abc

Ok, so now it's an actual choice (between Columbia and Michigan). You need to figure out: *Which faculty (at-large) will actually support you as you, whether or not your interests stay the same or change *In what type of intellectual atmosphere do you thrive *Where do you want to live and where can you live on the stipend It's about the balance between them all, and only you can decide which attributes are most important to you. Basically you need to rank the faculty, the intellectual community, and the location and determine how to weigh each. Just make sure to tell whichever department you turn down the real reason why, especially if it's location (they won't care on a personal level, but it matters for strategic decision making).

I think there is a big difference between, one the hand, turning down the schools you know you're not going to attend while keeping others in hand and, on the other hand, holding on to, say, 10 acceptances when you know you're not really considering 5. I think it's fair to ask accepted students to turn down the schools they know they won't be going to and opening up those spots earlier. If you're still debating between several programs, fine, but if you've made a decision or narrowed the pool, it's not asking that much to turn down the ones you absolutely know you wouldn't go to. I think what missycari's situation is quite reasonable; I think what Minnesotan is talking about are the people who know they''re going to School X but don't inform Schools Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W until the morning of April 15. To me, those are qualitatively different situations and actions.

Sometimes the information about how to decline comes in a follow-up email/letter. I think it's important to decline politely, but also be open if there is an objective reason for declining (e.g., I chose a program that funded me or my projected advisor is leaving or similar "clear cut" reasons). This can be important feedback for a program to know, for example, that they ought to shape up their funding or that you were sold on them except that an important person is leaving. In these examples, you're not telling them something they don't know but, especially in the case of funding, you may be giving them vital data on which to base future decisions or make arguments to the university about new policies.

History of Higher Education is usually a subfield within History of Education, which is often (though not exclusively) found in ed schools. At Harvard, Julie Reuben come to mind. At Stanford, David Labaree is working on history of higher ed. At Wisconsin, Adam Nelson does higher ed. Depending on the school, you may be able to do a joint PhD in History and Education. At others, that may not be possible. Some ed schools will require doing a MA or doctoral minor in history and some history departments may allow you to do the reverse in the education. What's better for jobs? Well, history departments are less likely to hire people from Ed Schools but that's not always the case. Ed schools are likely to hire either from ed schools or history programs. There are more jobs in ed schools but that often means teaching "foundation" courses rather than straight up history classes.

You're definitely not a failure!!! From talking to students there, it seems like the decisions about who does get the university fellowships is rather arbitrary and no one in the history department can explain how the grad school selects the recipients. One student told me the best people in his/her cohort did not fellowships though those people have found funding through a different department. It seems crazy that the history department takes so many more students than they can fund. This concerns me a great deal and my potential advisor has yet to say anything that truly allays my fear of getting stuck a) paying tuition, having to work extensively to pay my living expenses, and c) taking forever to finish.

I think you have to find the right balance between the here and now and the future. The future academic life depends fully on the grad school experience and on graduating. You need to figure out which place is one where you can be happy while you pursue your goals and one that will push you toward the achievement of those goals. If, for example, you are prone to Seasonal Affectiveness Disorder (not uncommon in northern cold climates) than going to a high ranked program in a cold, dark place is not a good idea, even if it's the best program in your field. If seeing sunshine all the time will weaken your resolve to stay inside and write papers, then perhaps the nice warm sunny place is not for you. I went to undergrad in a cold northern place and did my MA in a sunny temperate place. I could work equally well in each but the tradeoffs are different. I think it's easy to underemphasize the isolating tendencies of grad school. It's easy to say it won't happen to me and even if it does I love books and that will be enough. But it's hard to do your best work when you are frustrated that you have no one to spend time with outside of class and the library. Most of my college friends are in grad school and I know several who, in hindsight, say they should have trusted their instincts about the kind of environment in which they work best and minimized the impact of rankings on their decision making process. Determine where the students who graduate from each program to ensure it's a good place, then so figure out what kind of community you want to be a part of, and trust your gut about the best place for you.

