Report of the External Reviewers of

The Tri- Graduate Program in History

University of Guelph, & Wilfrid Laurier University

1. Outline of the visit

The reviewers, Dr. Doris Bergen of the History department at the University of and Dr. Jim Miller of the History department at the University of Saskatchewan, visited the three January 27, 28, and 29, 2014. We reviewed programs and personnel at the University of Waterloo on January 27, the on January 28, and Wilfrid Laurier University on January 29. At each institution we had meetings with the senior administrator who oversees the combined History graduate programs, the deans of Arts, the heads or chairs of the History departments, the Director of the Tri-University Graduate Program in History (hereafter Tri-U Program), the administrative staff responsible for the Program and for graduate studies at each of the universities, part of the faculty of the History departments, groups of graduate students, and representatives of the libraries. At Waterloo 9 faculty met with us; at Guelph 11; at Laurier 10. At Waterloo we met with 14 MA and PhD students; at Guelph 7; at Laurier 12.

We want to thank very warmly all the people who facilitated our visit, most especially Ms. Cathy Jardine, the Manager of Graduate Academic Reviews and Administrative Services at the University of Waterloo, who handled all the logistics of our travel, accommodation, and consultations with efficiency and cheerfulness. We also wish to thank the chairs and their administrative staffs at the three institutions, all of whom invariably were helpful and pleasant.

Many thanks also to the faculty member at each institution who served as our internal reviewer and guide: Judith Cukier (Geography) at Waterloo, Anthony Clarke (AVP Graduate Studies) at Guelph, and Mark Eys (Kinesiology) at Laurier. Each of these people in different ways proved very helpful in answering our questions and also drawing issues to our attention that we otherwise might have overlooked.

We appreciated the input from the faculty who were able to meet with us in spite of their other obligations and especially enjoyed the panels of graduate students we met at each of the institutions. It is clear to us that the Tri-U Program benefits both from committed and enthusiastic graduate instructors and able and energetic students.

At each university, in addition to the people with whom we met, we also were able to examine the teaching facilities and graduate student offices, and to have the benefit of meetings with staff from the libraries who have responsibility for programs in the History departments. At Waterloo 2 and Guelph we held our consultations in the libraries, but at Wilfrid Laurier the library representative joined us in the room we were using in the interest of saving time.

 By way of a general comment, we have concluded that the Tri-University Graduate Program in History offers degree programs of very good quality, and the organization of the Program, while it could be improved in certain of its details, is on the whole sound. The three institutions can be confident that they are supporting a tri-university graduate program that operates in accordance with practices used at other good institutions and provides an education and training of high quality to its students.

2.1 Objectives

According to the “Self-Study Report for Academic Program Review” with which we were furnished, the objective of “the Tri-University MA Program in History is to provide MA students with the opportunity to explore and deepen their knowledge of diverse fields of history while simultaneously developing skill sets with universal applications.” The “purpose of the Tri- University Doctoral Program is to encourage the pursuit of outstanding graduate teaching and research, nurture intellectual curiosity among doctoral candidates, and facilitate the learning process through small seminar educational experiences.” (Self-Study Report [hereafter SSR], 5 and 6). While we find the objectives for the MA, which emphasize broadening historical knowledge and developing skills of analysis, synthesis, and presentation, to be appropriate, we are surprised to find no reference to vocational outcomes in the statement of the doctoral program’s goals.

 It was clear to us from our conversations with senior administrators, faculty, and graduate students that they all understood that equipping highly educated personnel for employment in academic institutions and elsewhere was central to the PhD program. We would encourage the program’s administrators to make that reality as obvious in their descriptions of the program as it is in the operation of the doctoral program.

In our opinion, these objectives – especially as amplified with the vocational purposes of the PhD that we found implicit – are consistent with the nature and goals of the three institutions. All of them are or aspire to be research-intensive universities that are recognized as such by their peer institutions. That being the case, a robust MA program that broadens historical understanding and sharpens the skills that historians have, as well as a doctoral program that nurtures intellectual curiosity and works to prepare the PhDs it produces to seek employment in academic institutions, government, non-governmental organizations, public history consulting work, and other fields where advanced training is a prerequisite, are well aligned with institutional goals and expectations. 3

The degree nomenclature, which is, of course, that of most other institutions in North America, is appropriate.

2.2 Admission requirements

Admission requirements for the two graduate programs are in line with those at comparable Canadian universities and are appropriately aligned with the programs’ learning goals. In theory, the minimum requirement for admission to the MA program is B (70%) and to the PhD, A- (80%). But in practice, we were told, the actual averages of entering students are consistently higher. These practices are similar to those found at other institutions.

There are aspects of admissions in the Tri-U Program that bear watching. These involve issues related to quality, mechanics, and coordination.

Quality: The Self-Study Report indicates that at the University of Waterloo since the last review the History department was “encouraged beginning in 2009 to almost double its annual MA student intake, from an average of 12-15 to 25.” (132) Admission to the doctoral program has remained more stable. In the opinion of Waterloo’s Associate Chair, Graduate, the expansion of the MA program has led to a decline in the average quality of the students. As the SSR explains, “The growth of our [Waterloo’s] own program, in tandem with the expansion of history graduate education in general throughout the university system, has resulted in the depth and quality of our applicants decreasing. We attract the same number of high quality students as we did previously, but the dynamics of supply and demand have resulted in a minority of relatively weaker students in the program, particularly at the MA level.” (132)

Anecdotally we heard that the quality of MA students varies year by year and may not have declined overall. Others maintained there is a threshold and then the quality drops noticeably. One person suggested it was 80%. Someone else estimated that one-third of MA students are not capable of doing the work without a lot of help from their advisors. No such general concerns were registered about the PhD students, whom faculty characterized as “excellent” and “terrific.”

If the goal is to maintain or even expand the number of graduate students without compromising quality, it might make sense for departments to look more closely at forms of preparation in addition to grades. High undergraduate grades are not always a good indicator of success in graduate programs, where different skills and qualities are required (e.g.: ability to design a research project and to work independently). Applicants who demonstrate strong language skills, ability to conduct original research, or relevant practical experience might merit extra attention, even if they are on the low end of the acceptable grade range.

 We urge the departments to monitor the performance of their MA students and, if appropriate, to reduce the intake, particularly at the bottom of the pool of applicants. 4

Mechanics: Another aspect of admissions that requires attention concerns mechanics. The process of circulating and considering the applications, which at present are centralized at the University of Guelph, has sometimes caused delays and difficulties. We were told that graduate staff and graduate directors at the other departments do not always receive the files quickly enough to review them thoroughly and pursue the topic of potential supervisors, especially as there is an understandable desire to reach decisions on admissions and make offers to those accepted. This seemingly simple problem is made somewhat more intractable by the fact that not all three institutions are sufficiently advanced in their online systems to make circulation of e- files a smooth process.

