gradstudenthistory

As someone who went straight through, I don't recommend it. I am in a fairly large department (comparatively) at a top private school, and I was actually one of two in my year who came straight from undergrad. I think it's been a little more common that that in other years, but I think the trend is moving away from it. (To qualify: some others in my cohort did go "straight through" if you include MA work at other institutions -- but I do think that this is a tiny bit different because they exposed themselves to graduate life without having to commit right away.) I wrestle with whether or not I'm in the right profession a lot (especially, whether I can handle the lifestyle forever). To be fair, I'm indecisive. But the fact is, you have not had adequate time or opportunity at this point to explore other options. If there's anything you'd like to do, I'd recommend doing it now/giving it a try. The thing about academia is that, once you're in, it's hard to leave with the option of coming back. So don't come until you're sure. Also, it sounds like this would be highly beneficial to you in terms of preparation. Recommendations are CRUCIAL, so you don't want any of them to be halfhearted. And while you may get a great writing sample written this summer, you clearly haven't written it yet. This is also something that needs to be top-notch. You sound like you are qualified and could be a really great candidate, but 1) there's no rush; and 2) since the application process is difficult and at times heartbreaking, I wouldn't advise going for it until you really feel that you are ready, and your preparation level high. I would also echo the aforementioned recommendations that you do some language study, even as an Americanist. Some programs require two languages even of U.S. historians. I strongly recommend having either French or German as one of them. Although you can probably get by with one language upon admission, the more you get done before you get to grad school, the less you have to worry about when you get here. Take it from me: language classes, when you have so much on your plate already, are really annoying. And they're particularly annoying when they're unnecessary for your research, but nevertheless required for the degree. Taking these classes will annoy you less during downtime between undergrad and grad. Bottom line: my recommendation would be to spend your senior year boosting your qualifications as much as possible. (Ask for letters before you leave -- while your professors remember you best.) Then, spend a few months or more trying out something different, while working on languages and keeping reading up in your field. (Keeping up with reading is more important if you take more than a little time off.) If you decide to apply to grad school, do it because you desperately miss the academic world -- not because you're unsure of what else you might want to do with your life. Keep in mind that as brutal as the application process is, the academic job market is worse. And there's no point putting yourself through all this if you aren't desperately passionate about it.

Hm, I hadn't heard anything about FY 2011, but that only runs through September of this year in any case. All I had heard was Obama's proposal for FY 2012. And I haven't heard how Javits would be affected by other congressional budget proposals. Javits funding is chump change in the whole of the federal budget, so it doesn't get much mention anywhere. Where humanities programs are mentioned, it's usually the NEH. I wrote to my congressman and my senators, though. Figured it couldn't hurt. I agree that I'm *probably* safe as a continuing fellow, but I would still hate to see this program discontinued. Both my undergraduate advisor and my graduate advisor were Javits fellows in their day. It's a great program and we humanities students don't have tons of funding sources as it is.

No. My program fully funds students, but I got the fellowship as a first year grad. The fellowship is slightly more than the stipend I would have received as a grad student at my institution; I also get a small (but nevertheless appreciated!) additional award from my institution for securing outside funding. The fellowship also greatly reduces the amount of teaching I have to do (technically you're not supposed to teach at all with Javits -- but you can get around this if you can say it is a graduation requirement), and it also enables me to spend a research year abroad without having to apply for additional funding. I have another question for readers of this forum. Does anyone know how the future of this program may be affected by the proposed government budget cuts? I assume (and hope) that continuing fellows will not be affected in any case; but I also seriously hope that this fellowship is not eliminated. I know that the president has proposed rolling Javits into the Graduate Assistance for Areas of National Need (GAANN) program, with the same funding status, but, theoretically, different funding priorities in the coming years. I wonder if anyone has any insight on this.

I am not sure how many alternates they actually name, but my impression is that a good number of them end up getting the fellowship. I was named an alternate and ultimately won the fellowship. If you look at the funding status on the website, it always appears every year that they are naming somewhere around 30 fellows, even though in past years they've done something more like 65 or 70. My impression is that they award fellowships conservatively to make sure that they have enough funding for everyone they've promised. This includes confirming continuing fellows, which doesn't happen until around May, I believe. I was informed that I made it off the wait list and got the grant over the summer. I believe I heard sometime in mid-to-late July, although I can't remember precisely. But, if my understanding is correct, somewhere around half -- if not more -- of existing fellows were originally alternates. And like I said, I have no idea how many alternates they name, but I think you have a lot better than a shot in the dark. If you want a realistic assessment of your odds, you could try writing to one of the program coordinators. They are very nice and I'm sure they would reply helpfully to a polite email. Good luck!

