hdunlop

I gotta be honest, it's been interesting to watch this thread. As someone who thinks I know what I'm getting into I think there is an instinct here that's a little OMG to people from outside. It's super aggressive. But it's not to drive people out so much as it is to explain that, for better or worse, this is how this world works. I hope the original poster looks at all this, realizes that this is a fraction of the difficulty he or she will face in the real academic world, and chooses whether or not they're ready for it on that basis. I absolutely cherish it, but that is not how everyone will react...

Thanks for all the thoughts, particularly with regard to tracking down schools. I've built a pretty good list in the intervening months but it looks like it would be a good idea to spend some more time at it. I've also narrowed myself significantly from "Cold War politics" as I've spent the last six months basically completely rewriting my writing sample, which has led to all kinds of insights. I've always been most focused on nukes and so I'm thinking a PHD focused on the impact of domestic politics on nuclear policy, in particular arms control treaties. Regarding political science, I have less than no interest in heading in that direction. I am interested in ending up in a think tank but I am focused on researching and teaching, and I want to study and teach history. Perhaps there will be an element of political science in that but certainly not as a focal point. I'm toying with the idea of going for a joint JD in international law, to tie into the treaty thing.

czesc. I'm going to send you a longer version of this via PM, but the short version is that college towns -- even those in the middle of nowhere -- have a vibrancy all their own. It will obviously still be a hell of an adjustment from New York, but so would be anywhere.

Actually, this poses a good opportunity to shift to my favorite topic: me! I got rejected last cycle in part because I wasn't ready enough for graduate school -- despite the fact that I'm starting to push 30 (ugh). I spent long enough on a career that I had forgotten much of how academia works and that showed in my application. I came across, I believe, like a bit of a dilettante, rather than a serious student of history, and departments weren't willing to take a chance. I was advised to fix that, so that's what I've been working on. I've spent the last month or so alternating days at the Library of Congress and coffee shops to produce what started as a revised writing sample from my master's American Studies thesis, but has developed into an all-new history paper that tours most of the key secondary historiography over the 30 years of the 40 year period of American history I want to study, as well as incorporating primary sources throughout, all while outlining the basic argument underlying the area I want to study over the long haul. My plan here is to show that I'm capable of doing both historiography and primary source research. I'm curious if you all think that's too ambitious, and I should focus on just primary source work. Right now it's about 2/3 secondary, 1/3 primary in footnotes. Next week, I start a graduate course at one of the universities here in town on American History from 1945. It's from a full professor who does US domestic politics and policy in the same forty year window I'm looking at studying. He doesn't do much on foreign policy but it seems like a really solid match for an LOR anyway. I guess one issue with my application was that two of my LORs are from undergrad, which was 8 years ago now, one was from an adjunct, one was from a classicist, and the last was from my work. So hopefully I do a good job in this class and get a strong LOR there. Does anyone have any other suggestions on ways to try and snag a second LOR from a tenured historian that would have worked with me more recently? Finally, I've been taking French classes, though I'm not going to be able to get up to fluency and it has very little to do with American domestic politics, they were a key voice on nuclear issues in Europe during the Cold War so it seems like it can't hurt, and plus it's great to start to understand "Je t'aime... moi non plus" so I feel good about that. And I joined three historical societies because I thought it looked cool on my CV. I'm really not sure that one was worth the money but that's the advantage of having been in the workforce I guess. And then this fall I plan to do campus visits. Oh, and for those who remember, I declined the law school offer. Everyone thinks I'm absolutely nuts, but I really want this history thing to work out.