 We encourage the several departments to investigate ways to smooth out the consultative phase of the admissions procedures.

Coordination: A final issue around admissions has to do with competition and cooperation (or perhaps it is just a matter for clarification). We were told that maybe 15% of applications get sent from one to another of the campuses, with the idea that a different supervisor than the one named might be more appropriate (or perhaps the person requested had already reached the maximum number of advisees permitted per year). But we also heard that some applicants are accepted at more than one of the three departments and then make their decision based on where the funding is more generous. Can both of these things be occurring? Is the result that an applicant could be rejected by one or two of the members of the Tri-U program but then accepted by the third? This seems unfortunate and unnecessary.

 We suggest coordinating communication with applicants so that they each receive only one letter of acceptance or one rejection from the Tri-U Program.

2.3 Curriculum

The Tri-U Program’s curricula and procedures are appropriate to facilitate students’ progress towards meeting the programs’ goals, although there are steps that could be taken to make them more effective. There are two programs – for the PhD and the MA. We will address each in turn, although some issues overlap.

PhD: In the doctoral program, candidates select a major field based on one hundred books from a group of eight fields that are offered each year, and two minor fields, for each of which they cover fifty titles. The supervisor of a student’s major field is normally the student’s prospective dissertation supervisor; this supervisor is joined by one other faculty member with significant expertise in the major field. Minor field seminars are headed by faculty members with appropriate expertise. Following preparation of the three fields, the doctoral students take written and oral examinations on the major field only in the thirteenth and fourteenth months of their programs. While preparing the fields, students also attend meetings of a professional 5 development seminar during their first year. Following successful completion of the field or comprehensive examinations, candidates prepare and defend a dissertation proposal, and then work on researching and writing their dissertations. Doctoral students also present a chapter of their dissertation or another piece of related writing to a colloquium in the third year of their program. Many of them are able to teach a course of their own, or co-teach a course with a faculty member, during their final year of the program. And, of course, candidates for the doctorate complete and defend a dissertation, ideally in four years or twelve terms.

A number of issues involving major and minor fields, cohesion, the professional development seminar, the colloquium, and the four-year schedule bear consideration:

Major fields: The program offers eight major fields. The majority of graduate students, we were told, do the Canadian and Modern European options. At Guelph Scottish History is also popular; Cold War attracts considerable numbers at Waterloo and Laurier.

Faculty and graduate students were uniformly positive about the fields, and we heard no complaints from them regarding the overall gestalt of the program or any particular field. Given the large number of faculty (65 people), we consider eight to be an acceptable number of fields.

The Tri-U set-up appears to be very enriching and highly beneficial for students and faculty in all of the areas. War and Society was praised as a huge field that encourages people to bring ideas and methods from a variety of specializations. Critical mass becomes a selling point, and the same, we heard, is true for Canadian History. But the fields with smaller numbers of students and faculty also benefit from the Tri-U arrangement. Some fields – Medieval History was cited as an example, and the same might be said of Early Modern European History – would be untenable without the Tri-U program. The World History field gives faculty who focus on Asia, Africa, and Latin America an opportunity to work with graduate students and colleagues from all three campuses rather than being isolated in departments where they might be the only specialist on an entire continent. And two very specialized fields appear among the most successful: Scottish History got great reviews from faculty and graduate students (both those involved in it and those outside); and Cold War History also seemed to have a good esprit de corps.

The Tri-U historians’ satisfaction with the eight fields stands in contrast to the uncertainty administrators on all three campuses expressed around this issue. The many questions we heard raised included the following: Is there an overall unity to the program? Are there too many fields? Given the need to be strategic, might reducing, combining, or streamlining them be a good place to start? Some fields are sustained by only a few faculty. Are they viable? Would it be better to narrow down to areas that are strong rather than continue in the way it has “always been done?” Just because these were the fields “in 1998,” does it mean they are right “for 2015?”

It seems to us that the problem here is one of perception and presentation. The Tri-U History program could do a better job of describing itself, its strengths, and its reasons for organizing itself as it does to non-historians. Perhaps successes could be better publicized. For instance, we 6 were impressed by the evidence of vitality in the Scottish History field, the smallest of all. Guelph has the largest collection of Scottish documents anywhere outside the UK, and graduates with this specialization have had notable success in getting academic jobs, with placements at the , University of the Highlands and Islands, and Grant MacEwan University. Are these things well known beyond the Guelph History department?

Also worth considering is whether every area of strength needs to have its own major field designation. Some connections might thrive precisely by moving across and among the official PhD fields. For instance we saw strong activity around the study of rural history, which invigorates Canadian History and also opens up links to every other field. The rural history roundtable was highlighted as a successful initiative that brings MA and PhD students together with faculty, socially and intellectually.

 We encourage updating and improving the presentation of the History Program’s strengths and successes for internal and external purposes. It may not be necessary at this time to revise the major fields offered, but the Tri-U historians should be prepared to explain those fields and their rationale in more compelling ways.

Minor fields: From reports we heard, it appears that the selection of seminar leaders or advisors for the minor doctoral fields is not a smooth process. There are, apparently, timing challenges and sometimes difficulties persuading individual instructors to accept this responsibility. We heard that at least one previous Tri-U Program Director found it distressing to ask colleagues to supervise minor fields, presumably because many did not respond positively (or at all). One solution proposed was to ask chairs to provide a list of faculty members who should be available to do this work. But this idea did not seem likely to be sufficient, since it would already be easy to find out who is on leave and so on. The problem seems to be deeper.

We think that these challenges could be surmounted by a few steps. First, the earlier the minor field reading courses are decided upon for the upcoming year, the longer the Tri-U Program Director and departmental chairs have to recruit faculty to staff them. Early selection and advertisement of seminars would also go some way to minimize students’ dissatisfaction about limited access to the minor fields they desire. Perhaps the Tri-U Program Director or Graduate Coordinators could do more to connect incoming PhD students with faculty members in their areas of interest before students arrive on campus. Professors are more likely to want to devote time and energy to graduate students if they know something about them. And, finally, it might facilitate getting faculty to take on the work of supervising minor fields if all three departments had a ‘box top’ system for rewarding graduate instruction, as Guelph does. Ideally, such an incentive/reward system would provide non-monetary compensation for seminar leadership, supervision, and service on graduate advisory committees.

 We urge the departmental chairs to take seriously the need to help the Tri-U Program Director recruit minor field advisors. We also encourage the Tri-U Director and Graduate 7

Coordinators to explore ways to help faculty develop a larger stake in the success of graduate students, including those for whom they are not the main supervisor.

It is not clear to us why doctoral candidates sit written and oral examination only on their major field. In many other History programs, doctoral students take three written field examinations, and then, if their performance on the written exams reaches a threshold of acceptability, take a single oral examination on the three fields. Often, one-half of the time of the oral examination is devoted to the major field, and one-quarter to each of the minor fields.

