LeatherElbows

I am not familiar with Harvard's program, but I would say that in terms of applications, the 2-year program is safer. As you said, with Chicago you are stuck with a gap year. You also only have one year to make connections and utilize resources. That's a lot of pressure. With Harvard, you have a full two years to work on your MA thesis. With the work spread out over two years rather than one, I'd also assume there would be more time available for part-time employment, should you choose. That combined with even a possibility of funding the second year makes Harvard seem more attractive to me. As to reapplying, I would weigh any money concerns against if you think the results will be different next year. Taking either MA program has a 100% chance of improving your PhD applications, whereas another year leaves you in the same position at best. Not everyone is fortunate enough to receive a full funding PhD offer the first time around (myself included) and given the caliber of the MA programs you were accepted to, I'd definitely consider this application cycle successful. I also don't think 9 months of distance marriage would ever be worth it.

I hear you about the post-mortem focus woes, czesc. Most programs only admit 1 Japan focus and that's on a good year. The whole system conjures up a rather perverse version of Aladdin in which some poor history PhD applicant is rubbing a lamp asking what year holds the highest proportion of favorable region admits. (The genie did not answer 2013.)

I'll echo the Lenovo sentiments. I have a 2007 Thinkpad. The only problem I have ever had was the battery going out 2 years ago. I like no problems with my academic laptops.

You may want to take a look at University of Washington's China Studies MA. Also, I don't know if they have a dedicated MA program, but British Columbia is probably also worth a check for China Studies.

I wholeheartedly agree about transnational being big. And the word "Interdisciplinary," once shunned in polite parlors everywhere seems to be finally moving out of the speakeasies and onto the street. Or at least it doesn't seem to be quite the career silver bullet that it was 7 years ago. Also, I'd assume Chinese and Indian history would be getting more attention soon, right?

I had a very pleasant and quick conclusion to the program search today. I've decided on University of Washington. Again, congrats to everyone who has made their decisions and the warmest, best wishes to anyone still waiting. I'll probably stick around here though, at least for a while, due to the good company.

I don't see any reason to tell them, unless they ask. An exception might be if you are specifically responding to a POI who was helpful during the admission process and you expect to deal with them professionally in the future.

One real boon of having a PhD from a well-ranked program that hasn't been mentioned is the ability to find a job abroad. If you are considering looking for a job in the country of your area of study, I think the name of your university will carry much more weight than it does here. Most American academics can't name 20 Japanese universities and I don't expect Japanese professors to know 20 American schools either. Which schools are famous in which countries varies somewhat. But, if your prospective employer knows nothing about your school and it's reputation, that can't be a plus. The vast majority of us are probably mainly looking at US employment, but if you are considering otherwise it's something think about.

I'm undecided on where the magic cutoff in the rankings (or any system of quality assessment) is for getting a job. I corresponded with a few professors at well-ranked programs before I applied this year. One of them told me they thought it wasn't worth my trouble to apply to anything less than a top 10 school, and proceeded to offer the usual laundry list beginning with Harvard. While I appreciate their viewpoint, I thought it was an oversimplification. As I see it, the ultimate responsibility in getting a job is my own. Yes, some things will make the job search easier. A name brand program and an advisor respected in the field do help considerably. However, hard work, a well-built CV, and connections are what land positions. It's easy to say that top 10 program applicants get most of the tenure track positions. But, how much of this success is the programs' and how much is the work ethic of the students enrolled in them? My drive to find a good job and produce quality research will be exactly the same, regardless of what program I end up in. I just may have to work harder in some environments.

I really wish US News & World Reports wouldn't try to assign a numeric value to something that complicated. Supporting that school A is 0.1 better than school B seems pretty tenuous to me, regardless of whatever methodology they employ. I think it makes a lot more sense to rank schools in categories of overall quality, then quibble about the break-off line for each division. That wouldn't sell as well though or get as many website hits. Wouldn't it be funny if we applicants had a counter-study that ranked programs by how many people applied? I wonder if this list would correspond with the current US News & World Reports list, and why this similarity might exist.

Communication is pretty important. Like TMP said, there can be reasons for slow responses, but the professor/department are aware they are making an impression with prospective students. One of my admit schools did not respond to two short question emails sent during business hours (to different departments). After a month and a half and a courteous email to the prospective advisor ... no response. I realize this is a pretty extreme case, but it does happen.

