondents were categorized in two ways: public or private institutions, and large or small departments. Large departments were defined as having twenty or more individuals (for whom the department felt responsible) seeking employment. In addition, the United States was divided into four regions of approximately equal AHA membership, using the breakdown in the 1968 Annual Report: 1) New England and New York, 2) Northeast, other, and including Virginia and Ohio, 3) Midwest, and 4) South and Far West.[2] Beyond those statistics shown in the chart, some interesting facts are revealed when comparing, for example, large departments in public schools and small departments in private schools:
15 large-public: 312 employed/559 seeking or 55.8% successful-43 unemployed Ph.D.s. 11 large-private: 360 employed/700 seeking or 51.4% successful-50 unemployed Ph.D.s. 53 small-public: 252 employed/369 seeking or 68.2% successful-25 unemployed Ph.D.s. 35 small-private: 160 employed/276 seeking or 57.9% successful-29 unemployed Ph.D.s.
The committee wishes to thank those who helped with this report by completing its questionnaire.
1 2 3 4
New England and N. Y. Northeast, other Midwest South and Far West Totals
Large Departments (reported 20
and over seeking employment) 5 5 8 3 5 26
Percentage of those successful in
obtaining employment 46.2% 72.6% 54.5% 59.5% 53.3% 672/1,259 or
Unemployed Ph.D.s 35 11 35 3 9 93
Small Departments (reported 19
and under seeking employment) 20 19 15 18 16 88
Percentage of those successful in
obtaining employment 61.1% 59.4% 59.0% 78.0% 59.3% 412/645 or
Unemployed Ph.D.s 8 20 11 5 10 54
Private Institutions 17 12 7 6 4 46
Percentage of those successful in
obtaining employment 48.5% 55.5% 55.9% 75.6% 59.2% 520/976 or
Unemployed Ph.D.s 42 24 3 5 5 79
Public institutions 8 12 16 15 17 68
Percentage of those successful in
obtaining employment 61.7% 74.4% 56.2% 69.0% 53.6% 564/928 or
Unemployed Ph.D.s 1 7 43 3 14 68
Total number of institutions 25 24 23 21 21 114
Employed/Seeking Employment 306/621 or 178/271 or 273/486 or 164/230 or 163/296 or 1,084/1,904 or
Percentage 49.2% 65.6% 56.1% 71.3% 55.0% 56.9%
Unemployed Ph.D.s 43 31 46 8 19 147
For comparison only: Number of
Ph.D. recipients in 1968 as reported
in National Center for Educational
Statistics: Earned Degrees Con-
ferred, Part B, 1967-68 179 109 189 119 92 688
[1] The five schools which did not respond to the questionnaire granted a total of four Ph.D.s in history between 1957 and 1966 (as reported in American Universities and Colleges, 10th Edition, Otis Singletary, editor) and for purposes of this report are statistically insignificant. The three other schools reported that no one had been seeking employment during the academic year.
[2] New England and New York: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Northeast: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; Midwest: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; South and Far West: (South) Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, (Far West) Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Last Updated: May 10, 2007
