last year friend and Phd cohort-mate, who was entering the sixth year in the program, submitted a draft of his dissertation proposal to his committee. It was a considerable expansion on the research he had done for his masters paper and the three articles he had just published. His committee members pulled out his application essay which had a two page description of a very challenging theoretical argument, and told him that if he didn't write that dissertation, none of them world recommend him for jobs.

i think that it is best to be as specific as possible in your application materials, but there is an innate understanding that your topic may morph/change during your first year or two of studies... this has been both my own experience as well as that of pretty much all of my colleagues... none of us are pursuing the exact line of research that we originally planned... in my mind if the first year or two of coursework doesn't modify your way of thinking--and by implication your dissertation topic--then what was the point of the coursework?

mespellwrong, that may very well be true, but i have a VERY difficult time believing it... as i said above i think that there is always an understanding that topics/interests may change... plus, how can it have taken six years just to get to the point of writing his proposal? and wasn't his proposal written with input from his committee?

I am also surprised by that story. That sounds like some important part of the story is missing. PhD programs are by nature flexible and adaptive things. They have to be because you are learning all the time and what you thought at first is probably not going to be supported by the deeper knowledge you acquire during the process. Not being willing to adapt means the final work is likely to be substandard.


as for the OP, at my uni we were asked to make specific proposals and then they would develop after a year or two into something related but probably different.

I would say that for me the hardest part of going from architecture practice and m.arch to a phd program was learning how to remove the archi-babble (not allowed in my school) and to also make a very specific proposal with clear outcomes and procedures. In many ways the entire point of the PhD program was nothing but to get to a point where doing that kind of work was possible.

If you can do so i recommend working on being as specific and clear as possible. my phd advisor was always telling me this, but i have to admit it took me some time to understand why my work was NOT clear and specific. It takes some effort and false starts to figure it out, but is definitely important part of the process.

[url=http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/
]THIS IS RELEVANT.[/url]

Odd that didn't work...Hmmm.
Then copy and paste:


http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

bleu —

My response will probably seem unhelpful at first, but bear with me. I feel like you have to be both specific and general in your application. By "specific," i mean that you not only have to be able to not only think of your topic in terms of case studies (whether they be objects, people, texts, buildings, institutions), but that you also have to think about your research in terms of specific advisors. As I am sure anyone else on this board who is going through a PhD can tell you, this is the absolute most important consideration to keep in mind while applying. Who will be my adviser? Has he or she advised topics similar to mine in the past? Is he or she available?

As for "general," i mean that you have to think about your topic in terms of a larger context. The academic jargon for this is "field." I find it helpful to think of issues of generalness in terms of the subject a a very large survey class I'd like to teach (or a book for a general audience). You will quickly find that oftentimes this means something more than just "architecture" or "history of architecture" or "architecture theory," but rather something like "19th and 20th century architecture and urbanism" or "historiography of architecture" or "19th and 20th century architecture discourse." In other words, to think generally about your topic means to think about it in terms of a contribution to a larger, more important question that somehow involves the thing you are interested in. You can also think of it like this: "without my contribution 'X', the field 'Y' will remain incapable of answering the all-important issue 'Z'." The catch here is that 'Z' and 'X' are basically the same thing. 'Z' is a way of framing it as a question; 'X' is a way of framing it as an answer.

Whew! Hope that helps.

Thanks Smokety Mc smoke Smoke...I understand the bit about specificity and generality.

Well for those of you paying attention to the fact that most of the good PhD programs have an average time to completion in the 9 to 11 year range, taking six years to propose successfully isn't that strange. For this particular program the average is actually 13 years, and my friend is the second member of our cohort to propose successfully.

As much as I dislike what his committee is doing to him, I think I agree with them on their reasoning -- his masters work is good enough to get him some attention from a second or third tier school, and makes for a really accessible job talk. But his original proposal was a clear problem of vital importance to the discipline, and if he pulls it off he'll have some choices between top jobs he can make.

I suppose if we are talking about the new PhDs in architecture (and not history/theory) it makes sense to talk about them as flexible -- after all, the majority of faculty in those programs don't have a PhD in architecture, so they aren't likely to have any shared disciplinary traditions. What I'd be looking for in a PhD these days, were I to consider it again, would lean more to the rigorous than the flexible.