When I applied a couple years ago, Harvard sent out both acceptances and rejections via snail mail. I think all the admits I talked to heard via email, but were at the mercy of the speed of their respective advisors. That's surprising news about Penn. They did not do "interviews" when I applied. Maybe those who got invites are in but they can't "officially" say so yet? Probably best not to assume though!

You needn't worry. First, only idiots make fun of international students with accents! Most people I know have tremendous respect for their fellow grads with the guts to do a PhD in a language other than their native one. (And to actually write, speak, and communicate generally in addition to doing research in another language -- that's extremely impressive.) I've known a few grads with thick accents, and in my experience, they improve A LOT in the first year or two. Forced immersion will do that for you. So don't sweat it. By the time you're teaching, you'll be worlds ahead of where you are now! And as others have said, your writing is clearly not an issue. We can't attest to your oral communication skills, but insofar as you are concerned, you really shouldn't be -- you will improve.

One suggestion: if a professor teaches survey courses broadly covering the region/time you want to study, that's a good indication. Obviously Western Civ doesn't count. But, for example, being more familiar with the European fields myself, departments will often have one modern British historian, one early modern, one modern French historian, one early modern, etc. Generally, a professor studying modern France (and presumably teaching France since 1789) will be theoretically willing to supervise anyone studying France (and probably its empire, assuming a metropolitan focus) during that time period. That was generally the approach I had when I applied. Granted, I understand it gets broader with Africa. But how is the subfield usually defined? Can you find out what comps fields people usually do and how broad they are? I personally am not sure to what extent Africa is typically subdivided for the purpose of exams and teaching and it probably varies. But it might be helpful to get a sense if you can. But you can and should inquire before you apply! People often wonder about what to write when they contact professors in advance of applying, but you have a ready-made question, so that's not a bad thing. I would also say (much as RDX and StrangeLight pointed out) that ideally you will have some methodological similarity to your advisor. That's not to say that if you're a social historian you can't possibly study with a political historian, but if s/he's an old school political historian with no interest in anything other than high political history, that might be a problem. Keep in mind that your advisor will potentially have a very big say in what you read for your comps field with him/her.

Yeah, Vince Brown is gone. (And for sure his own research interests would explain why a Caribbeanist applicant would be classified as an Americanist.) Harvard also tried unsuccessfully to poach Rebecca Scott. I don't think Harvard as much in the way of immediate prospects for a future in Latin American history. It's a perfectly valid point that people with less-studied subfields aren't going to find a lot of matches in the top 10. Applying because they are top 10 is of course nonsense. The big reasons I made some of the points I made above, though, was because it seemed to me that the consensus on this thread had gone too far in the direction of rank being a lesser factor for consideration. Rank cannot make up for big deficiencies such as lack of advising or lack of specialty coverage, but we shouldn't undersell the importance of rank, nonetheless. Unfortunately, I think that's idealism gone a bit too far. It seemed to me that the OP was chastised a bit for wanting to aim for the Ivies. In my view, a cautionary "make sure it's actually a good fit" is more on the order of good, realistic advice than the suggestion that maybe Ivy League is not all that important.* *And I do use Ivy loosely. I really mean Top 10, or even Top 15, schools.

The retired advisor in question retired only 2 years ago I think. He still has grad students finishing, so that ranking might not be completely crazy. But it is crazy -- I agree -- for anyone applying now. I also believe the only Caribbean historian at Harvard left.

