natsteel

I am exactly the same as LateAntique and rockchalk. However, I am an older undergrad at 34 years old. My closest professors/advisors are in their 60s and though they sign their emails with their first names, I just have too much respect for them to refer to them by their first name. Perhaps when I continue communication with them after leaving for grad school, but, even then, I highly doubt it.

From what I've found in a very cursory search (so take it for what it's worth), he is not directly quoted as saying that. However, someone who knew him recalled what he had said: "Wilson was once asked how long it took him to write a speech. He answered, 'That depends. If I am to speak 10 minutes, I need a week for preparation. If 15 minutes, 3 days. If half hour, two days. If an hour, I am ready now.'"

100 words?!???!!! That's a far bigger challenge than writing a 3-page SOP.

I was just wondering how many of you received requests for on-campus or phone interviews? I am a history major so if you are in a related field, I would appreciate a response. I am just trying to gauge the likelihood of being asked to interview, since I never see it mentioned on many schools' websites. If possible, can you say which school and department requested the interview?

Yeah, e-Permits are very useful. I routinely take 3 or even 4 classes a semester outside of City, my "home school"

I'm only a Classics minor, but with Latin. My main field is early American history. I entered university torn between philosophy and classics. Anyway, I think it's accepted "wisdom" that in bad economic times applications to grad schools go up since many people see grad school as a way of putting off entering a horrible job market. Though I can't imagine that those people are serious candidates at top schools so I guess it clogs up the middle tier more than top tier.

Maybe a little late but CUNY schools' admissions offices do NOT communicate in that way. Baruch will NOT know that you have also applied to Hunter or vice versa.

About reading in the field outside of coursework... If you do this and show it in your SOP you will appear to be a more attractive candidate. To complete a PHD you really have to love whatever it is that you're studying and showing that you are interested in your field outside of what you have to do in class shows them that you have that quality. I don't know what specific field you want to study, but, usually, in most fields, articles will be published every once in a while which detail recent trends of the field and issues that remain unresolved. These kinds of "state of the field" articles will let you know what's been going on in the field. If you're not sure where to look, ask one of your professors in the field if he/she knows of such a recent article that would help you get an overview of work currently being done in the field. And you should also have at least a broad outline of the historiographical trends of the period. For example, in US Colonial/early Republic, the 1920s-1940s saw the Progressive approach hold sway, then a consensus school emerged in the 1950s and early 1960s, followed by the neo-Whig rise of intellectual history and the republicanism v. liberalism debate, and, alongside that, in the 1970s and 1980s, there was the new social history. Just knowing the field's development and the questions currently being explored will help you to develop your own research interests and questions and will also show your professors and adcoms that you are self-motivated and enthusiastic about your field.

tron, are they now discouraged about you even attending grad school because of the SOP or just discouraged about the SOP. Have they said something like, "Maybe you shouldn't go to grad school?" That would seem a serious turnaround and I wonder how bad an SOP could be to occasion that. Did you ask them exactly what they didn't like about it? Anyway, I would search the web if I was you for information and advice on writing an SOP. There's tons of it and most of it is good. Here is what I have gleaned from my searches: 1)It should not be a personal statement, i.e. "When I was 8 years old, etc..." unless it directly relates to your research interests. 2) It should detail your research interests. They will not expect them to be fully formed but you should know what period and country you want to study and possibly an area within that. For example, "My research interests lie mainly in the U.S. colonial and early republic periods. I would like to focus my inquiry on the social and political effects of the War for Independence on average American citizens both during the war and immediately after." Or something like that. Feel free to include another research interest possibly in a slightly different but related period with which you are familiar. They want to see that you have an idea of what you want to do but not that you are inflexible or close-minded and that it's the only thing you know about or are interested in. 3) You should also show that you have done your homework on the department and the faculty. You should be able to say which professor(s) you would like to work with, and, most importantly, why. Show that you are familiar with their work and write about what it is about their work that interests you, i.e. their methodology, their approach, specific books or articles. Don't ass-kiss, but show that you have done some reading in the field outside of your class requirements, which you should be doing anyway if you're really serious about grad school or your field. As for the department, perhaps they are known for a specific approach or have had some distinguished works published recently. You should show an awareness of these things. Don't think you can write one SOP that you can then send out to 8 schools. You should have at least 1-3 paragraphs tailored for each school including the stuff mentioned above. Now keep in mind that I am only getting ready to apply next year but have been collecting advice for the last two years and this is the some of the stuff I have come across. Best of luck to both of you.

At my large, urban east coast university, the "honors thesis" is optional in the history department. There is no thesis requirement for regular history majors. However, you must be approved to begin the honors thesis. It consists of a one-semester research colloquium, for which you receive three credits. It used to be a semester sequence. Either way, if your thesis is accepted you graduate "with Honors in History."

That pretty much sums it up. Though like a previous poster said, we all think we can beat the odds. But those are pretty long odds that get longer each year as the pool of PhDs continues to grow. Budding Americanists are the most fucked of all, of which I am one. The post above which says you are out-of-date if you don't consider culture, race, and gender was absolutely correct... sadly.

