TMP

And this will likely be reinforced by the fact that no one will ever admit to having any failures, struggling with writing, getting any papers rejected, etc. It's like looking at everyone's shining Facebook pictures, but not realizing they don't represent anyone's reality. I so wish everyone would stop pretending they are perfect and only admitting the slightest blemishes in private, whispering in a back room. Everyone looks at others and only sees the successes on the outside, not the struggles on the inside, but everyone struggles with something. THIS! Once I started hearing some people in my program complaining about how I appeared to have my act together and viewed me as "know it all," I was shocked and upset. Since then, I've had to admit my struggles publicly to show that I don't always have my stuff together and do need help sometimes. There are certain areas where I'm not terrific (class discussions and preparing for exams) and other areas where I'm comfortable handling (research, writing grant applications). Nobody is perfect. Everyone struggles with something; even professors have their particular areas of strengths that they play up. Try talking to some of the more senior students; they were in your shoes once. Ask how they got through their first semester. You might get answers like "I don't know... I just try to repress that memory..." but everyone knows that they just have to keep swimming because life doesn't have STOP button.

When you are funded by the university, it is expected that you focus on your studies, particularly on a fellowship. A typical funding package would include BOTH tuition waiver and stipend for Z of years. How they get paid varies-- either by fellowship or teaching assistantship or research assistantship in any given year.

Go to a program that you intend to graduate from. It's very difficult to "transfer" PhD program unless there's a real academic reason for doing so- or you didn't get funding and need to apply to a PhD program with funding.

I agree. It all depends on your funding. You might be able to find a RA-ship that will allow you to work from distance or TA-ship for an online course. My program allows graduate students who have passed their exams to teach online courses; a number of them do for research or family reasons. Also, for the exchange program, there is still a chance that the other program may not offer enough courses to meet your needs. Regardless, be on the err side and plan on being at your PHD institution for the duration of your program with the exception of external fellowships.

Have you looked for pre-modern Japanese historian to work with? Ideally, you'd want to find a program that has a global/international history component to it for methodological and theoretical foundations. It's worth e-mailing some of scholars in early modern/ancient Asian history and get their suggestions of where you might look. You might be pleasantly surprised.

You're running really short on time for this cycle if that's what you're aiming to do if you claim to have zero to little understanding of American historiography as well as trends in urban history. Since when did you change your interest and why? What's the connection between your previous background to this sudden interest in urban history? To American history? You might want to go through back issues of Journal of Urban History to give you a sense of what's happening in the field. You'll have to be able to answer that question as you write your research statement. Don't worry about your writing sample- your writing sample is a demonstration of your potential as a scholar, to be able to research, use primary sources, and write history.

I don't know if anyone has gone through this particular situation but I'll feel out. I suffer from severe depression and anxiety; I'm doing really well now with the meds and a great team of professionals. Ideas and advice will be appreciated. The story: I barely passed my written exam. Part of it was due to the wording of the questions not being very clear how the essays were to be written/structured. The other part was making a lot of mistakes (overconfidence took over my mind). My committee let me take the oral exam with the assumption that I would know how to fix my mistakes during the conversation. I ended up failing my oral exam with an opportunity for a re-take. I spent the entire summer studying again. My committee wanted me to correct my mistakes, which I did and now have passed those corrections with flying colors. Now we are supposed to schedule an oral exam. I met with three of my committee members individually and the meetings went solid for most part and everyone feels comfortable moving me forward. Except for my meeting with my adviser. I literally had a stress breakdown as she "examined" me. My adviser got really worried and wondered if the oral exam format is really right for me even though the Graduate School has in its policy that second exams must be oral exams and observed by an outside representative of the Graduate faculty. I was going to fill out the form to take my exam that afternoon but... I decided not to. The stakes are pretty high because A) my committee claims that they're looking for my knowledge of A and B but it's like dealing with a four-headed dragon, not one because each had a specific strategy for handling their questions. What I can say to Committee Member 1 will not fly with Committee Member 3 while Committee Member 2 is listening for something specific that Committee Member 1 doesn't care for; and B ) I have a real performance anxiety. A lot of times I deal with it because I know I can always do X again or have a semi-script in hand. This time, this is it. If I fail, I'm done and out. My adviser's biggest concern at the moment is the perception of the outside representative appointed by the Graduate School to oversee the exam of me, especially if I had a random nervous breakdown. My confidence is now in the hole after working so hard all summer to build it back up. This whole thing is rough on me because it's literally my only hurdle in this entire PhD program. I have the dissertation prospectus approved, finished all of my coursework, and have gotten a good check of dissertation research done. The committee know it and really want to pass me so we all can move on with our lives. My adviser wants look into petitioning the Graduate School for an alternative route to this kind of exam format though I'm not sure what exactly. Anyone experienced anything like this-- with a difficult committee and/or serious performance anxiety for the oral exam?