 We suggest that the Tri-U Program institute examination of all three fields. Doing so would create an incentive for candidates to work harder on their preparation of the minor fields and give those fields more weight. It would also strengthen the connections between PhD students and members of the faculty other than their supervisor.

Some issues of timing around the comprehensive exams should be looked into. Examination committees could be lined up in the spring and summer so that the process would go more smoothly. Ideally there are two weeks between the written and the orals (university guidelines) but sometimes a month goes by. Such delays are hard on students and staff.

Cohesion and isolation: We learned from students (and faculty confirmed this point) that it is possible for a doctoral candidate to go through field preparation without ever being in a course with another student. Although this does not always happen, apparently it does occur. A PhD program is isolating enough without allowing candidates to prepare their fields in nearly hermetic conditions.

 We encourage the departments to take steps to ensure that doctoral students take field- preparation seminars in which there are other students. Doing so will be even more important if the professional development seminar is moved to a later stage of the program, because it is currently the main site in which new doctoral students interact with their peers.

Professional development seminar: The timing and content of the professional development seminar also merit rethinking. Given the load on PhD students preparing three fields in their first year, the obligation to attend the professional development seminar is one duty that could be removed. It might be objected that the professional development seminar should be held in the first year because, among other things, it has a session devoted to preparing applications to SSHRC for doctoral fellowships. The universities, naturally, require all candidates who receive institutional funding – and that appears to be all students in the program – to apply to SSHRC in the autumn of their first and, if necessary, subsequent years, for fellowships. This objection could be overcome by holding a workshop specifically for preparing SSHRC applications early in the autumn of the first term, as most History departments at research-intensive universities now do, effectively separating the work related to SSHRC applications from the professional development seminar. 8

More significant is the observation that the professional development seminar serves to create some community among the cohort of incoming PhD students. This goal is important but there may be other ways to achieve it.

 Perhaps the professional development seminar could be required during the term in which the student presents his or her colloquium.

The other criticism that we heard concerning the professional development seminar was that it was not nearly as useful as it might be. Some students complained that some of the instructors did not seem to take their contributions to this seminar very seriously; others thought more attention could be given to helping them to prepare to apply for non-academic positions after they graduate. Given the state of the academic market in the Humanities at present and for the foreseeable future, we are sympathetic to the students’ desire for more help getting job-ready for employment in government and nongovernmental organizations, for work as public historians, for a role as consultants, and, generally, for any appropriate non-academic employment.

 Whatever the precise content of the professional development seminar, though, we urge that the time of its operation and the seriousness with which individual instructors in it take their role be matters of high priority for departments and graduate chairs. The futures of many of the doctoral candidates could depend on how well the professional development seminar prepares them.

Colloquium: The third-year colloquium got mixed reviews. Some people found it essential; others considered it a waste of time. The idea of making it optional did not make sense (at least not to us), because if the purpose was to present one’s work to the committee, the fact that a person had already given a conference paper or published an article wouldn’t seem to change the need for the colloquium – just to make it perhaps easier for the candidate to prepare. Issues of timing also came up. The question was raised whether there is enough time between the comprehensive exam and the colloquium to allow students to make sufficient progress. It seemed there were very different expectations for the colloquia: a written paper or not; a new piece of work or a chapter; a re-worked proposal; or a progress report. Everyone seemed agreed that the colloquium is not useful if it is just a revised proposal.

 In our opinion, more uniform expectations for the colloquium are highly advisable.

Teaching experience: Part of what the three departments do to help doctoral candidates prepare for work after graduation is mentored teaching of regular undergraduate courses, usually in or soon after the fourth year of a student’s candidacy. We have nothing but praise for this initiative, although we think there are a couple of details associated with it that could be handled better. At Waterloo, the course is co-taught with a regular faculty member, whereas at the other two departments the student teaches the course independently. 9

 We recommend that Waterloo alter its approach to bring it into line with the other two departments, while maintaining the assistance of mentoring faculty.

We heard complaints from some doctoral students that instructors of mentored courses are not always classified as the instructors and do not always get ‘credit’ for the course as an instructor. They reported that in some cases the student instructors are listed as teaching assistants. This practice seriously shortchanges the contributions of the student instructors, and could harm their ability to use their experience of teaching a mentored undergraduate course when they are applying for academic positions. Hiring committees pay far more attention to what an applicant has taught on her/his own than to in what course s/he has been a teaching assistant.

At Laurier we learned that a larger number of courses had been removed from the pool that had to be advertised so they could be distributed independent of the faculty collective agreement (that is, to PhD students or new PhDs). This change will allow more flexibility for programs to offer experience to their advanced graduate students. What is the situation on the other campuses in this regard?

Four-year schedule: It is important to think seriously about the impact of the four-year ‘guideline’ on the preparedness of graduated PhDs to compete effectively for academic (and perhaps non-academic) jobs. In four years they are unlikely to complete the dissertation, rack up conference presentations, gain teaching experience, and have the three or more publications that are expected nowadays if people are to stand out in a highly competitive field. We think the four- year practice is a problem in this respect.

Everyone we spoke with clearly understood that it was unrealistic to expect a fifth-year to be added to the funding package. But from certain comments it was also apparent that faculty saw the problems. Things are compressed too much, we heard; something is lost by condensing the program so tightly. It is “horrifying” to think how thin the fields are, one colleague said; “we are giving them less.”

Looking back, apparently some recent graduates say it is do-able in four years, but people need to be moved along – the students and also the advisors. One graduate director said it was not conceivable that everyone could finish within four years, and many faculty and students told us they could think of only one person who had completed the PhD on schedule. Follow-up queries to the several Graduate Coordinators elicited the information that one candidate completed in four years since the last review at Wilfrid Laurier, three at Waterloo, and none at Guelph. We were unable to determine – perhaps because our queries were clumsily worded – what fraction of the total number completing the PhD these four who completed in four years constituted. Certainly, though, it is clear they are a fairly small minority of the total group.

 Faculty have shown considerable ingenuity in keeping advanced graduate students and recent PhDs going, with small postdocs and teaching assignments, but people need to be realistic as to what can be done and what the prospects for the PhDs produced will be. 10

MA: As with the PhD program, although the MA program is generally sound, there are some details that need attention. Many of these are logistical matters involving availability of seminars, communication across the campuses, and transportation.

The Tri-U arrangement, we heard, generally works more smoothly at the PhD than at the MA level. This stands to reason, given the short timeframe for the master’s program and the number of courses required. Graduate students told us that the Tri-U program works academically and conceptually but administrative issues and geography get in the way.

