sixgunguerilla

I think it's also good strategy to contact some of the grads if you can find them (LinkedIn is a good resource for this and will clue you in on where they end up by itself). The grads themselves might have a completely different POV than the people at the University. Prof might say, "outcomes are good, recent grads landed at X, Y and Z" and grads themselves might say "This isn't the position I wanted or I was aiming for" or "There is more to the story of how I got here and I'm not really happy." etc etc A prestigious name/professor with good contacts is probably good, but there are variables to that, too. If it's a person who is 4-5 years away from retirement, they might be "mailing it in" a lot more versus someone who is in their 40s-50s and still has a lot of ground to cover. The best person in your subfield might be an 72-year-old on her way out, and that may either work against you (mailing it in) or for you (last, best thing they do). It's hard to say and I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules.

As others have mentioned, Texas A&M is a highly regarded university within the state of Texas, and they have a prodigious and active alumni network within the state. There is a degree of nepotism within the state. I have lived in the area of Austin-to-College Station for six years and I can tell you from first hand experience that advanced degrees from UT or A&M will put you at some advantage over other job candidates who don't have that connection, and people talk. This is also true of other schools in Texas, and if you view Texas as "regions within a region", you can make a similar argument for schools in the Dallas-FW area or out west. It's a matter of how much you want to be here for the long term. My view of the way A&M's program is structured though is they are very old world. Their application process is clunky and they have a conservative and traditional approach on how to lead you through their program. You might already know this (or potentially disagree if you've already applied?) but the amount of disjointed paper needed to complete the application and the disconnection between offices in the application process was, for me, a major red flag. I worried that this was a sign that navigating through the problem and the support I'd expect in finding success would also be similarly disjointed. That might be beneficial to you depending on your ultimate goals -- it's a large program and some people prefer not to stand out in that way, rather having the freedom to work on their particularly topic unmolested -- but I wanted a program with a more narrow body of students and more directly interested in my results. If you're considering going to a PhD program in the middle tier and aren't sure you'll want to stay in Texas long-term, I think you'll want to pick a program that is forward-looking in terms of how they prepare their students to enter the job market, and my experience with A&M is they are still developing historians like it is 1975. I don't know if that's good or bad in measuring their effectiveness relative to their prestige. Also, as others have mentioned, A&M probably more likely falls in the vast middle ground where you're going to need to focus on really grinding out personal results as opposed to relying on University prestige to get you a step ahead when it comes down to job-searching time. Compared to the concerted effort other Universities in the state are making to progress and adapt their programs to the way the field is changing, A&M looks like a bit of a dinosaur to me. I've looked at a lot of schools in this state extensively, and while the ranking is decent -- it is just a ranking -- and I am not sure A&M is really committed to growing its program in the way I'd be comfortable with over the next 4-6 years. I'd be worried they're going to get left behind. But it's all relative. Also keep in mind that while A&M and College Station are growing areas; College Station is essentially still a rural area in a rural part of the state; it's nearly two hours away from Austin and your options for employment in the Austin-College Station hub for historians are going to be limited to a handful of small schools and a smaller handful of museums. It's not quite like the Dallas area where there are over 35+ colleges. In other words, if you're considering relocating to College Station to go to A&M that is fine, but realize that you'll probably have to relocate twice in the next 5-6 years, because there are few opportunities in the field in this area. The area is really nice, but you've got to work, right?

I don't mean to pick on this post, but it is a good example of what I was talking about with, "your mileage may vary". I had this same question when I first started looking; and I believe it is usually called "Academic Incest". From what I was told at the time, this was a problem/concern at a time that has been diminished in many respects over the years, where many schools now don't consider this a problem whatsoever. I know of many PhDs who went to their undergrad university for their doctorate. That doesn't mean Chiqui is wrong, it's just, there is a lot of gray area in this process. The most difficult thing about this compared to many more traditional career paths is there is no simple road map that everyone can follow to success, and thus the advice and feedback you get from everyone will vary.

