Measuring Performance in Graduate History Programs

Roark Atkinson

Enrollment in Ph.D. Programs Down 30% from Previous Decade

Enrollments in more than 150 universities and colleges with history graduate programs have declined significantly in the past decade, according to data compiled from the American Historical Association's Directory of History Departments and Organizations in the United States and Canada. Each year the directory tracks, among other data the number of incoming graduate students in universities across the country. Overall, in the 152 universities and colleges listed, the number of incoming history graduate students fell to 2,469 this year, down from a peak of 3,557 in 1991-1992, a decline of about 31%.

The declines were not experienced equally at all institutions. Top ranked universities showed smaller declines, and some even had slight increases. Among the top forty schools (as ranked by U.S. News and World Report), the top ten schools showed only modest decreases, and slight increases emerged in the next thirty schools ranked below them (See Table 1). Universities ranked below the top forty schools experienced the greatest ebb of new history graduate students, from a high of 2,325 in 1992-1993 to 1,648 in 2000-2001, its lowest point in the past decade. This pattern suggests that graduate history programs are taking steps to reduce the number of history Ph.Ds. flooding an already saturated (if slightly improving) job market, though it is also possible that the strong U.S. economy of the late 1990s pulled many graduate student prospects away from academe.

History Ph.D. Production at All-time High

It is interesting to note, however, that the overall decline in graduate enrollment comes at a moment when history Ph.D. production remains high (See Figure 1). While the number of Ph.Ds. in all academic disciplines has declined for the first time since 1985, according to a recent Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) Communicator report (see <http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/index.htm#communicator>), the humanities have seen only modest decreases. Indeed, history Ph.D. production actually increased slightly in 1999, according to data from the Summary Report: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities issued by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). [Note: NORC classifies history as a humanities discipline]

Due to the significant time lag between the beginning and end of the typical history graduate's training, as well as the attrition/completion rates experienced in many departments (which may in any case remain unchanged), we are unlikely to see a decrease in history Ph.D. production for another several years as a result of this widespread reduction in enrollment.

Women Gaining Little Ground in History

Another interesting trend is the static production of women Ph.Ds. in history. As Peter D. Syverson of CGS has noted for all academic fields, 1999 saw the first decrease in the number of women Ph.Ds. in forty years, but the percentage share of newly minted women doctorates increased to 43%--the highest ever. According to NORC data from their Summary Report series (formerly published by the National Research Council), the humanities disciplines achieved parity in 1996, and have maintained a 49/51% gender split up to 1999. This pattern does not appear among history Ph.Ds., however (See Figure 2). Since at least 1987, women who received doctorates in history have never made up more than 42% of the total, lingering steadily around 36%. In the U.S. field, women have fared only a fraction of a percent better (about 37%). Among the humanities disciplines, only philosophy and religion produced lower percentages of women Ph.Ds. (25% and 24%, respectively, for 1999).

Graduate Training and Student Expectations Fail to Meet Job Market Realities

The quantitative data outlined above raise new questions about the future of the history profession that they cannot answer. Fortunately, a new survey funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted by Chris M. Golde and Timothy M. Dore offers a compelling look at the qualitative issues surrounding graduate education. The study surveyed 4,114 graduate students at twenty-seven universities. The students belonged to eleven major disciplines, including history, which was classified as a social science. Interestingly, history graduate students comprised the single largest number of respondents in the study (594). Women responded at a higher rate than men (more than 53%). Most were white (83%), partnered (55%), and between the ages of 26 and 31 (58.7%). Most had no children (83.6%).

In their press release, Golde said that doctoral education is "unnecessarily mysterious," noting that the study found that many students do not understand how the process of doctoral education works. Several key findings of the survey indicate that:

• The training doctoral students receive is not what they want, nor does it prepare them for the jobs they eventually take.
• Many students do not clearly understand what doctoral study entails, how the process works, and how to navigate it effectively.
• Half to three-quarters of doctoral students say that they are not prepared for the various teaching and service activities that most faculty members spend the majority of their time doing.

However, most say that they are prepared to conduct research. Another key point in the report is that most Ph.D. students--especially those in history and the humanities--want to become faculty members exclusively, even though other research shows that in most fields no more than half of the students will enter the professoriat. This finding has particular relevance to history, according to specific data not published in the report but provided to the OAH by Chris Golde. Despite the promotion of public history over recent years as a truly viable alternative career path--not merely a fallback plan when academic employment fails--history Ph.Ds. rated the appeal of nonfaculty careers lower than any other discipline besides philosophy. This point is made stronger when one looks at data on graduate students' exposure to other careers. History students showed one of the highest rates of awareness of alternative careers paths, but the impact of this knowledge only served to increase their interest in faculty careers. A mere 12.7% of history students indicated that this knowledge decreased their interest in faculty careers, the lowest rate of all disciplines studied. As Golde put it, "This says to me that historians think that they have surveyed the terrain of other career options and REALLY want to be faculty."

Nevertheless, the report indicates that even the history graduate students themselves are aware of how unrealistic their aspirations to be faculty are. Of those who have considered a job as a university or college professor at any point (81.2%), only 51.5% indicated that they had a "realistic possibility" of attaining one.

Speaking generally of all disciplines, Golde recommended "These findings demonstrate that it is critical to offer and encourage doctoral students to take opportunities to broaden their skills and consider careers outside of academia. Furthermore, students and faculty need to work together to critically assess and change those aspects of the doctoral program that keep students from focusing on their education."

For Further Reading

The report, "At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education" (by Chris M. Golde and Timothy M. Dore, January, 2001, a report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA) is available online at <http://www.phd-survey.org/>.

The author would like to thank Chris M. Golde, University of Wisconsin; Joshua Walters, John Dichtl, and Nicholas Gawlikowski for their assistance in the preparation of this article. In the fall, Ms. Golde will assume a position as Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, serving as Research Director on the Rethinking the Doctorate initiative.