dr. t

For academia you're usually making a CV, not a resume; is there a particular reason you've chose the resume format? What you've given seems a bit more in-depth than is typical. Here, for example, is a CV of one of my professors: http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/documents/Smail_CVJune2012.pdf and here, as an example of a much smaller CV, is mine https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5p5Vo_V4WG_NEU4TkRMUTZKZFE/edit?usp=sharing I know you're worried about getting everything across in 1000 words, but that seems to me to be half the point of the SoP.

The usual difference between historical theology and history of Christianity is emphasis, as you rightly pointed out. The former is more concerned with theology while the latter is more concerned with history. For example, I deal with the theology found in medieval sermon literature, yes, but I relate that theology to broader historical trends like crusading or scholastic culture. In general terms theological focus ends up being purely intellectual history, whereas historical focus is more of an intellectual-social mashup, as far as those artificial delineations make any sense, which is only vaguely. History of Religions is, IIRC, a comparative field.

I mean a panegyric is going to be looked at with some suspicion, I would think, but the letter should be complementary. I've been told some people have problems with LoRs from the UK because the culture over there does not utilize superlatives in the way that is expected over here. I suppose it comes down to what sort of flaws we're talking about. Pointing out that you have a tendency to try to do too much will probably not be a big deal, but I'm pretty sure harping on your cocaine addiction and how they wish you would really stop will cause problems.

Although since things like the 9/11 Digital Archive are considered "Digital History" projects, it would seem that the field does technically exist.

It depends on where the thing is going. Different journals/publishers will have different standards. For a professor, I just ask them what they prefer. I'll always keep the foreign language (usually Latin for me) if the point I'm making ties directly into the original text itself.

How has no one mentioned His Imperial Majesty Norton I, Emperor of These United States and Protector of Mexico (r.1859-1880)?

I did not drop out of Harvard. They do, however, offer an amazing second chance.

Small correction: UChicago forwards its PhD apps for History to its MAPSS program, not the MAPH. I mention this because there is significant difference in how these programs are perceived and represented on the interwebs.

There are no such things as safety schools in PhD apps. The corollary to this is that there's no such thing as reach schools in PhD apps. On PhD student at Harvard told me that out of the 5 schools he applied to, Harvard was the only one he got in at. YMMV. I really have no idea what your app looks like, but would suggest applying to some MA programs; a list of funded ones is somewhere in this forum. The other common bit of advice is to take some time off. In some other threads on this forum, people have noted the increasing infrequency of PhD admits straight from ugrad. And, no. Which sucks a lot.

As a former college dropout now in the process of earning his second Harvard degree (oh yeah drop that H-Bomb), I agree.

I can see that argument, but not when the required skill is "following directions."

Read 1) the introduction 2) the conclusion 3) the table of contents (pay attention to how many pages are devoted to each section) 4) time permitting, skim the book

What do people think about being very clear that you have a lot of open office hours 10-2 days before the exam, but that you're not available and will only be sporadically checking e-mail in the final two days?

If I did the work and got an A the first time, allowing retakes still dumps all over the work I just did. I like the option of allowing a rewrite for a D or C-. Going forward, for a freshman course I would ramp up the grade % assignments are worth towards the end of the semester so that you can fail the first one and not be totally done in the course.

Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History.

Eh, I think you'll find this will depend on the department; the difficulty of language exams varies widely. If the examiner chooses a selection where the author wants to show off how great his command of the language is, you'd better know your stuff. Also, word count/time are factors which means that you still have to know vocab. The French language exams at my school are ~400 words to be done in 1 hr.

I don't know, cheating scandals can cost tenure. Riot act seems like a good policy.

I think it's hard to know what a legitimate chance is when it comes to graduate education, but I don't see your GREs as a limiting factor in that regard. Because of the often puzzling randomness of graduate admissions, the time commitment graduate study requires, and the uncertainty of the job market post-graduation, I am an advocate of the sole criterion of whether or not one should apply being if one likes the program. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you are valuing the idea of being in graduate school more than you should, and that can only lead to unhappiness later.

That doesn't seem to be a serious concern.

... I should go to a party with a funny hat so that girls will steal it and then that will be an icebreaker? (which is how I met my wife)

Unless they're below, say 300 combined, I would apply anyway. IMO, by your definition, every graduate school is a reach school.

Ok, but the second question?

What do you mean when you say "reach" school? Why do you think these schools are "reach" schools?

If money is not an issue, I would probably side with Northeastern on reputation alone. I'm not sure quite how to phrase this, but why are you trying to decide between two schools knowing nothing about either their reputation or quality of education?