TMP

I'm erring on the no side as well. Is there another person who is tenured in the history department with whom you'd like to have as an adviser? If you don't get a response before the application deadline, kindly frame your statement as that you are open to working with several faculty members without necessarily shining the flashlight on this particular individual. The professors can decide among themselves who will be your official adviser if they choose to accept you.

I am currently in my 6th year in the program. Let me tell you straight from the horse mouth the reality of PhD program, which is bit of a cult itself: I have seen students who make minimum or no effort to attend departmental seminars and academic talks. I have seen students spend far more time on their own courses when they are able to teach as instructor of record rather than their dissertations. I have seen students attempt to adjunct or tutor on the side. What happens to those students? They drop out or prolong their stay in the program because (A) the faculty already notice that the suffering quality of their work and thereby don't put much investment in those students, leading the students to feel more lost, leading to deciding to leave or/and (B) Students can't put enough work into their dissertations that they simply keep hitting the "snooze button" until their committees put their foot down and tell those student sto stick to a strict writing schedule to finish. Students decide that it's just all too much and then leave. If your primary concern is "staying relevant" in the student affairs or/and financial, then the PhD is not for you that this moment. You are truly expected to be 100% devoted to your coursework, exams and dissertation in order to attain the grace of the faculty you work with. Professors recognize when a graduate student's work is not up to par. They'll help a little to make sure that you're okay but if you don't improve, they will leave you to your own devices no matter how nice they are as people. The professors are very, very busy people and can only devote so much time to graduate students. No matter what, the PhD will always be there and you can decide when it is a good time to jump in the deep end.

@Jazlynne Sigaba offers excellent pointers that you should follow. @Sigaba and I are in the history discipline. FWIW, I honestly don't hear too many horror stories. I don't know if it's because of my department being pretty ethical and our department chair is quite fair. Establishing contacts with professors in the department and outside of the university will help balance the overall picture. For example, I was worried when I hear my exam committee arguing as I listened to their muffled voices from the outside. My undergrad adviser and a mentor at another university confirmed that the committee simply trying to come to a consensus in the decision even if one professor didn't want me to pass. My adviser tried very hard to pretend that the decision was mutual despite the obvious; it's just how it was (that the senior professor twisted the arms of the others, including my adviser). On the opposite end, when I hear something from the outside that I am not so sure of, I go right to my adviser and ask her and she'll clarify whatever I am confused about. It is true that graduate students do not get treated equally across the board. Somebody has to be the top and somebody has to be the bottom. Graduate students who fail to take their work, the discipline and the faculty seriously get themselves shuffled to the bottom, meaning less respect and attention from the faculty and funding down the road. It is true that one may work very hard on something only to learn that the project do not pass muster-- and usually that is because the graduate student does not hit the balance between "need to be totally independent" and "must absolutely ask for help every single step along the way" that is appropriate for her/his specific career stage. I cannot tell you so many times I have watch my peers fall in one of those extremes and struggle to find a good balance to get respect from the faculty, more often the "independent" route. In ways, the game is there but you don't have to play it completely. In fact, those who attempt to make every single little thing a game end up failing the entire game. The key is to recognize when it is necessary to jump in the arena and when it's better to sit on the bench and let the game play itself out. This approach will also benefit your overall mental health. Academic politics can be nasty but not any better than Wall Street. That said, some disciplines are kinder than others; some sub-fields are kinder than others. You best hope that your discipline or/and your sub-field is one of those that try to do things more ethically than others. The only way you can know is just ask the poeple involved.

Regardless of your medium (and I sure hope that whatever your profs see on your Facebook wall looks tame), it may be possible that this once-visiting professor is very, very busy trying to find a new job. Fall is also a job application season for many seeking professorships and those applications are overwhelmingly complex. Was this professor a young PhD without tenure? If so, I would move on,. Another option is to reach out to your major adviser to see if s/he can speak with that professor to get some information about your work with him/her for his/her own letter. Untenured professors generally hestitate to write for PhD applications; they are not quite (psychologically) secure enough to write their senior colleagues in support of your candidacy when they are trying to build their own careers. At this point, I would start conversations with other potential letter writers to gauge their interest in writing strong and positive letters for you.

Follow up @Sigaba's point. simply ask "Are you accepting new students?" Then run with that.... until you engage with current students to see how capable these "advisors" are at recruitment weekends.

Well, don't forget to apply to Ohio State.... ask me questions!

Likely not. But it is a question worth doubling checking with the graduate student coordinators. You have to be accepted by both departments to get into that joint program; but if one wants you and the other doesn't, then you're likely to be admitted into that program only.

It will come to you as you read. Just read and keep notes of each book's arguments and contributions to historiographical debates. You'll see patterns and connections.

You do realize that this thread is from 6 years ago.... and the OP may have already graduated (let's hope)?

Their job is to advocate on your behalf. Your job is to provide information that will help them contextualize your application better and that means having them know about your writing sample and any other concerns you may have. I have had many, many, many conversations with my letter writers over the years as they want to present my applications in the strongest possible positive light.

