Jump to content

APBrown

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    College Station
  • Interests
    Diplomatic History, Inter-American Relations, Environmental History, the Cold War, Ecotourism
  • Application Season
    Already Attending
  • Program
    PhD in History

Recent Profile Visitors

1,360 profile views

APBrown's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

14

Reputation

  1. I'm a grad student living in CS. Lived in West Virginia before, so I know the urge to get outdoors. Unfortunately there are not a ton of options in regards to outdoor activities in the area. Within a reasonable driving distance though you can go to the Sam Houston National Forest or there are a few good places near Austin. BCS is a cool area though although it is a bit isolated. The Rec Center has some outdoor adventures they coordinate though.
  2. What I think this conversation boils down to, is what is considered a legitimate form of historical inquiry? The word diluted insinuates that there is a pure form of history (traditional history) and a foreign form of history (non-traditional) that is making history lose its flavor. From what I can tell, Vr4Douche's argument rests upon this idea that projects that incorporate interdisciplinary methodologies or theories could find a home in other departments. If they want to be in history departments that is okay, but further funding needs to come in order to accommodate them. This argument is wrong on many levels. First, as has been said before several times, these projects are not good fits for other departments. The rest of the social sciences primarily have a presentist focus, which goes against the very foundation of the historical discipline. Just because someone uses political theories in their work, does not make them a political scientist. Nor does using sociological theories make them a sociologist. This argument is not grounded in any reality. Furthermore, you made the argument that graduate students using non-traditional approaches are coming into history graduate programs but history departments are not getting extra funding to accommodate these students. This argument implies that space in graduate school programs should first be given to traditional historians and space given to non-traditional historians only if there are the proper resources. that there is this hierarchy of historical approaches. You have frequently said that people who study non-traditional topics could find themselves in other departments. That is the same as saying that the non-traditional form of history is not a legitimate form of historical inquiry. Or at least not legitimate enough for spaces in history graduate programs. Lastly, I think you are confusing unusable and unfashionable. Social and cultural historians in history departments are not on a witch hunt against traditional history. You'll find that they use them in their own work. I think people still believe that traditional histories have their use. Traditional history is just becoming unfashionable in the academy. This is how historiography works. There are trends that come and go. If you want to show that your traditional history is relevant, challenges paradigms, and adds immensely to historical knowledge, then make that case in your Personal Statement. It is not the case that the historical academy is this rigid system that will not accept traditional historians but rather traditional histories, for decades, only told the stories of elites, whites, and men. The social and cultural turns rather attempt to show that other people matter too. Also, what do you mean by "I am concerned that white, straight, middle-class men have lost opportunity?" Have history departments declared war against white, middle class men and I just didn't know it?
  3. So I would be careful asking, who cares about methodology? In all honesty, you won't pass a dissertation defense if you tell your committee that. Also, the new "narrow minded" approach to history is defined by including new methodologies into the fold of historical inquiry. So exactly how is that narrow? Again, few people believe that traditional histories have no place. I include traditional diplomatic history in my own work but it more helps influence my own research rather than define it. I read Kristin Hoganson's book Fighting for American Manhood and in the endnotes I found many citations for Brian Linn's traditional military histories of the Philippine-American War and the War of 1898. Historians taking non-traditional approaches incorporate traditional histories but often traditional historians fail to incorporate new methodologies in their research or teaching. In that case, "narrowly focused" historians are better hires because they will provide the department with a wide array of approaches whereas traditional historians will not. Lastly, many traditional historians, when they are on the job market, fail to connect their research or interests to those of the existing faculty members. If they are not able to sell their approaches, they will not be attractive candidates for job openings.That is not just true for traditional historians but anyone on the job market.
  4. Yeah, as others have already stated, I am also uncomfortable with (1) Creating a clear definition for what the term historical entails and (2) Thinking that non-traditional history can have a diluting effect on the profession. We can all agree that history deals with events, people, movements, ideas, and processes that that occurred in the past. How we go about that is up for debate and negotiation across the historical profession. If we only considered the traditional forms of history, some of the greatest works of history that illuminated the stories of non-elite, non-white peoples would not have been created. We must all make sure that our stories are rooted in the past but otherwise theories from other disciplines provide excellent frameworks through which to create new stories. We have gone a long way from the traditional histories advocated for by the empiricists and the results of the historiographical debates of the last several decades have done a lot to help that. Lastly, there is a major difference between using political theories and being a political scientist, using sociological theories and being a sociologist, and using cultural theories and being an anthropologist. We are rooted in the past and that is what makes us unique compared to other disciplines. We need to top thinking about different versions of history as a binary of legitimate and illegitimate. Rather we must think of the various historical approaches as puzzle pieces, each depicting a different aspect of humankind's story.