Hi Rhiannon. I had almost exactly the same statistics as you coming out of undergraduate, except with one major disadvantage: My undergrad GPA was 2.75, not 3.83. I *did* pay for a Masters degree -- against the other advice you've received here -- but I knew I was ultimately going to pursue history as a career to the ends of the earth, most likely through a PhD program, and I knew I would only be competitive if I had shown in the five years between my undergrad and Masters completion that I had grown as a student. I had a 3.8 GPA as a Masters student. I have only taken the GRE once and my scores are in your range: 159/148/4.5 Alternatively, you can try to "buffer" your current stats with some classes as a non-degree seeking student. I do know, however, that although it came at a great personal cost, programs who otherwise likely would have rebuffed me did not because my financial expenditure with the grad degree demonstrated a passion, dedication and seriousness that I otherwise may not have been able to communicate. If you're paying for your Masters degree, you're pretty much saying you're willing to sacrifice 7-10 years of financial freedom later on in your life to take a risk now. There's nothing wrong with that. Plenty will advise against it, and that's fine too. But ultimately you will always find -- especially on the internet -- that there is no shortage of people willing to tell you why you are stupid for doing something or why you can't; and in the end you have to make the decision that is personally best for you. Anyway, I've been accepted to PhD programs this cycle. It was my first try. Keep in mind what I did might not work for you, and what might work for you might not work for others. Everyone's mileage varies. But during the application process I've done a few things: The first is focus on presenting myself as professional and mature. I know that seems simple, but it will go a long way. Schools are, as others have mentioned, looking for "fit" in many cases, and sometimes they want to see that you have an appropriate "perspective" for their program as well. Know your POIs as well as they know themselves; know them as best you can on a personal level. Don't be creepy about it, but view them as people and remember that they went through this process too and had the same worries, suffered similar failures, battled rejection and persisted through. If you can't separate yourself statistically, you can at least separate yourself as a person who has a more mature and professional perspective of what it means to be a PhD student at your desired institution. I personally visited every school to which I eventually applied. Some schools refused my request to visit, and that was sign enough to me not to apply because I felt like my best way to distinguish myself was what I could do in person as opposed to on paper. In any event, in every instance I told my POI and the program director specifically that I understood that the opportunity to obtain a PhD at their institution was a two way street of opportunity; this is to say that eventually I would be someone who would go out into the field and represent the profession with the University's name attached to my credentials, and that I understood that meant something. Another thing was I measured my expectations accordingly. I knew I was never going to make it beyond the first pass-through at top-tier institutions because they would look at my statistics and simply throw me into the rejection pile. It stinks that this is the way it works, but it is. But I've committed to the idea that in most cases the work you put into your PhD is going to be the value you get out of it, and in most cases the prestige of your University is only going to matter at the extremes (very impressive or very unimpressive, the big middle can still be viewed as something of a meritocracy) Finally, might I suggest supplementing your MA pursuits (be it in or out of state) with the best internship you can get. I was able to get an internship at a large public institution which provided me with a generous recommendation; and professors from multiple schools told me directly that it was an "impressive" internship. With the direction that history as a field is heading, I think some programs like to see that their students are not only driven but also agile; understanding the various and new found demands on historians. I would also say to be sensitive to the type of programs you're applying to for that reason: You want to be in a program with faculty who can help prepare you for what historians will be in 10 years, opposed to programs that may have more prestige in the moment, but can only teach you the skills to be what a historian was 30 years ago. It might seem opposite of logical now, but I believe this will flesh out to be true in the long run. If I were you, I would probably take some courses at your local MA opportunity and supplement it with the best internship you can find, than fire another magazine of applications out next year. If you fail again, the opportunity for you to go to an unfunded MA program will be there next year as it is this year, and you can decide if that's what you want to do. You may lose a year along the way, but you may also find a cheaper route with less sacrifice and that is probably worth the trade. The bottom line is, though, regardless of what you decide....if this is really what you want to do, fight for it for as long and as hard as it takes. Don't give up on it. It'll come.

