Hi folks, What is the average time from a masters degree until completion of a Phd? Any online schools with good reputations offer such a beast? Thanks, Buckwheat
As far as I know, the only DL PhD programs in History are offered by non-US schools such as: Charles Sturt U U of Kent-Canterbury U of Melbourne U of New England UNISA U of Teeside U of Wales-Aberystwyth U of Wales-Lampeter Residency requirements vary. Time to completion varies as well. Four years might be a decent estimate for an ambitious person. Reputation is a curious commodity. On a doctoral level it's been said that reputation has more to do with the specific department and the specific advisor/supervisor than the school as a whole. Jack
Dear Buckwheat, Boy....64 thousand dollar question. You have your coursework, then writtens, then disseratation , then defense thereof. I am factoring about 5 years for me. I have one course under my belt, with others to go. I think it depends on you. How much research do you have on your topic? See, I have my topic, and the five chapters of my dissertation mapped out. I spend my off- peak hours researching. It does help to have a topic. Not necessary mind you ,but it could help. Also, you have to have a fit. For example, I love love the campus of William and Mary, but their research is in colonial history, not 20 th century( like I am). I hope this helps. Decide what area interests you , then look at the schools.
I don't know why there is such a shortage in U.S. DL History Programs. My guess is there would be more than enough qualified applicants for a Ph.D. program. As it stands now, the only U.S. graduate history DL program (that I've found) is the M.A. in History with a Military History Emphasis program from Sam Houston State U. The next closest thing is the MLS with a History Concentration (18 semester hours) from Fort Hays State U. As of yet, No Ph.D. exists. I think schools are missing an opportunity in this area.
Because it is still the believe in the history community (US, at least) that you need to have one on one time. This is a hard one for historians to give up. I have two beliefs. One, I agree with the thought that you do need the face to face time with professors. You need that feel with the professors. The relationships are invaluable. Now, I do believe that history and historians must try to embrace the new technology. I am using Web CT in my classes for teaching. I am using Web CT in my doctoral class. So historians are starting to use the technology. Will this happen soon, I rather doubt it. Attitudes are hard to change. History, I predict, will be one of the last holdouts to go completely DL.( US )
Sorry... history is one subject that would be most easily adapted to DL. I can spend the next year cruising the Internet for historical sites and probably not hit even 10% of them. Then there are books, libraries you name it. What the heck do you need a professor for? Never paid much attention to mine and rarely got anything less than an "A". Did get a B once I think. It is the hard sciences or anything hands on requiring lab time where you need a classroom and a professor. History professors feel threatened by DL for this very reason, thus their unwillingness to consider it.
Try http://www.apus.edu/AMU/home/AMU/ since they are going through the RA process. It adds a lot of options at the masters level for history gurus.
Dear Chris, You are studying business, right? Correct me if wrong. Have you attended graduate school in history? Have you attended a doctoral lecture in history? I am NOT flaming you, but I highly question your comments. Can you back up the statement....History professors feel threatened by DL. My professor at the University of Houston....Dr Raul Ramos is using Web CT. Please, please watch your comments. This is a doctoral class at UH...History 6381 History of the American West...you can look it up. Please dont think that I am going after you. I am only telling you the attitude of the history community now. They are JUST NOW accepting public history. That was a topic in my last doctoral class
Airtorn, I never said that history professors were threatened. I think why they are slow to change is the whole field is slow to change. Dr C.Van Woodward was still writing in long hand before he died. He had his secretary transcribe his notes for hime. This was 1999. I love the internet and DL, but many historians dont. I think it is handed down from generation to generation. I am also a librarian, so we are taught in library school to embrace technology and its gifts. Professors that I have had at Carolina and Central ...they are very slow to change. Remember, we are creatures of habit. The former chair of the history department at NCCU still doesnt check her email. Scares her...
No.... I have never attended a graduate schol in history but I do have 42 hours of undergraduate history credit and attending any history lecture is like attending any other. I base my opinion on history professors and DL by the large number of them writing to the CHE and complaining about it. If you read it take the time to see the field of those complaining the loudest. History has more than its fair share of representation. For that matter they do on most issues. Maybe they are just the most vocal about everything.
