I just got back from a second summer in India doing language and dissertation research, and I'm tired. It's nice to see someone making it all the way through. Encouraging. Congrats!
And Smokes, are you excited still? I accidently ate a first-year student for lunch in a seminar this week. If I'd remembered in time that he'd only been here three weeks, I would have at least let him start running before taking him down...
I don't think I have anything more to add to the funding discussion. I was just talking to someone this weekend whose son was all about going to school in Canada, was admitted to three schools, and then couldn't get any sort of financial aid or funding. But maybe you should talk more to jump, he knows more about studying outside the U.S. than I do.
financial aid in canada or usa might be hard...all the non-resident students i knew where there on their own dime.
in the office i worked for in london 2 of the staff had had scholarships to study at the bartlett. one was from europe and the other from south america. i don't know what that scholarship is called but if i understand correctly it is funded by UK govt, and is enough to live on. may be hard to get though. those 2 were both stars.
i am in japan on monbukagakusho scholarship, also funded by japanese govt. they pay my tuition and give me a monthly stipend that is enough, if single, to live on, even in tokyo. if you have a family it won't be easy unless you work. this scholarship is not overly easy to get. i think i was one of about 10 recipients in all of canada the year i started, and the competition is not just with architects but with scholars from every field. in my interview the others there were in comp sci, engineering, and a few other things...anyway, competition is high, so not an easy option nor one to count on getting. it also took about a year to go through the process so is necessary to have some kind of plan about what to do in the meantime...on other hand, they gave the scholarship to me, and I know i ain't special, so i encourage anyone to apply if you wanna study in japan.
+++
congrats citizen! that is excellent news. well done.
i am planning to hand over dissertation around christmas and defend in new year. getting very hectic right now. i have totally and absolutely now confirmed that writing is not ever going to be easy for me. really wish i was more like you or smokey and had some chops in that arena.
Today was day 2 of my PhD program-- smokety and I again are in the same class. I appreciate hearing from those of you who are finished or are a bit further down the path. It's heartening.
Jump, writing is hard for everyone. In my master's program (writing, not practice based), I had to confront the fact that I was learning to write in a different way, one that was in no manner extemperaneous... It was like having it torn from my flesh. Remember Alien?seriously though, it is a slow, hard process where you are pitted against yourself (and sometimes your advisor...)
In my program, I have 2 years of coursework... I am getting my head around the different options here. Not sure yet what I will take.
I love writing. Love it. And I hate it, too. I understand why so many authors blow their brains out. Research, on the other hand, is pure pleasure to me.
One of the most unexpected things I learned in graduate school is that the writing enterprise --taking bits of knowledge and ideas and crafting them into a narrative-- is a very satisfying creative process akin to making architecture. Both involve iteration and design, criticism and practice, practice, practice.
One of the best pieces of advice I've heard on this is: "Good writing is rewriting." Oy.
Jump: congrats and great good luck to you on finishing the diss.
And Miss Chief: welcome! Two pieces of advice from an old codger who took way too long to finish: 1) enjoy yourself; 2) make sure you finish, and don't take too long.
Research! Yes, I love research of all kinds... digging through archives and its physical labor ... ethnographic studies ...
I do love writing, too. It's just painful and slow to do correctly. I was a music and culture journalist for many years, starting in college and prided myself on being able to churn out good articles quickly. When I got to my master's program two years ago (after ten years out of school), I was chided for being "too journalistic" and "not academic enough." I'm still looking for my voice, I guess. There will be no shortage whatsoever of writing in my near future, so plenty of opportunity to develop it.
This brings me to a few questions for the PhD peeps around these parts. Why did you decide to do a PhD (or if you're thinking about it, what's attracting you to it)? And as for that issue of writing, how have you become the writer you are? What do you love and what do you hate about it?
citizen--yeah, I'm usually nicer to the new kids on the block. If I'd thought about it for a few seconds longer before speaking, I would have said the same thing, but just a bit more gently. Maybe :)
miss chief--I may the one person you'll ever meet who doesn't hate writing, re-writing, re-re-writing, etc. I know people who have been to therapy because of writer's block. I started writing "for myself" when I was eleven and I guess I never thought it was something that should be hard. I have a difficult time re-conceptualizing my work sometimes (I've been trying to turn some seminar papers into articles, and it kind of hurts), but it's more the ideas than the writing that slows me up. I usually just start writing without worrying too much about form, content or anything. I probably throw away about 1/3 of what I write, but since I know that's part of my game, it doesn't bother me too much.
Sometimes when I'm really struggling with a sentence, I write it in a different language, then go back to English. It's surprisingly helpful. I get my thought out, but don't agonize over the way it sounds because I know I'm going to come back and translate it later.
Anyway, I definitely prefer writing to doing the actual research. I also prefer it to teaching, but that's another thread.
I decided to do a PhD because I couldn't be an astronomer.
It's always interesting to here how different folks took this path.
I started my master's because I was sick of project management at the office, and needed a break for fun. I decided to pursue the PhD once I saw how much I enjoyed researching stuff that I found interesting, then figure it out, write it up, and talk about it with other like-minded folks.
I also figured I'd be going after TT academic jobs at some point, though that hasn't worked out so far. But, I do have a nice, research-intensive job with a firm... and the pay puts the asst prof salaries out there to shame.
By the way, do any of you attend any of the conferences? SAH? VAF? ACSA? Others?
I attend SAH and VAF. Definitely attending SAH this year in Cincinnati, probably not VAF. My other two conferences are the History of Science Society and the South Asia Conference in Madison, since I study astronomical observatories in India.
citizen--do you think leaving academia is a reasonable option for PhDs? I mean, do you think there are research jobs out there in the professional world? Sometimes I look at the job listings at CHE and wonder what I'm going to when I go on the job market.
Maybe I'll see you at VAF in Fresno next year, snjr....
I think there are many possible answers to your question. I applied for TT jobs (in my geo area) last year, and got bupkis. The job I lucked into is with an arch/planning firm known for heavy research (of the applied variety, not so much academic) into case studies, history of places, etcetera. Because of my particulars (licensed, urban design degree, research ability) I was a good fit. The firm was not out to hire a PhD, but I know that the degree impressed them and got me a good offer.
So, this situation was rather rare. I'm not sure I could count on it again, or, further, recommend it as an option for someone starting to consider the PhD.
Still, there are a few firms out there at least claiming to be about research and ideas as well as design. I'd start there. Especially firms focused on historic preservation, I would think.
Also, there's a forum on CHE on "leaving academe." Though those posts are not about our field (at least the ones I've read), some might offer ideas that might translate. If I was on the job search, I'd probably start one about this field to see if anyone could help.
If anybody's work has anything to do with urbanism and history, you should check out SACRPH (American city and regional planning history). A small, very congenial group of academics and practitioners in planning, architecture, geography and preservation. Bi-annual meetings are fun and interesting, and they have a respected (if fairly new) journal published by Sage.