Hey, No problem, thanks for the reply as well. Yeah, Norwich is far more expensive, you're right. Going through the school now, I can't tell you if it's worth it versus what you get out of AMU or Slippery Rock. I spent a few weeks in AMU's history program like six years ago and was really unimpressed. It felt like a diploma mill to me. They have some cool popular history seminars, but I don't think they train you to become a professional historian and I know that doctorate programs consider AMU a sibling of for-profits, so.... Stony Brook I don't know anything about. And you're right, you don't really get very much choice in your classes at all at Norwich. Basically, what they do is limited but they do it very well. The program is specifically designed to empower you to have something to show for your degree. If you are intended to go for a doctorate you'll get a lot of instruction on doing historiography and writing a thesis. If you are advancing a secondary school teaching career you will have resources to cater your experience to that. I think in large part you'll get out of it what you put in. Because I was driven to make something of the experience (and because I had a substantial monetary investment), the professors I've worked with have all seemed really motivated to work with me. If you just do the bare minimum, I'm sure they'll let you do that without comment, too. Also, in the Americanist tract at Norwich you're going to get exposure with all the works and materials doctorate programs would expect you to be familiar with coming in the door. I can't say the same for AMU but again also don't know about Stony Brook to that end.

I would consider taking the debt on only if I knew with all my heart it was what I wanted to invest my life doing and had no other avenues/options to do it. But I would take it than because debt is not the worst thing in the world if it empowers you to set off on doing something you love. But since you have an offer with full funding and stipend, it would be much harder to justify the debt route. And as you noted you haven't heard from everyone yet so you don't have all the information you need to make your most informed decision, but I expect that the longer you wait for more decisions, the less attractive the debt option would look. And prestige is only going to matter in terms of a small handful of schools. I know plenty of graduates from #10-#25 schools have similar success rates to people in schools ranked #26-#125

Your mileage will vary. In most cases it is probably not smart to pay for a Masters degree, but I would not say in all cases. I paid to pursue a Masters degree because I knew I intended to later pursue a PhD and my undergraduate record was not strong enough on its own for me to be competitive (2.75 GPA). I also knew that I wanted to be a part of a program that required a Masters degree in order to apply because I was seeking a more mature environment. Taking on that debt means that in a few years and for a handful of years I'll have fewer choices and more anxiety as a result of taking on that debt, but I exchanged that for taking the opportunities I have now. There is nothing wrong with doing that if you are aware of the decision you're making and what it potentially means for you down the road. Also, I took my degree online at the previously mentioned Norwich University MA program (American, not Military History). Among online programs it has a fairly decent reputation because of its connection to the historic private military school. There is a one week residency at the conclusion of your program, which is 6 semesters, one class each worth 6 credits. There are slight variations from class-to-class, but generally speaking you have assignments due on Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Your classes have about a dozen people, and Tuesdays and Fridays usually involve responding to discussions. A minimum of four responses by Tuesday and four by Friday. About half of each class really goes above-and-beyond in their discussions (sometimes it can even get a little heated), and the other half of students do the bare minimum. Sundays are individual, larger assignments. Usually an essay, or having to develop some sort of presentation or curriculum. There is little in the way of Public History. There are administrative problems like at any school, and most of the professors you work with will be adjuncts, so they are not completely connected to the University. You should know that going in. On the other hand, in my experience professors are not only helpful, but aggressively so in trying to get to their students to achieve their desired outcomes. When they knew I was interested in a PhD they each went above and beyond in helping me through the process. I'm told the same is true for those looking to extend their teaching career or start a career with the terminal degree. The program also helped me obtain a spring internship last year at one of the largest history museums in the U.S., which was an experience that both doctorate programs and employers said was an impressive "get". I've been accepted to a PhD program and am awaiting a few other applications. I also was offered a State Park job with a salary that I am considering against the doctorate programs. This certainly isn't all because of Norwich; I worked hard and took some gambles in presenting myself, but I just wanted to note that paying for a graduate degree and doing so online will not automatically disqualify you from any future academic pursuits or employment; and I don't agree that it doesn't necessarily help because I certainly have opportunities now that I would not have two years ago. There are still places and people who are interested in how you present yourself and the skills you can demonstrate as opposed to what's on paper. The most important thing any fair employer is going to want to see is commitment. And you will get rejected along the way, but so is everyone, so there's no real reason to immediately attribute that to your graduate degree. Good luck.

