historygirl

I posted this in the Bank, but I thought I'd put it here as well. There's a new site that lists funding for history programs in the US, as well as some external funding. There's always plenty of questions about funding, so perhaps this will help. http://gradfunding.weebly.com

For anyone interested, this is a new website that lists whatever program funding info is out there for history graduate programs. If you want to know if a history program funds MAs, what types of aid they offer, a list of external funding sources, etc, it's here. http://gradfunding.weebly.com

Well, the history job market sucks. There's a very, very good chance you will not end up at an R1, no matter what grad program you attend. Your alternative of philosophy, though, is a bit baffling, since it's nearly the only field that is more overcrowded than history. You're even less likely to find a job in philosophy, and grad admissions are even tougher for philosophy than history.

Urban legend. Lots and lots of successful applicants have MAs. Each school and scholar doesn't have a special secret method. Besides, your methodology training will be far more extensive in a PhD program than an MA program. An MA program is just coursework and a thesis. None of that will threaten any credible PhD program. Also an urban legend. I got a little curious about this over the summer. I listed every history grad program in the US and looked at their websites. Almost every single MA program offered at least some funding to their MA students. "Some" can mean partial funding, or it can mean fully funding some students. It was a mix. I confess I was surprised, because I also thought that it was hard to find MA funding. FYI, Tufts also funds some MA students. I received a funding offer from them when I applied to MA programs- full tuition and partial TA. More importantly, why are you doing a grad degree? You haven't even decided between two fields. Grad school isn't a great way to mark time until you decide what you want to do.

I don't think I mentioned being freaked out by this. It doesn't apply to me at all. However, it is a common discussion, and I think it is applicable to those people who are trying to weigh the better program and the advisor they like better. I also don't think the big-name advisor is necessarily the better choice always - if s/he is hands off, controversial, or doesn't make the phone calls, etc. on behalf of the advisee, I think there's nothing to be gained from that advisor from a name perspective.

I read this article in the Chronicle today: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2005/07/ ... reers.html Thought it was applicable, considering it's decision time. It makes some interesting points.

1) Absolutely fine. 2) Relevant experience is always helpful. 3) It probably won't weigh as much as a thesis or peer-reviewed article. On the other hand, not all applicants to grad school have even done a thesis, and most have no peer-reviewed articles. Certainly reference your article and any other research you've done. They will want to see that you have done research with primary sources, and they will prefer an academic written sample. Do you possibly have any old term papers from undergrad you can brush off and polish? Just make sure your SOP is focused and your LORs are terrific. Good luck with the process!

FWIW, a couple MFA professors have discussed the fact that often people in the field go overboard with the relaxed atmosphere, costing them in reputation and interviews. You need to be careful even in a fine arts field. But since you've determined that we're all against you, never mind.

Your example makes no sense whatsoever. However, I'll try to address what I think you're trying to say (although rising_star did an excellent job). One group can be larger than the other - as in "a man is a person, but a person isn't necessarily a man." Or, to cleave more closely to your comment, I can defend the purchase of, say, a Honda without actually owning one myself. I'll give you a bit of a pass because you've stated you're ESL, but you should really be sure you have the meaning of a person's statement correct before you rail at that person for a few posts (or minutes, in real life). If you do something like this in a seminar, you will look like an idiot. I'm certain you do not want people to have that impression of you, so take my advice if you so choose.

I said precisely what I meant. Others understood it. I managed standard English, too. I think you are looking for a fight, and I think you're interpreting comments based upon that. As far as the title of the thread, I believe Minnesotan was referring to literacy as in "communicating using the written word" and not the ability to read and write.

No one said the person using textspeak is illiterate. What was said is that is gives a bad impression and gives the reader pause about the abilities of the person using textspeak. Fair or unfair, I don't know any of you in person, nor do I have your CVs, LORs, or publications in front of me. All I can judge you on is your posts. Given that, if you choose to use less than standard English, you cannot be surprised that judgments are made. I cannot say you are illiterate. What I can say is that I feel textspeak is immature and disrespectful. Oh, and you clearly didn't understand my comment that you quoted below. Rising_Star did.

Yes, excel, it has come up with the people I mentioned. This is not the only public forum, nor are professors above venting about students at national and regional conferences when we meet for drinks and wind down. It isn't discussed intensely, but when it is mentioned, it sparks irritation and several well-elucidated comments. It usually begins, "Suzie Student emailed me using textspeak - how on earth does she expect me to take her seriously or even be willing to read her email?" "I had a grad student do it once! You would think they would know better!" In fact, many of them have put notations in their syllabi banning textspeak and, often, denouncing it. The general feeling was, and I quote, "Students who want to be taken seriously as adults should have more self-respect." And there you are. You may certainly search on other forums for this information, if you choose to do so. I doubt you will. But carry on, carry on.

Yes, yes. We're all equally valuable, we all have special, unique gifts, no one can judge a book by its cover, I don't care what snobs think anyway, yada yada yada. Except it does matter.Networking can be done on online forums (seen it, been involved in it), and language matters. Habits are hard to break. But more than that, the underlying attitude may, in fact, hold you back. Grad students that are serious about language and their image get better jobs, better recs, and better evals. It isn't just about the language they use on an online forum - it's the attitude behind it that is more visible than you know. To be honest, a person that uses textspeak, to me, is a bit disdainful of the people around them. Pointed and excel's comments have only reinforced that idea. And lest you think I'm making this up, I've had this discussion with a variety of professors in a variety of fields in a variety of places. Every single one agreed. If you are really convinced that it isn't a big deal, carry on. It doesn't hurt me at all, other than the minor annoyance of seeing it. But I find it rather ironic that your well-cultivated "image doesn't matter" attitude is, in fact, an image. I also think it's telling that those who defended textspeak made a far bigger deal out of this molehill than any original comments ever did. Doubt is fertile ground for defensiveness.

Disciplinary action?!? Please. Basically, you're asking to speak with the manager. The job of a moderator is not to make everyone feel good about themselves. It is to keep out spam and make sure that everything is posted in the right places. If you'd seen this site when the spambots took over, you'd understand. True, the moderator must step in when things get especially nasty. But a bit of sarcasm is not over the line, and neither is simply disagreeing with you. I've seen nasty posts, believe me. This was nothing like. In fact, the poster who has received the most vitriol on this forum has been...Minnesotan. And he handled it without whining and demanding retribution. So let's keep a little perspective, shall we? I honestly cannot, not for the life of me, see where Minnesotan denigrated and insulted you. If you are so unbelievably fragile and overemotional that you were hurt by his remarks, you should, in all seriousness, seek counseling. I would be concerned for you. Pointed, I never said that grad students were special. But there comes a time when a person has to grow up. I would cringe at a 50 year old woman wearing short shorts that had "juicy" plastered across the butt, but I would (grudgingly) accept it from a teenager. Speech is the same. When you grow up, you drop stuff like textspeak. When you enter academia or any professional field, you have to grow up. There has been some speculation that a lot of people go to grad school to avoid growing up. I suspect that is true, and it is perhaps where the resistance comes in. But you are not undergrads anymore; you are graduate students (or, striving to be). It's time to put away the Juicy shorts.

Wow. Just wow. My comment "Aha!" etc. was, well, making fun of what you had said. I wasn't making a point with that. Sorry to disturb your deep thinking and all. And yes, Minnesotan, please allow excel to compare her field with our phenomenally overcrowded one. In return, she can attend a grad history seminar and try to keep up. But only if we can watch.