MA students can choose among three options to complete requirements for their degree program. Most select a program that requires them to complete six one-term seminars and a Major Research Paper (MRP) of approximately fifty pages in twelve to sixteen months. A smaller number complete a thesis of not more than 100 pages and four seminar courses, normally in a two-year period. Finally, a very small number are allowed to complete a course-only MA in which they take eight seminars. We understood that faculty do not recommend this option except under unusual circumstances, for instance when there are compelling reasons to believe that a student will not be able to succeed in writing an MRP or thesis.

Availability of seminars: Students reported to us that they had difficulty getting the seminars they wanted. We appreciate that it is not always possible to allow every student to get the seminar he or she desires, but we would encourage the departments to try to minimize the number of disappointed MA students by deciding on and advertising as early as possible what seminars are available.

Students said if possible they would like to see the course offerings before the deadline to submit applications to the MA program.

Integrating MA and PhD students: We appreciate the fact that departments had their reasons for reaching the decision they did to separate the MA and PhD seminars, but we also know that at many other institutions History departments do not follow the practice that is in place in the Tri-U Program. We urge the universities to re-examine the matter with an eye to increasing efficiency but more important to encouraging intellectual exchange among graduate students. Several faculty members told us that they had combined MA and PhD students in this way in the past with good results.

 We invite the departments to revisit the question of allowing MA students to take doctoral field-preparation seminars as seminars that earn credit in the MA in appropriate circumstances. Conversely, PhD students preparing fields in which MA courses are being offered should be encouraged to join in the MA seminar rather than working in isolation. 11

Website and registration: The pre-registration website was flagged as unsatisfactory (“not ideal”) by many people (faculty, staff, and students). We got varying answers to the question as to why it was so complicated to register MA students in classes. At one point we got the impression that this was done through the OVGS (Ontario Visiting Graduate Students) arrangement, which is the same paperwork a student would follow to receive credit for a course taken at any university in the province. But a senior administrator vehemently denied that this was the case and said the issue was simply that each institution has its own course code. Regardless of the particulars, the pre-registration website seemed part of the problem. It is not always kept up to date. Every university has different dates for registration and pre-registration for graduate classes, which creates problems. Also someone said it can be difficult to get permission to register for courses. From whom would such permission be required and why?

 For all these reasons it is essential that professors make their syllabi available well in advance.

 One practical suggestion from a student was to provide each graduate student with a Tri- U email address that could be used to communicate. As it is, they now need a separate login for each university.

Transportation: Graduate students at both degree levels with whom we met complained politely but loudly about logistical problems. The thorniest of these involve transportation. Understandably, students spoke of the inconvenience and time-loss involved in going between Guelph and Waterloo/Laurier, and they also were emphatic about the cost of commuting for seminar meetings and other events. We wonder if these problems contribute to the skewing of students’ selection of courses.

Clearly there are many people who want and need to move as easily as possible between the campuses. The number of students who take advantage of the Tri-U arrangement is substantial. We received detailed information on this subject from the Graduate Coordinator at Guelph. From Fall 2010 to Fall 2013, a total of 22 Guelph graduate students (out of a possible 52) took 37 classes at Laurier and Waterloo. Meanwhile from Winter 2008 to Winter 2013, there were 121 students from Waterloo and Laurier in graduate courses at Guelph.

Although there is nothing we or the departments can do about the distance between the cities, it seems to us that the three universities could ease the burden on the students by providing more money for their transportation. We were told that the grant was struck at $80 because that was the cost of a regional bus pass. If that is the case, it seems clear that students are incurring other expenses and do not find the amount nearly adequate. Many students prefer to commute via the more expensive Greyhound, we heard, because there is wifi, so a person can work, whereas the Go buses do not have wireless internet access. Some students commute by car and incur costs for gas and parking. (We heard that in some cases at least parking was reimbursed.) Night classes 12 are harder, even for people with a car, and women sometimes felt uncomfortable. We are sympathetic to the students’ difficulties and complaints.

 We recommend that the three institutions provide resources to fund the travel grant at a substantially higher level. If necessary, the universities could offer the higher grants on an accountable basis, although the bookkeeping involved might burden an administrative staff who already appear to us to be working hard to support the Tri-U Program.

There may also be other ways to ease the transportation problem. One administrator told us there was a “shuttle” between Waterloo and Guelph for people involved in the joint graduate program in Physics and Chemistry. If so, could History join this effort? Others mentioned the vans that carry books back and forth among the libraries of the Tri-U system. Could these vehicles be outfitted and insured to carry students? Other institutions have found a way to combine moving books and people (Duke and UNC Chapel Hill, for instance). Could there be a page or other kind of site that provided information about ride-sharing and car-pooling for students?

 On the transportation issue, which appears to be longstanding, we encourage appointment of one or two members of the faculty and perhaps a graduate student who would be responsible for gathering information and preparing a recommendation for the Tri-U Director. This is the kind of problem that only gets addressed if it is someone’s job to do so, because the most immediate effects are felt by a different group of people each year.

 Meanwhile, students suggested that, to the extent possible, times for seminars, TUGSA meetings, and other Tri-U events should be chosen with an eye to the bus schedules.

Access to books: Another logistical challenge involves books. Students reported issues with access to the books they need for doctoral field preparations and MA seminars. The availability of books might be in part a casualty of the efficiency of the cooperation among the three libraries involved. It seems that for all but the most popular monographs, the libraries rationalize purchasing, often resulting in there being only one copy available among the three institutions.

The growing availability and use of e-resources is of some help, but policies concerning e-books also limit their usefulness for the students. Students at University A can access an e-book from their library from any site with an internet connection, but students at Universities B and C must be in University A’s library to access any e-books held there. Librarians described the system as “demand-driven access,” which sounds good except a certain lead-time is required. It takes about two weeks to get an e-book, we were told. We also learned that one digital book cannot generally be read by more than one person at the same time.

In addition, a field or seminar leader at University B can place books on reserve in the library of University B, but not at the libraries at the other two universities, or at least not easily. Given the impressive job the three libraries have done in many other areas of their operations that affect the 13 students in the Tri-U Program, we know it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of library staffs to overcome these problems.

 We urge the librarians involved to turn their attention to these difficulties, and we ask the administrators at all three institutions to monitor how the work of resolving the problems with access to library resources is proceeding. Again, it might be most effective to name one faculty member or a small group to take charge of this matter.

 We ask that faculty make their syllabi or at least reading lists available to prospective students well in advance of the beginning of term, and also work with librarians to ensure that the books are available, and if possible are on reserve in more than one of the Tri-U libraries.

 As a “quick fix” one student recommended that all incoming graduate students be advised to get a municipal library card, so that they can also access books through that system. (One person told us he did all his reading at the Toronto Reference Library).

MRP: We were pleased to learn that the master’s thesis and the Major Research Paper (MRP) include a defense. Students and faculty reported that these were invariably good experiences.