  5. And I would debate the idea that non-traditional historians have other places to go. I research environmental diplomacy but just because I am interested in politics does not make me a political scientist, just because I am interested in environmental issues does not make me a geographer. It is important to remember that people in these departments are still historians, not just anthropologists, linguists, or sociologists. While they do use theories from other disciplines, they are still grounded in the appropriate historical context of the period they study.
  6. I agree with JPB. Many of the other non-history departments may have people who study similar topics but fail to look at them in a historical context. Therefore most of the time, these departments are good for history students to take classes in, so they can develop their theoretical foundation, but would not serve well as their home department. It is important to see if their research functions more as a theoretical piece or historical piece. I think it is also important though that we do not confuse terms. Just because something is the more traditional history, does not mean it is necessarily a more legitimate history. Historians have to continually ask new questions, impose new theories, and construct new frameworks in order to create new narratives. The disappearance of military historians in history departments is part of a larger trend in the historical profession. With the establishment of social history and the rise of cultural history and postmodern/poststructural histories, those have become the primary focus of department search committees. The US in the world subdiscipline is also a focus of search committees. While several military historians have adopted the war and society or new military history methodologies, many still maintain the traditional and operational approaches. It seems to me that if departments hire military historians, it is in that new historiographical vein and most search committees believe that most operational and traditional military historians belong in the military colleges and federal government.
  7. Hey! I am a current Texas A&M PhD student. If there are any A&M admits that found out that they got accepted today and have any questions, feel free to PM me!
  8. There have been some really good suggestions already and I agree with everything that has been said so far. I have a few of my own thoughts and I apologize if these have already been said before. You are going to have to remember, especially if you are applying to really competitive programs, that having a strong application alone won't necessarily get you into places. There will possibly be hundreds of other strong applications, so you'll need to find ways to make your application and your name stand out. If your school has a chapter of Phi Alpha Theta, get involved with that as soon as you are eligible. Not only will you get to help put on their various activities, you'll get the opportunity to present your research at conferences. This is an important difference between undergrad and graduate work. The primary shift is in undergrad the focus is on the consumption of history, while in graduate school you're expected to take part in the production of history. Especially if you are in DC, you should have access to many wonderful archives. Take advantage of that. Also, if during your time as an undergrad, before you apply to places, you may want to consider getting something published. Note this: for entering a graduate program, a publication is by no means expected for admission but if you have a publication it is certainly a plus. Here is a list of undergraduate history journals you may want to submit to: http://history.unc.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-journals/ Last thing, when applying for graduate school, also consider MA programs. I decided to get an MA before I started my PhD program and I believe it was the right way to go, for me at least. If you are not sure exactly what you want to research by the time you are applying to grad programs, need more time for language study, or if you want to test out graduate work before you make a 6-8 year commitment, it is a reasonable way to go. Of course, if you feel ready for PhD work right out of college, I suggest you start right away. I hope some of this helped!
  9. Hey! I am a first year PhD student, focusing on US foreign relations. I received my MA in history earlier this year. Chances are, if your academic focus is on the US and its foreign policy, you will most likely only be competitive for US history academic jobs. Most Modern Middle East job openings will want applicants to have their major field be Middle East history. Fortunately though, for American history job openings, many history departments ask for historians who research "US and the World." So as was said before, you may want to look at what historical questions you are asking in your research and what historiographies you want to converse with. In terms of language requirements, you should probably start working on Arabic but it is not necessarily a must have to get accepted into a program. Remember, for the first few years of your program you will be focusing on coursework and preparing for comps. So, while you will want to get a direction on what you want to do for your dissertation, ability to read in Arabic is not something you will need right away. I do US-Latin American relations, so I am working on Spanish but I am not quite where I need to be to be confident in a Latin American archive and I am at an excellent school for diplomatic history. I recommend that you look at Osamah Khalil at Syracuse, Salim Yaqub at UCSB, Mary Ann Heiss at Kent State, Douglas Little at Clark University (though he may be retiring soon), Terry Anderson at Texas A&M, and Peter Hahn at Ohio State. They are some great historians who do US-Middle East relations. If you have any questions about being a PhD student and studying US foreign policy history just message me!
  10. Fit, at least in my opinion, was the reason I got into the school I will attend in the Fall. It was the best fit out of all the places I applied. I had a good GPA, average GRE scores, what I assumed was a good writing sample and solid letters of recommendation. I don't think though, that any of these factors would have separated me out of the pack of applicants to a decently competitive program and an excellent program for my field. I found 8-10 historians in the department whose research intersected with my own and of those historians, an advisor who was very enthusiastic about my research (It didn't hurt that he used to teach where I am getting my MA and knew all of my recommenders). I was able to make friends within the department and established my fit within the faculty as well. To tell a quick story of why fit is incredibly important. There was a guy who applied to get his PhD during the last application cycle where I am getting my MA. From what I heard, he had one of the best all around application packages including a very high GPA, great GRE scores, and solid letters of recommendation and an excellent writing sample. But he did not even get an interview because he had no fit within the department. He wanted to focus on the American West and Environmental history but my school does not have an American West or Environmental historian. Fit the standard through which a department is able to measure your potential growth as a Gender, Diplomatic, Medieval, African, etc. historian. If they don't have someone in your field, it is hard to determine how you will prosper as a historian in your field. Also, it is important to match up your research interests with the department's strengths. If you're able to fit within a field that the department considers itself to be strong in, then your career and networking opportunities will be much better.
  11. I am just finishing my MA now and starting the PhD in the Fall. From my experience, you need to understand why this book is being assigned. Is the professor assigning it so you can analyze the methodology? The argument? Content? You should utilize what you think is an appropriate strategy depending on what you are supposed to get out of reading the book. Furthermore, I agree with what has been stated so far. I usually read the intro and conclusion word for word and look at the bibliography. Bitter Fruit by Stephen Schlesinger and and Stephen Kinzer is a great example of why you should look at the bibliography. It is a book about the Ameican coup in Guatemala in the 1950s and after looking at the bibliography for about 30 seconds you realize they never consulted Guatemalan sources. This is extremely problematic for a diplomatic history. Book reviews are also very helpful though I only read them after I read the book to see if I have the same impression of the book as scholars in the field. It is impossible to read every word when you have research, reading for other classes, and assistantship duties. I would recommend though, if it is a seminal work in your field, try and read as much of the book as possible. Most books I read in graduate school though, I read the intro and conclusion in its entirety, the intros and conclusions of each chapter in their entirety, and the first sentence of each paragraph in each chapter. If you feel like you are confused about any specific chapter, then read reviews to see if that is the fault of the author or if you need to read the chapter more completely.
  12. Your time out of school should not hurt you. Usually, when you are a few years removed it shows that you have matured and are confident about pursuing a PhD in history. Your time removed though may spur a few questions fro admission committees. In your personal statement, you may want to talk about something history-related you have done in the last 4 years or how the last 4 years have helped you develop as a student of history and potential PhD student. When it comes to references you want the most relevant recommenders for each school. Generally, you want to stay away from professional references (unless the professional recommender can has a PhD in history and can speak to some aspect of your potential as a graduate student). The whole point of LOR is to speak to your academic potential by getting the opinions of those who are familiar with your academic work. Your GRE scores aren't too bad and from what I've heard they aren't a major art of the application according to many admission committees. The only thing your scores may prohibit you from getting would be prestigious university fellowships. But I don't think your scores, on their own, will keep you from getting into anywhere. Lastly, echoing what has been mentioned before, fit is key. Your scores and grades will probably keep you competitive at most places, assuming your writing sample, letters of recommendation, and personal statement are excellent, but fit will make you stand out. There are going to be several qualified applicants and you have to show how you will get more out of the resources and faculty available at a specific school than the next applicant. A growing field of US history is "US in the World," you may want to show how your status as an international student will give you valuable insight into your field. One thing I did to get into my PhD program is contact potential advisors before hand. Because I did that, I had an advocate in the department that helped me get into a really competitive program. If you can make friends in the departments, establish your fit in the department (relevant faculty members, proximity to archives, adjunct programs you are interested in, etc.), and provide a solid overall application, you should be competitive for many top programs.
  13. Hey! I just wanted to see if any incoming history PhD students (or MA) for Texas A&M are on here and want to connect. I am interested in meeting all of you in the cohort and talking classes with you in the Fall!
  14. I am interested in moving to CS sometime in August since my lease in Morgantown doesn't end till the end of July but I am learning that most places advertised now are for summer move-in. Hopefully there are some good places that are advertised during the summer. Also, I would love to start meeting some people on here since I will not know anyone in CS when I move down there. I am going to be a history PhD student and hope to make some good friends in the department but I also want to get to know some outside people and have some friends that aren't historians. Looking forward to talking to some future Aggies!
  15. Hello everyone! I am not an applicant for the Bush School but I am going to be attending A&M for the History PhD program. My emphasis is diplomatic history though and I expect to take classes in the Bush School as part of one of my minor fields. I would love to get to know a couple of you and have some familiarity with people in the program when I start there in the Fall. Message me if you would like to be in contact.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use