Wisconsin is in the midst of a major funding crisis (as a university) which partially explains why the funding there pales in comparison to many schools. No department in Madison has excellent funding, but the history department is not exactly in the top bin within the school. This stems from the fact that they admit more students than they can fund via TAships in their own department. Faculty there have lamented the problem to me, but it doesn't sound like it's going to change soon. Has anyone heard back about the university fellowships? Professors told me there would be more this year and if you get one of those, you are pretty set, or as set as one can be at Wisconsin. I spoke with several students there and got mixed reports about how the funding plays out. It sounds like some students have managed to find themselves funding in other departments, while others have struggled. One told me that I should come if I get funding, but don't (or think very seriously about what it will mean) if I don't get funding. The time to degree seems to get extended because of funding issues, but also (according to students there) because of the MA coursework, MA thesis, languages, and doctoral minor requirements (no one stays on schedule, they said). I'm not sure what I'm going to do about Wisconsin, especially if no funding materializes. I'm very wary of the situation there and the potential for the 8-10 year PhD but if I don't get in anywhere else...my advisor seems great and there are good intellectual resources, but I'm very worried about the funding.

Definitely ask. Your advisor should be able to give you that info or direct you to someone (the grad program director etc) who can. Make sure to ask what how your advisor's students have done as well as what the placement stats for the program as a whole is. The reference your advisor gives is really important and it's key to know how his/her students have done. I know one historian at NYU (not European though) who is well known for introducing her students to people and making sure they get jobs. Not all advisors are as aggressive or proactive.

What field are you in? I think the difference in rankings are a little spurious at the top. I'm not sure there is a significant prestige difference between 8 or so spots in the top 20. The real question is which program is better for you? The number of faculty could be an issue but so could access to resources and archives. One of the potential advantages to NYU (again, depends on your field) is access to archives. If your sources are in the same city as the one in which you live, that can be a big bonus. IF you're working on Gerald Ford or the American auto industry, then Ann Arbor may offer better access to the primary sources you'll need; if you're working on other things, New York (and the easy access to most east coast cities) may be more helpful along the way. I think one of the advantages to many east coast institutions is easy/easier access to archives for many topics (including but definitely not limited to the Library of Congress/National Archives). This, of course, assumes you're interested in American history. The other question is: how much uncertainty are you willing to live with? You could commit to NYU and know where you're going (and start getting to know people, figure out where you'll live, etc), you could wait until April 15th and hopefully get to make a decision or you could wait until April 15th and end up in the same place you are now (and just postpone the getting to a know a place stuff for a month). This isn't to sound callous, just to note that some people would prefer waiting and other people would prefer not to stay in limbo. It kind of depends on who you and what you like better. Michigan may know more by early April (if people commit or decline a few weeks after their visit weekend) or they may not know until April 15. My understanding is that they didn't take anyone off the waitlist last year, but in years prior they have. So it's hard to say what will happen this year and when they may know. But they may have a sense by early April so you could call them, tell them you have an offer from NYU and would like to know your chances at Michigan before deciding/committing. Good luck!

Congrats on getting in! I think the opposite side of the coin from fit is that when you go out on the job market, your advisor's letter (and connections) are critical. My MA advisor told me not to discount program rank but to focus on who my advisor and supporting cast would be. In other words, when you send out job applications, it's not that name of the program doesn't matter at all, but name of the advisor matters a lot more. I don't know what field you're in, but if the person at Utah is a top notch person in your area (which this person seems to be) and supports you, then I think you can go far with that. Besides as long as they are offering you funding, you can start there and see how it goes. You could always leave with a masters if you find that it's not as good as you thought it would be.

For those Indiana acceptances out there, I was talking to a grad student today (not at Indiana) who was practically an advertisement for the Indiana program, lol. He was saying that he works with a prof (at a different university) who had taught at Indiana and maintains good connections with the faculty there who have been a tremendous help to him in his work (Progressive era stuff, which I think at least one person here mentioned being in). Just really nice things to say about their faculty there, which was nice to hear (and made me wish my interests fit better with their faculty, ah well).

My understanding is that Princeton and Penn have some sort of exchange program and it is possible to take classes at the other. I don't know if this holds for just certain departments or any classes, however. It's certainly worth asking his prospective advisor.

I can't keep all the applications straight, but did Michigan ask about certain undergrad fellowships/research opportunities? If you had one of those, maybe that puts you in the "disadvantaged and minority candidate pile." Or maybe they don't have a lot of people from Idaho and you make their numbers more diverse! Keep in mind that Michigan was involved in the affirmative action cases and had to retool their entire admissions process to try and figure out how to attract and accept minority candidates without directly asking, giving points, and the like. Hence their diversity essay in the graduate application. Maybe you wrote about something that lets them nominate you? Whatever the reason, it'd be cool if you got it.

