dr. t

There's a certain irony to people saying "We're all adults here" and then attempting to dictate what others should not discuss in this thread so they can get their own emotional needs fulfilled.
Change of topic. The "opportunity costs" of graduate school are not just about the money you don't make from having a full time salaried gig with health benefits and PTO. It's about the compound interest you don't earn on retirement accounts and other investments. It's about having fewer opportunities for owning a home. It's about still being in school while your friends and classmates are going onwards and upwards in their careers and personal lives. It's about understanding the declining marketability of your skillset in a society that undervalues a historian's skillset and sensibilities. (If I knew then what I know now, would I have taken that left turn to North Gate and into a computer science class rather than strolling on to Dwinelle for a class on Jacksonian America? I have no idea.) 
Congratulations to those who have received offers of admission. Believe it or not, in a year or two you'll be longing for the relatively certainty and stress free days of your application season.

To those of you who are hitting "refresh" thirty times a second and/or are frantically reading the tea leaves of others' "I got in" posts to figure out your chances, hang in there. Please consider other (less self destructive) ways of passing the time. You could contribute to the "Lessons learned" thread. You could do your best on focusing on your current academic projects. You could assume that you're going to be in a graduate program this fall or next and start preparing for your next set of challenges.
To those who have had an unsuccessful application season, consider the benefits of getting some rest before deciding your next step.

You have suggested several times now that your reasons to get a PhD mean that the advice given here does not apply to you.
Again, if you could specify what you are referring to?
Of course. But that does not limit me to discussing only my own experiences. Again, I don't know you, so take what advice you find useful. 
Classic.

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

You have suggested several times now that your reasons to get a PhD mean that the advice given here does not apply to you.
Again, if you could specify what you are referring to?
Of course. But that does not limit me to discussing only my own experiences. Again, I don't know you, so take what advice you find useful. 
Classic.

The poster there is a bit of an idiot and not the best historian I've come across. They (and other "experts") posted enough wrong information that I got frustrated and then banned from that sub for calling them out on it... almost a decade ago now? There's a lot of hyperbole, and they don't consider that, if you apply to the right program, you can spend 5-7 years doing what you love with comp'd trips to Europe, as I did, which isn't a bad thing. 
But there is a kernel of truth there: there are no academic jobs, there will not be academic jobs, you will not get an academic job, and you are not special. The quality of your dissertation, number of publications, or prestige of your institution will not change that. 

I'm not sure at what point the discussion broke out. But no, under no circumstances will I ever stop honoring prospective students with the truth about the reality of our profession.
Let me clear on something. No one, absolutely no one is saying do not get a PhD in History (well, actually that other thread discusses that). Here, I believe the discussion is please know what you are getting yourself into. 
I understand that many people want to get a PhD to do research and teach, not to go into tech or law or alt-ac. That's OK. Nobody is saying that your goals are misplaced or unrealistic. In fact, they are realistic because yes, you need a PhD to do research and teach at the college level. 
In this thread people like to theorize on things they have absolutely no clue ("this email probably means you are in!" "It means you are still on the run!" "They decide based on fit") to which I do not respond because yeah, that's partly of the purpose of this thread, theorizing together and not harming anyone. More than once I have been tempted to interject but did not because, honestly, those wonderments mean nothing and help ease anxiety about admissions. So I stay in my lane.
But I will never stop warning anyone who wants to pursue a PhD in History of the situation in the profession and the job market. It is my professional responsibility as a participant of this forum. I agree with @psstein @TMP @dr. telkanuru that you should think it through. If you have received this advice before, great. If you are tired of hearing it, well, it tells you how serious the situation is. If you haven't heard this advice before and are upset, I am really sorry, but this advice is not out of lack of support or gatekeeping; quite the opposite. Unfortunately, this is not a "make me happy" forum. Don't want the advice? Don't take it. You can decide to dismiss or ignore me, which is fine of course (this is why I didn't quote any of the comments that protested that the thread weren't cuddling enough). 
But let me tell you that if you land good advisors (as many of you are on track to do, congratulations admits!), just bear in mind you will receive advice that you will not like, as sometimes happens with good advice. The fact that you don't like it does not mean (as someone implied) that your decision is wrong. It means, as someone else said, that you are being honest with yourself about the risks and the benefits, and that you are ready for this. 
Good luck!

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

You have suggested several times now that your reasons to get a PhD mean that the advice given here does not apply to you.
Again, if you could specify what you are referring to?
Of course. But that does not limit me to discussing only my own experiences. Again, I don't know you, so take what advice you find useful. 
Classic.

If you're a longtime lurker, you have been around long enough to hear three or four PhD-seekers state that they know what they're in for, push on through the advice they get, and then slowly become bitter, regretful, and burnt out. It's hard not to see a repeating pattern of people doing the second meme and thinking they're special.

You have suggested several times now that your reasons to get a PhD mean that the advice given here does not apply to you.
Again, if you could specify what you are referring to?
Of course. But that does not limit me to discussing only my own experiences. Again, I don't know you, so take what advice you find useful. 
Classic.

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

If you're a longtime lurker, you have been around long enough to hear three or four PhD-seekers state that they know what they're in for, push on through the advice they get, and then slowly become bitter, regretful, and burnt out. It's hard not to see a repeating pattern of people doing the second meme and thinking they're special.

If you're a longtime lurker, you have been around long enough to hear three or four PhD-seekers state that they know what they're in for, push on through the advice they get, and then slowly become bitter, regretful, and burnt out. It's hard not to see a repeating pattern of people doing the second meme and thinking they're special.

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

If you're a longtime lurker, you have been around long enough to hear three or four PhD-seekers state that they know what they're in for, push on through the advice they get, and then slowly become bitter, regretful, and burnt out. It's hard not to see a repeating pattern of people doing the second meme and thinking they're special.

I would put it differently. Every year, there's one or two people who understand that other people aren't special, but still think that they are special. Or they think "it's about the journey not the destination" as they go to a state school satellite campus where they're instructor of record after the first year for $18k/yr.  

I would put it differently. Every year, there's one or two people who understand that other people aren't special, but still think that they are special. Or they think "it's about the journey not the destination" as they go to a state school satellite campus where they're instructor of record after the first year for $18k/yr.  

It means you need to think about what the PhD actually taught you to do, and how that experience can apply beyond the narrow scope in which you've deployed it.

The poster there is a bit of an idiot and not the best historian I've come across. They (and other "experts") posted enough wrong information that I got frustrated and then banned from that sub for calling them out on it... almost a decade ago now? There's a lot of hyperbole, and they don't consider that, if you apply to the right program, you can spend 5-7 years doing what you love with comp'd trips to Europe, as I did, which isn't a bad thing. 
But there is a kernel of truth there: there are no academic jobs, there will not be academic jobs, you will not get an academic job, and you are not special. The quality of your dissertation, number of publications, or prestige of your institution will not change that. 

Not many of those, no, and veterans get hiring priority in that kind of work. CCs are as nice or as terrible a place to work as any other job, and there's not an abundance of CC positions around, either.
The key is to distill your skillset and then craft an argument that it applies. For example, I'm trained as a historian to work with linguistic nuance and an exceptionally close reading of texts while maintaining a mastery over the broader picture on both a historical and theoretical level; I work as an editor-in-chief. 

(My IRL identity, btw is not a secret on this forum, though I usually don't advertise it.)
 

It means you need to think about what the PhD actually taught you to do, and how that experience can apply beyond the narrow scope in which you've deployed it.

It means you need to think about what the PhD actually taught you to do, and how that experience can apply beyond the narrow scope in which you've deployed it.