TMP

Guys... the OP isn't back on the thread. I suspect a troll.

Do not be naive. Do not go to Madison without a full package. I was one of the lucky ones with a full package and got to visit the place. It is in a beautiful setting with a wonderful department and amazing, hard-working graduate students. And plenty of booze to go around. Nonetheless, if you have a full funding offer elsewhere, take it. The "unfunded" students told me that they literally spent more time trying to find constant source of funding than their coursework and teaching. That can't really be fun, especially in a place with amazing intellectual energy in the air. Also, Madison doesn't pay high enough stipends to be able to live comfortably in the city. The rents are definitely very high. I would have had to totally defer my student loans just to be able to attend UW (thus come out of my PhD in even more debt from accrued interest). Good luck to all of you who will be accepted at UW and then awaiting funding news!

As for DC living.... mind the Metro construction... it's going through a capital project intending to last until 2016. You'll want to keep an eye on the construction work progress. Last I lived in 2011-2012, Orange line was just terrible because of the Silver line construction and the Red line between Dupont Circle and Bethesda was constantly shut down. As far as I can see, Blue and Yellow remain fairly stable, especially in Alexandria/Arlington area.

It sounds like you really need to do more reading. There's been a LOT of scholarship on Eastern Europeans around that time period. But what has not been done well is emigration. Tara Zahara at Chicago is working on that. Make sure you have the languages, at least certainly German.

Our grad coordinator is a man. The department would fall apart without him.

Pretty much, yes. Being a fellowship in your first year allows you to acclimate without the burden of learning how to teach on top of that! However, once you start teaching, you'll be able to have reduction in credit-load that you have to carry to stay enrolled full time.... so... in ways it's a trade off.

I'd follow the conversations that are going in on the Association for Jewish Studies website. The job market hasn't changed very much. There are still far more people than academic jobs. You'd do well to keep an open mind to other possibilities and self-assessment whether or not you can do this PhD both for the love of the subject and to get a job at the end. The opinions concerning preparation for the job market vary widely and the best that one can do is simply follow the advice of the adviser. One adviser will insist on nothing but know Jewish history from Noah to Shoah. Another might say you should focus on modern period but choose a national history to study (i.e. if you're interested in Jews of North Africa, you'd want to do African or French history on top of Jewish). Even nobody can agree on minimum standards of language training (much to the chagrin of those who didn't grow up speaking Yiddish or Hebrew!). In terms of admissions, it all depends. Usually there is only one or two Jewish historian in a PhD program and often they're grouped with European history. In reality, you're actually competing on two fronts: for the POI and for a spot in the European history field (or another geographic field). Modern European history is just as competitive as American history so it's quite difficult to get in. Being a Jewish historian has little impact- it's valued just as much as a colonist French or socialist Russian historian. The bigger question really is- are your interests aligned with the POI's? The POI can be quite particular because you'll work as the person's apprentice and therefore, you will inherit his/her intellectual questions and concerns and craft of writing Jewish history. For example, if you have no interest in cultural history, I would absolutely save $125 application fee and not apply to Stanford. If the idea of juggling your regular coursework with Hebrew language classes overwhelms you, then avoid Brandeis and NYU. It is definitely a challenge to find a program AND a Jewish historian that fit you and it might take one or two rounds for the cards to fall into the right places. It's a small, small field that works on a system of apprenticeships. It's how Modern Jewish historiography has been built- straight back to Salo Baron.

I'd actually dump Madison. The immigrant historian there is retiring (if he's still on the faculty list) and the Germanist there is much more interested in social and religious ideas. Who's at Stanford? I don't recall seeing a German historian there when I looked at it. Michigan's historians are into gender and nationalism (respectively). You'd need to be quite bit more specific in your interest. It's a big topic there. I'd suggest Tobias Brinkmann at Penn State but I don't think the program is accepting anyone for Modern Europe (which really makes sense). I might try dropping Vandy a line- it does have two of the best German historians around. One of the things you'd want to think about is having common interests in German history because you will essentially get books relating to historiographical questions that your adviser is actually interested in. If you hate labor history with passion but your adviser loves talking about class and industrialization, you'll be miserable studying for your comps. That should help you narrow down your list relatively quickly. On the other hand, if you find the Vormärz period exciting but your adviser is more curious about the 1960s, you'll still get some Vormärz books but not as many as you might want because you have more books on the 1960s. (as you might be able to tell, I'm studying for my comps this year! )

Ah, that's what "dean's date" is... I've seen it on Facebook from Princeton people and wondered what that meant...

No. Pick one. Pick the one that's offering you money.