The best way to answer these questions -- especially the one about GRE and GPA -- is to contact the graduate director at the department(s) you're interested in. Few people here would likely know the exact methodology for each school's committee (though many will claim to) and if they did they'd be unlikely to share it. But that sort of information, if you ask a graduate director directly, should be available. At the very least, you should be able to get a temperature reading of what the committee there is willing to share about their process and how comfortable that makes you. As far as whether or not the schools you've selected are decent, well, if you believe rankings that are published by third-parties like "US News & World Reports" are of any value, you can check there. Some put weight into them, others do not. Most all of the schools you've named are easily recognizable; many of them are major name-brand universities. The only way to deduce this stuff accurately is to contact that graduate departments individual and try to gauge what they are looking for and if you think they are a good fit. It will help in the long run anyway, since contacting persons of interest at your proposed schools will help you get to know the faculty and they will have some distant sense of your name when it comes time to go through applications. There are no shortcuts.

By design, the Grad Cafe is a place to receive practical answers to pragmatic questions and unrealistic answers to people with unrealistic expectations. I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who only became a doctor because they were convinced to become one on an internet forum. As I stated, I will not be moved from this opinion. I dismiss your many, many, many, many, many other points without merit.

You're wrong. It's exactly true. Strangers can only speak to generalities about the process, and usually they give bad advice even about generalities because they are projecting themselves into their replies. "The Grad Cafe" is good for answering fence post questions (Do I need to do A? How do I do A?), but it is not good about informing strangers on lifelong career decisions nor about opinion questions (Should I do A?). Everyone is different and this sort of thing is too exact and too important to rely on uninformed and often unrealistic opinions. There are simply too many psychological and emotional variables upon which strangers on the internet can not draw from the personal experience and emotional contacts of the person. I understand it's in the best interest of people associated with this forum to suggest that this forum can provide answers to all possible scenarios for prospective candidates, but it's simply, unquestionably, inarguable that this is false. I cannot be moved from this opinion. The OP should speak with co-workers, family members and school advisers who understand the OP's situation more exactly and can possibly draw from scenarios and social aspects that even the OP may not immediately recognize about themselves. Additionally, the OP should really be asking themselves this question. How can a Chemistry or History major tell whether or not you should become a doctor or a teacher, knowing only about you a few paragraphs of information you wrote? It's not smart to expect they can. It is quite simply bad form to suggest a person can figure out what their career path should be by posting on an internet forum. Do people here really think that deciding to become a doctor because someone they've never met and spoke with on a forum told them to is really the best way to make such an important decision? If that is their only outlet for measuring their options -- or the best outlet they think they have -- there are clearly other problems which need to be addressed.

It is not necessarily bad to have a letter from someone with whom you have a strictly professional relationship and do not listen to anyone who tells you different. This is especially true if you have strong letters from other academics, which you do. Ultimately, consider who will give you the strongest letter of the two and go with that person. If your other letters are going to demonstrate your capacity for graduate level work, there is no reason that a third letter demonstrating other strengths would not be viewed as a positive.

Nobody can tell you what is best for you except yourself. Each case is different. Particularly on an internet forum, when it comes to what would be the best fit for an individual person, the only thing that people who are mostly strangers can give you is bad advice.

Piyush, What would you like to know? Your quant score is obviously outstanding, which would seem to be what matters in your field. You have strong, relevant work experience. Your bonafides are solid. Your other application materials, such as your recommendation letters and statement of purpose need to be strong but that is subjective. There is no harm in applying to a few "safety" schools if you can afford it.

Call GRE

If you feel that asking for too many letters may negatively impact your ability to obtain letters, consider using a dossier service. A great many schools -- particularly if you contact the director of your program or graduate director -- are open to this. (Not all, keep in mind) It is also an added bonus because you are then opening up a line of communication with someone at your intended program.