I think what really matters isn't age, it's experience and maturity level. I graduated high school two years early and after a gap year abroad went to college. The year was enough to normal up but I can easily say that without it I would have been extremely poorly adjusted and struggled big time in college. Of course, each person is different. Other advanced kids might not have been as far behind in some important social areas (girls, responsible drinking) as I was coming out of high school -- or might have been able to ignore temptation once in college. I needed the year off to figure out how life worked. Without it I would have been a disaster freshman year. For graduate school, and in particular regarding the professor above, I'd note that they said that the application reflected the age of the individual and that was the reason for rejection. Of course we'd find that statement rather shocking if it was "they come from [X minority community] and the application reflects [Y sterotype about X group]," meaning we're not as sensitive to agism as we are other forms of discrimination, but still, the rejection did not come based purely on age. I'm sure that, if you're really ready, it won't be an issue. Finally, the real takeaway for me is this: what's the rush? Your extra two years are a gift. You can do Americorps or Peace Corps (though there might be an age floor on that one) or a million other things and gain experiences over a year or two that no other graduating 21 or 22 year old will have. I found that taking one year off was perfect -- lots of kids are a year ahead, and since you're two, you have the chance to be both a year ahead and ahead of all the other gifted kids in experience.

bigtime, there was some good discussion of what Nat just mentioned in the US News ranking thread you might find interesting (I did).

Thanks all -- this has been very helpful. I seem to hear three key themes here. The first is that if I want to do anything with a law degree I might as well wait and see what I can get into next year (and what kind of funding I can get at schools closer to the T14). The main driver for even considering school this fall is that I had originally intended on going and built a few life plans around it with my significant other and part of me wants to jump at the chance to stay on that schedule. However, that's not enough of a reason -- particularly if it's going to hurt my chances with my real goal, a history PHD. The second is that if I don't want to do much with a law degree I should think very seriously about how much I really want to do it. That one's a bit harder. I really want to go to law school because the UG law classes I took were a blast, because I've worked around the law in the legislative branch for six years and had a great time doing it, and because I think there are areas where it can benefit my work (the nearest tie-in would be international law and domestic policy/politics/public opinion). So I'm not worried about being demoralized or not liking it. I am worried very much about that not being enough to convince history professors that I should be going down this route. The third is marketability. Perhaps foolishly, I'm least concerned about this. I agree that, broadly speaking, the two don't play well together. However, I think in specific circumstances the two degrees can work together, chiefly in government and chiefly in the areas I'm looking at (these would build on my existing career experience). What I really want right now, though, is to teach history at some LA school somewhere. Because it's smart to keep my doors open, though, I think folks are probably right to suggest I should bide my time and see how I do with other applications next fall. Even though I want to get going right away! Nat, your advice that I simply reach out to some of the folks in the field to discuss these issues does seem kinda obvious, but I needed someone with your experience and directness to push me past my reluctance to bother them, so thank you. It gets me back in the right direction: focused on doing all of this right this fall, rather than rushing headfirst into something before thinking it through, as I did last round. Cheers all. And -- any and all further insight is greatly appreciated! This has been most helpful.

Some very interesting points here. The first and probably most important thing is the issue of whether I really need the JD -- the answer is probably not. I have enough professional experience as an amateur lawyer that I am able to parse most or all of what I would need for research without it. But I have high confidence I would really enjoy law school, and I think it would help open more doors at graduation -- as qrsty illustrates by mentioning the option of teaching law or history. Perhaps this isn't enough: qrsty, from what you wrote, it sounds as if history departments would see interest in a joint program as a detriment unless I justify the JD in terms of history -- is that right? This school in particular doesn't have an existing joint program with history. They do with philosophy and they mention that other joint degrees are possible, but I assume the sticking point would not be the law school. Until now I have not been in touch with the history department because, to be honest, it isn't an ideal POI match, which is why I'm thinking of transfers as an option, but I would definitely reach out to them before accepting the offer to attend. No doubt this wouldn't be perfect (admissions in the midst of first semester of 1L would be brutal), because its geographically ideal and gets me back on track to graduate in X number of years I want to take a serious look at if it's reasonable at all. Nat, is your friend currently at your institution? If so, I think I saw them when perusing the graduate student list there, and was curious about how the two-schools arrangement was set up and how it was working out.