There's also IPHO (International planning history), which I have not attended. Though next year's conference is in Chicago, which I plan to attend.
thanks everyone for all of the new information on this thread since it came back to life...
i'm trying to get all my stuff together for applying to phd programs in december/january... i'm headed in this direction with the goal of becoming a tenure track professor... although i'd still like to practice some too... i just LOVE learning... i love writing and research too...
snjr, i know what you mean about trying to turn seminar papers into articles... i just finished trying to compile 3 essays that i wrote during my m.arch. into a new paper which was submitted for the next acsa national conference... i'll find out in october whether it was accepted or not... taking a new look at old papers was much more difficult for me than writing a whole new paper... i wrote a new paper a few months ago that i'm presenting next week at the 51st world congress of the ifhp in copenhagen... i'm hoping that the addition of this publication and paper presentation will be the cherry on top of my CV that will get me into the programs that i want to attend...
well in my conversations with colleges about phd studies I found out that last year princeton accepted four new students, and 48 applied. tough odds. upenn was very similar. they usually accept 2-5 people a year. perhaps more of a challenge than I thought.
there just simply aren't all that many people who do architecture ph.d.s -- most people wouldn't want to do this. i would guess that the number of students who apply must be lower than the number of students who apply to art history ph.d. programs, for example. 48 sounds like good odds to me, especially if you're well prepared. i have friends who did MFA programs in art, for instance, where 9 people applied for 1000 spots.
in my case, i had done an architectural history/theory master's degree. it was good training and a good introduction for me to the people in the ph.d. program i'm now attending -- i had come from a different background, working and teaching in a different setting.
when i applied, i tried to think of the kind of argument i wanted to put forward for myself. coming from a different field, i needed to show that i had a background in architectural history in some manner (this was the subject of my undergraduate thesis, which i included). i had a paper in press and included that, as well as a very short, 5-page paper and a chapter of my master's thesis. in terms of letters of recommendation, i opted to ask professors who knew me and my work well, rather than asking very high profile people (e.g., the dean of the school) who might have said something more dilute. again: the community is so small, they knew the people who had provided the letters.
also, *know the political climate of the school.* how do they select students: by committee? or does each committee member get one student? if the latter is the case, you should choose the one professor you really want to work with and woo him or her. in such a case, a more general admissions committee approach will not work.
you really will do well to visit and to have reason to come face to face multiple times with people at conferences, lectures and the like. it also helps so much when you're trying to determine where you best fit in.
(i applied to four schools, was accepted to two and waitlisted at one.)
miss chief is spot on. The fact that 4 out of 48 applicants were accepted is a raw statistic, devoid of context. And context is important. You will find out in completing a PhD application that it is entirely subjective.
So, in other words, don't look at the application process in terms of how many were accepted and/or rejected.
also: a full year before i started the ph.d. application process (right after i started my master's), i began showing up at conferences if only to be in the crowd, a face that someone might recall, the person who asked a question. it's funny because we drove 4 hours to one conference in october 05 and now i'm attending that very school. not that it was a direct thing, but it did something in terms of signaling my intention to apply to myself, if that makes any sense.
can i be a phd student and still have time for sleep/exercise/socializing/family? i really wanna go all the way for the phd but i also need some semblance of a life beyond academia and the ability to get a healthy mind/body.
my funding was based on getting a prof to accept me into his/her research lab. this meant interviewing with several profs. i went through a few and was offered a position in 3 labs. but the one i was going to accept recommended i go to a better school and introduced me to my current prof. it took an hour to convince him i was worth taking on, but he did. it was entirely personal and one on one. of course i then had to prove i met minimum requirements to the uni, get the scholarship (which was much much harder than getting a prof) and pass an entrance exam. It took about a year and a half all told and my prof only takes on 1 or 2 students a year...but i think it is highly likely i was the only one who asked him that year...so really was more about timing than anything, all else being equal...
That's a good question. And yes: you can keep up with family, socializing, sleep and exercise. PhD programs don't work at the same pace as M.Arch programs. (You simply couldn't read and write with that same, constant intensity: it would nearly kill you.)
I'm planning to start a family during the time I'm a student -- I'm 35, so either it happens during my PhD program or probably won't happen at all -- and so the work-life balance issues matter a great deal to me. Several of my PhD classmates have had children during their time in school and I've heard it said that there's no better time: my school provides additional funding (a semester for men and two for women) to accommodate family leave; there is a daycare subsidy as well; your schedule is more flexible than it would be in a traditional workplace.
It's probably worth talking about schedule. I'd be keen to hear what other people experience, but here's what's going on for me. As a first year student who will have two years of coursework, I find that my schedule is 9-6 at school, with 3 hours of class four days a week. There is no teaching requirement where I'm in school, though nearly every week there's some kind of jury or something. The reading is currently very intense and that's the hardest thing to learn: you can't read everything deeply and end up skimming much of what's assigned. This is particularly the case for courses outside of the architecture school: my history class is between 500-1000 pages of reading *a week* and I've learned to be selective, to note what I need to know to adequately discuss and to realize that I just won't get to all of it. (Then again, I won't have general exams in the topic, unlike the history students in my class.)
Writing will be hefty. I'll have three papers due at the end of the semester and typically, students end up taking an incomplete in one class and finishing one of the papers later. I'm hopeful that I won't need to do that but for us, the quality of the papers is the most important thing.
My master's program, as I've mentioned before, was good preparation for the workload. I'd changed careers and it had been 10 years since I was in school full time. The first semester of that program was grueling and the work unrelenting. Having gone through that, it made me better able to organize my work and expectations for my PhD program: it's not nearly as jarring.
So back to healthy mind and body: I have a classmate who rows with a local rowing club, another who goes to yoga several times a week. Here, the grocery stores and produce are good so I cook healthy meals at home -- that's part of keeping my sanity. If I were to lose major amounts of sleep and feel really out of balance, I wouldn't be able to get any work done. (I'm not 20! I don't have that kind of mad endurance anymore!) To your very specific original question, this is a good time to practice balance. It's necessary. It's also possible, I'm finding.
received an email link from what i think was the nytimes(thanks for getting us into the iraq war judith) from my exgirlfriend/future wife who is finishing as we speak her phd at cambridge(the real one) about the length of time it takes for the average schmuck to finish their phd's. its something like eight years.
It takes a long time. We get five years of funding. It's really about a 6-7 year program. HOWEVER, typically people are teaching after year 3, often full time. The further you get from your home campus, the further away a dissertation seems. Hence the ABD (all but dissertation) category of people...
thanks for all the info about balance in life - that's good to hear. 6-7 years is a long time, considering most phd programs are 6-7 years after a bachelors, whereas we are that after a masters. so that would mean my total university education would equal something like 14 years. wow.
Still, it is like that, Chase: a friend in my program points out that he's been in architecture school for 12 years, when he considers his undergrad, masters and doctoral work. But consider, though, that you should be funded throughout most of it -- it's your job to go to school. Some programs require you to teach part time; others do not. MIT gives five years of funding without summers; Princeton gives four years (with summers and a rumor that funding is increasing) -- both programs do *not* require students to teach.
