JKL

@jrockford27 is right. Contact the grad administrator. I'd also ask my professors.

First things first: Don't feel like an idiot. It's not you; it's the genre. These things are difficult and take a lot of time to write. Don't get too exhausted. Take a break. Go watch an episode of your favorite show on Netflix. Play an instrument. Make your bed. Rearrange your bookshelf. Just do anything that doesn't require a lot of thinking. Then get a fresh cup of coffee or tea and come back to the computer. The SOP is above all else a moment for you to tell a department how and why you fit their program well. It's a two-page elevator speech. Reflect on why you're pursuing American literature. They don't care that your Grandma used to read books to you or that you named your pet fish Moby Dick. Exclude anything along these lines. Keep it as academic as possible. Did you have an English professor (or professors) who inspired you to pursue American literature? Great. Talk about it. How did they inspire you? How did you develop a passion for literature? End the paragraph by stating that you want to pursue a doctorate to be an educator and that you want to cultivate in students the same qualities that the professor (or professors) cultivated in you. You should also reflect on your research experience. What was the nature of this experience? Was it a thesis? If so, elaborate on it. Describe your methodology and sources. Also, mention the themes with which you want to work. Do you already have a thesis topic in mind? If so, great. Throw that in there too. The admissions committee (again, these will be professors) will want to see that you're not only thinking about a topic but that you're also interested in broader thematic issues. Include a paragraph about why you're applying to that particular program. Does the program have a track record of placing students in good doctoral programs? Does it have a library or special collections division that houses material beneficial to your research interests? Does it have faculty members whose research interests align with yours? In short, leave no room for the committee to say, "Why is this person even applying here?" I hope it goes well. Message me if you need more help.

Earning a PhD after 9 years means you can tell people you graduated from the 27th grade.

No. Every school has its sins and controversies. I might disagree with one of the school's positions on an issue, but that's no reason to avoid the school altogether. I disapprove of Harvard allowing a leaker of classified information into it's program. But I also disapprove of Berkeley's position on the Ben Shapiro fiasco. These are still great schools with great research facilities. We should act like adults who can handle criticism toward our interests and not like children who weep for the safe space of Mommy's arms every time they get their feelings hurt.

I suggest reading David McCullough. As far as historical non-fiction goes, his prose style is unmatched. It's clear, concise, and effortless. Also, get a copy of William Strunk Jr.'s The Elements of Style and William Zinsser's On Writing Well. Amazon sells them used for less than two dollars each. They will be your sacred scripture.

Ignore it for now, but include it next time in the "writing expectations" portion of your syllabus. Not only should students apply standard American English, but as a matter of prose, +JMJ+ and PBUH are needless words that students should omit. But if +JMJ+ and PBUH somehow contribute to the argument (perhaps a paper on the evolution of religious acronyms?), then it shouldn't be a problem. As @Sigaba mentioned, if you address it now, students will feel that you're picking on them. You'll inventively get called a bigot for discriminating against them. Then you'll get a call from HR, and you'll be suspended for two weeks without pay, and reporters will be on your front step at 6AM the next morning.

I always start feeling guilty when I participate in social events or hang out with friends. I think, "You should be writing now. Yeah, you should definitely be writing now."

If pursuing a PhD is your goal, then an online MA is probably not the best option. Most academics treat the online MA as if the institutions offering them are unaccredited and not worth anyone's time. That you received your MA online shouldn't matter so as long as you produce substantive research. If you go the online MA route, just know that the PhD admissions committee will likely laugh you off the stage. But here's an important point: Give them good reason not to dismiss your application. Academics love to talk about having students from diverse backgrounds, yet they almost always give a pretentious smirk at online degrees. This means that you'll need research experience (go for publication) and that you'll need to secure that intern position you mentioned in the original post.

What's worse is that we'll never know if he actually committed espionage. The Iranian government is known for a lot of things, but practicing the theories of due process and innocent until proven guilty aren't among them. The article below from ten days ago (it also includes a transcribed interview with his wife) says the archives were public. If he did anything, my guess is that he stumbled upon a document that was supposed to be classified but wasn't. I don't know. Then again, we can't rationalize the irrational; it's quite possible that he did nothing wrong. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the Iranian government is nuts. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-china-xiyue-wang.html

First, perhaps it'll provide some comfort knowing that even the most advanced writers struggle with issues like this. It's difficult, plain and simple. It's never a breeze. Second, read, read, read. And when you read, pay particular attention to the structure of the text. Does the structure make sense? Does it flow? Is it logical? If you feel that a paragraph would've fit better in another place, write it in the margins. Don't be afraid to critique it. Third, take notes on what structures you like. Write your praises in the margins. This will give you a sense of what to emulate when writing papers.

How bizarre.

Your Arabic has to be excellent for a PhD program in North African history. Your French should also be spot-on. Moreover, if you're interested in early Islamic history, then your German also needs to be quite good. (Many secondary sources in early Islamic history are in German and have yet to be translated.) But yeah, I wouldn't consider a PhD in North African history with weak Arabic just like I wouldn't consider a PhD in East Asian history with weak Mandarin. Your best bet is to go the MA route.

Of course. A publication is a publication. Don't feel "less than" for doing it either. You have a leg up on most other applicants, because most other applicants have a blank CV coming out of their undergrad program.

Earning a PhD in the UK usually takes about three years. This is obviously attractive to anyone who has seen how long it takes to earn one in the United States. But what if you're interested in American history? More specifically, what if you're interested in American history but not from a British perspective? Your archives, conferences, and contacts would be 3,500 miles away. Is the trade-off worth it knowing that you'll finish in only three years? Do you know anyone who has done this?

I'll tackle this one. First, your philosophy training will probably lead you to ask big questions. And it's fine to ask the big questions. They need to be addressed. But historical research asks a particular question and uses primary sources to make an argument. The thesis is the argument they're making. Primary sources are sources from the period you are analyzing. (You can call these original documents, or things you examine when you want to do history.) Secondary sources on the other hand are sources that analyze the period or event after the fact. The Declaration of Independence and Locke's Two Treatises of Government are primary sources, but a book (or thesis or article) that asks how Locke influenced Jefferson's legal/political philosophy would be a secondary source. Historiography -- a fancy word that you'll read, hear, and have to use quite often -- is the history of history, that is, how historians have written about the past and what arguments have already been made about your topic. If you're asking how Locke influenced Jefferson's legal philosophy, then you need to read what's already been written about that question. Your argument can be entirely new, or you can disagree with an existing argument provided you have convincing evidence from primary sources. Historical research is therefore an ongoing debate involving a range of interpretations. This is historiography. If ten historians examine the same document, they'll likely interpret it ten different ways. This is doing history. And as I hope you'll find, it's a lot of fun to do. As for readings, just remember that you don't have to read the book from cover to cover. You can't. You don't have enough time. If the book is assigned to be discussed in class, then just read the introduction to find the thesis (also called the argument), methodology, and structure. Then read the conclusion, and then you're done. (This is useful: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/30968-reading-tips-for-graduate-students-in-history-programs/.) But if you're reading a book or article that you'll use in your thesis, then you'll of course want to read more of it. Anyway, I hope this was helpful. To echo what AP said a few posts earlier, if you're in an interdisciplinary program, then you won't apply historical methodology all the time. This is one methodology among many that you'll probably encounter.