dr. t

Oh, we're at the dictionary definition part of the argument already?

You might want to re-read @TakeruK's posts, because that's a caricature of what they said, and no one here thinks anyone should make unjustified accusations.

This feels like one of those backhanded compliments

If you intend to become an academic, then for PhD work I would strongly suggest that you look more toward history than toward religious studies, if history of Christianity is your thing, particularly if your username is indicative of your interests. It will be much harder to find a home with an area studies PhD. For MA programs, either is fine, and you should expect to pick up a general knowledge with a focus in a smaller subfield. HDS and YDS are both excellent choices here, though I'd just note that Kevin Madigan is pretty uninterested in the subjects of his own earlier work at this point.

This is a really good point. Document everything - times, places, who else was there, subjects of conversation. If the guy lets the matter drop, it's a waste of time. If not, then it's not.

Your GPA is a bit low. Your lack of language skills and high-level coursework will hurt you. The majority of your application hinges on the quality of your letters of rec and your writing sample. Fordham's faculty are well regarded, fortunately, so if you have 3 strong letters in addition to a solid sample, you could do well. If not, I would look for funded MA options. And definitely spend your time in TFA practicing your language skills.

I agree with the first bit, but I'm not so confident with the second. As with the others here, I find your adviser's advice (particularly the tone of her delivery) to be, at best, inconsiderate and insensitive. But that does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. You need to ask yourself if you're willing to die on this hill. Filing this sort of complaint, particularly over your adviser's objections, and particularly if it ends up not going anywhere, can have a serious impact on your career. I'm not saying I think it should, but we deal with the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. My advice is to do your homework. Figure out how strong of a case you have and how the evidence you will give will filter through the administrative process. If you only have your own word for what happened, is it likely to be dismissed? Can you find other examples of sexual harassment complaints at your university? How successful were they, and why? If you can't find any (or only a few), do you think that's because none exist or because the university does not want them to exist? Is this what your adviser was trying to tell you, in her own crude way? You need to consider your adviser, as well, regardless of whether she's included in the formal process. What's her relationship to the harasser? She's clearly not likely to support you, but if you pursue this, will she actively oppose you? Do you think she might have had a relationship with the man in question? Will you have any confidence in any letters of recommendation she writes? Will she talk about you positively to her peers at conferences? Will you need to find a new adviser? Can you, or would you have to switch schools? And yeah, these are some pretty scary questions, and the fact that you need to ask them is precisely why sexual harassment goes unreported, and why, ultimately, the guy felt confident in making advances. Turns out the patriarchy sucks kind of a lot, but is really rather good at what it does.

The master's degree won't matter - the above advice is for the job market. But be aware that a lot of program administrators look at area studies MAs and see dollar signs. It can be hard to find internal funding.

If you treat academia as a meritocracy, you will end up hurt and disappointed.

Yes, this is the key. But really, there's no reason to rush. Take some time - figure out if you want to do something else.

When you're actually proposing your project, i.e. around the time you take prelims. Unless you're applying to a UK PhD, this would be way too specific for an application.

I would just say I hate 24 episode television seasons.

If it were to adversely affect your chances of admission, then you probably wouldn't want to work with that person anyway.

There are no right answers, but a lot of wrong ones. And "history stuff, I think?" is a wrong one.

This is the correct advice.

I wrote a 10k word article.

Actually, @nhhistorynut, @VAZ has it the right way round. But some things you just don't talk about in detail on the internet until they're a biiit closer to publication.

Yes. Paying for a PhD is insane.

My primary training is in the close reading of texts, paleography, and Latin philology, so my projects have tended to build upon trying to situate a source or set of sources. But my department is pretty theory-heavy, so more recently I've been working on writing from that perspective, particularly postcolonial and race theory.

This is a point worth emphasizing, since you come so close to grasping it, only to slide off: McC was indeed Conant's adviser (and at least a committee member for Harper, IIRC), and thus has the expertise to advise those wishing to go in similar directions. But McC has also recently advised dissertations on crowds in Merovingian Gaul and the intellectual influence of 9th century bishops. And he has not, as far as I can recall, advised a single dissertation on climate science. Put more broadly, don't worry too much about finding an adviser that's doing exactly what you want to do. Look for quality programs (criteria above) with professors who are within a stone's throw of your interest. You're looking to make someone's ears perk up with your project. For really good scholars, this sort of thing is often not exactly what they're working on themselves.

Why do you want a PhD in history, and no longer want one in economics? Be explicit.

You should probably get used to that if you want to go into academia.

Jonathan Conant, Brown University Michael Kulikowsky, PSU Michael McCormick, Harvard University Helmut Reimitz, Princeton University Kyle Harper, University of Oklahoma The job market for late antiquity is really, really crap, FYI. Even by the regular standards of the current job market.

Not quite. State schools in particular will use net GRE score as part of how they award university-level (i.e. better) funding.

Yeah, I want to make it very clear that I'm not saying to just pick big names. Many prestigious schools will check all the boxes above, but some will not, while many "non prestigious schools" will do quite well.