General Course Requirement: 20 courses at graduate
level approved by the Graduate Chair.
Foreign Language Requirement: Foreign language reading
competence in will be tested in German and French (substitution of another
language for the French is allowed by permission the Chair, if the student's
research interests justify such a substitution). This requirement should
be fulfilled in the period before
the PhD Preliminary Examinations. The test for both languages will consist
of a single page of relevant prose. In some cases, the relevant departmental
reading courses and examinations (e.g., that offered by the Department
of German) will be accepted in lieu of the formal reading examination.
Teaching Requirement: TA instruction in courses designated
and approved by the Chair and the Dean of the Graduate Division/SAS,
normally in the second and third years of the program.
Oral examination: on the two (2) questions on the Ancient History examination (A2 above) as specified by the student. The Oral Examination is to be scheduled 7-10 days after the written examination is taken. The members of the Examination Committee may also ask questions that are directly related to matters raised by the two selected questions. They can also put queries on the piece of exemplary written research submitted by the student (see below, C2).
Elements A, B, and C must be satisfied at the MA Examinations stage in order to constitute admission to the PhD program.
By end of summer, and usually no later than the Fall Term of the third year: the completion of the second foreign language requirement.
On the history and sources in both historical fields, and on the candidate's doctoral dissertation proposal (see below). The Oral Examination will normally be scheduled 7-10 days following the completion of the written parts of the Preliminary Examinations. At the discretion of the Graduate Chair, the Oral Examination Committee might include members other than those drawn from the Faculty of the Graduate Group.
A full dissertation proposal, along with research bibliography, must be submitted to Examination Committee at least two weeks in advance of the taking of the PhD Preliminary Examination.
Elements A, B, and C must be fully satisfied at the PhD Preliminary Examinations stage for the student to be permitted to advance to dissertation research.
For doctoral work in Greek or Roman history the sources must be studied in the original language, and the student will be expected to have achieved an adequate command of the various Greek and Roman sources for ancient history. For the purpose of his or her Ph.D. Qualifications Evaluation, such competence will be examined in one of the two ancient languages. The following are suggested minimum lists which students will be expected to have read in the original for the particular language that he or she selects for the Qualifying Examinations. Substitutions are acceptable, since the particular sources read in the original language will be determined by a student's courses and interests, but the student's readings should be regularly discussed with the student's advisor for Greek or for Roman history. Before taking the Qualifying Examinations, the student should therefore have completed reading a substantial proportion of one of the following lists. Before this examination each student is expected to submit a complete list of the Greek and Latin sources that he or she has read. In selecting the passages for translation, however, the examiners are not obliged to confine themselves solely to the works that the student has read.
The following policy on coauthorship of published research has been approved by the Graduate Group in Ancient History for implementation beginning with the academic year 1998-1999.
At the point where a co-operative research project is being planned or otherwise undertaken by a member of the faculty and a graduate student or graduate students of the University, the specific concern of the authorship of published results should be addressed before the inception of the project itself. The matter of authorship must be discussed in any research project that specifically envisages publication as part of the project. If for any reason this advance agreement is not pragmatically possible, the division of responsibilities and credits should be discussed in detail as soon as reasonably possible after the inception of the project. Both the division of labor on any given project and the matter of respective credit should be clearly outlined in a written document that is agreed to by both the Faculty member and the student(s). This document should include as clear an indication of the ranking of primary and secondary authors as is possible given the design of the research project at its inception. The faculty member(s) and student(s) should be aware of the possibility that the project itself might modify its shape or direction, and that the contributors to the project might change the nature of their contributions (for example, even to the point of withdrawing from the joint undertaking). As the project proceeds to publication, therefore, provision should also be made for a re-evaluation of both the nature of the respective contributions to the research and the credit to be assigned to the authors. Finally, as the research proceeds through the final stages of publication, the various authors should have the right, within reasonable confines, to check their contributions to the publication manuscripts (or equivalents) and to check their contributions to the various proof versions (should this be applicable).
