Final Thoughts on Comps

So yesterday I had the oral exam that comprises the second part of the major field comprehensive at my school. It was basically what I expected; two of the three professors asked useful questions that were broad in scope and allowed me to demonstrate a knowledge of the literature, while the third asked very specific questions, looking for specific answers that did not lend themselves to an historiographical discussion. The highlight was when I was asked by this professor to discuss a counter-factual and its implications on a specific nation's history. This made for some unpleasant and uncomfortable moments in an already nerve-racking experience. But at least I was not surprised. That's the way this faculty member approaches everything. They cannot simply ask the broad question and let you answer. Regardless I no longer have to work with this person and I am glad to have finished the exam process.

Since I have passed all of my exams now I think it's fair to call into question the way that they are handled at least in my department. For the PhD one takes a minor field exam and a major field exam. Fair enough. The minor field is a three-hour written exam with two examiners. You get 4 questions, pick two and write on them. The major field is split into written and oral components. There are three examiners and the written is five hours, while the oral is two. Furthermore, students are not allowed to use and notes during any of the tests. This last point is an issue of contention with me. I don't understand what the problem is with using notes. Clearly you know the material if you're taking the exam, and you've got so much information in you head it seems at least fair to have a copy of your reading list in the exam with you. Plus, having your notes is not the tipping point between knowing the historiography and not. If you don't know it your notes won't help you anyway, but if you do they can help you make tighter arguments quicker, enabling you to write more and more accurately. Besides, when is a professor without notes of some kind? In lecture they might not use them, but at least they have their notes at the ready in case they need them (generally). I was browsing another department's website (as I often do) and saw that their major field exam was eight hours, could be on or off campus, and was open note. This seemed to me like the optimal conditions for doing the test. It gives enough time to think about, write, and revise your answers. With the five hours window at my school you're locked in an office alone with a computer. You don't really have time to eat or use the restroom. Hell, there's barely time to stand, stretch, and shake the carpal tunnel out of your wrists. If one has more time to write better answers then the oral exam, in some ways, is rendered obsolete. There will always be questions regarding specific parts of your answers, but it is likely that there would be less in a modified system. Is is necessary to formally discuss these questions as part of the exam? Or would it be better to simply address them informally as necessary, but not have that constitute part of the exam process? It just seems that the process in my department is a bit over-complex. That's not to say that it can't be successfully completed; it can. Rather, it's impossible to complete without thinking, "how is this useful to me" or "how does this prove my abilities as an historian" at various junctures.