(I like this job a *lot* better than most of the dotcom jobs I had...)
Most academic doctoral programs are training people in multiple skill sets: research and analysis; writing; and teaching. It's a new profession, and the training required to enter that profession. It's not a continuation of architecture school and architectural practice--at least, as architectural design is conventionally taught and practiced.
I'm glad to see a nice doc cohort emerging here....
I'm glad too. cause next year when I start to apply at schools I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions. I've made a list of things I need to accomplish before this time next year to better my chances. I'm pretty excited to think I may be doing a phd. teaching would be pretty cool, and this is a logical step.
my first daughter was born when i was in masters. my second when i was a research student and going through process of upgrading to phd (at my uni they have a 6 month trial period before you take an exam to become actual phd candidate). i see both girls and wife every day. i also have a small office with a friend who was finishing his phd when i was starting (same lab), and that is where things get hard, but it is my choice , cuz i want to practice architecture and have something to go to when i finish dissertation other than a teaching gig. if i were not pursuing this path i could easily do very good work just with 9-5 sort of schedule. as it is i tend to work all waking hours, taking 2 hours or so a day to spend with family. i don't sleep enough, but that is my choice, not a result of the program.
about schedules.
your schedule sounds harder than mine miss chief. i had coursework for the first year, though i have to admit it was not too hard. i took a few courses outside of my specialty cuz it was required, but the rest has been rather straightforward...
we get funding for 3.5 years. i think most finish in 4 if in a hurry, 6 is more common. most people in phd are involved in lots of other things, including teaching, working (most here are licenced architects, whether they are studying history, urbanism or design), etc etc. personally, i have to work harder than classmates, to cover shortfalls of funding (which is generous don't get me wrong, but not quite enough to support 2 kids and wife with). i am the only one i know with kids, apart from the professor.
but to be honest, for me the hardest part has been to get articles out there while continuing with research. it means putting things together into some semblance of intelligence even before the real research is still not complete. Organising the work so that is possible has been a challenge. architecture school prepared me for NONE of this. not even remotely. getting over that has been a very steep learning curve. but not uncommon. we are all floundering here, one way or another. which is as it should be.
my phd is also not about architecture at all. i think that makes it easier.
thanks for the post, jump -- i definitely am keen to know how others work this.
the thing i left out of my post is class preparation. with three classes for credit and one audited, i have 600-1000 pages of reading a week, which i think i mentioned above. usually i get home, make dinner, and settle into reading for most of the evening. i'm lucky that my boyfriend (who i live with) is in the same shoes, so we have the same kinds of demands on our time and preparation.
it struck me a few months ago that pursuing a ph.d. in architecture has more in common with getting a ph.d. in cultural history or a humanities discipline (say, comp lit). my undergraduate background was in german, so this is most certainly the case for me. i'm not entirely sure on many days just what a canonical architecture ph.d. course of study would be.
what experience do you folks have with this? or if you're thinking of doing a ph.d., what do you imagine you'd like to be doing in terms of coursework (forget the dissertation for a minute)...?
then again, for one of my classes it looks like i might be writing on mies and the neue nationalgalerie. so much for taking on something contemporary and non-architectural...
i am at the university of tokyo, so a slightly diferent system, and i am studying planning, under an architect (my prof took over for fumihiko maki, his mentor, when Maki retired) who also practices as a planner. That already sets a tone a bit different from the norm, perhaps...
the main thing is that in this school anyway the professors are very keen on new research. they will not accept pure lit-based research work from masters students or from phd and it means we have to generate new material on our own based on physical measurement of a site, or similar. This is both good and bad. Good because it means what we do is not so open to interpretation in minute philosophical way and thus fairly easy to be confident of. Bad because if we want to look at things on an abstract level it is not easy to have it accepted unless we can back it up with facts that we have found on our own. My own research is kinda like that. I have a theory about suburbs in Japan (they are very flexible cuz of zoning regs) and i am talking about that phenomenon in relation to the compact city/smart growth type of movement popular now in Japan. But I am backing up everything i say with morphological analysis of suburb over 25 period history as well as with questionnaires and interviews to record behaviour patterns. So every abstract idea I have I can point to concrete "data" to support. Getting that to work out has been rather hard.
Anyway, i bring this up mostly cuz understanding this from the outset sort of directed what coursework i would do. i ended up doing unrelated work for fun, but also took courses in GIS software in order to be able to actually DO the research on the ground. No reading required, just groundwork. which pretty much sums up what education in my university is ALL about.
It is also why archi-grad school was not much good as preparation. we did do research methodologies in undergrad, but really doing it in the field is a huge difference.
When I was just considering the PhD, my boss --trying to talk me out of it-- said that his wife, a historian, typically read one book per week per class in her program. I've found that to be a good rough estimation, though sometimes the book may be a stack of articles instead. Daunting and dreary if you don't enjoy the subject, daunting and exciting if you do.
As for research-- every PhD program will require a major _original_ contribution to the field. This is the dissertation, and a review of the extant literature is only the beginning of that second part of a doctoral program. Part 1 is mastery of the field via coursework and independent study; part 2 is the original contribution in some sub-field, once the field has been "mastered."
yeah, that is correct. forgive me if i gave the wrong impression. i was trying to get at the idea that at my uni, the original work generally has to be field work and mathematically quantifiable, and cannot be theoretical speculation (like say pete eisenman did for his phd). my partner's ex did phd in europe, a vry smart histori-theoretical speculation, beginning with theories of others and creating some rather smart new work in process. One of the advisors was saskia sassen so you can imagine the content. Brilliant work, but probably wouldn't happen in my school somehow. Cuz it can't be turned into a graph very easily. Sounds stupid, and i am being simplisitic, but is largely true.
The amount of reading is about right, though we didn't have any in the classes I took, instead needed to do the lit review more as un-documented proof of working knowledge during reviews and presentations. all the profs here are very well read and sharp as nails smart so it is impossible to fake; very often you would find yourself presenting to the people who wrote the books you used to start your research with; yikes!
I think one of the major differences between Japan and the West is that higher education here is not particularly structured and they give a very long rope for you to hang yourself with if not careful...which is quite nice if you wanna do your own thing and don't mind taking responsibility for your education on yourself...but must be hellastressful for anyone not used to running the show...
or maybe usa is not so differnt at phd level...did you find it like that where you studied citizen?
My PhD is also in planning, though my sub-field is urban history, so my route was conventional: courses, exams, dissertation. I lucked into a great diss topic early on, along with goldmines full of primary research sources, so all my seminar papers along the way were early dissertation sub-pieces. (You'd think I'd have finished sooner!)
Your posts are my only exposure to Japanese doctoral work, Jump, so I'm not qualified to compare. I do think that the conventional route has plenty of room for creativity, in terms of intellectual content. The official process, however (courses, exams, research, writing) is fairly well set in stone, it seems.
