You want questions that test both depth and breadth. Depth in the
knowledge of the particular issues at play and breadth in terms of
reading of the secondary literature, particular source problems, gaps in
the historiography, etc. If these are take-home then of course the
writing is expected to be more polished and comprehensive. If this is a
sit down exam obvious limitations apply.
Usually, the candidate identifies a field, either standard such as
Britain since 1815 or more specialized such as British Political History
Since 1832. Most schools have lists of standard fields approved of by
the dept and/or procedures to have fields of examination approved by the
dept's grad committee or examination committee, etc. The fields are
usually approved on with an eye toward depth and breadth, some advising
takes place to make sure the examiners and examinee are on the right
page, etc. In my case the person taking the exam could request a reading
list usually of some considerable length (a hundred or more works) to
furnish the core of what they were to be examined on.
All along there has been, or was in my case, particular interests within
the broader field and the questions offered usually had one or two in
that vein. Say that the person was being examined in the political
history question and the had been doing, or at least had a number of
courses, on the Labor Party, then there was bound to be something on it's
rise, etc. It is not considered wrong to ask about the Conservative
party but you might ask it against develops in the organization of the
Labor Party or the decline in Liberal strength.
Usually candidates have a number of fields in which they are examined and
one is usually set outside the major area of interest. My fields were:
Modern Britain (1815+); Ireland Since 1607; an outside field of Modern
European History of Ideas; and a dissertation field of Ireland Since the
Famine. The latter field focused very much on the development of
nationalist ideology and politics in line with my work on the Easter
Rising.
Lastly, if you have ph.d. students who are going to teach in the future
or hope to you might resort to a very useful question on what they would
do with a course in a subject. I was asked to structure a 14 week, 3
credit upper division course in the hisotry of Modern Ireland and along
the way identify lecture topics as well as a list (with justifications)
of books I would assign in the course for each topic. This was supposed
to be a list of any works relevant to the subject but limited to a
reasonably managable number. this question got at depth and breadth as
well as a thematic organization of the topic. In addition it asked me to
pick a general textbook and justify my choice.
Hope this helps
sean farrell moran
dept of history
oakland univ