Besides my own questions about the dominant seminar model, I was influenced to investigate seminars after the Department of History was named a partner to the Carnegie Foundation. We were one of ten departments nationwide so named, and our project is to re-think and re-envision the PhD. We have already spent two years discussing issues on this topic, a conversation that has led to acknowledging a general dissatisfaction with the written comprehensive exams as they now are. We have adopted a strategy for phasing them out in favor of a student portfolio of written work from seminars.
Our department meetings with the Carnegie Institute focused on how teaching methods impact student learning. In particular, a four-day workshop held at Stanford University and an on-site visit with a senior staff member influenced me. I think at present that our department loses graduate students who might be promising because they don't fit into our mold. If one size does not fit all, a presupposition that means our students have to figure out how to adapt to our teaching, then it is incumbent upon us to change our curriculum. Therefore, I considered different levels of knowledge and learning styles when I planned this course.