Keep in mind, professors do recognize that interests change. The point of the WS is to demonstrate your skills thus far as a historian-- how you integrate and analyze contemporary historical debates on the questions you're asking and how you use primary and secondary sources to support your argument. Your SoP will be the spokes-item of your present research interest and that's wha the profesosrs will judge on when determining your fit to the program. Make sure that your SoP clearly articulates how you moved from that topic of your WS to your present interest. Share these concerns with your letter writers and they'll be able to frame your application pacage better (they have far more leeway in space than you do).

Points well-taken. Welcome to the challenge of writing the SOP which should be able to demonstrate some familarity with the literature in your own field while being able to explain to non-specialists what you want to do....

Research

It happens ALL the time. For MA-level, you simply need to get solid, favorable letters of recommendation from your professors whom you've taken history classes with. Google a few relevant keywords and you'll see plenty of advice on how to reconnect with professors for getting a letter of recommendation. Professors understand that this task is part of their job. Beware that some might warn you of avoiding taking out loans and/or think through what kind of outcomes you hope to have at the end of the MA make sure that the time is worthwhile for you. (Don't get defensive but demonstrate appreciation for their concern and thought on their part.) Mention scholars, not books. The ideas in the books you have read belong to the scholars who wrote it, not the publisher who put the books all together for you. I never mentioned books in my SOP, especially that title take up space. Professors in your areas of interest will be familiar with the scholars' works that they won't need titles. (That's the beauty of working at research universities, they are expected to stay very up to date with many, many articles and books published every month, if not several times a year). As for language, yes, it's perfectly fine to include it if you have sufficient room for that particular program. In other programs, demonstrate it in your CV (just a line will do) or/and writing sample. As for the book titles in applications, keep everything in the original language. If you are paranoid about it and have room, use the brackets in English after the original. For example, Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf [My Struggle] (sorry, I'm a German historian to the core ) Your POIs will be the first to read your application and pass on their judgment to the Adcoms. Adoms will review more quickly as they are going to be mostly focused on building a good cohort and time will be running short.

Your native language will be taken into consideration. I think you may need to take the TOEFL as well for a US university. You'll need to check on the requirements. I know of israelis who have successfully been accepted in top PhD programs with degrees from TAU and Hebrew U. Your reading ability in Russian, BCS and Greek will be highly looked upon. You need to just focus on your statement of purpose. Make sure that you apply a year before you plan to enter in a PhD program as the bachelor's degee is required for registering in PhD programs. In your case, yes, apply in your third year. Use this year to consider writing and revising an appropriate 10-25 page writing sample for submission next fall. Please feel free to PM/DM me with questions-- I'm in Israel anyway and can respond in real time

Wait until you start applying for dissertation fellowships in your 3rd/4th year, especially if you have a topic that is wide-ranging and global/transnational in scope..... for me, the process was from August to March! But I made it part of my daily work routine so the feeling of ""omg is this ever going to end?" wasn't really there. Only when certain applications had glitches It's a good prep for the academic job market. Most important thing is to stay busy with other things to avoid burn out.

IMO, do mention the journal name Either way, your citation on your CV should be this: Works in Progress "Article Title," Journal Name (under review). OR "Article Title" (Submitted to journal for review). Do not put under "Publications" because it is not yet published.

In.... what context?

Americanists usually finish before other fields-- in 5 or 6 years because of easy access to archives in the US and fewer language requirements to deal with. That said, the 2 years devoted to coursework are really essential for teaching and obtaining a broader perspective on history. While I came in my PhD program knowing what I wanted to do my dissertation on, I cannot imagine how different my approaches would have been if I chose to do it my PhD in the UK. Also, you are truly on your own in the UK compared to the US program where professors are usually more available to provide mentoring and advising.

@serenade Writing dissertation proposals is different for everyone, unfortunately. I came in with a MA and that dissertation topic (coming out from my MA thesis) and knew pretty much what I wanted to write. For me, as a born-researcher, working on my dissertation proposal was far much more fun and easier than prepping for the comps. I barely stressed out. I will say that prepping for the comps definitely changed the way I wanted to entered in various conversations. If this is your first go at writing a proposal and haven't thought much about your dissertation since you started it will be challenging. My guess is that if you are able to demonstrate in clear ways your work contributes to the extant scholarship, particularly if the sources are relatively new or a different methodology that hadn't really be considered, you will likely be fine. Having prepped for the comps should have given you a clear sense of what is considered a clear, nuanced approach to the historical problem at hand, not a simplified one as undergraduate papers tend to do. The information coming out of your adviser's meeting sounds terrific. Yes, 2-3 times should be just fine. Remember, none of these professors expected to have to make time for your this semester so you will have to work with what they have on their plate. My professors certainly didn't and prioritized our meetings only when they knew for sure they had the energy and time for the discussions. You will soon find the last meeting for each to be like, "why are we here again? We've talked about everything, as it seems." The professors will use these meetings to measure your level of improvement, particularly if you are the type who feels more comfortable one-on-one than in a group (as I was). My adviser also said the same about not using writtens during the next round of oral; you will just have to be ready for whatever. That said, demonstrate your increased comfort level, ability to teach a survey course, and understanding of history and historiography during your meetings this semester and the committee will likely put more weight on your improvement as much as what actually happens on that day. As for questions, you might actually want to look back at old AP European history exam questions and see how you can answer them with a mix of historical facts and scholarly arguments. I remember how embarrassed I was when my adviser, also embarrassed, told me that a number of questions I was asked were based on undergraduate survey course final exams.... #facepalm

