<p>not sure if they're called majors, but 2 concentrations? i met someone who's doing two concentrations in grad school. i didn't know they could do that. i thought it would be rude to ask why they're doing that, but i'm also curious. does it increase job employment? or was she just interested in both subjects? it was anthro and lib sci</p>
<p>PLENTY of grad programs require their students to specialize in more than one area. I know of some humanities departments that require their graduates to specialize in three out of five "areas." The end result for most people I think though, will still be a PhD in X and not in X and Y.</p>
<p>wow. i had no idea. is this for better job marketability, or so the student can explore more? is this like a double major?</p>
<p>most PhD programs require a minor in a second area anyways. nothing new.</p>
<p>In some cases focusing on two areas is necessary for your research. For example, if one wants to study political economy at the graduate level, they need to to have a thorough background in quantitative economic methods, and advanced political science courses. Therefore, they take courses in both disciplines. (Although I may be drifting from the original topic of this thread).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The end result for most people I think though, will still be a PhD in X and not in X and Y.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For most people, I agree.</p>
<p>However, there are in fact some dual-PhD programs. For example, the University of Delaware has partnered with the ISCTE business school (in Portugal) to offer a dual-PhD in finance and economics.</p>
<p>[Programme[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Then there are some people who create their own ad-hoc dual programs, and sometimes even from 2 different schools. For example, the late business academic Sumantra Ghoshal pursued 2 doctorates simulataneously, one at MIT and the other at Harvard. {Although strictly speaking, he didn't actually complete them simultaneously, as MIT formally awarded its doctorate one year before Harvard formally awarded its doctorate). </p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2502601%5DSumantra">http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2502601]Sumantra</a> Ghoshal | Leadership's loss | Economist.com](<a href="http://ibs.iscte.org/international/programmes/doctoral/dual/programme/%5DProgramme%5B/url">http://ibs.iscte.org/international/programmes/doctoral/dual/programme/) </p>
<p>
[quote]
but i'm also curious. does it increase job employment? or was she just interested in both subjects? it was anthro and lib sci
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's rather debateable whether a dual (either a degree or simply an area of focus) really does increase your employability. You are probably better off building a strong publication record in just one field. </p>
<p>Now, to some extent, I can see why you might want to get dual degrees and/or multiple concentrations in different universities, as if nothing else, doing so gives you access to different academic networks and different resource bases. Heck, even pursuing different areas at the same university, but in different subdivisions within that same university (i.e. a business school + the arts/sciences school) might be defendable for the same reason. But even so, I would say that once you have staked out one particular area of focus, the marginal value of another is pretty low. </p>
<p>But, as has been said above, some programs force you to study multiple fields (although they don't force you to actually earn degrees in those fields). And, like Milton Roark said, some types of research require that you be strong in another field.</p>
<p>"but i'm also curious. does it increase job employment? or was she just interested in both subjects? it was anthro and lib sci."</p>
<p>My personal opinion:
I guess at this point, this person knows exactly what s/he wants to do for a living. It is definitely different compared to many undergraduates who double major just to look impressive.</p>
<p>For example, I am planning to pursue 2 separate majors in grad school in order to start doing what I really want instead of climbing the company ladder from scratch.</p>
<p>There are also mutli degree programs such as MD/PhD, JD/MBA, JD/MPh, etc. etc. I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about but programs like that also exist in which you are studying 2 different things.</p>
<p>I think some posters here are confused about the nature of a PhD and the ed content within a PhD training program. One does not "major" (or even "concentrate" in anything in a PhD program, unlike undergrad education. It is just not the correct terminology, and not the right way to think about it. Rather, one researches a novel topic, using whatever tools are necessary to do such research. For example, I was with some anthropology students in Bolivia this summer. Each was fluent in Spanish, and some in Aymaran and Quechua, indigenous languages. That they studied these languages and became fluent in them does not mean they "majored" in them any more than a physicist majors in math, even though most physicists need extensive math.</p>
<p>And while one may find oddball programs such as what Sakky mentions, they are real exceptions, real outliers. And their value, as Sakky says, is questionable, at least in the US.</p>