Good point about LAC's with a lighter teaching load. I did mean my comment to be more about LAC's with 4-4 teaching. And I'm not anti-LAC as such: but you do often hear of people getting stuck there, and never having time to do anything other than teach. Regarding Ivies, it is obviously foolish to apply to an Ivy just because it's an Ivy. Also, I don't think being an official "Ivy" matters. Obviously, Stanford is just as good as Harvard. Other schools fall into the same prestige category. I do think that if you look into, say, the top 10 or 15 programs, most people will find at least one or two with a reasonable match of interests. There are of course exceptions. But I do think people often have very specific expectations of what they want out of an advisor, which sometimes surprises me. I work on the same region and time period as my advisor, and we both do cultural history, but we work on completely separate questions. I like it better that way. She is very helpful, available, and knowledgeable about the field. But I'm kind of glad I'm not commenting directly on her work: that could be potentially awkward. I know that people have different opinions on this, although broadly speaking, I think American universities have a broader conception of what a reasonable advisor-advisee match would be. In Britain, for example, they want a much closer match. I do think the attitude also varies by subfield. The extremes that I've noticed are on the one hand, the Americanists, who have the luxury of being super picky about what they want in that advisor-advisee relationship, since there are so many Americanist faculty at most universities; and on the other hand, subfields like early modern Europe or a nonwestern part of the world that has one or two faculty members. The latter categories have to have a much broader conception of what works. But when thinking in terms of what a good match is, I would certainly advise being open minded about advisors. I think it's more important to have 1) A strong department that it is a good intellectual fit; and 2) an approachable, available advisor than to have an advisor whose interests exactly or very nearly match your own. And keep in mind: your interests might well change! So choosing an advisor for very specific reasons might not end up being that helpful in the long run.

Clairebella, It's hard to give you recommendations on where to apply without knowing more about your research interests. While looking into schools broadly at some level is important, you want to be honing in on specific faculty members you want to work with. To be honest, when I did this, I was still an undergrad and a little clueless, and I had a fabulous undergrad advisor (also working in my subfield) who gave me a list of names/schools to look into, and I more or less applied there. Even so, I did my research, which is what you'll want to be doing. I would recommend contacting a few over the fall. When I did this, I think I was quite vague and it didn't end up being that helpful, but I think it can be. But make sure your emails aren't demanding too much. (I've heard complaints from faculty on this.) A couple general don'ts: 1) Don't ask them if they'll "be your advisor." You still have to apply to get in. A better way to word this is, "I'm interested in researching ____" or "I want to write a dissertation on ____ and I am trying to figure out if this would be a good program for me." Remember that you're courting them at this point. A similar question you might ask, "What kinds of projects have you supervised in the past?" 2) Another don't -- Don't show off. This is not the time to rave about your grades, the prizes your honors thesis got, or anything else that you will otherwise want to foreground on your application. You want to show that you are personable, interested, and generally engaged in the process. Go ahead and brag a *tiny* bit (indirectly) if you are mentioning past research experience as a means of establishing your background, but keep it brief. The best you can do with the above process is get the professor aware of you, and get some name recognition out there before they've read your application. So think of it as that, not as selling yourself. The other reason this might prove helpful is that they might advise you not to apply (probably for reasons having nothing to do with you) because, for example, the professor in question is going on leave, or perhaps leaving the university permanently. Oh, another way to ask the "would you be my advisor?" question without putting it that way is, "Are you currently taking on PhD students?" Because they might not be! Regarding your GRE scores, they can really only hurt you. If they're high enough, they pretty much don't help (other than not keeping you out). My feeling is that your verbal score is borderline. If you could get it to the upper 600s, I think that would be better. I'm sure it wouldn't "keep you out" or hurt you everywhere, but if you have the time to try to bring it up, I think it would be worth it. Manage to crack 700 and you're golden. Another thing to look into is languages. You sound like you've done a lot, but what's your subfield? Look around at program requirements and see how your preparation stacks up. Consider doing language training this summer or next year if you need it. They will most likely let you get away with one outstanding language requirement if it's not essential to your main research, but the more qualified you are at the outset, the better. The most important things you can do at this point are to: get great recs from professors whose names and opinions will matter; get a top-notch writing sample; and write a brilliant statement of purpose. If possible, have the SOP read critically by some of your professors. I got some indispensable advice on mine. (And again on the letters of rec: getting a well-known professor to write for you is huge. And by well known, I do think that it's more important for the professor to be well known in your subfield (even if s/he isn't a superstar) than to be generally famous. But this is another reason why it's a good idea to talk to some of your history professors about applying: their recommendations for where to apply are likely to coincide with some of the universities at which they have the most contacts.) Best of luck!

Oh, I recognize these realities about the job market. I was merely noting that I think an LAC would be a less desirable academic job (in my view), for someone who is interested in doing research. And I made that point because I was countering the argument that an Ivy education won't help you on the job market. I am really not sure to what degree it would help with an LAC, but I am certain an Ivy degree yields a strong advantage in the rat-race for a non-LAC job. I think it's important to maintain a good balance between aiming high and maintaining realistic expectation. (And one of those realistic expectations is: if you take an LAC job, there's a good chance you'll be there forever, or until you choose to leave academia.)