I responded to your question in the other section of the fora. Y You'd do very, very well to read this then. I used it to help me brush up the early modern period and overall preparation: worked like a charm for me-- really impressed my European history committee members. http://home.uchicago.edu/~icon/teach/index.html

Wow... this is what happens when flying across the pond to present a conference paper.... I could have walked you through the entire process but @Sigaba offered on-point advice that I likely would have given. I barely passed my writtens and failed my oral exams. My committee had hoped that I would redeem myself during the orals. My problem was the same as yours-- too much information and not enough synthesis. I suspect that 3 of 4 were willing to let me retake while the #4 had to be convinced. My adviser admitted that my dissertation prospectus (included in the exam portfolio) was the thing that saved me from getting kicked out. She also mentioned that the committee was concerned whether or not I was a good fit for the PhD program given (at the time) my hyper-specialized focus on details of history and not broad knowledge to teach an undergrad survey as well. That really woke me up. If you net out any reason why the committee really wants to kick you out, show them (not tell) why you are a good fit to continue onto the dissertation. I am surprised that your adviser is willing to go with it (although there might be politics involved...) as s/he is supposed to be your advocate unless s/he truly thinks very low of you. Which sounds like isn't the case. To your latest round of questions: 1) Do NOT re-take the writtens. However, my committee did recommend that revise the written exams during the interim; they wanted to see that I could make corrections and incorporate arguments and methods in the answers. I learned a tremendous while doing this so it may be worthwhile to do the revisions yourself and let the committee know that you are working on that. If they seemed positive, offer to share the revisions before the orals. 2) Absolutely not...... this is one of those things that you might spill over beer/wine later on.... When my adviser said that i was supposed to incorporate historiography, I looked at her blankly and said, "Oh, I didn't know that... the questions/directions weren't that clear enough...." She only gave me this look: 3) Interesting that suddenly all of them have backed off. I'm now wondering what kind power #3 is holding over the other two. It is pretty incredible to watch your adviser try to fight for you but struggles to stand up to colleagues. All of my committee members were willing to meet with me only twice during the 5 month (I initially took my exam at the end of spring semester and then again towards the end of fall semester). If you can really push your exam to January (if there are no rules about time limits) or even February, it'll give you time to meet with your committee at least once (I hope) while spreading out your studying and job-hunting. I also might suggest meeting with a counselor if you aren't already. While this period is continuation of heavy stress, it also brings opportunities for self-reflection. Talking with someone outside of your program and academics will help a lot.

Most definitely e-mail the Director of Graduate Studies or the graduate program coordinators. They will know the best. I know, I agree, such information should be on public domain but .... there is an issue of PhDs still trying to find jobs and tracking them down after they've "disappeared". As you receive responses, remember the following things: (A) Not everyone wants to go to into academia or get a job related to history after they finish. The PhD does take a lot out of people. So it is really not fair these days to judge a program's ability to place students in academic positions. You'll need to do a little more digging to go beyond the "grain of salt" approach.... and here's what you need to do: (1) Certainly fields do much better than others in obtaining jobs. For example, Middle Eastern historians are in demand in multiple sectors, not just the higher ed. It is tempting to take a relatively lucrative job with reasonable hours in DC than a tenure-track job in a rural area. (2) Department and university funding and outside fellowships do play critical roles helping the PhD student land a job. Programs with solid and guaranteed funding packages and a record of landing Fulbright, Social Sciences Research Council, and other major prestigious fellowships will do much better at placing their PhDs than programs with barely adequate funds. So, look at graduate students' ages and search their names on google for their Academia.edu profiles, which may or may not include their CVs, to see how well they are doing. (B) Understand that the faculty do play a role in preparing and placing PhDs, especially the adviser. Some professors excel at this type of mentorship while others don't give a damn and expect PhDs to figure everything out. So it is important to talk to graduate students when you visit the campus after acceptance about this.

Since the OP is new to history as a professional discipline, I'd recommend searching out for a syllabus for introduction to historiography and the like. I'm actualy out of the country so I don't have access to my bookshelves to remember the precise title/author of several books that I have found useful. Some were handbooks for research/writing history and others offer an introduction to the discipline and its history (aka historiography). Such introductions will give you a sense of how historians approach sources and ask questions. As a philosophy major, you're already quite well trained to analyze texts for arguments and structure. What you need to do now is learn to engage with actual facts and make the choices of actually whether or not to accept them to use for your argument. (My best friend was a philosophy major and our conversations sometime get a little too intense when we debate the "truth" behind sources to answer our big question at the time )

I would re-write the statements, only to see how much you have grown intellectually and as a writer. I have had to re-write my dissertation proposals multiple times from scratch and the difference is huge.