natsteel

I was sitting in class and just decided to check my email real quick. I saw an email from my POI. After I read it, I sat there for a few seconds trying to hold it all in and then I got up and burst out of the room. I jumped up and down the hallway a couple of times and then went to the bathroom to splash water on my face. Took me a good ten minutes to regain enough composure to go back into the classroom.

I personally have four friends/colleagues in my field who did UK PhDs (3 at Oxbridge, one at Stirling in Scotland), one of the four being American. 2 of them got TT jobs in the US at state schools after having already done a postdoc or VAP in the US. The third had lesser luck initially on the job market trying to secure a job in the US but eventually did secure a TT job in England after maybe 2-3 years. The fourth, the non-Oxbridge grad, ended up getting a prestigious postdoc in NYC and when that ended, he secured a job as an Asst. Editor at one of the most prestigious documentary editing projects in the US. All that is to say, doing your PhD in the UK does not automatically close the door on the US job market. It can make it a bit more difficult, though not by default. 

Another data point, if you want it:

Before you invest the effort and money, it's worth doing a bit of research in the particular districts you're interested in to see if they make any distinctions between MA degrees depending on accreditation, online v. in-person, and so forth. Most public systems I'm familiar with do not make these distinctions, but it doesn't hurt to double-check before you enroll.
If your ultimate goal is to apply to a PhD program, an online degree from Liberty is likely to be useless, or worse than useless. I'm on the admissions committee at a slightly-better than average R1, and over the years I've learned to be very, very skeptical of online graduate programs. So much of the intellectual growth in an MA program comes as a result of face-to-face seminar discussion, and that can only be approximated in an online program. I've seen very smart applicants with online degrees (due to life circumstances, deployment, and so forth), and there is something absent from their work that I've concluded is the result of missing out on the give-and-take of discussions with the faculty and on the academic debate that unfolds in seminar settings. I've also begun to suspect that many online graduate degrees are not always using their best faculty members to lead the online classes, and based on my admittedly small sample of graduates, I have some questions about the overall rigor of the online programs I've seen.
In the case of Liberty, those concerns are doubled. I don't hold the politics or worldview against the applicant (some faculty members might, I suppose, though I think only to a small degree.) A greater concern is the quality of the faculty, very few of whom appear to have published significantly and some of whom don't hold the PhD. A recommendation letter from a tenure-line faculty member who doesn't have a doctorate means nothing to me: How can someone accurately gauge an applicant's readiness for doctoral work when they haven't done it themselves?

At best, we're likely to take an applicant with an online degree from Liberty and invite them to join our MA program and to reapply to the PhD program in two years' time. Most of them take this invitation (to put it nicely) very, very badly. At worst, listing an online Liberty MA on your PhD application is like waving a large flag to the admissions committee that reads I do not understand this process very well.

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.

Application fees: $860
Transcripts: $128
GRE: $347
Mailing and copying: $50
Getting into a top graduate program: priceless.

Couldn't help myself... sorry

Total amount spent came to $1,385 to apply to 11 schools.

If funding is not an issue than an MA might be the way to go. That said, I am living proof that your undergrad institution is much less a factor than most people think, including Sigaba (IMHO).

I started at a community college and finished at a four-year city-based regional, commuter college and now I'm doing my PhD at Yale. I worried about my undergrad institution hurting me initially, but, in fact, three people from my undergrad history department got into Yale (2) and one to Princeton. One got into Michigan and another to KU, and the year before one got into Harvard. All funded PhDs, not MAs.

My sense is that Ivy League-type schools welcome candidates from outside the usual suspects especially as a means of diversifying cohorts. That said, the majority of my cohort here are from top undergrads (Stanford, Berkely, Columbia, etc...). Nevertheless, your undergrad institution's reputation will not take away from the quality of your work, which is why your writing sample and SOP need to be as strong as possible.

All this is not to say that pedigree plays no role. It does, though I think that it is diminishing. Either way, the doors to top PhD programs are absolutely NOT closed to worthy candidates from mid, lower, or even unranked public colleges and universities.

I don't know about STEM fields, but, in the Humanities, older students are looked upon less favorably because these schools are funding students under the assumption that they will then go out and get a tenure-track job somewhere. This improves their placement rate. If, after completing the PhD, they would be too old to be considered for tenure-track teaching positions, it makes less sense to these programs to use valuable (and increasingly scarce) funding on them.

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.