I wouldn't trust that anything on their application website, transcripts or otherwise, is accurate. Looking again, I am reminded that they posted that they received my GRE scores 4 times. I don't know how this is possible. Maybe they put other people's scores in my file and messed both my file and other people's files up. Who knows. But definitely a poorly configured system. I really like the places that contacted me to say that my application was complete rather than assuming all was well until notified otherwise. I know it's more work for them, but I appreciated it. I'd love to see all schools take writing samples online and find a way to send electronic transcripts securely, thus eliminating the need to mail anything in.

That's wonderful. Congratulations.

I don't think we disagree. My point was that fitting the type would help you and not fitting would create extra hurdles. In some ways our profiles are similar -- I went to a SLAC (more well known but no faculty directly related to my interests and no one really familiar with graduate admissions at this point in time), I also had a 670 verbal and 6 writing, a 3.9 GPA, and I have a master's degree. But it's been 7 years since I graduated from college and my MA (GPA 4.0) falls in that nether world of area studies such that I took history classes but if you don't look at the transcript, you don't know that from the label. My area of interest is vastly understudied and very few people in history departments work on it (for a variety of reasons most who study it end up in other departments). I knew this going in and thought I had made a compelling case for drawing on the work of multiple faculty. I guess not. And CSO my point is not to complain but to vent, I think there's an important difference. When we vent, we know all can expect to get is sympathy (if that) and maybe some relief by expressing our feelings. It's not like I think my comments here are going to change anything. I think many of us who haven't gotten in are sharing a frustration about having put our best foot forward only to find that it's unable to take a step. There's something to be said about the vet school rejection (keeping in mind there are only 27 vet schools in the U.S.) that tells candidates how they can improve their application in the future (more zoology classes, more time with animals, better interviewing, whatever). It's pretty common for people to apply to vet schools 2-3 times before they get in. The difference between that and grad school is that they have information to work with. It's not a guarantee of a better outcome but knowledge they can use to strengthen their application.

My interaction with the Grad School office was fine, if slow. My interaction with the department contact was poor. I sent my writing sample with delivery confirmation and the postal service messed it up (tracking said it arrived in Philly but never said it arrived at its destination). I emailed Joan Plonski and never received a response. I called the office and only got a curt "if it's missing, we'll call you." It wasn't very reassuring. Maybe it never arrived and my application wasn't really considered. Who knows. But they were much more disorganized than any other school to which I applied.

I don't know if the timing of the Penn rejections means anything other than the fact that they actually coordinated with the graduate school this year. Last year, they admitted people around 2/26 but didn't inform rejected candidates until late March. Not to burst the randomness bubble of condolences, but I think there are "types" that are much more likely to get in. From what I've gleaned, history majors at research universities with high GPAs and good GREs who wrote theses (then used as writing samples) with top scholars in hot subfields who vouch for them in LORs and to their friends at the applicant's school and then apply as a senior or after 1-2 years out are much better off than anyone else. This is not to say other people don't get in, it's just a lot harder if you don't conform to the type. If you are the type minus one, you've still got a good shot. But if you're more untraditional and you can't go back and change your major or your undergrad institution or not doing a thesis or not taking time to off to work, it's much harder. I think that's where the MA if it's in history comes in. It's a way to establish the credentials you need and get the LORs from the right people who can compare you to other grad students. Just as an example from Political Science, a friend of mine graduated from a top 25 university and went on to Oxford to complete an MPhil in an area studies. The first time out, she was rejected by every PoliSci department. She stayed at Oxford, completed another MPhil but this time in PoliSci and then got into 3/4 of the programs to which she applied. She's stated very clearly that while she learned stuff doing the second MPhil, the coursework was just more of the same as she had done but compiled under a different heading. But it was the window dressing that mattered for the applications.

I didn't get into Penn. It sounds like they're sending out the rejections first.

I'm also one of the Michigan waitlistees....and would gladly take a spot if one opened up. Does anyone know how they use their waitlist -- is it ranked or is there some other mechanism for deciding who gets a spot? I haven't heard from anywhere else yet, and I assume that having not heard from Princeton at this point means I didn't get in. It's past 5 pm on the east coast, so I have to imagine they've sent out all their acceptance emails.