In their discussion of the problem of coauthorship in joint research projects, both faculty and students should be able to claim credit only for work actually done. Credit should be given in a manner that is appropriate to the work done and with respect for the conventions of the discipline. A major contribution such as the collation of a substantial portion of data, sharing in the writing of an article or book, the contribution of an idea or conception that is central to the general argument, should merit some type of formally recognized coauthorship. Contributions that are of a minor nature (for example, suggestions of various avenues of research, corrections or modifications of specific points of fact) should be credited in the appropriate manner, either in prefatory or introductory remarks to the whole publication, or by way of specific reference in a note or a footnote.
Specific criteria that might be used to assess contributory 'authorship' to a given project are necessarily peculiar to it, but some of the following general criteria should be borne in mind. If the creation of an idea or conception, or an interpretation of evidence, is the principal one, or one of the principal ones that is the reason for publication, then those who were directly responsible for such research and writing should be credited as principal 'authors'. The collecting of data at the direction of, and under the aegis, of a faculty member, however, would not usually constitute grounds of 'authorship.' In the middle ground, however, there are many gray areas that fall between the collection and assemblage of data and points where a student researcher might well be doing considerably more than technical tasks such as these. Such situations are so diverse and varied in nature, that it is best that the faculty member and the graduate student(s) concerned attempt to agree in advance on how these specific cases directly relevant to their project are to be handled (see 'procedures' above). Finally, as regards the actual composition of a paper, article, report, or book (or similar 'publication') a clear distinction should be drawn between the creative process of the interpretive writing and other duties such as checking and editorial duties. The latter might well receive 'minor' credit through prefatory remarks or notes, but the former deserves some type of formal authorial recognition.
In research in Ancient History, and its ancillary disciplines, where it is primarily literary sources that are involved, the co-operative nature of research engaged in by faculty and graduate students is already governed by fairly standard conventions. The one area in which some prior caution is always advised, however, is that of participation in archaeological excavations. The type of access that the student or the graduate student has to excavated materials, and the kind of involvement in the publication(s) of the site and its artifacts, is ordinarily governed not only by whatever explicit arrangements are made by the director of the excavation, but also by overriding conventions that apply to the excavation as a whole (for example, in local official or governmental permits). Whatever agreements that faculty and students from the University make concerning publication and authorial credit are necessarily subservient to these overriding conventions.
In the description of 'procedures' and 'authorship' above, it is assumed that the same conventions governing 'procedures' and 'criteria of coauthorship' also govern 'publication' in new modes of communicating research and research findings, such as web-pages, internet journals, and similar kinds of electronic media.
If either a faculty member or a graduate student in the Graduate Group in Ancient History senses that a dispute over authorship is emerging, either person, or both together, should inform the Chair of the Graduate Group. If at all possible, however, the faculty member and the graduate student(s) should the attempt to resolve potential disputes over authorship first, both by reference to the original agreements concerning shared work and by discussing the specific issues that have caused the dispute. Should this course of action fail, the matters at issue should be conveyed to the Chair of the Graduate Group who will then examine them. The Chair shall then report the matter to the faculty of the Graduate Group as a matter of business. The Graduate Chair will then suggest a resolution to the dispute, and seek confirmation of this decision from the faculty of the Graduate Group. In all cases, the process should be as expeditious as reasonably possible, in order to avoid any unnecessary impediments to the normal progress to publication on the part of the author(s).
In the case that the Chair of the Graduate Group is himself or herself involved in a dispute over coauthorship, he or she must recuse himself or herself from the position of Chair for the purpose of a meeting of the Faculty of the Graduate Group at which another member of the Graduate Group Faculty will be appointed by the Group to adjudicate the matter according to the procedures for resolution as outlined above. Such a meeting should be held with within a period of time soon enough after the emergence of the dispute, so as reasonably to meet the criterion of 'expedition' for the whole process of resolution as outlined above.
27 May 1998: Subject to amendment and revision
Revised: 4 November 1998