I am currently serving as a "mentor" in my history department. Being a senior, and having done pretty well during the application process, I am constantly being asked by students about the whole process. So, rather than spend an hour or more explaining to each individually, I am working on a sort-of rough guide structured around a timeline of the process. But, I am just one person, and I would really appreciate it if anyone was inclined to take a look and maybe suggest edits or additions. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and I am, of course, more than happy to share the document with fellow forum members.

NOTE: Because it is a direct link, clicking it will begin downloading the document. So, if you are wary of that for whatever reason, do not click the link below.

A direct link to the guide in .docx format here.

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.

Back in the day, BA-MA-PhD used to be the standard route... but no longer. EVERY one of my professors have said not to bother with an MA. Just look on department websites and you will see that most of the admissions information is geared toward those applying with only a BA and then they include additional information such as, "Those coming in with an MA...."

I know this is not the case for everyone and I might get flamed for saying this but I think those who have areas which may need improvement or are without a defined focus are the ones that benefit the most from going the MA route first. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some, like Katzenmusik, will be in a better position to get into a better PhD program after an MA than immediately after their BA. But PhD programs nowadays are designed primarily for those coming in with only a BA.

Basically, apply widely to MA as well as PhD programs to hedge your bets and then sit back and go crazy for four months with the rest of us waiting to hear...

I never thought it was strange. I just accepted it for what it was, a conventionality, at least among all academics with whom I've corresponded. I've adopted a policy of "Best" in informal emails among my cohort and familiar colleagues and "Best regards" in my formal emails to unfamiliar academics or institutions. 

Also, not to be a downer, but, whatever you do, don't open your SOP with a line like this. It's okay to be anxious or overwhelmed even this early in the process... You have a couple of months which can be spent looking into programs so if you can only do 1 per day, that's fine (as long as you don't procrastinate). Like vtstevie, I'd look over various departments' pages for fun, sometimes for hours.

I don't think it's a big deal to have a signature that says:

Firstname Lastname
Graduate Student, Department
University

But putting in individual fellowships seems a bit too much. But, that's just me... It seems a bunch of people did just justify your worry about being (or "seeming") pretentious.

ChibaCity is spot on. The advantages of being at a top tier program have a lot to do with resources (personal, professional, material, etc...). And while what NewEnglandNat is saying might be unpopular, it can only be ignored at one's own peril. To say that it's okay to go to a 2nd tier school because you want to "focus on teaching" at a public university is hardcore rationalization. I started at a community college as a first-generation college student and graduated from a small public university and have been lucky enough to end up at a PhD program near the top of the list. As someone above said, coming from a top 10 program no longer guarantees you a job. Ivy League graduates are applying for those teaching jobs at public universities. And as those universities rely more and more on adjuncts and become more and more desperate for funding, they care less about good teaching. I know most people I am friends with in my program are worried about the job market and most of them have or expect to have plan B's beyond public university jobs. Also at the risk of angering some people, Nat is right about most of the things he wrote and some board members would do well to heed what he's saying. That's not to say if you are in a program ranked #65 you should quit or not go if you're accepted into a program of that ranking. That is a personal decision. But it is to say that you should not go into something like that without being fully aware of your employment prospects and the reality of the situation in academia as it stands. 

The column is not about looking down on students for "wanting to go to college, loving learning, and wanting to read books" or trying to "quash [their] love of learning and reading." How would not pursuing a PhD in hopes of an academic career "quash" someone's "love of learning and reading?" Someone who loves learning and reading would presumably do that with or without going to grad school or a job in academia.

Pannapacker does go for shock value to some extent but that is for a very specific reason. Many undergraduate advisors do not tell their students who are considering graduate school about the realities of pursuing a job in academia. Many undergraduates who are advised about it do not take it seriously. That is why he uses such seemingly harsh language (though it often seems to appear harsh to those unfamiliar with what he's talking about). He is certainly not alone. Spend a week or two reading through the Chronicle of Higher Education forums and you will find that his views reflect the vast majority of faculty members there.

Unfortunately, academia has always been about the "elites and non-elites." You seem to imply that you thought academia was solely about merit or that it was at one time. If you look at the department websites in my field (History) of any regional public university, such as the one from which I got my BA, 90% of the faculty come from about 10 schools (some less). Yet, there are hundreds of programs producing PhDs in my field every year. There have never been so many PhDs. At the same time, university administrators continue to sacrifice full-time jobs for adjunct positions with minimal pay, no benefits, and no job security. So, while the number of PhDs grows, the number of jobs available decline.