- Should I apply for MA programs first? I was kind of thinking I ought to do that, but, firstly, I can't really fund it myself, and secondly, I haven't found a lot of programs that are strong in the areas that I'm interested in. Does anyone know of any? No, you don't need to do that. One master's is enough especially that you have demonstrated yourself perfectly capable of doing well in history courses. Go ahead and apply for the PhD. - What exactly should I send as a writing sample? I haven't done any writing in the history classes I've taken using primary sources, it's all been historiographical essays. Should I make an effort to take a class next semester where I do write a paper using primary sources? Yes, find a research-based class, either in area studies program or the History department. If there isn't such a class, might you be able to find a history professor willing to reserve an independent study in which you can produce a paper using primary sources in Czech and/or Slovak? I realize that it may be hard to access Czech/Slovak language primary sources from the US, you can use your statement of purpose to explain where/how you have acquired those languages. - Is it a problem that I've only been taking US history classes at the graduate level, when I'm interested in applying to programs to study modern Europe? Should I take a class next semester somewhat more directly related to my interests? (The university I'm at now doesn't really have anything in East/Central Europe, though.)Any kind of European history course is fine. The most important thing is that you can demonstrate your basic understanding of the field in your writing sample and statement of purpose. - Will I be dramatically more likely to be accepted to history graduate programs once I've been teaching history in high school for a few years?No more or less but it may make you a more attractive candidate for a TA-ship than a fellowship for your first year funding, which you don't want if you can. - I have a general idea of departments that have strong East/Central Europe programs, but does anyone have specific recommendations? Definitely University of Illinois and University of Chicago.

Major difference? No less than 150 pages difference between a MA thesis and a PhD dissertation. And a lot more primary sources. And 100x more footnotes.

If you are interested in East Asia, you'll definitely want to get your languages together. We have had applicants on this forum who have done quite bit of language training as their primary focus prior to applying for the PhD. As you know well from studying Korean, studying Asian languages can be quite time consuming (compared to French) and the PhD program by itself is demanding as it is. The more proficient you can be in Korean and Japanese, the better off you'll be for yourself and your PhD adviser. Language training tend to be a major culprit for why students in East Asian history take longer than most to finish (especially in my program).

If you can't get anything in your area of interest, get an easy job that lets you study/read.

I'll disagree with you there, telkanuru. I've talked to adviser about it as I'm research-driven. She said that courseload and service expectations vary from one R1 to another. The key is to find a job with a lighter courseload or service to allow for more research time. But you just don't know that until you hit the market and go through the interviews to find out what the department and university cultures are like for professors. Amerikanka, There are indeed few Russian history jobs as Cold War 1.0 ended and we haven't quite declared Cold War 2.0. Most likely they will have to apply as Modern European historians or another tangential field (like Islamic History). And yes, Slavic people tend to be.... interesting oddballs. If you can't deal with Russians in Russia, g'luck. Also as for dramatic differences in attitude of posters between GC and CHE, that's perfectly normal. GC is full of optimistic people who believe that they can be exceptional to the rules and full of incredibly insecure folks who have let Graduate School get the best of them, including their deepest fears of losing their livelihood because of some professor or grad school bureaucracy. In short, use your best judgment when evaluating advice all over the Internet and go with your gut.

I'd totally look at Ohio State-- Scott Levi, Nicholas Breyfogle and David Hoffmann would be your best team of faculty. The program here is quite strong (along with the Slavic program that has FLAS fellowships for language studies). PM me with more info. As for your personality/interests/etc, grad school is plainly stressful but enjoyable if you invest in what you love to do- be asking questions and finding answers (and only to be finding more questions than answers). You will meet a lot of characters (I've contemplated writing a drama-comedy show like the Office or Grey's Anatomy or Orange is New Black...) and learning to deal with them is part of the process.