<p>Because of the need to have a PhD advisor or thesis committee chair, and because most admission decisions are made along departmental lines, most PhD students work within the existing research areas of an academic department. Where it gets interesting is when a student wants to explore a research topic that spans multiple traditional academic disciplines. It may be difficult to find internal support to do so, and it may be hard to convince a thesis committee, let alone a department head, that the project is sound or that the student reseacher has made a significant contribution to the field. At the same time, some departments delight in such projects. Indeed it is such inter-disciplinary research interests that lead to new academic departments such as structural biology. </p>
<p>so my advice is that if you have research interests that go across traditional academic departmental lines, find a department (program) that mirrors these interests. If you can't do that, at least find a faculty mentor who has similar interests. </p>
<p>If, as others have said, you just want to be more employable, good luck. It is difficult enough to finish a PhD in one narrow field. To do two in unrelated fields seems to me to be masochistic. And S&M at clubs is a lot cheaper. :)</p>
<p>I agree with newmassdad, excepting the terminology. Most PhD programs, at least in the humaities, do indeed ask for a "major" and "minor" field. A few, such as Harvard, refer instead to concentrations. The difference is in the actual, practical meaning. When you major in something as an undergrad, you complete course requirements that have been previously set out. Every major requires an additional set of requirements. A PhD program already assumes you will study these additional fields - it's built in, you can say. The other major difference that newmassdad is explaining is that an undergrad education works to broaden your scope of knowledge. A graduate education instead seeks to deepen your knowledge in a particular area.</p>
<p>Most people choose additional fields that complement their major research. Some, however, do choose fields that are very different for employability purposes. In history, for example, reading through the job ads gives you a sense of this. History is a oversupplied field, so job ads will request, foe example, the ability to teach US colonial and sub-Saharan Africa, or early modern Europe and the Middle East.</p>
<p>Your "major" will supply the topic for your thesis (for a master's) or dissertation (for a PhD). The minor fields generally only involve coursework, although it is often wise to try and TA in at least one of those minor fields if your field, like mine, is overcrowded.</p>
<p>DSP, </p>
<p>I speak mainly of the sciences. It's clear from your post that the humanities are a bit different. But not so much - as you point out, additional areas are chosen to "complement" one's prime area. Interestingly, the same thing occurs in the sciences, but perhaps in a less formal way. And, the sciences are much more fragmented than humanities: Where once there was "biology", comparable to history, now we have cellular, molecular, structural, neuro, micro and so forth as formal departments. This makes gaining a broad basis in grad school difficult, as most PhD programs (at least in the sciences) push you to stay within the department's courses and study areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And their value, as Sakky says, is questionable, at least in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can perhaps see, to some extent, why somebody might want to earn multiple grad degrees if he doesn't actually intend to complete his PhD in his chosen field and hence is looking to complete a more degree in a more marketable field. For example, I know a few PhD students in the natural sciences at MIT who are thinking that they probably won't complete their PhD's and are instead looking to finish 2 master's, one in their chosen natural science, and another in engineering, and then leave. It's a pretty sweet deal. Not only are they getting paid to get their master's degree, but they're also going to get a master's in engineering from MIT, an engineering program that they probably would have never even gotten admitted to if they had applied to it straight out of undergrad (because they didn't have undergrad engineering backgrounds). But now that they're actually at MIT, they can pick up that engineering degree by just fulfilling the requirements and petitioning as a dual-master's candidate (which is easier than the normal admissions process). Furthermore, that MIT engineering master's is going to be far more marketable than a science master's. </p>
<p>I even think that, at least back in the old days, MIT grad students had the option of picking up degrees from the MIT Sloan School and that is obviously a very marketable degree. However, I think that is more difficult to do nowadays as I believe MIT found out that too many students who were entering the engineering or science PhD programs were not even trying to complete their programs, but were instead were graduating with Sloan degrees on their way to jobs in investment banking, venture capital, hedge funds, or whatnot. So I think MIT began to place restrictions on this option. </p>
<p>However, I certainly agree that if you are going to actually complete your PhD, then whatever other degrees you complete along the way are superfluous.</p>