The only reason to get a PhD in Architecture is for theory and history. (The PhD means philosophae doctorate of Doctors of Philosophy-- an advanced liberal arts.)

But, seriously, a doctorate pretty much trains you to write long, rambly speeches, papers and articles on an institutional level-- preferably towards a tenure track.

Now, if you're talking about a D.Arch... that's another thing. But there is no difference between a B.Arch, M.Arch or D.Arch as defined by NCARB or NAAB. And there's only one D.Arch program in the U.S.

If you want a Doctorate and want to write about things other than the Meaning of Symbolism Present in Corinthian Capitals Across the Ages, pursue your doctorates in one of the Social Sciences (Anthropology, Archaeology, Urban Planning, Economics).



Super Special Secret if you have bothered to reader the whole 198 pages of NAAB accreditation:
NAAB only requires professors to have B.Arch degrees to meet accreditation standards. That's right-- you only need a bachelor's degree to teach/profess architecture.

"But his original proposal was a clear problem of vital importance to the discipline."

mespellrong, what's your bud's topic? just curious.

I'll take Mespellrong's friend's (secondhand) story at face value. This might happen one time in ten thousand. I remember worrying when I wrote my application essay that I'd be held to its specifics when it came time to write to the dissertation; it's just not the case.

Now, the true issue may be a horrible relationship between student and committee. THAT happens much more often, and a sociopathic dissertation committee member (or worse, chair) can look for a reason (sometimes only the flimsiest excuse is available) to put or keep the student in his/her place.

Bleu, heed Smokety's advice in his P1 above. (His P2 is good as well.) I think you've probably already heard this from others, as well. THAT kind of upfront reconaissance during the application process --finding a couple of good scholars in your field who don't seem to be bitter misanthropes-- is your best key for success in a doctoral program.

UG, that's quite right. Many of the colleagues I graduated with have chosen to stick close to academia and a fair few of them were teaching within a year post graduation from BArch.

If I was more of a cynic/skeptic, I would ask 'precisely, what does one have to offer in terms of an agenda after a year out'. But I'm not that cynical/skeptical.

Could be citizen.

I think most of you who aren't in academia have mistaken view of the qualifications required. I just joined research group here in Tokyo where phd and license in architecture is a starting point nothing special. Chairing a UN project, running federal government department, and now we were just joined by the most recent pritzker recipient.

Ok ok i admit I an in special situation but seriously why do you think any school out there is aiming any lower?

11+ years to do phd is amazing. Mine was a bit less than 5 years long. I thought that was about average globally. USA is longer ?


I am also very curious to know the topic that will change our world. Do tell!

Sorry that was meant to read

Chairing a UN project, running federal government department, and now we were just joined by the most recent pritzker recipient. That is standard background for most of my colleagues.

Unicorn, there are lots of reasons to get a PhD in architecture, and many places to pursue one in something other than the symbolism of corinthian columns. In fact if that is what you are interested in, I wouldn't recommend architecture programs as a place to study it. Ironically, It would fly much better in the departments you suggest. But like any facet of human endeavor, there are activities that are worthy of careful consideration over extended periods of time.

And, while it may be the case that NAAB only requires faculty to have bachelor degrees, the majority of jobs teaching architecture that have been advertised in the last three years ask for a doctorate.

I heat books, in the social sciences, it is generally considered poor form to discuss someone else's' dissertation topic outside of the department until she or he has published at least three chapters. So I will respectfully decline your invitation.

Jump, the simple answer is yes. FP's post above is, in the experience of every recent PHD I know, fairly accurate. In fact, I have two friends who took more than 22 years to finish doctorates.