I've been lurking on this board from time to time for a while (since I myself applied and got into grad school a few years ago -- every so often I pop in again to see who might be applying). To the original poster: As a current graduate student at a Top-5 program, I can advise you that the best way to get into an Ivy League school is to focus on research skills and experience. The best way that you can prove to the admissions committee that you would be a good bet as a PhD student is if you can show that you've "done history" effectively before. I came straight from undergrad, but my sense is that the farther out you are, the more research experience they are going to expect of you. As for myself, I had done some archival research for my undergraduate thesis. Less a "qualification" than a mere requirement is that you have all the languages you will need to pass the general exams and do the research for your dissertation. Some schools/professors will let you get away with still needing to work on one, but you should be very well-linguistically prepared. And my sense is that language skills can only hurt you, but that they're unlikely to help you very much. (I might be underselling the advantage of being multilingual just a little, I suppose.) But yes, good language training is a must. They are likely to cut you some slack on the verbal section of the GRE since you are a non native speaker, though you're TOEFL scores will have to be adequate. Writing sample, very important -- and should demonstrate that you have a solid training in historical research skills as well as analytical thinking. Choose wisely. Finally, the other extremely important criteria for an Ivy is to get strong letters of recommendation from well-known faculty. As for my own: I had a history superstar of sorts; my main advisor, who was not a superstar but did know the faculty at all the schools I was applying quite well; and a third rec that I doubt helped me as much. So from my experience, having 3 strong recs, only 2 of whom likely had leverage worked. I do think that the second letter I mentioned -- from the non-superstar but nevertheless well connected advisor -- was probably the most helpful. It's an unfair fact of these admissions that knowing someone helps enormously. But it's important to be aware that it's true and do your best to help it work to your own advantage. Also... I see that there has been some debate here as to the relative merits of an Ivy education. Maybe I would be expected (given my own good luck) to say this, but it's nevertheless true: going to the best school you can get into is extremely important. It is not the only factor. I have colleagues here with bad advisors who aren't happy, and would likely have been happier elsewhere. It happens anywhere, and you need to do whatever you can to make sure it doesn't happen to you. (Note, faculty who are currently up for tenure but who have not yet been observed as advisors with tenure are unpredictable.) But having a PhD from a Top-10 school is huge on the job market. The appalling fact is that these job search committees get thousands of applications, and they have to weed some out somehow. You hear of lesser known universities getting weeded out completely. Also, another anecdote: I went to a public school for undergrad. One of the top public schools, but nothing Ivy caliber. When I talked to one of my profs about grad school, he said to me, "We only hire professors from about seven different schools. Go to one of those seven if you want a chance." I suspect seven is a mild exaggeration, but it captures the picture right. It's true that Ivy League students don't always get the best teaching experience. They always say that about Princeton students in particular. But Princeton students do extraordinarily well on the job market. I am not entirely sure about the relative success of Ivy candidates compared to others at liberal arts college jobs, but the conventional wisdom where I go is that you want to avoid teaching at an LAC if you can because you will get a 4-4 teaching load and never have time to do the research to move elsewhere. Admittedly, there's a research-university bias to the logic here, and some might be happy at an LAC (although 4-4 sounds terrible to me, personally). But the big point I would make is that having a PhD from an Ivy has really helped colleagues of mine to weather the economic downturn on the job market. It's tough everywhere, but candidates from my school have done extraordinarily well. (Wherever you do end up choosing from, you should inspect the placement records quite carefully before making your decision.) It's not fair, but job prospects are undoubtedly better with an Ivy or similarly-prestigious PhD. It's important to be aware of these realities when applying to grad school and making selections. Don't go to a school where you would be miserable or with a terrible advisor, but go to the best-ranked school that is a good fit. Superstar faculty at lower-ranked schools can give you an edge, but there's a limit to how much of an edge. It might not be worth it if you have the chance to study with a rising star, or a solid department that covers your research interests, at a higher-ranked school. Also: regarding the OP's point that being a good Top-10 contender would make him a good candidate anywhere, that's absolutely true. There are exceptions (particularly if the applicant has not chosen logical programs), but most of the students who get into Ivy League schools get into all or most of the other schools they applied to. Again, anecdotal evidence, but I also know a lot of grad students. The admissions process is exceptionally tough, but the candidates who have struck the "winning formula" have a tendency to be successful across the board. Good luck!