On the brilliant "theoretical" project: When someone takes the secondary literature and does something new with it --without doing new empirical work-- this is pretty rare in planning, I think. People may try it, but the brilliance really needs to be there, or its just another rehash of the field with no new insights.
i really shouldn't write when half asleep. not sure if above makes sense...ah well.
what you describe is more or less what i imagined phd would be like when i started the process, citizen. it was a bit of a rude awakening that it wasn't, mostly cuz of the need to make certain of gaining the right expertise on one's own, which is hard to do while also trying to learn research methods and so on at same time. i have seen a few students here caught out at the end (!) when committee profs ripped the work to pieces and phd candidates were sent back to drawing board. not a pretty site.
I was very lucky to have a good mentor who had been through it and directed me in the right direction from start. funny that it wasn't my prof, but his advice was actually to direct all of my questions to other students, which i did, and it worked out. more than in the west the students here learn so much from colleagues it is almost funny. also a great way to make lifelong friends.
i am not sure if this system makes it easier or harder to be creative. i do think it leaves lots of opportunities for happy accidents, which is kind of cool. maybe. ;-)
out of curiosity, what was your topic citizen? i think i read above or on another thread that you work now as researcher for an office somewere? does that mean phd changed your career path completely and was worth it? or not?
It's fascinating to hear how PhD programs work in Asia. I'd had no idea. (I do know that in European programs, you typically spend three years -- you pretty much start right on the dissertation when you arrive; you don't do the additional coursework). I'm also appreciating the non-architectural history/theory angle.
Overall, I do think that you end up learning more from your fellow students than you do your professors on the whole. (This was certainly the case for my master's degree, as well as for the master's students I taught in an interaction design program). These are the people are who are your future colleagues, so it makes a certain amount of sense. In fact, I figure that anytime I meet another PhD candidate in architecture, planning or design, I'm talking to a future colleague: you never know who will end up on the same jury, editing a publication or teaching alongside you. There just aren't that many people who study architecture at the doctoral level.
Very curious to hear more about your topics, jump and citizen...
I ended up at a firm doing urban design and research after a year on the academic job market with no nibbles. (I don't want to relocate, so that obviously limits the job pool pretty significantly.) The firm and people are nice, and the work very interesting (and well paying), so I'm quite happy. I have the ability to teach the occasional course on the side if/when I want to. If a great TT academic job comes up, I'd consider going after it.
I'll continue to publish my work either way.
My diss (in brief) examines early 20c. Los Angeles as an urban place with plenty of urban housing. This contradicts the mythology of LA at that time as a quintessentially suburban place w/ only single-family bungalows and no central city.
that sounds cool citizen. am glad it worked out for you. the topic sound interesting. i have read a lot of books on LA and suburbia that question stereotype vision, with favorite being book edited by Kevin Kruse and Thomas Sugrue. It is amazing how the histories of cities repeat misconceptions without really checking. did you find any opposition to your work by profs interested in preserving the standard model?
my topic, miss chief is a study of suburbs in japan; in context of compact city model that is now popular here. zoning in japan is national and embedded in the building code (!) not a planning regulation at all. there are only 11 zones. for the entire country. and they are nested, so anything possible in zone below is possible in zone above (with a few exceptions). this means the suburbs have shops in them, have low income housing in them, and change land use constantly. it is almost urban. they are not perfect, but since compact city model assumes none of that is possible i am questioning how far we can get towards "compact-ness"/sustainability goals just in suburbia...
citizen and jump, both of your topics sound fascinating.
jump, the one time i was in tokyo (for three days in 2003), i could not figure out what the organizing logic was for the city ... how cool to hear that the suburbs follow the same model. i wrote a piece for the worldchanging book last year on redensifying and rethinking american suburbia -- the US could look to other models, for certain.
I think I pretty much covered my Ph.D. program above... I'm the one who can't seem to balance work and life, right? In case anyone else is thinking about doing it, I can't advise pursuing a Ph.D. in a different time zone from your spouse/family. It makes it doubly hard to leave the country for months to do research, because you feel as if you're already never home (you're not).
I'm on the history and theory track in the School of Architecture. In our program, if you come in w/out an M.A./M.Arch., you're looking at 3 years of coursework. With an M.A./M.Arch. (my situation), it's two years. This year is the exam year/dissertation proposal defense year, and that gives me three more years to finish research and write the dissertation. With the masters, you get six years total to finish, w/out, you get seven.
This semester's schedule:
1) three conference presentations (South Asia Studies, History of Science, British Studies conference), all three papers are supposed to feed into my dissertation, but I think only one really is doing what it is supposed to do.
2) major external funding applications (for Fulbright-Hays, SSRC fellowships, for instance). Basically, writing up a ten-page snapshot of a dissertation proposal I have yet to formally defend. Good times.
3) more foreign language work--fifth year Hindi, need to be more than competent for next year, when 7-9 mos. will be spent in various archives in northern India.
4) one seminar, completely unnecessary in terms of requirements, but my fellowship requires that I carry one course on global studies. Trying to make the seminar paper feed into my dissertation or exams. 2 books a week, but the reading ends a couple of weeks before the end of the semester so we can present our research topics to the class.
I have one more year of departmental funding according to my admissions agreement, but I'd rather not use it until the last year of the program, because it would more or less tie me to campus. From here on out, I need the freedom to travel to archives in the UK, France and India.
damn, that sounds exhilarating. soon enough I'll be doing exactly what you are. if things are in the cards that is.
I have a question - a general question for all
so if you are enrolled and working towards your phd, and still dont have a defined dissertation topic, then how do you get in? the way I understand it is that you have to have a pretty refined idea written out to submit when you apply to schools. so if thats the case can one change their idea once in? -I dont mean drastically, like is there some freedom with that specific aspect?
-are conference visits paid for by the school if you are not presenting?
-if you present at a conference, do the people pay your expenses or is there any funding there?
-what is the average amount of "extracurricular" or journal papers/articals that are written during the duration of the studies? I would imagine it would escalate the longer you are in, but am not sure about that, and also the work ethic of the person comes into account also
joe,
yeah, there is freedom, i think...at least in my experience.
conferences... my dept gives a bit of funding to travel but it's not a whole lot, i'll probably have to pay out of pocket to cover all the registration costs; if you're not presenting, it's not likely they are paying for you to go...
2007 PhD Candidates? Anyone out there a Phd Student?
Thanks, Smokety, and good luck to you. I hereby pass the torch!
Citizen, that's *awesome*.
I just got back from a second summer in India doing language and dissertation research, and I'm tired. It's nice to see someone making it all the way through. Encouraging. Congrats!
And Smokes, are you excited still? I accidently ate a first-year student for lunch in a seminar this week. If I'd remembered in time that he'd only been here three weeks, I would have at least let him start running before taking him down...
I don't think I have anything more to add to the funding discussion. I was just talking to someone this weekend whose son was all about going to school in Canada, was admitted to three schools, and then couldn't get any sort of financial aid or funding. But maybe you should talk more to jump, he knows more about studying outside the U.S. than I do.