1) Let it go. It's their message acknowledging that they got your message. You reply only if they have questions. 2) Ask your recommenders!!! Most will say about a month before the materials are due. Ask them what they would like in their recommendation package-- most will want your CV, writing sample, and SOP. 3) Keep your writing sample within limits-- make sure you do a good balance between the text and your historiography. Use a good judgment and it's okay to "cut off" as long as you note that in the text.

Apply anyway. You don't know what's going to happen over the next 6ish months. See what the battlefield looks like come March when you have a chance to visit Madison if admitted. Don't shut the door before you have a chance to take a peek.

If you graduated from Wisconsin, you're actually in a great place to be getting advice. Its history and German departments are excellent. I'm in German history doing post-WWII. University of Michigan-- you'd definitely want to contact Kathleen Canning to see if she's willing to take on graduate students (she's the department chair right now-- not always the best thing as department chairs tend to have their hands very full with administrative BS). Geoff Eley should be retiring over the next few years. You'll want to make sure that you have a solid team of faculty members to help support Canning. If you're that interested in the topic you're proposing, you should look into Ohio State. PM me if you want to talk more or have other questions!

I thought I would do American history for a quite some time because I basically sucked at foreign languages. I could never make As, let alone any grade above a B-. Confidence had a lot to do with my desire to avoid foreign languages even though I really did like learning about other cultures. Then I had a supervisor who told me flat out that I would not get a job in my dream field of work without German. Having already struggled through three languages by that point, I had to think pretty hard about how badly I wanted to do that kind of work. Eventually, I buckled down and learned German (and even lived in Germany for a bit). I do mostly international history now and German is required for my research. I also did at summer at Middlebury for another language and it boosted my confidence big time. I still work with American history; now i can't imagine my work without my foreign language skills. Language teachers have told me that the biggest kick for any language learner is having the confidence to work at it. It's an underrated humbling experience.

You're only at the beginning of your academic career. What did you expect? Part of being an academic is to be constantly learning and improving (and that's true of a lot of jobs, really). You'll have to expect a lot of heavy-lifting to improve your writing at the beginning so that as time goes on, your adviser can focus on lightly polishing the rough diamond that you are. Comments will never end. Good advisers will feel that if they don't comment, then they're not doing their job, no matter how "perfect" the paper is. If your adviser is/has been an editor for a book or journal, you're in a very privileged position. Take advantage of her/his careful eye and learn from your stumbles to become a better writer and editor. I have learned to become my own critical editor because of my adviser who is currently an editor of a journal in our field. I agree with others-- step away from your paper for a bit and then come back to it. But make sure that you do take a look at some of her major points and be ready to discuss. Or if you'd rather, send an e-mail asking for a reschedule so you have more time to go through the comments and prepare your response.

No. Unless you're interested in race or South Asian history. Focus on your research interests, the scholarly side of you. As for imposter syndrome, it will always be there. You need to change your pattern of thinking in order to get yourself to believe that you are deserving of a shot at working with professors in top-notch programs who are great fit.

That's NOT a low GPA. A low GPA would be 3.0, which is the minimum requirement for admissions into the graduate school. Focus more on your writing sample and personal statement as you've already cleared that bar. With ease.

Can you be a bit more specific what your present interests are? The key thing you'll want to demonstrate is that you have a particular question that keeps you preoccupied and you want to explore its history. It'll take a bit of soul-searching to do this but you'll be glad that you did. Keeping that question in mind will actually drive your curiosity as you explore different topics throughout your coursework before settling on a dissertation topic. Think about your intellectual trajectory: what was the central question that you had that got you interested in history and the paper topics you've chosen for your coursework?

For American historians, no speaking is required. Your choice of reading language will be dependent on your interests. I know of a Cold War Americanist who took Russian as reading Russian might be useful for scanning newspaper headlines. In the PhD program, you'll need to read requirements. Often times, Americanists are asked to take a quantitative class in lieu of a second language or some other class to help you develop skills.

Jerk supervisors exist and I'm sorry to hear that you landed one of them. There will still be jerks. Why exactly do you want a PhD? What would you like to do with the PhD? Was your previous master's in History? If so, you might want to search out for a related master's program like a "studies" program where you can get some history courses counted.

Sticking to my advice: Always have Plans B and C. And start reading Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed to give you a more realistic view of the overall job market.

No electronics in class? Would your professor be willing to make exceptions for e-books? I did buy one or two books on Kindle and it was.... not the same. It's harder on your eyes even despite the adjustments. And... there are really a lot of history books that you can buy used for cheap.