Chris, I respectfully disagree with your comment on attending an undergraduate history being like any other. Remember, I am a veteran of both. The level is much higher at the graduate level. If you dont believe me , take a graduate history course and compare them to the undergraduate course. You should see a difference. Are they complaining the loudest? Remember again, I am veteran here as well. I am not familiar with CHE, so I cant speak to that one. I do take history classes and I am a history instructor. I dont hear the complaining against DL. Maybe it is just me. Again, I respectfully agree to disagree with you.
I loved when a history professor was able to fashion a story when lecturing a period. If a lecturer is a good story teller then history is an exciting subject - otherwise its just dates, names and places. Most people can ingest historical facts when incorporated within a story. Long live History !!!!!
I agree. I try to incorporate that into my lectures. The stories are what the difference. Remember, you are trying to weave a quilt. The facts and figures are just part of the story. Events and human emotions are another part. How they are woven are the task that many a historian must try to accomplish.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. To me, the type of lecture was always based on the instructor not the level he was teaching. My short time in a B&M graduate program was a little depressing. I expected more. History is history. Yes, you can drone on interminably with dates, and places or you can discuss the motivations of the players in an attempt to add life to the figures in their time and place. However, I would bet both levels of instruction have instructors of both types. I have been a student of history since I could read. It is a joke in my family that I read encyclopedias for fun. I can tell you that I can get just as good an education that way and by visiting the locations then I could in a lecture hall. My whole original point is that some people can learn just as well or better independantly by DL than others can in a B&M environment. It was not a slam on history professors in general. PS, did you go to the bonfire this year?
Chris, I agree to disagree. I think that you can learn many things from visiting historical sites and battlefields. The docents there are educated to tell you all you need to know on that particuliar site. I was addicted to almanacs and dictionaries as a child, so i hear ya. Maybe I am jaded. I have spent much of my life around historians, so my opinions are just that opinions. I think that a lecture with a great historian , such as Dr Robert Pfaff of UNC ( Phd Oxford) is someone that I admire greatly. He not only knew his ancient and medival facts, he was able to weave stories about them. He was one person that could aptly explain secular humanism.
Hi Folks, I have to agree with Tireman, History on the Graduate level is ferocious! I actually loved history in undergrad, found it fun and exciting! Now, my only hope is that my teeth won't be kicked in 1/2 way thru the program Ok, just today I went to the bookstore to get my reading list for a Civil rights class it was 12 books, not pamplets but books! The last class I was in contained undergrads as well as graduates; Trasrist Russia-, outside of the textbook reading requirements- reading list for undergrads 2000 pgs. min total. For grads 2400pgs. min total, and weekly reports 3-4 pgs each., naturally, quizzes and final exam. I have had both online and B&M classes, it was ok on the undergraduate level, however my Phd online option will be a last resort situation! If I survive this Masters program and if god willing I would also like to enter a B&M institution; simply put, various perspectives outside of Oliver Stone revisionists types are lost if your mind alone views a paticular moment in time! History can be a sterile environment if taught online. For example, I had a professor in undergrad, my first class from her was online and ok, but my second class was in the classroom.....it, for me, was so much different! Just my 2cts worth, Bustin my ass- Buckwheat
TIt depends... I have experienced grad classes in history that are just like undergrad. In fact, many universities offer both at the same place and time. I think the "completely different" thesis Tireman argues for are those programs that run their grad history programs separately - and thus are the equivalent of professional training. These experiences are (or can be) more intense and more intellectually molding. Normally, undergrads are restricted from them and the average age is 25 to 35 - ie considerabley more mature. But on the other hand, let me echo the traditionalism Tireman observes. James Ronda, the greatest living Lewis & Clark historian, does not accept internet citations in his courses at the University of Tulsa. Why? Too unreliable, too ephemeral. By contrast, printed text has been edited, printed, and distributed - and (usually) safely archived. Even if erroneous, this remains stable source material - something the historian devoted to "getting it right" treasures far above immediacy. Now I think that, as a rule, contemporary, 20th century, and younger historians are not so suspicious of electronic sources. Nonetheless, I appreciate "Old School" whose devotion limits their trust to the centuries tested medium of the printed text. I think one can well argue that the new media amounts to returning authority back to the autonomous scribes of pre-Gutenberg era - more errors tend to enter today's information stream than in Ben Franlkin's time of the printing press. But then again, more corrections enter the stream, too! --Orson