I'd throw in Ohio State as well. Their Russian program is pretty strong and the 19th century professor, from what I've heard, is an excellent adviser and he has amazing students working in the area you're interested in and Siberia. I agree- don't worry about research. Get the GRE out of the way and focus on your Russian language skills. Yes, there is FLAS for that (Foreign Language Area Studies) for more language study, but it's really better to be as proficient as you can. You will be competing against others who have studied Russian in undergrad or done Peace Corps or whatsoever. Also, it's just one less thing to worry about in your first year of PhD. I had to devote a good amount of time to my German before applying to programs in European history to ensure I could meet the requirements and be a bit above it. I passed both of my language exams by mid-way through my first semester and it felt good! My coursework and research kept me busy enough! To add another point: You'll want to be sure you're ready to deal with the archives by your second or third year when you go to Russia to explore them. Even though I could spend all day reading in German in museums and around the city, it was overwhelming for a bit when I jumped into the archives... Suddenly, you're been bombarded by words you're so sure you've never heard of that you wonder if all the time you've spent studying the language was a waste

levoyous, I just about almost hit my head on the keyboard reading your last message. Like most people on this board, you need to learn some humility. Ivy League, schvy-League. Everyone is accomplished here. If everyone wasn't so accomplished here, then competition for PhD programs would be different, wouldn't it? I know I sound a bit snarky, but you ain't going to get respect if you enter in a PhD program with that attitude and professor pick up on that. NEN and I have applied to PhD programs with MAs under our belts. Indeed, our writing sample matter because it could potentially serve as a springboard for the dissertation project that the POIs might have to supervise. (Many times, MA students use their thesis as samples and they often spin into a dissertation.) At the same time, professors expect graduate students to be stronger researchers and writers than undergrads so they may not read as much, especially if the first few pages are solid. Undergrads don't have the same level of skills and it may take a bit more for professors to figure out if they have the chops. I know from my own experiences of reading my peers' research seminar papers- both at pre-ABD and ABD levels. But they will read them at some point. Everyone should take care of their writing samples and treat them seriously. My current adviser and other readers of my application in my program definitely did. However, I do get the point of those professors you speak of, levoyous. As my adviser said to me once early in my first year, "I'm really glad that you know how to read at graduate level. If you didn't, we'd have a big problem here. Your writing isn't great but that's something that will always be worked on and I'm fine with it." Still, the stronger you are as a writer, the better.

Glad to hear that I could be of help. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to learn to live with people if they are not willing to change. It's your choice of how you want to handle this reality and it's certainly worthwhile exploring strategies that might help you work around her personality and work style.

I've read over much of the thread. It all sounds quite familiar to me. I wouldn't say that I had similar issues in terms of workload but certainly the dynamics of the adviser-student relationship. Remember though, no matter what, your health is #1 on your list. Check yourself in the hospital if you have to to take a break from life. First, I'm very glad to hear that you've sought therapy. It will help you and your relationships. You'll need to learn how to manage your stress and emotions as you move through academia. You have to learn how to fight against the temptation to internalize all the negativity. We all do want external validation; self-validation is just as important if not more. One day you will have to learn to stand on your own two feet. As my adviser said to me several times in my first year, "You need to learn to believe in yourself." It took me a long time (and therapy) to genuinely believe in myself and my ability to succeed within my own limits. Second, your adviser is right to point out that it's not helpful to the relationship when you go behind the back like that. Yes, you may have tried to make your issues clear but as someone said, you do need to yell "FIRE!" and stamp your feet. It sounds like she's very tough and not flexible. You need to develop the courage to push back when things become unreasonable (like your credit hours- that is insane!). Trust, you're better off "practicing" that push back with your own adviser- you don't want to do it when you are a post-doc or an assistant professor. Better learn early than later when your career is REALLY at stake. She's also right to point out that it's not professional to go complaining about her to others and not complaining TO her. My own adviser caught me doing it last summer and her response was, "If you're going to complain about me, then go elsewhere and work with someone else. I don't want my graduate students to be complaining about me." She was very angry and hurt; it's highly likely that your adviser was too. As someone hinted, complaining about your adviser to others suggests that there are trust issues and raises a red flag on your part. If other faculty get wind of this, then you might have trouble forming a committee because faculty don't want to work with a miserable graduate student (who will be a colleague). It's an unwritten rule in academia. Bringing your complaints to your adviser (instead of someone else) is definitely one of the most difficult things to do in an adviser-advisee relationship because... well... it's damn hard to break news that will affect the other person personally and professionally. Know though, this will likely bring out the vulnerability in her so take advantage. Adviser-adviser relationships are very difficult to navigate and be fraught because the adviser and advisee are invested in the latter's training and therefore it's natural that both will struggle to find a nice balance of give-and-take. With the kind of questions that your adviser's asking you "have you read this?" or "What are you doing this weekend?" they strike me as she does care. Perhaps not in the right way but I suspect that she does care and only wants you to come out as a great scientist. She wants you to stay on top of research- just make a mental note of any articles/readings she throws in your way and put it in your back pocket and more on. Know that professors will always throw more readings at you than you can possibly EVER handle. Been there, done that with many of your issues with your adviser. Except unlike you, I loved my adviser too much that I refused to do anything that might strain our relationship. My avoidance to talk about tough stuff actually hurt our relationship for a while. Like, when I met with her, it would always be pleasantries and she would have no idea that anything was amiss in our relationship. Now we're in a better place- more willing to take chances, accept compromises, and communicate. If I'm not clear with a comment on a paper, I'll go right up to her and say, "What do you mean by that?" and treat it as a teaching moment. She's not afraid to chase me down on my readings for my comps if she senses that I'm doing more research than necessary instead. Best of luck.

