Report of the External Reviewers of The Tri-University Graduate Program in History University of Guelph, University of Waterloo & Wilfrid Laurier University 1. Outline of the visit The reviewers, Dr. Doris Bergen of the History department at the University of Toronto and Dr. Jim Miller of the History department at the University of Saskatchewan, visited the three universities January 27, 28, and 29, 2014. We reviewed programs and personnel at the University of Waterloo on January 27, the University of Guelph 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 Ontario 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.