Finally, a minor point is a peculiarity of the MRP. As the Self-Study Report notes, it is possible, though not usual, for an MA candidate to prepare and have accepted an MRP based only on secondary sources. (SSR, 80) This option is a serious problem, or would be if students availed themselves of it. Diligent inquiries by us uniformly resulted in responses to the effect that MRPs, so far as existing administrators can remember, have not been based only on secondary sources.

 That being the case, we recommend that the Program make it clear in the material it provides to applicants that all research assignments – MRP, thesis, or dissertation – are to be based on research in primary sources.

2.4 Teaching and Assessment

We heard only positive feedback on issues of teaching and assessment. By all accounts graduate students found the content of their classes to be good across the board. As a result, we have only minor points and some questions to raise under this heading.

Planning: How much effort is made to coordinate graduate seminar offerings across the campuses? What forms do such efforts take (formal or informal)? From speaking with faculty we got the impression that some professors are closely linked to their colleagues on the other campuses whereas others barely know them. 14

At Waterloo, we heard, PhD classes were generally 2.5 hours whereas at Laurier and Guelph they were 3 hours. Students preferred the longer classes.

 We think the practice officially should be the same in all three departments.

There is no common course at the MA level. Would this be helpful? We were told that group cohesion varies from year to year and campus to campus. We heard about the video courses used by Physics and Chemistry in the joint program between Waterloo and Guelph. They apparently have a microwave link. Will there be pressure to go in this direction with History? Is there anything useful to be achieved from thinking about this option, not to replace face-to-face meetings or seminars but to enhance connections across the campuses?

World history: Since 2007 the Tri-U PhD program has offered a field in World History, which is laudable. What are the prospects for people trained in this field? In the US, teaching world history is required of most faculty members at most colleges if their specialties lie outside of the American field. It is also expected of history teachers at many high schools, including private prep schools. Is this the case in ? Are there academic and non-academic opportunities specifically for people with PhD degrees in World History? Has anyone completed a PhD with a major field in World History, and if so, what is that person or are those people doing now?

Consistency: Students appreciate the flexibility of the program and access to so many professors. But they note a lack of continuity. We heard from graduate students that faculty expectations and requirements varied widely. In itself this may be unavoidable and even desirable, but if it becomes unfair or obstructionist it is a problem. Some complained about a lack of structure. Others noted that the guidelines were out of date and not accurate. A question as to whether students would want to participate in updating the guidelines received some murmurs of assent mixed with concerns about time.

 We encourage the Tri-U Director to work with Graduate Coordinators and perhaps TUGSA or other graduate students to update and revise the Handbook.

Graduate advising: We heard repeatedly that the quality of a graduate student’s experience and of his/her work depends to a considerable extent on the supervisor. Certainly it helps to have a supervisor who is savvy. What mentoring, if any, is offered for advisors, especially for those new to the job? Teaching graduate students, preparing them for exams, mentoring them as they develop thesis or dissertation projects, and helping them get jobs are very different tasks from teaching undergraduates. What kind of advising is available to advisors? Are there guidelines? Best practices? What about ways to reward outstanding graduate mentors and to encourage or correct advisors who are not up to snuff?

What about co-supervisions? Is this a common practice? It did not appear to be so. Should it be encouraged? 15

Effort is clearly being made to monitor graduate students who “take too long” to complete their degrees; they must request an extension each term beyond their funding maximum. We recognize the need to keep people moving forward but wonder whether the process could be eased. We agree with the faculty member who inelegantly but accurately described the necessity to apply each term for an extension in the case of students who have been in the program more than four years as an exercise in “public shaming.” What about their advisors? Is there a way, without being draconian, to encourage professors to help students make progress and to flag those who repeatedly slow students down?

We found the practice of having a meeting of each advisory committee of every doctoral candidate each term excessive. The need to schedule these and to gather progress reports from each graduate student each semester can create a bottleneck. (It appears this requirement is not the same on all three campuses).

 We think one such meeting per year, if preparation of it includes submission of a progress report by the student, should suffice. In cases where students have passed the time limit and are required to file a request for extension, the advisor and appropriate graduate director might decide whether a meeting each term is needed.

Teaching assistants: Graduate Teaching Assistants are an important part of teaching operations at all three campuses. In large classes as are typical for instance at Guelph, the TAs are crucial, also for the undergraduate experience. TAs are necessary but at the MA level at least some are problematic; there is an inconsistent level of ability, we heard.

 We encourage some formal TA training sessions, at least for MA students. Such a program could also provide a common first-year experience. There might also be a Tri-U prize for excellence as a TA.

2.5 Resources

In meetings with us, administrators at all three universities expressed their eagerness to keep the Tri-U Graduate Program in History going. We appreciated the commitment they showed to the continued success of the program. Nonetheless and not surprisingly, there are a number of issues involving resources that came up repeatedly in the interviews we conducted.

Each institution contributes $13,500 annually for the Tri-U Program. Is this amount adequate?

Space: At Guelph graduate students seem physically quite comfortable. At Waterloo there are significant challenges around space. Laurier has no dedicated space for graduate students. How can they build an intellectual community? One person identified the issue of study space as the single biggest challenge at Laurier. Nor is the situation elsewhere ideal. The PhD office at Waterloo does not have a computer; the MA office has no computers, either. Eighteen MA 16 students share thirteen cubicles. The backs of their chairs are pressed against each other, and there is no window. The Teaching Assistant meeting room is adequate though it has to be reserved.

Is this crowding a matter of “growing pains”? Has the program been taking in more students than there is physically space for?

Classrooms seem to be in short supply on all three campuses. We heard about classes being bumped around to different rooms, making it hard for people coming from other campuses to find their way.

 Communication is the key to addressing these problems. They cannot easily be fixed, but with some creativity and good will – and a lot of exchange of information and ideas – the situation can be eased. We heard of successful ad hoc arrangements: professors lending their offices to graduate students while they were on leave; staff identifying under- utilized space and finding ways to help graduate students access it; librarians deciding to designate certain areas study spaces. Such initiatives are to be encouraged.

Administration and Staff: We heard praise for Graduate Coordinators Sofie Lachapelle, Dan Gorman, and Adam Crerar. Graduate students also expressed very warm appreciation of the staff, in particular Donna at Waterloo and Cindi at Laurier. But it can be daunting for students to deal with multiple levels of administration; often it is not clear to whom they should turn with specific questions. There are questions such as who is supposed to set up the committee. It seems most students go first either to the grad director in their department or to the “go-to” staff person and not to the Tri-U Director or Diane Purdy, the part-time Tri-U administrative staff person.

 We suggest providing incoming students with a brief introduction to the members of the Tri-U “team” so that they know to whom to turn regarding certain frequently asked questions. There should be some kind of orientation session where new graduate students could meet the key people face-to-face.