Thanks, snjr. Don't be too harsh on the newbies... karma still applies in academe.
Oops. Just posted this in the wrong thread:
Are there any practitioners with Ph.Ds, or do most PhDs go into academia exclusively?
Practitioner-PhD here, though I think most docs go the all-academic route.
financial aid in canada or usa might be hard...all the non-resident students i knew where there on their own dime.
in the office i worked for in london 2 of the staff had had scholarships to study at the bartlett. one was from europe and the other from south america. i don't know what that scholarship is called but if i understand correctly it is funded by UK govt, and is enough to live on. may be hard to get though. those 2 were both stars.
i am in japan on monbukagakusho scholarship, also funded by japanese govt. they pay my tuition and give me a monthly stipend that is enough, if single, to live on, even in tokyo. if you have a family it won't be easy unless you work. this scholarship is not overly easy to get. i think i was one of about 10 recipients in all of canada the year i started, and the competition is not just with architects but with scholars from every field. in my interview the others there were in comp sci, engineering, and a few other things...anyway, competition is high, so not an easy option nor one to count on getting. it also took about a year to go through the process so is necessary to have some kind of plan about what to do in the meantime...on other hand, they gave the scholarship to me, and I know i ain't special, so i encourage anyone to apply if you wanna study in japan.
+++
congrats citizen! that is excellent news. well done.
i am planning to hand over dissertation around christmas and defend in new year. getting very hectic right now. i have totally and absolutely now confirmed that writing is not ever going to be easy for me. really wish i was more like you or smokey and had some chops in that arena.
Today was day 2 of my PhD program-- smokety and I again are in the same class. I appreciate hearing from those of you who are finished or are a bit further down the path. It's heartening.
Jump, writing is hard for everyone. In my master's program (writing, not practice based), I had to confront the fact that I was learning to write in a different way, one that was in no manner extemperaneous... It was like having it torn from my flesh. Remember Alien?seriously though, it is a slow, hard process where you are pitted against yourself (and sometimes your advisor...)
In my program, I have 2 years of coursework... I am getting my head around the different options here. Not sure yet what I will take.
I love writing. Love it. And I hate it, too. I understand why so many authors blow their brains out. Research, on the other hand, is pure pleasure to me.
One of the most unexpected things I learned in graduate school is that the writing enterprise --taking bits of knowledge and ideas and crafting them into a narrative-- is a very satisfying creative process akin to making architecture. Both involve iteration and design, criticism and practice, practice, practice.
One of the best pieces of advice I've heard on this is: "Good writing is rewriting." Oy.
Jump: congrats and great good luck to you on finishing the diss.
And Miss Chief: welcome! Two pieces of advice from an old codger who took way too long to finish: 1) enjoy yourself; 2) make sure you finish, and don't take too long.
Citizen, thanks and thanks.
Research! Yes, I love research of all kinds... digging through archives and its physical labor ... ethnographic studies ...
I do love writing, too. It's just painful and slow to do correctly. I was a music and culture journalist for many years, starting in college and prided myself on being able to churn out good articles quickly. When I got to my master's program two years ago (after ten years out of school), I was chided for being "too journalistic" and "not academic enough." I'm still looking for my voice, I guess. There will be no shortage whatsoever of writing in my near future, so plenty of opportunity to develop it.
This brings me to a few questions for the PhD peeps around these parts. Why did you decide to do a PhD (or if you're thinking about it, what's attracting you to it)? And as for that issue of writing, how have you become the writer you are? What do you love and what do you hate about it?
citizen--yeah, I'm usually nicer to the new kids on the block. If I'd thought about it for a few seconds longer before speaking, I would have said the same thing, but just a bit more gently. Maybe :)
miss chief--I may the one person you'll ever meet who doesn't hate writing, re-writing, re-re-writing, etc. I know people who have been to therapy because of writer's block. I started writing "for myself" when I was eleven and I guess I never thought it was something that should be hard. I have a difficult time re-conceptualizing my work sometimes (I've been trying to turn some seminar papers into articles, and it kind of hurts), but it's more the ideas than the writing that slows me up. I usually just start writing without worrying too much about form, content or anything. I probably throw away about 1/3 of what I write, but since I know that's part of my game, it doesn't bother me too much.
Sometimes when I'm really struggling with a sentence, I write it in a different language, then go back to English. It's surprisingly helpful. I get my thought out, but don't agonize over the way it sounds because I know I'm going to come back and translate it later.
Anyway, I definitely prefer writing to doing the actual research. I also prefer it to teaching, but that's another thread.
I decided to do a PhD because I couldn't be an astronomer.
jump--good luck, almost there!
It's always interesting to here how different folks took this path.
I started my master's because I was sick of project management at the office, and needed a break for fun. I decided to pursue the PhD once I saw how much I enjoyed researching stuff that I found interesting, then figure it out, write it up, and talk about it with other like-minded folks.
I also figured I'd be going after TT academic jobs at some point, though that hasn't worked out so far. But, I do have a nice, research-intensive job with a firm... and the pay puts the asst prof salaries out there to shame.
By the way, do any of you attend any of the conferences? SAH? VAF? ACSA? Others?
duh... interesting to HEAR how different folks...
Yes, I'm a doctor :-/
I attend SAH and VAF. Definitely attending SAH this year in Cincinnati, probably not VAF. My other two conferences are the History of Science Society and the South Asia Conference in Madison, since I study astronomical observatories in India.
citizen--do you think leaving academia is a reasonable option for PhDs? I mean, do you think there are research jobs out there in the professional world? Sometimes I look at the job listings at CHE and wonder what I'm going to when I go on the job market.
Maybe I'll see you at VAF in Fresno next year, snjr....
I think there are many possible answers to your question. I applied for TT jobs (in my geo area) last year, and got bupkis. The job I lucked into is with an arch/planning firm known for heavy research (of the applied variety, not so much academic) into case studies, history of places, etcetera. Because of my particulars (licensed, urban design degree, research ability) I was a good fit. The firm was not out to hire a PhD, but I know that the degree impressed them and got me a good offer.
So, this situation was rather rare. I'm not sure I could count on it again, or, further, recommend it as an option for someone starting to consider the PhD.
Still, there are a few firms out there at least claiming to be about research and ideas as well as design. I'd start there. Especially firms focused on historic preservation, I would think.
Also, there's a forum on CHE on "leaving academe." Though those posts are not about our field (at least the ones I've read), some might offer ideas that might translate. If I was on the job search, I'd probably start one about this field to see if anyone could help.
Also, on conferences and organizations:
If anybody's work has anything to do with urbanism and history, you should check out SACRPH (American city and regional planning history). A small, very congenial group of academics and practitioners in planning, architecture, geography and preservation. Bi-annual meetings are fun and interesting, and they have a respected (if fairly new) journal published by Sage.