That made me laugh out loud. I guess that's why you chem grads get the big stipends. Ideas just don't compare with molecules, I guess. "Stuff that is real..." :roll:

Thanks for the reply, Val. I plan on applying to about 8-10 schools from different tiers... and, of course, I'm only considering programs that have advisors in my field whom I would like to work with. But considering the expensive nature of the applications I don't want to waste money by applying to Top 10 schools if I would have no realistic chance of getting in. I know alot has to do with your LORs, statement, and writing sample but I can't help but think that I am at a serious disadvantage in relation to other applicants due to the nature of my undergad institution. I take heart from your reply, and it reinforces what my advisor told me, but he doesn't teach grad school so I wasn't sure if he really knew how admissions worked nowadays. Thanks.

Can I ask how you guys are choosing where to apply? I don't mean this in the regular sense, but how are you determining which level of program, i.e. Top 50, Top 30, Top 10, you have a realistic shot at getting in at? For those at more prestigious 4-year schools, they probably know they have a good shot at a Top 10 or 15 program if they also have the requisite numbers. But what about for someone at a large public university? I am coming out of CUNY and will likely end up with a 3.87 or better GPA overall, 4.0 in history with honors (through 3-semester thesis sequence), have stellar letters including 2 from my field (Early American history) including my advisor who is a PP winner and another whom is highly visible and well-respected in my field. I will also have relevant research experience through the thesis and also having worked as the research assistant for my advisor on his next book. I know both of the professors are willing to go, and have gone, far out of their way for me time and time again, especially my advisor. I have yet to take the GREs but on a few practice tests I have scored around 640 without having done any preparation yet. My question is: Do I, as someone coming out of a very large public university, have the ability to compete for a top 10 or top 20 graduate program in history, if the top 10 or 20 school has an advisor in my field willing to take me on? Or is that pie-in-the-sky thinking considering all the competition from students from far better undergraduate schools? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I think that what it comes down to is this... if a program is not willing to fully fund you + stipend it means they don't want you. My advisor, who is a well-known historian in his field and is involved in hiring for the department, tells me that you have to go to the best school possible. He's seen dozens of candidates come in for jobs from schools he's never heard of and he told me, "I can't see these people ever getting a job teaching anywhere." And I'm not talking about a tenure-track position, even adjuncting. He also tells me, like every professor should, that under no circumstances should anyone take on debt for a graduate degree... the earning potential for the average PhD is just not enough to cover 50k+ in loans. I also agree with the previous poster about quality of schools... I go to a public university and most of my professors got either their undergraduate or, mostly, their graduate degrees from Ivy League schools. If you are coming out of a school not in the Top 20 you are at a serious handicap unless you have a relatively stellar record of publishing and the like. To take out loans simply to pay for tuition at a a school outside even the Top 20 is financial suicide. The nature of graduate school and the profession itself has changed so radically as well that alot of professors who have been at their posts for 10-20 years simply do not know enough about how the current system works to advise their students properly. No one should go to graduate school until they understand that there is the very real and highly likely probability that they could, literally, end up as an adjunct at a community college. In the Humanities, your employability is primarily determined by the school you attended (and, therefore, the network you have developed) and your publishing record. Not to mention that you absolutely cannot have even the possibility of a real career in academe without being absolutely open to picking up and moving anywhere at anytime. This article may be sensationalist and distort some of the issues but, in all reality, the outlook for most people pursuing a PhD in the Humanities, especially outside Top 20 schools, is horrifyingly bleak, and even worse for those who are going into massive debt because of it. My advisor tells me, and I hope, that I have every chance of getting into a Top 10 program and I know beyond a doubt that pursuing the PhD is what I want to do... However, should I not get full funding+stipend anywhere, I, simply, will not be going. It would absolutely crush me, but, being a bit older, I realize that you MUST take the long view. I've read too many horror stories over on the Chronicle forums to just blow these kinds of warnings off. If you think I might be exaggerating, go to chronicle.com and check out the forums or even post a question and see what they tell you. Sadly, the decision to pursue a PhD nowadays is no longer a choice which can be made idealistically and naively.

Prospectus, I will wholeheartedly concur with the previous posters and encourage you to take what they say seriously. I'll be going to graduate school for American history in two years despite knowing that perhaps no field is more saturated with PhDs willing to take any adjunct position at a CC possible and be grateful for it. I would say either get your state certification or go for the full PhD... though I should pass on the same warnings to you about going for a PhD as I've gotten. 1) There are no jobs. American history PhDs are a dime a dozen and jobs aren't. 2) You should never, under any circumstances, take on debt for history PhD. If a school isn't willing to offer you full funding + stipend then they don't want you or, worse, only want your money. There are many more but these two are the most important. If you absolutely can't imagine yourself doing anything else, then consider it, but if you think you might be just as happy teaching high school then by all means, do that. You'll have more job security and make far more money. Good luck!

Here is an article from the AHA regarding the job market for History PhDs: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2009/0901/0901new1.cfm It includes this graph: