a dampening effect, to say the least

    Perspectives is the newsmagazine of the American Historical Association, of which I have been a member in various categories since 1992. Yesterday during my lunch hour, I read an article titled "How Long to the Ph.D.?" It contains a graph showing the median number of years spent on coursework and dissertation by new History Ph.D.s from 2001-2004. The stats are broken down by subject area of History:

American: 3.5 years on coursework/4 years on dissertation = 7.5
Asian: 3.5 course/4 diss = 7.5
European: 3 course/4 diss = 7
African: 4.5 course/4 diss = 8.5
Latin American: 4 course/4 diss = 8

    First, I believe that it would have been just as valuable to have made a blanket statement that the average new Ph.D. spends 4 years on the dissertation (which is defined as "after coursework and exams, [the number of] years work[ed] on...dissertation, [meaning] non-course related preparation or research, writing and defense").
     But I also think that it is totally amazing that the average History Ph.D. spends 7.7 years (which of course means 8) completing his degree. It is enough to make one not even bother, particularly given the equally (or even more) grim statistics that are often released related to academic placement for History Ph.D.s.
     And if those are the median numbers, where are the extremes? It's almost too much to imagine.