next »

[contemporary_]

"Hang out with the best faculty members and do what they say". Should be something more like "hang out w/the faculty members who have your best interest in mind"..the "best" faculty members are often very poor advisors and couldn't care less about you as an individual or a researcher. In fairness, I did have a famous scholar work with me who was wonderful because this scholar allowed me to develop my own research agenda. Find people you *trust* and who you respect as individuals. Don't get starstruck; don't rush to famous scholars. Don't discount advisors just b/c they don't study exactly your field! It's better to find people you work well with and who you trust then to find people who are famous. 

I agree. 

In addition to this I would suggest that one take the time to discuss work with as many faculty as will listen attentively.  I've gotten some of the most useful suggestions from scholars far distant from my interests, but who have directed me towards faculty in other departments with a similar orientation.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

"Hang out with the best faculty members and do what they say". Should be something more like "hang out w/the faculty members who have your best interest in mind"..the "best" faculty members are often very poor advisors and couldn't care less about you as an individual or a researcher.

Irrelevant.  The point of the advice - and I agree with this - is that hanging with the biggest names, provided they let you hang with them, gives you a better sense of the field, and connects you better with the core people in the field, than hanging with people who give a fig about your graduate work.  When you go to a conference, for example, it is extremely useful to be able to join the big shot at lunch or the bar and meet the other big shots (=potential employers).  moreover, the young assistant professor in your area who takes interest in your work and suggests directions simply does not have the depth of experience or historical perspective on the field that the more senior person does. - DvF

[newbie]

Grades don't matter.  I still remember what Chuck Bullock told me:

"No one cares if made a 'B' in legislative process, if you publish an article in Legislative Studies Quarterly."

A 3.5 to keep your funding; that is sufficient.

Maybe this varies between fields or schools, but in my department, you better at least show up for class and put forth some effort, or your reputation is tarnished with your advisor. Faculty do talk, and you want your advisor or your letter-writers to talk about you being a good citizen (along with being a productive scholar, of course).

And classes are often extremely useful in giving students a sense of the field as a whole, or introducing students to specific areas of research. Is this not the case in your field?

I guess classes just did not take up that much of my time to do well, and I learned a lot from them. I agree with the author that no one cares about your GPA, but you have to at least show up and try to absorb something.

[kaysixteen]

There are a lot of things wrong with this article, largely because it is so geared to one field, and economists tend to be rather full of themselves, even if they cannot accurately predict recessions most of the time.  In a field like classics, most of her specific advice is just wrong.  Classics grad students need to develop a wide competence in several areas, to wit, both Latin and Greek language and lit, ancient history, and increasingly ancient art and archaeology.  They will need these skills not only to become well-rounded scholars, whichever area ends up their area of focus, but also to teach the wide variety of (mostly undergrad) courses that the vast majority of them will spend the vast majority of their t eaching days teaching, should they be fortunate enough to land a teaching job (even moreso if that job's in high school).  They will NOT, more than likely, be spending much of any time teaching their esoteric dissertation topics, and they need to get over this.  And, this of course brings out another good point-- I do not know what the numbers are for economics, in terms of new PhDs getting tt work, but in classics, the number is and will certainly be remaining very low for the forseeable future.  Thus, it becomes all the more imperative for the classics grad student, esp. if he is not at a top-rated program mentored by Prof. Important, to take active steps throughout graduate school to ascertain what he will do after it, if not get a ft teaching job at the college level.  Doing things like obtaining state hs teacher certification, additional Master's-level degrees or intern experience in collateral fields, etc., will add much to their future happiness.  After all, having 'Ph.D' after John Smith's name may make Smith quite happy, but it will not put gas in the car.

[phdbliss]

Nobody seems to care what McCloskey says about how "prelims don't matter"?

In many ways I think prelims/comps are a crucial stage of graduate education since it's often the only time devoted to acquainting oneself with material independent of courses - something that, professionally speaking, is an essential skill for the profession. I agree with her-formerly-him that courses don't matter - but I don't agree with prelims not mattering. I think it's one of the most important parts aside from professional development/networking and the dissertation proper.

Am I the only one?

[t_r_b]

Part of the issue seems to be McCloskey's hyperbole. When she writes, "courses don't matter," "prelims don't matter," etc., I think what she really means is, "courses and prelims matter a good deal less in the long run than many grad students realize."

I personally think that prelims and courses should matter more, for many of the reasons that k16 mentions. My discipline tends to be balkanized into countless subfields that rarely speak to one another, and the dissertation-centered nature of graduate training contributes to that by encouraging us to be masters of a tiny slice of knowledge while disregarding everything else. De-emphasizing the elements of grad school that foster intellectual breadth (courses and prelims) limits us as scholars and teachers.

That said, for someone aiming for a t-t job (especially a research-intensive one), prelims and courses really are far less important in the long run. I enjoyed taking seminars, and did well in them, but I always kept my eye on how my work in those courses could advance my own research plans. Too many grad students spend years bogged down in taking care of these requirements without developing a clear sense of where their own scholarship is headed. McCloskey is right that they'd be better off cutting corners in these areas and using the time to further develop their long-term research plans and cultivating fruitful relationships with faculty and other grad students.

[pikachu]

The main point of the article is that research/scholarship/publication is the name of the game these days at all levels (and in all fields): From finishing the PhD, to finding an academic job, and getting tenure. I would agree with the principle of cutting corners elsewhere to spend more time on research/publishing. That includes:

--Getting Bs in some classes (because you spend that extra time on research)
--Spending minimal time preparing for prelims/comps (1-3 months max), just to pass it.
--Taking only the required coursework, except for extra independent study or research methods/stats courses
--Spending minimal time on teaching and service (just for the experience)
--Chosing and writing all class papers with an eye on publication
--Spending most of your time thinking about and producing scholarly ideas (instead of just memorizing them). You should regularly schedule time to work on this.
--Collaborating on as many research projects as possible, assuming you will be a co-author

Research and publications will get you respect in grad school, a job, and tenure, more than any other activity you could do. That applies to getting and keeping jobs at "R1s", "R2s" and many SLACs.