Quality or quantity

It seems that smaller PhD programs have difficult decisions to make between accepting quality students and providing a quality graduate education and accepting (and matriculating) a higher number of students in order generate more revenue for the university. When the latter occurs it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the quality of the program because departmental funding must be distributed more thinly, or disproportionate number of PhD students go without funding. For those hoping to join the ranks of academia, they are placed in a difficult situation because they lack the pedagogical guidance some of their colleagues receive in terms of classroom preparation, designing courses, and writing lectures and tests. Instead of looking at their bottom line, more departments should limit the number of people admitted to their programs in order to ensure those accepted receive the highest quality education and preparation possible. If such a policy were followed not only would the glut of un-tenured PhDs diminish, but the institution's credibility rises as well. Furthermore, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, smaller departments would be able to specialize to a higher degree the types of PhDs they turn out. For instance, if my current institution followed this logic, the focus would be on Public and American history with a major strength in urban history. Naturally there would be other problems that arise from this situation, notably difficulty retaining faculty in other fields who might be discontent not having graduate students to work with, but it seems like an interesting idea that might solve a number of the current problems in academia.

Working with faculty

One of the most important decisions that graduate students make is who they choose to study with. Because different people have differing attitudes toward what they expect from their graduate students it behooves the potential student to establish contact with their future mentor beforehand. This will ensure that you both have clear ideas of what to expect from them and they from you. An email or phone call is all it takes to get this process started. Granted this isn't necessarily a new idea, but I would also suggest going a step further before making a final decision. Wherever you are applying you should contact the graduate secretary and ask for contact information (phone, email) of any students currently working with your chosen faculty member. As colleagues they might be more willing to open up about the positives and negatives of working with a particular individual. Doing a little bit of homework can pay huge dividends in the future and help expedite your graduate school experience.

One of many

A couple brief words of introduction and purpose:

I'm currently entering my fourth year working toward a PhD in history at Loyola University Chicago. My focus is on modern Ireland, paying particular attention to cultural history, the historical function of memory, and the First World War. My dissertation will address a number of questions that take all of these issues into account.

Like many individuals pursuing a doctorate in history I someday hope to secure a tenured faculty position, although this suggests it's unlikely to happen. Regardless, I plug along in pursuit of the ultimate goal. I hope that this can be a forum for me to address issues and concerns I have with my degree program in the hope that it can help others navigating similar terrain. At the same time, I want to be able to provide positive feedback about my personal progress in the program and, hopefully, useful suggestions that others might utilize.

A few quick facts about me:
I finished coursework in the Spring of 2007.
I passed my minor field comprehensive exam in Spring 2007 (American history)
I will take my major field comprehensive exam in November 2007
I am the president of Loyola's History Graduate Student Association