There's also IPHO (International planning history), which I have not attended. Though next year's conference is in Chicago, which I plan to attend.
thanks everyone for all of the new information on this thread since it came back to life...
i'm trying to get all my stuff together for applying to phd programs in december/january... i'm headed in this direction with the goal of becoming a tenure track professor... although i'd still like to practice some too... i just LOVE learning... i love writing and research too...
snjr, i know what you mean about trying to turn seminar papers into articles... i just finished trying to compile 3 essays that i wrote during my m.arch. into a new paper which was submitted for the next acsa national conference... i'll find out in october whether it was accepted or not... taking a new look at old papers was much more difficult for me than writing a whole new paper... i wrote a new paper a few months ago that i'm presenting next week at the 51st world congress of the ifhp in copenhagen... i'm hoping that the addition of this publication and paper presentation will be the cherry on top of my CV that will get me into the programs that i want to attend...
well in my conversations with colleges about phd studies I found out that last year princeton accepted four new students, and 48 applied. tough odds. upenn was very similar. they usually accept 2-5 people a year. perhaps more of a challenge than I thought.
there just simply aren't all that many people who do architecture ph.d.s -- most people wouldn't want to do this. i would guess that the number of students who apply must be lower than the number of students who apply to art history ph.d. programs, for example. 48 sounds like good odds to me, especially if you're well prepared. i have friends who did MFA programs in art, for instance, where 9 people applied for 1000 spots.
in my case, i had done an architectural history/theory master's degree. it was good training and a good introduction for me to the people in the ph.d. program i'm now attending -- i had come from a different background, working and teaching in a different setting.
when i applied, i tried to think of the kind of argument i wanted to put forward for myself. coming from a different field, i needed to show that i had a background in architectural history in some manner (this was the subject of my undergraduate thesis, which i included). i had a paper in press and included that, as well as a very short, 5-page paper and a chapter of my master's thesis. in terms of letters of recommendation, i opted to ask professors who knew me and my work well, rather than asking very high profile people (e.g., the dean of the school) who might have said something more dilute. again: the community is so small, they knew the people who had provided the letters.
also, *know the political climate of the school.* how do they select students: by committee? or does each committee member get one student? if the latter is the case, you should choose the one professor you really want to work with and woo him or her. in such a case, a more general admissions committee approach will not work.
you really will do well to visit and to have reason to come face to face multiple times with people at conferences, lectures and the like. it also helps so much when you're trying to determine where you best fit in.
(i applied to four schools, was accepted to two and waitlisted at one.)
miss chief is spot on. The fact that 4 out of 48 applicants were accepted is a raw statistic, devoid of context. And context is important. You will find out in completing a PhD application that it is entirely subjective.
So, in other words, don't look at the application process in terms of how many were accepted and/or rejected.
also: a full year before i started the ph.d. application process (right after i started my master's), i began showing up at conferences if only to be in the crowd, a face that someone might recall, the person who asked a question. it's funny because we drove 4 hours to one conference in october 05 and now i'm attending that very school. not that it was a direct thing, but it did something in terms of signaling my intention to apply to myself, if that makes any sense.
can i be a phd student and still have time for sleep/exercise/socializing/family? i really wanna go all the way for the phd but i also need some semblance of a life beyond academia and the ability to get a healthy mind/body.
of course you can.
my funding was based on getting a prof to accept me into his/her research lab. this meant interviewing with several profs. i went through a few and was offered a position in 3 labs. but the one i was going to accept recommended i go to a better school and introduced me to my current prof. it took an hour to convince him i was worth taking on, but he did. it was entirely personal and one on one. of course i then had to prove i met minimum requirements to the uni, get the scholarship (which was much much harder than getting a prof) and pass an entrance exam. It took about a year and a half all told and my prof only takes on 1 or 2 students a year...but i think it is highly likely i was the only one who asked him that year...so really was more about timing than anything, all else being equal...
That's a good question. And yes: you can keep up with family, socializing, sleep and exercise. PhD programs don't work at the same pace as M.Arch programs. (You simply couldn't read and write with that same, constant intensity: it would nearly kill you.)
I'm planning to start a family during the time I'm a student -- I'm 35, so either it happens during my PhD program or probably won't happen at all -- and so the work-life balance issues matter a great deal to me. Several of my PhD classmates have had children during their time in school and I've heard it said that there's no better time: my school provides additional funding (a semester for men and two for women) to accommodate family leave; there is a daycare subsidy as well; your schedule is more flexible than it would be in a traditional workplace.
It's probably worth talking about schedule. I'd be keen to hear what other people experience, but here's what's going on for me. As a first year student who will have two years of coursework, I find that my schedule is 9-6 at school, with 3 hours of class four days a week. There is no teaching requirement where I'm in school, though nearly every week there's some kind of jury or something. The reading is currently very intense and that's the hardest thing to learn: you can't read everything deeply and end up skimming much of what's assigned. This is particularly the case for courses outside of the architecture school: my history class is between 500-1000 pages of reading *a week* and I've learned to be selective, to note what I need to know to adequately discuss and to realize that I just won't get to all of it. (Then again, I won't have general exams in the topic, unlike the history students in my class.)
Writing will be hefty. I'll have three papers due at the end of the semester and typically, students end up taking an incomplete in one class and finishing one of the papers later. I'm hopeful that I won't need to do that but for us, the quality of the papers is the most important thing.
My master's program, as I've mentioned before, was good preparation for the workload. I'd changed careers and it had been 10 years since I was in school full time. The first semester of that program was grueling and the work unrelenting. Having gone through that, it made me better able to organize my work and expectations for my PhD program: it's not nearly as jarring.
So back to healthy mind and body: I have a classmate who rows with a local rowing club, another who goes to yoga several times a week. Here, the grocery stores and produce are good so I cook healthy meals at home -- that's part of keeping my sanity. If I were to lose major amounts of sleep and feel really out of balance, I wouldn't be able to get any work done. (I'm not 20! I don't have that kind of mad endurance anymore!) To your very specific original question, this is a good time to practice balance. It's necessary. It's also possible, I'm finding.
received an email link from what i think was the nytimes(thanks for getting us into the iraq war judith) from my exgirlfriend/future wife who is finishing as we speak her phd at cambridge(the real one) about the length of time it takes for the average schmuck to finish their phd's. its something like eight years.
It takes a long time. We get five years of funding. It's really about a 6-7 year program. HOWEVER, typically people are teaching after year 3, often full time. The further you get from your home campus, the further away a dissertation seems. Hence the ABD (all but dissertation) category of people...
VR, how far along is she? I forget.
she will be typing "The End" anyday now.
High five to her! That's gotta be great.
Signed,
I'll be 41 before I even think of typing "The End"
what a coinkidink her too.
thanks for all the info about balance in life - that's good to hear. 6-7 years is a long time, considering most phd programs are 6-7 years after a bachelors, whereas we are that after a masters. so that would mean my total university education would equal something like 14 years. wow.
ahahaha. glad to know i'm in the club.
Still, it is like that, Chase: a friend in my program points out that he's been in architecture school for 12 years, when he considers his undergrad, masters and doctoral work. But consider, though, that you should be funded throughout most of it -- it's your job to go to school. Some programs require you to teach part time; others do not. MIT gives five years of funding without summers; Princeton gives four years (with summers and a rumor that funding is increasing) -- both programs do *not* require students to teach.
