Vr4douche

Ya I wasn't seriously suggesting that it was more inclusive in the 60s...that was a tongue and cheek way of comparing the rigidity of the old system with the rigidity of the new one. The whole thing kind of reminds me of those civil rights activists from the 60s who were all about free speech until they go into a position of authority after which they realized the need to control the message.

Its not a matter of my disapproval of the new approaches. No one cares if I do disapprove and I've said over and over again that they have value. My concern is that the new approach is dominating the discipline and there is a almost complete disregard for the old approaches. As I said earlier, the three biggest schools in Canada have not one military historian on staff. I understand the priority given to social and cultural history but they cannot be the be-all-end-all. Historians certainly need to reach broader audiences. We do not work in a bubble or in ivory towers in the sky. We work in schools funded by tax payers and donors who are probably not interested in complex modern methodologies, gender identities and other subjects popular in modern historiography.

Actually, my MA program required a course on historiography which discussed this 'debate' and which introduced us to the various approaches to history. Don't you think that "wie es eigentlich gewesen' is taken too literally? I mean, Ranke never practiced the type of empirical history people seem to think. His work involved interpretation and analysis not just blind acceptance of whatever the sources report.

I do not mean to offend anyone and I'm non of this is intended as ad hominem attacks. That said, it concerns me that you are offended...I don't think it is healthy to be so attached to your work that you are offended by criticism of it...but that's just me! I don't think your study is less worthy than any other. I have no idea what you are studying but I'm sure I would be interested. I still do not see how history is more inclusive. It was inclusive in the 1960s and 70s when the old time historians made way for the new fangled approaches. Now it seems that history is more limited than ever. If your work does not fit into the modern approach you SOL. Any your point about arm-chair historians is interesting. It seems to me that more and more history departments focus on histories that are only interesting to historians and other academics. Maybe it is time we stop focusing on how historians study history and start thinking about how our work is received in our societies. Do we really write only for a small group of academics who appreciate novel methodologies? Does that not represent the 'ivory tower' syndrome that Beard decried in the 1930s?

Ok, so apparently I have to "open in a new tab" to quote... No not you specifically. But it seems to me that you have a narrow understanding of what came before the 'from below' focus. Do you really think that historians before 1960 were just fact grabbers? Do you really think there was no analysis of sources? There seems to be a perception that 'Rankeans' or empirical historians simply believed everything they read...not the case. But again, are you not saying that there is no room for the old school and only room for this new left?

It may just be me but I see a sort of hypocrisy here...you praise the 'openness' of history then a few sentences later explain why military history is shunned. It seems, therefore, that history has been defined and traditional approaches are out. I think that those of you on the positive side of the definition perceive an openness that does not truly exist. If it were truly open proposals would not have to include popular methodological catch phrases.

As I said, the addition of these new fields would be fine if they did not come at the expense of other fields...if they came with additional funding to create additional spaces for graduate work. But they haven't...they have usurped money and left a hole in the discipline. So history cannot have a narrowly defined purview but other relevant departments can? It seems like history has become the safety net of the social sciences.

This is not only the result of the rise of social or cultural histories, the linguistic turn, post-modernism-structuralism-colonialism. I have the same problem with International Relations...its studied in history departments, International Relations departments, and Political Sciences. Yet it is difficult to find a history department that will allow you to study late-antique history....that has to be studied in Classics (which isn't interested in it) or Divinity. I think we need to develop a more specific notion of history and to have history departments enforce that definition. Until then history departments will be open to anyone studying any topic that has any relation to history.

@ Fianna: No I have not read The History Manifesto but I have read That Noble Dream which discusses this to a point. This was just something I've been thinking about lately and figured it might serve as a good distraction for those waiting for application results. I will admit that military history is one of the more obvious examples I could have picked. It is surprising to me that, considering this is the centenary period of WW1 there are only a few historians working on it in Canada. @ JPB: The problem is that there are many places for the 'non-traditional' studies but not for the traditional histories.' For example, those interested in gender can study it in Gender Studies, Anthropology, and Sociology and probably other departments. Where else can a military historian go? I know many qualified historians who cannot find a department with a supervisor that can supervise their PhD.