I just saw a part of a job rejection letter someone posted on Twitter for a position in early American history which said the department had received 900 applications for one job. NINE HUNDRED!! Your odds of getting that job are 40x less than they are of getting into Yale's PhD program which received 450 applications for 20 positions. Even graduates from the top 10-15 programs in their field are having trouble getting jobs. The adjunct system will never go away or likely even lessen because there are so many PhDs willing to work for nothing just to have an academic job. I'm not saying that's wrong, but as long as there is a huge pool of unemployed PhDs willing to work for nothing that grows larger every year, administrators have no reason to change their way of doing things.

As young grad students or hopefuls we don't see what Pannapacker sees and is warning about. We are surrounded by faculty who got into great grad programs and got jobs, i.e., success stories. However, that is the exception not the rule. Too many students will take loans to go to schools whose degree will generally not be good enough to get a full-time job. They then end up with debt that must be repaid and the only thing they are qualified to do is to adjunct. By adding to that pool of exploitative laborers through advising, Pannapacker feels himself (and others) to be complicit in perpetuating the adjunct system which is killing academia both professionally and educationally. I would hardly call that "condescension." If anything, it's more like "tough love."

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.

Just for the record, I work on colonial America and got into Yale with the equivalent of a 161V and 146Q and 4.0AW. Exceptional writing sample, SOP, and LORs will outweigh mediocre GRE scores.

I can also suggest programs if you want to PM me with more specifics.

This has been a GREAT book for me: Graduate Study for the Twenty-First Century: How to Build an Academic Career in the Humanities


I strongly, strongly endorse it.

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.

I didn't find that to be the case. I sent out 12 or 13 feeler emails to POIs inquiring about whether they were taking students and all but one responded and more than half led to further correspondence. I, too, was worried about wasting money on applications that had no chance. By sending out those emails, I found out that 3 of the POIs I was considering were planning to retire within the next 1-3 years and so weren't taking new students. I started sending out emails the first week of September and I've always thought of contacting POIs for this purpose as being the final step in the process of narrowing down your list of schools. Of course, YMMV.

Thanks, vt and viggo for the kind words about the guide I put together last year. Ever since writing it, I've been asked to give seminars on the topic at CUNY, at which I give out the guide at the end. It's basically everything I learned about the process (a lot of it from my fellow members of GradCafe). It took a little bit of time to put together, but I'm glad someone is finding it and finding it useful.

As for the application fees, don't forget that many school (though not CUNY and not, IIRC, Stanford) offer fee waivers. However, most don't publicize this fact for obvious reasons. It often takes real digging through their website to find it. To get them, you are usually required to submit either a letter from your financial aid office (verifying your Pell Grant eligibility) or your previous year's tax return. IIRC, I got waivers at about 5 of the 11 schools to which I applied, including the one to which I eventually ended up attending (if I was a psychic, I could've saved around $700 in application fees).

You should do all the things in it that you would in a standard review. Put the book in its historiographic context, break down the argument, methodology, source base, and cover its strengths and weaknesses. Don't make it personal. The committee should understand why that book has shaped your understanding of the kind of work you want to do after they've read your personal statement, so you don't need to make that explicit in your review.

Perhaps the mods could post a sticky in the welcome forum with a brief acronym glossary for newcomers, i.e., POI, PA, LOR, adcomm, etc...

Well put. And, yes, Sigaba, my view, I would say, is the standard among faculty I've known well at both institutions I've been at (a regional public college and a large R1). All three of my UG mentors discussed the job prospects after getting a PhD in History. And, though, I knew about it already, I am glad they did. That said, they encouraged me to apply. I would not (and did not say I would) tell a student not to apply. I did say, however, that I would certainly do my best to make sure they have as much information as possible before they make a decision. And that includes information about the job market because that is the information that most UG's don't seem to have. Not all UGs read CHE or the statistical reports from their field's national association. And, despite giving them that information, I suspect that most would still apply anyway, and I would have no problem with that whatsoever.

You are worried, quite rightly, about what if a late-bloomer never gets the chance to bloom. I, however, am worried about a student ending up with a PhD, $60,000 in debt, and a job adjuncting for $2000/course with no health insurance and no guarantee of employment next semester, which is way more common than unremarkable undergrads who turn into TT faculty.

I appreciate your idealism. I really do. I wish the corporatization of academia wasn't making it so hard for people to make livable careers as history faculty. But that is not the reality and I don't appreciate being characterized as a dream squasher simply because I said I would inform students as to the prospects of the career they are choosing. I would expect faculty in any field would do the same whether its History, Computer Science, or Accounting.