(I like this job a *lot* better than most of the dotcom jobs I had...)
*disclaimer---my exgffuturewife is not an architect.
A word about the time-to-degree for the PhD:
Most academic doctoral programs are training people in multiple skill sets: research and analysis; writing; and teaching. It's a new profession, and the training required to enter that profession. It's not a continuation of architecture school and architectural practice--at least, as architectural design is conventionally taught and practiced.
I'm glad to see a nice doc cohort emerging here....
I'm glad too. cause next year when I start to apply at schools I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions. I've made a list of things I need to accomplish before this time next year to better my chances. I'm pretty excited to think I may be doing a phd. teaching would be pretty cool, and this is a logical step.
i'm glad to hear you're applying, joe, and i'm glad for the community here.
is anyone going to the open houses on this go?
about family.
my first daughter was born when i was in masters. my second when i was a research student and going through process of upgrading to phd (at my uni they have a 6 month trial period before you take an exam to become actual phd candidate). i see both girls and wife every day. i also have a small office with a friend who was finishing his phd when i was starting (same lab), and that is where things get hard, but it is my choice , cuz i want to practice architecture and have something to go to when i finish dissertation other than a teaching gig. if i were not pursuing this path i could easily do very good work just with 9-5 sort of schedule. as it is i tend to work all waking hours, taking 2 hours or so a day to spend with family. i don't sleep enough, but that is my choice, not a result of the program.
about schedules.
your schedule sounds harder than mine miss chief. i had coursework for the first year, though i have to admit it was not too hard. i took a few courses outside of my specialty cuz it was required, but the rest has been rather straightforward...
we get funding for 3.5 years. i think most finish in 4 if in a hurry, 6 is more common. most people in phd are involved in lots of other things, including teaching, working (most here are licenced architects, whether they are studying history, urbanism or design), etc etc. personally, i have to work harder than classmates, to cover shortfalls of funding (which is generous don't get me wrong, but not quite enough to support 2 kids and wife with). i am the only one i know with kids, apart from the professor.
but to be honest, for me the hardest part has been to get articles out there while continuing with research. it means putting things together into some semblance of intelligence even before the real research is still not complete. Organising the work so that is possible has been a challenge. architecture school prepared me for NONE of this. not even remotely. getting over that has been a very steep learning curve. but not uncommon. we are all floundering here, one way or another. which is as it should be.
my phd is also not about architecture at all. i think that makes it easier.
thanks for the post, jump -- i definitely am keen to know how others work this.
the thing i left out of my post is class preparation. with three classes for credit and one audited, i have 600-1000 pages of reading a week, which i think i mentioned above. usually i get home, make dinner, and settle into reading for most of the evening. i'm lucky that my boyfriend (who i live with) is in the same shoes, so we have the same kinds of demands on our time and preparation.
it struck me a few months ago that pursuing a ph.d. in architecture has more in common with getting a ph.d. in cultural history or a humanities discipline (say, comp lit). my undergraduate background was in german, so this is most certainly the case for me. i'm not entirely sure on many days just what a canonical architecture ph.d. course of study would be.
what experience do you folks have with this? or if you're thinking of doing a ph.d., what do you imagine you'd like to be doing in terms of coursework (forget the dissertation for a minute)...?
then again, for one of my classes it looks like i might be writing on mies and the neue nationalgalerie. so much for taking on something contemporary and non-architectural...
wow, that is a lot of reading.
i am at the university of tokyo, so a slightly diferent system, and i am studying planning, under an architect (my prof took over for fumihiko maki, his mentor, when Maki retired) who also practices as a planner. That already sets a tone a bit different from the norm, perhaps...
the main thing is that in this school anyway the professors are very keen on new research. they will not accept pure lit-based research work from masters students or from phd and it means we have to generate new material on our own based on physical measurement of a site, or similar. This is both good and bad. Good because it means what we do is not so open to interpretation in minute philosophical way and thus fairly easy to be confident of. Bad because if we want to look at things on an abstract level it is not easy to have it accepted unless we can back it up with facts that we have found on our own. My own research is kinda like that. I have a theory about suburbs in Japan (they are very flexible cuz of zoning regs) and i am talking about that phenomenon in relation to the compact city/smart growth type of movement popular now in Japan. But I am backing up everything i say with morphological analysis of suburb over 25 period history as well as with questionnaires and interviews to record behaviour patterns. So every abstract idea I have I can point to concrete "data" to support. Getting that to work out has been rather hard.
Anyway, i bring this up mostly cuz understanding this from the outset sort of directed what coursework i would do. i ended up doing unrelated work for fun, but also took courses in GIS software in order to be able to actually DO the research on the ground. No reading required, just groundwork. which pretty much sums up what education in my university is ALL about.
It is also why archi-grad school was not much good as preparation. we did do research methodologies in undergrad, but really doing it in the field is a huge difference.
But, luckily, i don't have to read so much.
When I was just considering the PhD, my boss --trying to talk me out of it-- said that his wife, a historian, typically read one book per week per class in her program. I've found that to be a good rough estimation, though sometimes the book may be a stack of articles instead. Daunting and dreary if you don't enjoy the subject, daunting and exciting if you do.
As for research-- every PhD program will require a major _original_ contribution to the field. This is the dissertation, and a review of the extant literature is only the beginning of that second part of a doctoral program. Part 1 is mastery of the field via coursework and independent study; part 2 is the original contribution in some sub-field, once the field has been "mastered."
yeah, that is correct. forgive me if i gave the wrong impression. i was trying to get at the idea that at my uni, the original work generally has to be field work and mathematically quantifiable, and cannot be theoretical speculation (like say pete eisenman did for his phd). my partner's ex did phd in europe, a vry smart histori-theoretical speculation, beginning with theories of others and creating some rather smart new work in process. One of the advisors was saskia sassen so you can imagine the content. Brilliant work, but probably wouldn't happen in my school somehow. Cuz it can't be turned into a graph very easily. Sounds stupid, and i am being simplisitic, but is largely true.
The amount of reading is about right, though we didn't have any in the classes I took, instead needed to do the lit review more as un-documented proof of working knowledge during reviews and presentations. all the profs here are very well read and sharp as nails smart so it is impossible to fake; very often you would find yourself presenting to the people who wrote the books you used to start your research with; yikes!
I think one of the major differences between Japan and the West is that higher education here is not particularly structured and they give a very long rope for you to hang yourself with if not careful...which is quite nice if you wanna do your own thing and don't mind taking responsibility for your education on yourself...but must be hellastressful for anyone not used to running the show...
or maybe usa is not so differnt at phd level...did you find it like that where you studied citizen?
My PhD is also in planning, though my sub-field is urban history, so my route was conventional: courses, exams, dissertation. I lucked into a great diss topic early on, along with goldmines full of primary research sources, so all my seminar papers along the way were early dissertation sub-pieces. (You'd think I'd have finished sooner!)