After six years on Capitol Hill, I want to get a joint PHD-JD, with the PHD in American defense policy and politics during the Cold War. I applied to PHD programs this cycle but didn't get in, but did great on the February LSAT which I took as a backup and ended up with a full funding offer for this fall at a school that's top 20 for both law and history (though not one of my best POI matches for history). They say I don't have to pay it back if I transfer after the first year and I'm pretty interested. But would applying while a first-year law student hurt my chances at getting into PHD programs in next year's application cycle? For that matter, is the joint program a dumb idea since I don't want to do legal history, but rather history related to the legislature (seems close enough to me, but maybe others disagree). Thanks to any insight folks can provide.

So, as I've mentioned, I got rejected this cycle, and I'm determined to do it right this time around. Building on after-the-fact advice from a couple POIs and my own thoughts, there are a few things I want to ask about in particular. First, I'm curious everyone's take on what schools I should be targeting for political history -- specifically the impact of public opinion and politics on American nuclear and arms control policy during the 1960s-1980s. I've got a pretty long list cobbled together, mostly focused on nuke people, but am very curious to see what you folks think as I work to expand it in the short term and then eventually to narrow it. Second, I think I have a LOR problem -- not in content but in source. My graduate school letters are not from tenure track historians since I was a part-time American Studies MALS and not a history MA, and I'm nearly a decade out from UG. Does it make sense to take a non-degree course or two this summer to try and earn a more relevant, recent reference? This would also help me address my writing sample problem -- my MALS thesis is multidisciplinary and secondary source based. Right now, I'm strongly thinking it's a good idea, but since this would cost $3,000-$6,000 I wanted to make sure I'm not wasting my time. Along similar lines, I was not very well prepared in methodology or historiography in my UG career. I picked up plenty during my classes, of course, but I had no actually coursework here. Am I OK hacking through a few books from syllabai from various schools' courses on this in an effort to make my SOP more convincing or should I try and do something more formal? Finally, I'm wondering how much (if at all) I need to study language. I kinda speak a basically irrelevant European language of no use here. I am enrolled in French courses (since they have nukes and also it's very romantic) starting in April but am wondering how much I need to pursue this -- or if I need to (uh oh) study Russian. Thanks all.

I hope the value of rankings isn't completely dismissed because of some professor who said anything beyond the top ten is garbage, which is complete hyperbole (whether the prof intended that way or not). The difference between #10 and #11 is clearly notional, but as far as I can tell the difference between #10 and #50 is very real, in terms of reputation, faculty, fellow students and funding. The way I understood what NE Nat was saying is far more useful -- that folks shouldn't look beyond #40-50 to mean that if you look at #60 you had better have a damn good reason, and need to be aware of the liability involved in picking it over #20 if you have the choice. So far as I can tell, rankings, like polls, are inherently imprecise, but they're also, like polls, one of many useful guideposts for framing choices.

Is it in a range that can be forgiven with good excuses? Along similar lines, my best overall writing sample is a portion of my MA thesis, but it's not primary source-centric because it was American Studies. Is my best course to revise it to be more of a traditional history paper, or to use an undergrad paper...or to do something entirely new altogether? The latter seems like a lot of work but I'm up for it if that's what it takes. One more question as I review the Fall2013 thread...how much trouble am I in because I went to Nowhere U (actually a small Midwestern liberal arts school) for undergrad and even my MA recommenders probably wouldn't be considered"superstars"? As I mentioned in another thread, I got a couple rejections this year, in part because I didn't do everything I could on my application, and in part for other reasons I still need to understand. I'm determined to resolve both issues...thanks!

I have a 3.95 UG GPA (with a 4.0 in History classes), but only a 3.67 MA GPA (with all my coursework in American Studies, rather than history). I pursued the MA on a part-time basis with an intention to diversify in the humanities, not to pursue history, and the fact I was doing graduate-level work in fields (art, religion) I had little or no UG exposure to while working full-time resulted in two B+s and a bevy of A-s. None of them were in history, but the overall GPA is well into what folks are saying is the trouble range. Does that mean I should go out of my way to explain my motivation for pursuing the MA and the reason for my lower grades in my personal statement?

While we came to that realization in different ways, I think this is the key point animinating my decision to reapply this fall. I was torn between two worlds this year and it showed. While my professional career honed my research interests enough that I believed I could do this, it took the disappointment of rejection to realize how much I really want and kinda think I need to do this -- which brought confidence that this is way more than a "what if" scheme to keep doors open (unlike the thinktank idea I mentioned above!)

Thanks both czesc and cat lady. I don't think MA is the right direction for me, at least not as a terminal degree, as I definitely want to teach at the collegiate level -- just not necessarily, and not even not primarily, at a research university type of institution. I went to a LA school for undergrad and really appreciated the experience and inspiration it gave me, and would cherish the opportunity to be part of that sort of thing again, this time hopefully giving back. Czesc I appreciate the points you raised, especially the note that the think tank world is looking for something very different than teaching. To be honest, that's not necessarily a long-term goal in the sense that I would be upset if I didn't accomplish it, so much as it's a door I would very much like to keep open. Thinking about the balance in doing all that will be important as I conceive of what I really want as a scholar going forward. As a few of you probably know, I applied unsuccesfully this cycle. I have been working professionally for six years since my undergrad and I was a bit torn last year between a potential job opportunity and grad school, and was exceptionally nervous about fully committing to a dream that most of the people surrounding me think is insane, and so I think I really shorted myself in the application process, and it clearly cost me. But I intend to do it right this time, knowing that it will make me a better prepared, stronger candidate, and I look forward to bugging you all more over the next year about how to do it the right way!

What if all I want to do is teach at a small LA college? I've always wanted to teach, and while I want to do something great and wonderful with research I am not super into it being my focus. I taken all the talk about how competition is so fierce to imply that it was top-tier (tho not top 20) or bust, but perhaps (hopefully) that's wrong? My long-term goal would actually be outside academia -- what I would like to pursue in a PHD program is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history, which I think could eventually lead me to the policymaking/thinktank world. Is it OK to admit a potential interest beyond academia in applications, or is that dirty secret better kept close? Also, is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history entirely too vanilla to sell to an adcom? What's the best way to find programs that provide a great 'fit,' other than dustjacket author bios on books I love or the more advanced literature reviews followed by author bios? How early is it to reach out to graduate students? Do people really not mind? Is it better to reach out to grad students before POIs, I'd think? I applied to a handful of schools this cycle and think I did a poor job explaining my motivation for going, my capacity for doing the work, and my fire in the belly for seeing through a program. I know I also overvalued the importance of a strong GRE, and did a spectacularly poor job in outreach to programs. Finally, I found this forum way too late, which I regret, and am determined not to make the same mistakes next year! Thanks all.

Having a hell of a time editing my post right now, but I wanted to celebrate how the -art history thing came back. I just wish that trick got me into grad schools!

Well this makes it a lot harder to convincingly tell people I'm not insane. The pay-your-own-health thing doesn't bother me, as I've done that on and off throughout my life (my parents have both always self-insured) but $2,000 for that many hours of work is insane.

Congrats czesc. I think I bombed out this cycle but I learned a ton and will be back... the ego blow was honestly good for me. Also, $2000 a course?! Really!?

phds of the world unite!

Czesc, way to ruin our commisseration Seriously though, congrats on the waitlist and keep your fingers crossed -- something will come thru.

Tell me about it. I'm mainly not devastated yet because I've assumed I'd bomb out since I got my first reject.

Well you're sure not doing much to help me keep hope alive are you

Yeah. Tho a third one has popped up now.

Yep. Anyone know when UChicago might release? Last year it was 2/8 but that's of course come and gone . . .