We were impressed by the competence and energetic commitment of the staff. We were also told that the counterparts communicate well across the three campuses. But some people politely indicated they felt there was never enough time to do what needed to be done, and particularly in the busiest period in the fall, it would be good to have some extra help.

 We encourage assessment of the situation, particularly at Waterloo, with an eye to providing some form of temporary assistance at rush times. Experienced, knowledgeable staff are the heart of a successful graduate program, and it is important that they not be overburdened. Perhaps a work-study student or graduate assistant could be taken on for certain tasks. 17

Opportunities for professional development: The perception of administrators is that most of the PhD students in History do not go into academic careers. But more than one person expressed a desire for more information. Some faculty and administrators at Waterloo pointed to the Centre for Career Action on campus as useful although they conceded that “take-up” had not been too high. It runs seminars all the time and has practical help for graduate students who seek careers outside academe. Could History make better use of this resource?

Funding: One issue that arose has to do with the funding packages, which are not the same at the three campuses. Students certainly perceived significant differences. Some administrators had the view that things looked more divergent than they in fact were, but at least one administrator told us there were “massive differences.” How significant are these variations and do they have practical repercussions? In other words, is the issue one of perceptions of fairness or concrete problems for the Program?

Chemistry, we heard, has a standard stipend across the campuses in its joint program. Could History learn from those colleagues how this was achieved?

Students report that payment of funds, including even TA money, is sometimes unpredictable. Funds do not always arrive regularly. Also unpopular was the system by which at least part of a SSHRC or other major grant received is “clawed back” so that students feel they are not rewarded for having succeeded in this competitive process. In fact some people had the sense they were penalized for doing well. At the MA level it is not a problem: SSHRC winners get to keep most of the money. At the PhD level it gets thorny.

The overall funding situation was described by one administrator as “not pretty.” Faculty feel vulnerable as institutions move from a funding model based on “how things were done in the past” to “rational” resource allocation models. And there is a built-in tension with graduate programs. People are being told at the same time to grow and to make cuts. Graduate numbers, we were told, are not as high as they should be for research intensive universities. Guelph has 11% grad students; the aspirational institutions are pushing 20%. In order to retain graduate funds from the provincial government it is desirable to increase the number of students coming in; yet there is a need to cut costs. So graduate funding ends up being a compromise between solving those two problems.

We heard about the possibility of moving to a demand-driven model where each unit would look for quality applicants and then the number of packages would be decided accordingly, with funding to be directed where the demand is. We fear that such an additional step in the admissions procedures would create delay at a critically important time.

The provincial allocation, we learned, is not the same across the three campuses. “We are behind” a couple hundred dollars per graduate student, Laurier people told us. Apparently there is also a gap between Waterloo and Guelph, though not as large. 18

 We do not have specific recommendations about resources, and many of the decisions that affect the Tri-U History graduate program are out of the control of the departments in any case. What we do want to emphasize is that if the three universities want substantial graduate programs, they have to invest in them. They can’t do it on the cheap. Departments cannot ‘grow enrolment’ without some fertilizer (money).

Big picture: The elephant in the room is the precarious situation of funding for advanced education in Ontario (and across Canada and beyond) in general and the future of the Humanities in particular. Some of the administrators we met were clear that they foresaw major changes ahead. The “need to think more strategically” means only one thing. Also talk about “moving to an activity-based budget model” seems to point in a gloomy direction for departments and entire institutions whose enrolments are dropping. If undergraduate applications are down at Waterloo for next year, what is the prognosis for the future? Can we be reassured by talk of the “civilizing aspect of the Faculty of Arts” and its graduate programs (as a senior administrator observed)?

This year at Laurier first-year enrolments in the Arts Faculty declined by 11%, but History overall held steady, which is particularly impressive after five years of declining enrolments.

Many faculty members told us, and we agree that the Tri-U Graduate Program is not just an add- on. It informs each of the three institutions and makes the whole more than the sum of its parts.

2.6 Quality Indicators

On all three campuses we heard History praised as a well-run unit. We share this perception. We also want to emphasize the high quality of the faculty as measured by numbers of publications (especially books with major academic presses). These are very strong departments.

Faculty: Among the faculty at all three institutions are highly accomplished scholars with significant publications and other notable achievements (Canada Research Chairs, numerous PhD supervisions, leadership positions in professional associations).

Not all members of the faculty are visible nationally and internationally in the way that is important for attracting and mentoring PhD students. Relatively few had held international fellowships and visiting lectureships (mostly they had funding from SSHRC). Although there were healthy numbers of books, we noticed surprisingly few journal articles and chapters in books, and not many international conferences organized and hosted. These things are essential for graduate students – it is not enough to have them holed away writing their dissertations; they need to get out in the world. Perhaps there could be a major journal edited here by this large and dynamic group of faculty (as used to be the case with Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques; also we noted with approval that the Canadian Military History Journal comes out of Wilfrid Laurier). One student said she had a chance as an MA student to work on a journal 19 and appreciated the opportunity to build skills and a network that will be useful to her down the road.

 There could be more collaborative projects that would generate experience and research and travel funding for graduate students. At the very least it should be the norm rather than an exception that faculty use their SSHRC funds to help support research by graduate students.

Also noticeable was the number of faculty who seemed stalled at the associate rank. As we learned, there is little financial incentive to move toward full professor, but this situation suggests some kind of stagnation or comfort that might work against productivity. As was emphasized by faculty at one meeting, the good thing about having PhD students is they force you to stay on top of developments in the field and to work on networks. They push you. We wondered whether departments may have become dependent on a small number of stars who did the heavy lifting in training PhDs, and with the retirement of those people, others are not necessarily stepping up to take their place.

Issues regarding the equitable spreading of workload among faculty seem to need some attention. Are certain “good citizens” doing the lion’s share of the work for the graduate program? Probably this situation will always exist to an extent, but if people don’t feel appreciated and treated fairly they may become demoralized and burn out.

One administrator said graduate students are slowed down if don’t come in to work with someone specific. That is probably true, but we think there needs to be some flexibility here, too, for people who have conflicts, for students whose interests change, or for faculty who are overloaded.

Ranking: We were asked explicitly to comment on where the program ranked. In the Canadian context this is a difficult question to answer. We don’t think there is any reliable way to measure ranking or to gauge reputation. In Canada we don’t have the kind of established rankings that are crucial in the US system. Certainly the quality of graduate education and training possible in the Tri-University system in History is good, and there are individual faculty and students who are equal to those anywhere. But there are structural limits that need to be recognized and taken seriously too. In a four-year program it is not possible to develop certain kinds of projects that require learning additional languages or traveling extensively to archives and collections. Nor can the Tri-University system offer the depth of library holdings and range of language and other classes that universities with more emphasis on the Humanities can.