Sure they might remember you. They'll be happy to know that you got in somewhere and are on your way. Move on and act as a potential colleague. You're going to run into them at conferences anyway.

Honestly, professors would prefer to take on students whose interests matches their and/or project proposals that could potentially advance their own research. I've reflected on this a bit as I'm reading for my comps and and have noticed this kind of pattern. You simply just cannot calculate every single bit. You just do your best and move on. You're better off viewing these emails as first points of networking. Some of the professors who I contacted during admissions now work with me in various capacities. One of them who I wanted to be my adviser so badly is now a mentor to me. I count myself fortunate to stay in touch with some of these people so they can help me move my own career forward with different opportunities. Also know that some people prefer not to be in contact with potential applicants and prefer to read the applications themselves as a way of emotionally distancing.

Each SOP is individual. It's a mix of a job cover letter and a research proposal. You own your own ideas (and sell them) and voice of experience. To adopt another's for a "model" wouldn't allow the readers to "hear" how you think and who you really are as a potential colleague and scholar.

What TakeruK said. What czesc meant in his/her last sentence is that 22-24 is often view as "very young" by professors to be PhD students and they don't want to be dealing with immature students. Since the OP is older (about 26-27?), s/he has no reason to be worried about this. I've witnessed students who started "very young" in my program (and know from my own experience of entering a MA program at 22/23) and can get how difficult it is to settle down and really work. I mean don't wait until 8 PM to start on readings and attempt to stay up until 2 AM to finish and doing only few hours of work during the day here and there. Rather, professors hope that when PhD students come, they will treat their work as a job. And that's where "work experience" looks good- just the ability to settle down and get the work done while respecting authority and learning how to navigate workplace politics. Professors would prefer that students learn these skills elsewhere because... academia is... a black box itself with very few opportunities for multiple chances to redeem one self.

Don't bother to talk about it. Move on.

What NEN said. It also helps programs figure out if they can be competitive enough to beat out their peers (or above if it's a subfield issue like mine). For example, a school like the University of Arizona isn't going to try to compete with UCLA in European history but its strength in Middle East history might make them say "we can do this!" My adviser and her colleague knew that they could trump my other offer by pointing out their relatively strengths and throwing in extra funding that only my subfield gets to make the funding package equally competitive.

Smart professors will actually dissuade you from paying for the PhD. If they see an application (ever) with an unchecked box for "I need money!" well, that's stupidity right there. Bam, rejection.

Just wanted to be clear: What are your goals? This is just for a master's, right? Not a PhD? What do you want to do with it after?

It sounds to me that you're in coursework stage, at least in your first or second year. You have TIME. Step back and think about what large historiographical questions that occupy your mind. Your adviser knows what he's doing- he wants to be able to supervise a dissertation that he can deal with for as long as it takes you to finish (for him, a minimum of 5 years), including line-editing it at the end. Take advantage of your final paper assignments in your courses- try to use them as a way of exploring various topics and how scholars have dealt with them over time. Also, know that when you engage your topic with others, more of your time will be spend convincing others of its significance within historiography; the little stories that make up the dissertation are just for fun. Otherwise known as "why should we care?" That's what we do a lot of time as scholars. Who says that you have to settle on a topic right now? You'll know when you need to when it's time to write that dissertation proposal. Also, I would not be so concerned about the "ranking" of your PhD program you put up there. Nobody cares. That's the truth. People care more about who your adviser is, especially if you're in a small or highly competitive subfield.

21st century France? You'll want to get in touch with POIs to make sure they're cool with it. Many historians have a limit of how close they will go. Right now, people are accepting 1980s but not 1990s yet. There needs to be some time lapse for objectivity.

It's in the writing. You can discern the difference between someone who isn't sure of him/herself and someone who is willing to speak. Good, clear, and concise writing speaks volumes compared to vague, run-on, or overgeneralized sentences without a hint of sophistication. Good writing is much more than being able to spell correctly and use proper verb tenses. Hence, another reason why the writing sample is so important; it's a piece of evidence that the student can think for him/herself and write with confidence of his/her own abilities as a researcher and writer.