Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate
Faculty/Graduate Student Forum
December 1, 2004
196 Lincoln Hall, 3:30-5:00
Forum Chair: Kathryn Oberdeck 
Attendance: 65+

Introduction 
Kathy Oberdeck, filling in for Clare Crowston, introduced the agenda for the forum and described the deliberations undertaken by the CID and the graduate studies committees this semester. She noted how the experience of participating in the CID has been invigorating, but also frustrating. Four subcommittees were formed this semester: “Admissions and Assessment,” “Requirements,” “Time to ABD and Prelims,” and “Teaching.” Each committee was assigned the task of brainstorming a proposal to improve the existing state of the graduate program. The forum discussed Admissions and Assessment and Requirements proposals (see handouts). The remaining two will be deliberated in the spring. 

Summary of Proposal One
Kathy summarized the content of Proposal One, describing how the subcommittee planned a first semester methods course—tentatively titled “Approaches to History”—that would replace the current historiography requirement. This class would be followed by a second semester research seminar. First year students would take the research course as a group under the supervision of one or two faculty, but with the understanding that a field specific faculty member would advise the individual student on their research. The purpose of this proposal is to frontload the methods and research requirements at the beginning of the graduate experience and to sustain excitement in the discipline. The proseminar would be maintained, but in a slightly different form—discussion would occur every other week.  

Discussion of Proposal One
First Year Course Sequence
Jim Barrett raised several concerns: how field-specific research methods which would taught, the possibility of students being able to present their work on a regular basis for peer review, and the potential burden on the advisor in supervising a student’s research seminar. Diane Koenker broached the possibility that the research seminar could be formed around themes which would give students a common set of readings. The first year students could possibly be divided into several groups. Kathy acknowledged these concerns and noted that the themes would need to be broad and that the small groups would need to join together occasionally for a common experience. Later in the discussion, Kathy held an informal vote of graduate students on the issue. A majority supported the idea of broad themes. 

Tamara Matheson and Jen Guiliano (third year) brought up the concern that this experience would be very different for BA’s vs. MA’s. Students with BA’s would feel intimidated by producing a research paper in their first year. MA students would possibly be repeating requirements they had already completed at the previous institution. Max Edelson expressed the concern that this sequence would reduce flexibility for MA’s. Carol Symes, Megan McLaughlin, Craig Koslofsky, Rebecca McNulty (ABD), and Debbie Hughes (ABD) did not agree and felt the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. Carol stressed that the graduate experience is all about research and the earlier the department immerses the graduate student in the process, the better. Peter Fritzsche stated that there is a general feeling in the department of too many prep courses which postpone ideas, research, and the practice of history itself. 

Antoinette Burton noted that the first semester course must also emphasize the structure and mechanics of writing a research paper. Students could compile a bibliography and order sources in preparation for the second semester. Adrian Burgos had concerns over the mechanics and staffing of the class, and pointed out that faculty must understand that the research paper produced in the first year will not necessarily be of the same quality as more advanced work. Lillian Hoddeson raised the idea of first instituting this course as an option (as an experiment). Kathy responded that this would be a possibility, but would hinder community-building efforts. Elana Jakel (third year) mentioned the issue of language concerns. How would a student not fluent in their language of research undertake the seminar?  Kathy stated that doing English language research in your field would be encouraged. Dennis McNulty (first year) noted that in the existing proseminar, first year students cannot engage with each other as a group on their research. First year students would welcome the opportunity of discussing their work together.  

Methods Courses
Sundiata Cha-Jua wanted the faculty to further open the option of letting students take methods courses outside the department. Kathy and other faculty supported this notion. Kathy noted that though the idea of Social Theory being team-taught has been discussed, it does not necessarily mean it has to be. After some confusion over what exactly was being proposed for Social Theory, Kathy stressed that the proposal did not suggest any radical changes, just merely clarified the course’s relationship to the other proposals. It was also explained at Brian Ingrassia’s (fourth year) insistence that the first semester “Approaches to History” course would count as a methods class, and that the student would only have to choose one more to fulfill the department’s requirements for a degree.  

Pedagogy 
There was a general consensus that the idea for a pedagogy course was good, though many faculty and grads had concerns over content and form. Aisha Sobh (ABD) remarked that students could benefit from instruction on technology in the classroom, as well as more observation of their teaching. Diane Koenker emphasized the need to integrate undergraduate teaching strategies in the grad classroom. Several faculty and grads noted this course would be good to have on a transcript for the job market. Carol Symes brought up the need for discussion on the historian as a public intellectual and the place of the broader public in the discipline. Jen Guiliano raised the administrative issue of how many credits it would be worth, as well as how this course would relate to the teaching credit currently available. Kathy concluded this topic by mentioning that Clare had proposed the creation of a “Teaching Czar” position which would be responsible for collection of materials relating to pedagogy. 

Discussion of Proposal Two   
Kathy began by stating that Clare had instituted a first year meeting on performance for last year’s incoming class with the idea of clarifying expectations and requirements. Graduate students were enthusiastic over an improved assessment policy. Jason Tebbe (ABD) said that it was a definite improvement over the status quo and that any concerns over speed through the program are easily addressed by this policy. Peter noted that the first year review was not such much about “probation,” but more about progress. The faculty also benefit from this practice by being more aware of requirements themselves. Michelle Kleehammer (second year) volunteered that her experience of this interview was positive and noted that it would be helpful if the DGS did not stress attaining an advisor too prematurely. Fred Hoxie summarized the thoughts of many participants by declaring that this policy encouraged reflection on the program itself and more efficient progress. Jen Guiliano urged the faculty to give students feedback on a class-by-class basis. 

Additional Topics for Future Discussion
Peter Fritzsche asked the graduate students directly if there were any topics not mentioned in the forum that they felt should be addressed. Jen Guiliano noted that language requirements need to be evaluated—many students are either forced to take languages they do not need and/or do not have access to ones they will do their research in. Anna Kurhajec (first year) stressed that the concern over faster progress limits the options of the first year experience and noted that it might hinder working with a wider variety of faculty. Michelle Kleehammer asked how course work related to a student’s fields and prelims. Peter ended the meeting with the comment that we need to clarify why we have prelims. 

LEH