The Tri-U system has some exceptional faculty members who attract and mentor outstanding PhD students, who in turn have gone on to get permanent academic positions. Successes include Lianne Leddy, PhD Laurier 2011, supervised by Susan Neylan, now an Assistant Prof of History at Memorial; Karen Priestman, PhD Laurier 2009, supervised by Eric Haberer, now Assistant Professor of History at Western; and Janay Nugent, PhD Guelph 2004, supervised by Elizabeth 20

Ewan, now Associate Professor of History at Lethbridge. The program needs to support and encourage such extraordinary individuals but also to help everyone who receives the PhD to maximize their potential, whether in the academy or outside it.

Although we tried we were unable to get consistent, comprehensive data on the post-degree positions of recent PhDs. (Again, we have to acknowledge that the way in which we asked for information might have contributed to the problem, and some people’s circumstances may be in flux.) In any event, considering the eighteen PhDs about whose careers we were told, some of whom began prior to the four-year guideline, one holds a tenure-track position in a university, two are full-time employees in colleges, seven are or recently have been in limited-term university posts, one is a postdoctoral fellow, and one a sessional lecturer. The remainder are in government jobs, retired, or independent scholars. If we can assume that some of the seven PhDs in limited-term positions will eventually obtain university or college positions, it seems likely that one-quarter to one-third of the Program’s PhDs end up in long-term, post-secondary teaching positions. If this estimate is sound, it underlines the need to improve the provision of career development information to doctoral students while they are in the Program.

2.7 Additional Graduate Program Criteria

Administrators characterized the collaboration in History across the campuses as good and told us the success of the Tri-U Program depends on the personalities involved. We heard praise for the cooperative and resourceful History faculty and their leadership and for the way they have streamlined the graduate program to move students quickly through their comprehensive examinations and to PhD candidacy.

Under this heading too we have only minor points and questions.

It would be good to provide some guidelines or tips for faculty on preparing CVs. We received CVs in very different formats, making it difficult to know what we were looking at. There were also cases where items were reported in a way that could be misleading. Reviews are not articles in refereed journals, for instance.

International Students: There is an issue of some importance regarding international students. At Waterloo we were told that 30% of the graduate population is international. In Engineering, Math, and the Sciences especially the university is liberal with fee waivers. What about in History? There seemed to be few international graduate students here. At Guelph we learned that the Scottish field has attracted some international students and does its best to fund them, but it is not easy. At Laurier there did not seem to be much possibility of recruiting international students to the History graduate program. At least we learned that there is no Laurier policy on international graduate students and never has been one. So in Graduate Studies people have to be very creative to come up with a package that is attractive to a student from outside Canada. 21

There are no unfunded graduate spots. There are some international students at Laurier, too, but it is very ad hoc. The major issue is to give a fee remission to bring international students to domestic levels. The provost at Guelph is interested in the issue and trying to set aside funds. At Waterloo we were told the department needs to make the case. At Laurier we heard that it can be managed, sometimes quite creatively, on a case-by-case basis.

2.8 Quality Enhancement

Development: There have been some notable successes that seem to merit more attention and recognition. Guelph has an endowed chair in Scottish Studies (The Scottish Studies Foundation Chair) and is currently searching for a chair holder. Laurier, which has a strong tradition in military history, is in the process of filling a new, privately endowed chair, the Dunkley Chair in War and the Canadian Experience.

 Both new chair-holders can be expected to be leaders in their fields and to bring new energy and ideas to the Tri-U Graduate Program.

Best practices: As the geographic outlier of the three History departments involved, Guelph may have the biggest stake in the Tri-U Program. Perhaps for that reason its faculty have taken some initiatives that might be explored by colleagues at Waterloo and Laurier. For instance, at Guelph we heard all PhD committees are required to include someone from another of the campuses. Is the same true at Waterloo and Laurier? Faculty at Guelph have been experimenting with trying to work more closely with students on their projects, following a science model, where faculty and graduate students might co-author an article. Guelph’s History program has been praised for its community involvement. Are there opportunities for the other campuses in this direction? And could more be done to maximize graduate involvement in such projects? At one of the other universities an administrator raised the possibility of enhancing community engagement options as a way to reorient existing programs such as History and enhance core competencies.

We heard that at Laurier at least there was a change from the tendency to send top undergraduates away for their MA degrees to now trying to keep top students in the program. So many MA programs were created in Ontario that it can be challenging to compete for the best students. This new practice of recruiting internally has been successful. The methods course that is required in the Scholar Specialization Stream and two full seminars in the fourth year are ways to capture the attention of the most promising undergrads. One possible downside is that students see the MA as an extension of undergraduate studies. “What used to be the MA is now the PhD,” one faculty member said.

We observed that the Tri-University Program could do more to draw on resources outside the three History departments. There are historians in other parts of the universities (note world- renowned historian of the Holocaust, Robert Jan van Pelt, who is in the Faculty of Architecture 22 at Waterloo) and also people in other programs (Political Science, Religion, Languages and Literature, Geography) who could contribute in powerful ways to the training of graduate students in History.

3. Other

Tri-U Director: It seems to us that a great deal is left to the initiative of the Tri-University Graduate Director. We were impressed with the commitment and energy of the incoming director and the two previous directors, with all of whom we met and spoke. This is clearly a key position in keeping the program functioning smoothly. Other than the part-time assistance of Diane Purdy and possibly some teaching release (negotiated by each incumbent), the position seems to carry no specific benefits other than the reward of a job well done. Nor does there appear to be any kind of formal authority, reporting structure, or control over funds that would help the office-holder get the cooperation or even the attention of faculty. We were told repeatedly that the “personality” of the director is the key factor – and the program is fortunate to have had directors with excellent personalities for the job. But is this a firm foundation on which to build a program?

Integration: Graduate students frequently attend classes and events at the other campuses, we were told, but it is less common to see professors from one place at another.

Waterloo’s colleges and Laurier’s Brantford campus seem uncomfortably integrated into the graduate program. We noticed on the CVs that some accomplished historians who are actively involved in supervising graduate students do not teach MA seminars because they are based at a college where this does not seem to fit into the regular teaching load. Brantford is more than an hour away. Faculty there have graduate faculty status, but with no bus or other way to get back and forth, it is not practically possible to integrate them into the graduate program. Nor can they have Graduate Teaching Assistants; they use undergrad TAs.

Possible innovations: Someone at Waterloo has proposed a Master’s of Public History. Is this a good idea? We think so. There are jobs for people with an MA in public history in government, NGOs, and consulting firms. Of course this is especially true for those in Canadian history and perhaps military history. We did hear that military officers have taken PhDs as a career upgrade and it seems a good example of the value of encouraging what one faculty member praised as “slightly unusual people.”

What is the relevance of online instruction to the graduate program? Guelph, we learned, is the second largest online deliverer in Canada after . That is a revenue generator but it also uses faculty time. Not much is done at the graduate level; there are no programs at the graduate level online. But some graduate students and recent PhDs presumably teach online 23 classes, and experience doing so may be an important credential for them. We also heard that one meeting of the professional development seminar was devoted to this subject.