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration, so it's hard to make blanket statements about unfunded MAs. Age, marital status, future goals, plans for a year spent reapplying, current debt, employment possibilities while in the MA, whether the MA leads into a PhD at the same school, quality of the program, and placement rate are all things I'd take into account. The only thing I would say with certainty is if you accept an unfunded offer, have a firm plan on where the money will come from and what you plan to do after the MA is over.

Thanks for the input, telkanuru. I'll probably also look into it. Fortunately their travel subsidy almost covers what it would cost for me to visit, so if I haven't decided by the open house I will probably also go. Any reservations aside, their offer letter was quite friendly and as detailed as anything that comes out of Chicago.

I also got the Chicago MAPSS offer with half tuition today. I'm not really sure what to make of it. One thing that did leap out is that their tuition is horrendously expensive. Has anyone done this program or know someone who has?

My first choice is deciding on funding soon. If I get a good package, I'm going to accept. If the funding is not so good, I'm going to wait to hear back from the other schools. I'm looking forward to having some solidarity in my future and no more having to look at a globe to guess where I'll be in September.

A few things off the top of my head ... 1. Start during the summer. Since you will still have plenty of time, you can go about things leisurely without stress. Pour over school info on the internet, polish up with GRE prep books, start making lists ... it will all feel better than it would in the fall. 2. Plan to take the GRE more than once. You may like your score the first time or you may not. But if you are taking the GRE for the first time in October or so, there will be a lot more pressure than if it was June or July. 3. Have someone you trust read all of your application writing before you send it. This could be an advisor, a grad student, a friend who writes very well, or all of them. It is extremely difficult to be objective in critiquing a personal statement you wrote. Since scholarly writing is peer-reviewed, best to get a head start with the application. Also, I do not have the links anymore, but I remember Columbia's career center had a lot of very useful information and USC's history dept had links to good statement-writing guides.

I taught middle school for three years after undergrad. It was a positive experience and I'm looking forward to TAing during the PhD years. I think it's important to have enthusiastic history teachers, especially at the college level. History is one of those subjects that can either be life-changing or absolutely wrecked, depending on how it is taught.

I agree with your friends, to a certain extent. While I still recommend weighing the POI match heavily in your decision, it's good to have a "backup POI" in your mind. If there is only one person at a school you want to work with and no one else remotely connected to your focus area, this might be trouble down the line. That said, if the professor is well-established at the school and not going to retire, you are probably safe. This is potentially a good thing to sound out with the POI or a grad student, although I would mention it in an offhand manner. Maybe also check how long the POI has been at that school, if they are heavily involved in research groups or other responsibilities, how many grad students they have currently, and how much they have published recently to get a feel for their stability.

A marathon with a $125 entrance fee and no participation sticker.

I got into their international studies program, so I'm not really sure about the history dept. Best of luck though!

Is the consensus that no notice from Chicago at this point means an impending Social Sciences MA offer? I don't know if they have a history of delayed waitlist offers or not and the uploaded results from previous years are rather vague.

Regarding the Ivy vs. non-Ivy issue, I'd say that ultimately the advisor should be the deciding factor. Obviously funding, resources, and program reputation (in terms of getting a job) are important, but you'll be working very closely with your advisor for around 6 years. If it's not a solid match, there's a good chance you'll be unhappy. I'm a big advocate of feeling welcome upon starting a PhD program. I heartily agreed with Nat about contacting a grad student. They are usually refreshingly honest. Just be aware the information you get from a student early in their PhD and someone just about to finish are likely to be very different. And in any department, some students are happier than others, so try to take their advice objectively.

I've had a similar offer from a program that asked me to commit well before April 15. It could easily be that such programs can't decide funding packages until later or want a more accurate idea of who is in the recipient pool first. Unfortunately, I am more inclined to think that it is a ploy to get students to commit before they hear from other programs. In this case, I would be very careful about committing. I think you are right to tactfully discuss your funding concerns with your potential advisor. You are being responsible, not greedy. Get their input and take the opportunity to get to know them a bit better. I hope things work out well.

I was also axed by Stanford. Wonderful school and great potential advisor, but the cost of living there was always a looming eye-opener. I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors!

A quick tangental question, as others are probably wondering the same thing ... Does Apply Web ever update application status? I've been checking everyday, but nothing ever changes for any of the programs that use it.