It seems to me that as time goes on history becomes more and more diluted. Look through faculty lists of PhD candidates and their topics. At most schools a sizable percentage of them relate to gender, sexuality, race and environmental studies. Some departments even specialize in those fields. Now I do not mean to base those studies...I find some of them very interesting...but I can't help but feel that history departments are the wrong place for them. For instance, I know of one PhD student studying the bear hunt and government hunting policies in the 1970s...wouldn't environmental studies be a better place for this than history? I am concerned that the development of those studies as history topics has not been matched with an increase in the number of graduate spaces in history departments. Consequently it is becoming harder and harder for those wanting to study 'traditional history' to find positions within graduate departments. For instance it was a struggle for me to find a department where I could study military history for a PhD...UBC, Toronto, and McGill have no military historian on the payroll! Am I alone with this concern?

I wouldn't read too much into not getting a response. Profs get a lot of emails. God, as a TA I received probably 30 per week. Things happen...emails get missed or forgotten, its no biggie. I had several POIs who only responded after a second email, and more that took a month or two to respond. I emailed one prof. late November and heard back early January. When he did respond he was the most interested of any of my POIs. If your project limits you to 1 professor I think its too narrow. Find potential POIs in your general area and tailor your proposal to them. As profs. from Oxford and Cambridge have told me, the application proposal just gets your foot in the door and can be changed after acceptance.

@ashiepoo72 You've made it this far, you've been accepted by 5 schools...you've done right. There is no reason to feel inadequate. Just remember that no one expects you to know everything or to have answers to every question. If you did, why would you be in a PhD? "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable reply to questions about your project.

It means that you cleared the first step...your application is complete, you meet the School of Graduate Studies minimums, and so they passed your application to the department.

Summer home

I've been lucky with both my MA and PhD applications: the first response I received for both was an offer. It takes a considerable weight off your shoulders to know you at least have a position somewhere. I feel for you who have heard nothing or heard nothing but bad news. Try to keep positive...remember the longer you go without hearing means you are still in contention. Be happy that you have not been rejected already. I have applied for PhD history @ UVic, Queens, UWO, for medieval studies @ Toronto, and Divinity @ Oxford and Cambridge. So far I've only heard from UWO...received an offer with substantial funding. Go see some movies over the weekend...go out for dinner...do whatever will get your mind off of applications!

I will not apply before discussing the project with a potential supervisor. My emails to POIs consist of a sentences on my academic program and a short paragraph outline my project. Generally it has worked well for me. Maybe 1 out of 8 does not reply. I wouldn't want to work with a Prof who can't be bothered to read/respond to a short email.

Congrats!

Tag team

I understand its not that burdensome but I still resist it. also I have not studied math in a decade and probably not to the GRE level. I would have needed months to prepare for a test that, to me, proves nothing.

Heimat, I see you applied to 12 schools. Did you apply with the same project/proposal for each school? I applied to 6 schools with 3 different projects and that was tough enough!

A lot of modern First world War books deal with history and memory, especially in Canada. It was through the war that Canada truly became and independent country. There are quite a few books that discuss different ways the war has been remembered over time. One that comes to mind is Jonathan Vance's Death so Noble: Memory, Meaning and the First World War.

For my MA McMaster gave me a $5000 scholarship and a T/a ship worh about $11,000. UofT offered neither. I cant recommend McMaster enough. Everyone from profesors to secretaries are much nicer and more personable than at UofT. I have applied for PhD to UofT, Queen's, UVic, Western, Oxford and Cambridge. Ive only heard from Western which offered me admission.

I got a letter like that when I applied for undergraduate at UofT. I applied for a program for non-highschool grads to get in...they originally wrote that I am not qualified and have rejected me. A week later I got a letter saying that they meant to say that based on my essay etc. I am over qualified for the program and will support my full entrance to the university. Needless to say it was troubling at the time but it is comical now. Just be thankful they noticed the mistake!

they are probably waiting for the first wave to accept/reject their offers so they know how many secondary offers they can make.