A non-historian mentioned that some disciplines have a manuscript option for dissertations. In Geography, for instance, PhD students can write three articles for publication in lieu of a dissertation. Might it be worth considering such an option for those who decide not to pursue the traditional academic path in History? It seems to us that this idea runs contrary to the tradition of the Humanities disciplines as ones with a strong literary orientation. Somehow it seems that one long piece of work is more literary than three short pieces. But perhaps there is merit in pondering the idea, if only to reaffirm why a traditional dissertation is necessary.

4. Recommendations

The following are the main recommendations that appear in the sections above.

 Program administrators should make it clear in Program literature and policy statements that a vocational element is central to the nature and purpose of the PhD program.

 The several departments should investigate ways to smooth out the consultative phase of the admissions procedures.

 The departments should monitor the performance of their MA students and, if appropriate, reduce the intake, particularly at the bottom of the pool of applicants.

 Communications with applicants should be coordinated so that they each receive only one letter of acceptance or one rejection from the Tri-U Program.

 Presentation of the Program’s strengths and successes should be updated and improved for both internal and external purposes. While it may not be necessary at this time to revise the major fields offered, the Tri-U historians should be prepared to explain those fields and their rationale in more compelling ways.

 We recommend that the departmental chairs take seriously the need to help the Tri-U Program Director recruit minor field advisors. We also encourage the Tri-U Director and Graduate Coordinators to explore ways to help faculty develop a larger stake in the success of graduate students, including those for whom they are not the main supervisor.

 We recommend that the Program institute examination of all three PhD fields.

24

 We recommend that the departments take steps to ensure that doctoral students take field- preparation seminars in which there are other students.

 We recommend the departments consider requiring the professional development seminar during the term in which the student presents his or her colloquium.

 We recommend that the timing of the professional development seminar and the seriousness with which individual instructors in it take their role be matters of high priority for departments and graduate chairs.

 Expectations for the student presentations to the colloquium should be made more uniform.

 We recommend that Waterloo History department alter its approach for offering mentored undergraduate courses to bring it into line with the other two departments, while maintaining the assistance of mentoring faculty.

 We recommend that the departments revisit the question of allowing MA students to take doctoral field-preparation seminars as seminars that earn credit in the MA in appropriate circumstances. Conversely, PhD students preparing fields in which MA courses are being offered could be encouraged to join in the MA seminar rather than working in isolation.

 Professors should make their syllabi available well in advance of the beginning of the course.

 We recommend that the three institutions provide resources to fund the grant for travel between the campuses at a substantially higher level. If necessary, the universities could offer the higher grants on an accountable basis.

 We recommend that the librarians involved consider the difficulties that students reported concerning access to books, including e-books. We suggest that the administrators at all three institutions monitor how the work of resolving the problems with access to library resources proceeds.

 In addition to making their syllabi or at least reading lists available to prospective students well in advance of the beginning of term, field supervisors and course instructors should also work with librarians to ensure that the books are available, and if possible are on reserve in more than one of the Tri-U libraries.

25

 We recommend that the Program make it clear in the material it provides to applicants to the MA program that all research assignments – MRP or thesis – are to be based on research in primary sources.

 The Program Handbook is seriously in need of revision. We recommend the Tri-U Director work with Graduate Coordinators and perhaps TUGSA or other graduate students to update and revise the Handbook as soon as possible.

 The duration of the seminars should be the same in all three departments.

 We recommend that one meeting of a student’s advisory committee be held per year, provided that the student is required to submit a progress report in advance of the meeting.

 We recommend that formal TA training sessions be held each year, at least for MA students.

 We recommend that incoming students be provided with a brief introduction to the members of the Tri-U “team” so that they know to whom to turn regarding certain frequently asked questions. There should be some kind of orientation session where new graduate students meet the key people face-to-face.

Additional suggestions:

In addition, the following are matters the departments and universities should consider:

What about a seminar series to bring faculty across the campuses together? Strengthening the intellectual community as a whole can only benefit the Tri-U Graduate Program.

At Waterloo at least there are no mandated department meetings. It is up to the chair to call meetings as required. Perhaps there should be one Tri-U meeting per year to be chaired by the Tri-U Director and organized in conjunction with the Graduate Coordinators to discuss policy, check for problems or issues, and report on progress.

Is there any effort to coordinate building the Tri-U Graduate Program? Presumably each department deals with its own staffing issues. But even some discussion would help fit those decisions into a vision for the future of the graduate program.

Might the seminar offerings be recalibrated slightly to make it easier for PhD students to prepare their minor fields in conjunction with participating in a graduate seminar? 26

One practical suggestion from a student was to provide each graduate student with a Tri-U email address that could be used to communicate. As it is, they now need a separate login for each university.

What about some research travel funds for graduate students? It seems there is possible funding for presenting research at a conference but not for travel to archives or for other kinds of research support. Even a small summer stipend at the right time can be crucial in helping a graduate student shape a dissertation project and write an effective proposal for outside funding.

Some CVs indicated that certain faculty had won an award for good mentoring – what is that? Is it given regularly? Maybe TUGSA could also institute a prize for a faculty member who has contributed significantly to student intellectual life? Could there also be a Tri-U History Graduate TA award? Such things need not cost much money; the recognition itself is worth a lot.

Perhaps the three universities could explore the possibility of some postdoctoral awards for top PhD students – possibly in conjunction with the endowed chairs in Scottish Studies and War and the Canadian Experience. Or this could be a broader initiative, not only for History but in competition with other Arts and Humanities programs.

On the transportation issue, which appears to be longstanding, we encourage appointment of one or two members of the faculty and perhaps a graduate student who would be responsible for gathering information and preparing a recommendation for the Tri-U Director. This is the kind of problem that only gets addressed if it is someone’s job to do so, because the most immediate effects are felt by a different group of people each year.

Meanwhile, students suggested that, to the extent possible, times for seminars, TUGSA meetings, and other Tri-U events should be chosen with an eye to the bus schedules.

The librarian at Waterloo informed us that, budget permitting, she will order things for graduate students. We suggest steps be taken to ensure that students know of this offer.

As a “quick fix” one student recommended that all incoming graduate students be advised to get a municipal library card, so that they can also access books through that system.

We encourage assessment of the administrative load, particularly at Waterloo, with an eye to providing some form of temporary assistance at rush times.

We encourage departments to consider ways to ensure that there are more collaborative projects that would generate experience and research and travel funding for graduate students. At the very least it should be the norm rather than an exception that faculty use their SSHRC funds to help support research by graduate students.

27

Respectfully submitted,

Doris L. Bergen Jim Miller University of Saskatchewan

21 Feb. 2014