Citizen, I think my friend has a pretty good relationship with his committee.

wow mespellwrong. that is amazing.

i think in my uni there was a time limit on phd (we were certainly not encouraged to let it drag on). funding certainly stops after 5 years no matter how hard you swing it. i guess your friends who took that long stepped away from the task at hand for a decade or so?

i mean just funding a project for that long sounds daunting, never mind the problem of having to start climbing the academic ladder after finally graduating...i can't imagine it.

i guess we will have to wait on the world-changing research project ;-)

jump, the norm in my department is much more along the lines of your experience... once we go ABD the 5-year clock to finish starts ticking, although we can apply for extensions... i'm hoping to finish in about 4-5 years from start to finish (2 years of courses + 2 or 3 years to write)... although i believe that the 5-year post-ABD time limit was only instituted a few years ago in response to the fact that so many people were taking an indeterminate amount of time to finish...

and yes, NAAB only requires people to have a professional degree... but that is a minimum requirement... as mespellwrong points out more and more schools are wanting their tenure track profs to have a phd... a quick perusal of the jobs currently on the acsa website reveals that...

Yes to what Philip said above. I also want to add that some schools are also starting to impose page limits on their dissertations. This is one way in which schools are becoming more active participants in encouraging Ph.D students to finish on schedule.

.... If only it were that easy.

Mespellrong,

He may have a good rapport with his committee, but he can't be in touch with them very often.

It just doesn't smell right that this requirement appears out of nowhere until Year 6, when he's sitting in the conference room across the table from them. Has he had no contact whatsoever, for years, while he's been publishing articles and crafting his proposal? Have they been outwardly encouraging his work while secretly harboring this revelation with which to hammer him at their meeting?

Either (a) your friend is leaving something important out of his story, or (b) he's the unlucky 1 in 1,000.

He shares an office with his committee chair a day and a half a week. His chair is the editor of one of the top journals in his discipline, and my friend has been the book review editor for the last four years. If you are in his (the chairs') position, you don't care about churning out students -- you care about producing the top scholars in the field. So while it is the case that he has been encouraging my friends' work for years, he also wants him to write a dissertation that is worth taking the time to advise. You can call that hammering or you can call that encouraging him to be the best he can be.

Philip has this plan to finish in five years, which leaves out anything other than the coursework. Most people meet the coursework requirement on time -- it is the four required exams that take a term each, the MA paper which takes a year, and the three pre-dissertation publications in major journals that take the extra four years in between. My friend also had two kids, and his wife lost her job.

Funding-wise, he did have four years of support. Preparing for a rainy day, he also borrowed the subsidized federal limit and saved it -- if he didn't need it he could pay it back with no interest, bur since he did he didn't have to support a family for two years solely on what the feds will lend you and what he can make as an adjunct and a book editor. Next year, they will be on the job market, and he won't have to make a payment or accrue interest on those loans until he has to finally receive his degree officially. If he's smart, that won't be until just before his tenure hearing -- that $30k+ a year bump should make a few hundred a month in loan payments not much of a problem. Your five-year rule is a federal incentive program to prevent that.

I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but a lot of the comments in this thread seem considerably optimistic about what the PhD process in the US is like. The good programs admit between one and five percent of applicants, and only give funding for the first four to five years of what is generally agreed to be a decade long process, and only half of the admitted students will finish. That is the MArch process (which admits 35% and graduates 65% on time) which takes over this forum from december through april every year) but on crack, meth, and bears.

I guess I misread your original post, Mespellrong. I interpreted your friend's reaction to his committee as one of surprise or shock at their insistence that he dissertate on his original, six-year-old application topic. I take from your additional information that he wasn't surprised, only disappointed at their rejection of his proposal?

The PhD: don't try this at home, kids.

very interesting.

not sure if this is true for the whole country but in my experience the japanese system is much compressed. same requirements more or less, but faster. coursework was not part of the 5 years though, nor any major teaching responsibilities, except for foreign students like myself, so it meant less distraction. lingering students are definitely not part of the culture. Quite the opposite the schools seem to want us to get out and interact with the world.

japanese culture does not respect sleep though, so i guess it evens out time wise. it helped that our professors are all over-achievers and set the example. nobel prize winners down the hall and a pritzker laureate or two teaching upstairs kind of makes a person feel like trying ;-)


that your friend's topic was rejected is understandable the way you put it mespellwrong. i wonder why the advisor never told him before that though? surely he must have known it wasn't going to be accepted before submitting?



as far as teaching goes, phd is totally normal in my experience. for archi-school here a phd + a license, plus a few years of experience in both fields is not unusual. that is both good and bad. it is hard to excel at anything when attention is divided so much. It really makes the accomplishments of those who have done it all the more impressive. More impressive is that there are so many out there at all.