Your posts are my only exposure to Japanese doctoral work, Jump, so I'm not qualified to compare. I do think that the conventional route has plenty of room for creativity, in terms of intellectual content. The official process, however (courses, exams, research, writing) is fairly well set in stone, it seems.
On the brilliant "theoretical" project: When someone takes the secondary literature and does something new with it --without doing new empirical work-- this is pretty rare in planning, I think. People may try it, but the brilliance really needs to be there, or its just another rehash of the field with no new insights.
i really shouldn't write when half asleep. not sure if above makes sense...ah well.
what you describe is more or less what i imagined phd would be like when i started the process, citizen. it was a bit of a rude awakening that it wasn't, mostly cuz of the need to make certain of gaining the right expertise on one's own, which is hard to do while also trying to learn research methods and so on at same time. i have seen a few students here caught out at the end (!) when committee profs ripped the work to pieces and phd candidates were sent back to drawing board. not a pretty site.
I was very lucky to have a good mentor who had been through it and directed me in the right direction from start. funny that it wasn't my prof, but his advice was actually to direct all of my questions to other students, which i did, and it worked out. more than in the west the students here learn so much from colleagues it is almost funny. also a great way to make lifelong friends.
i am not sure if this system makes it easier or harder to be creative. i do think it leaves lots of opportunities for happy accidents, which is kind of cool. maybe. ;-)
out of curiosity, what was your topic citizen? i think i read above or on another thread that you work now as researcher for an office somewere? does that mean phd changed your career path completely and was worth it? or not?
It's fascinating to hear how PhD programs work in Asia. I'd had no idea. (I do know that in European programs, you typically spend three years -- you pretty much start right on the dissertation when you arrive; you don't do the additional coursework). I'm also appreciating the non-architectural history/theory angle.
Overall, I do think that you end up learning more from your fellow students than you do your professors on the whole. (This was certainly the case for my master's degree, as well as for the master's students I taught in an interaction design program). These are the people are who are your future colleagues, so it makes a certain amount of sense. In fact, I figure that anytime I meet another PhD candidate in architecture, planning or design, I'm talking to a future colleague: you never know who will end up on the same jury, editing a publication or teaching alongside you. There just aren't that many people who study architecture at the doctoral level.
Very curious to hear more about your topics, jump and citizen...
I ended up at a firm doing urban design and research after a year on the academic job market with no nibbles. (I don't want to relocate, so that obviously limits the job pool pretty significantly.) The firm and people are nice, and the work very interesting (and well paying), so I'm quite happy. I have the ability to teach the occasional course on the side if/when I want to. If a great TT academic job comes up, I'd consider going after it.
I'll continue to publish my work either way.
My diss (in brief) examines early 20c. Los Angeles as an urban place with plenty of urban housing. This contradicts the mythology of LA at that time as a quintessentially suburban place w/ only single-family bungalows and no central city.
Oh, and doing the PhD was definitely worth all the blood, sweat and tears... even if I don't end up going into academia full time.
First, it gives me the credentials to go after (and get) far more research grants.
Second, it was my Everest... the mountain I wanted to climb. And I did it.
BUT, I would not recommend this path for the faint of heart. "Don't try this at home!"
lol. yeah, that is good advice.
that sounds cool citizen. am glad it worked out for you. the topic sound interesting. i have read a lot of books on LA and suburbia that question stereotype vision, with favorite being book edited by Kevin Kruse and Thomas Sugrue. It is amazing how the histories of cities repeat misconceptions without really checking. did you find any opposition to your work by profs interested in preserving the standard model?
my topic, miss chief is a study of suburbs in japan; in context of compact city model that is now popular here. zoning in japan is national and embedded in the building code (!) not a planning regulation at all. there are only 11 zones. for the entire country. and they are nested, so anything possible in zone below is possible in zone above (with a few exceptions). this means the suburbs have shops in them, have low income housing in them, and change land use constantly. it is almost urban. they are not perfect, but since compact city model assumes none of that is possible i am questioning how far we can get towards "compact-ness"/sustainability goals just in suburbia...
citizen and jump, both of your topics sound fascinating.
jump, the one time i was in tokyo (for three days in 2003), i could not figure out what the organizing logic was for the city ... how cool to hear that the suburbs follow the same model. i wrote a piece for the worldchanging book last year on redensifying and rethinking american suburbia -- the US could look to other models, for certain.
I think I pretty much covered my Ph.D. program above... I'm the one who can't seem to balance work and life, right? In case anyone else is thinking about doing it, I can't advise pursuing a Ph.D. in a different time zone from your spouse/family. It makes it doubly hard to leave the country for months to do research, because you feel as if you're already never home (you're not).
I'm on the history and theory track in the School of Architecture. In our program, if you come in w/out an M.A./M.Arch., you're looking at 3 years of coursework. With an M.A./M.Arch. (my situation), it's two years. This year is the exam year/dissertation proposal defense year, and that gives me three more years to finish research and write the dissertation. With the masters, you get six years total to finish, w/out, you get seven.
This semester's schedule:
1) three conference presentations (South Asia Studies, History of Science, British Studies conference), all three papers are supposed to feed into my dissertation, but I think only one really is doing what it is supposed to do.
2) major external funding applications (for Fulbright-Hays, SSRC fellowships, for instance). Basically, writing up a ten-page snapshot of a dissertation proposal I have yet to formally defend. Good times.
3) more foreign language work--fifth year Hindi, need to be more than competent for next year, when 7-9 mos. will be spent in various archives in northern India.
4) one seminar, completely unnecessary in terms of requirements, but my fellowship requires that I carry one course on global studies. Trying to make the seminar paper feed into my dissertation or exams. 2 books a week, but the reading ends a couple of weeks before the end of the semester so we can present our research topics to the class.
I have one more year of departmental funding according to my admissions agreement, but I'd rather not use it until the last year of the program, because it would more or less tie me to campus. From here on out, I need the freedom to travel to archives in the UK, France and India.
damn, that sounds exhilarating. soon enough I'll be doing exactly what you are. if things are in the cards that is.
I have a question - a general question for all
so if you are enrolled and working towards your phd, and still dont have a defined dissertation topic, then how do you get in? the way I understand it is that you have to have a pretty refined idea written out to submit when you apply to schools. so if thats the case can one change their idea once in? -I dont mean drastically, like is there some freedom with that specific aspect?
-are conference visits paid for by the school if you are not presenting?
-if you present at a conference, do the people pay your expenses or is there any funding there?
-what is the average amount of "extracurricular" or journal papers/articals that are written during the duration of the studies? I would imagine it would escalate the longer you are in, but am not sure about that, and also the work ethic of the person comes into account also
joe,
yeah, there is freedom, i think...at least in my experience.
conferences... my dept gives a bit of funding to travel but it's not a whole lot, i'll probably have to pay out of pocket to cover all the registration costs; if you're not presenting, it's not likely they are paying for you to go...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.