TMP

The only risk of reviewing early in your career is that search committees might notice them and ask you about them long, long after you've submitted the review. So it is worth skimming through your review and the book before you go on the market to update yourself. It's okay to be quite selective of which books you will review as a graduate student. Professors pick and choose all the time. It might also be field dependent. My department and mentors encourage early professionalization, and that includes book reviews.

Unfortunately, yes, personalities matter. You just don't know until you actually start working with the person. That's why it's important to have at least one or two other faculty member who can step in when things go really, really, really, really wrong between you and your (chosen) adviser. This is very tough for small fields because that adviser is often your only one in the department whom you can turn to for nearly everything (more than you think). I recently told a prospective when s/he asked about the chances of my adviser leaving, "If she leaves, I expect her to take me along with her. I say this because there is NOBODY else in my department who is my subfield." She reasoned that there are other respectable professors whom she could turn to if that happens and chose to accept the offer. That written, I can recommend "small field" people to be in touch with POIs who they're interested in to get a quick sense of their personality and style during the application process. So, try not to simply focus on how shiny their bios are to help you determine whether or not you should apply there. Even if the page seems lackluster, just drop an e-mail and see what happens. Some profs just don't care to brag. My adviser doesn't and I have to advocate on her behalf of her fabulousness. PhD training is difficult enough as it is that you do ideally want to have a good adviser and connections with stars within your department and outside of it within and outside of your university.

One way you can go about doing this is if a professor says that he or she cannot take on students, ask for recommendations. A senior scholar has a long view of the field and can identify who are the rising stars and such. As for "rising star"... it's quite difficult to tell other than finding out how much the person is in demand for talks and will the first book was received through strong reviews and book awards. More important, really, is to find someone who can really teach and has a decent rep in the field. You want a teacher, not someone who is solely a researcher/scholar. Otherwise, you just aren't going to learn much of anything from your own adviser (and s/he will have failed to do his/her job).

Did you say 21st century? Or do you mean 20th?

You will have to investigate on the policies of assistant professors and graduate students. This kind of question can be discussed with the grad coordinator or the DGS. In my program, assistant professors are allowed to supervise graduate students but must have a tenured faculty member co-sign (like a teenager getting a credit card and need a parent's co-signature). Assistant professors are usually just fabulous and dynamic people. But keep in mind, they do have a tenure clock to keep an eye on. As for retired faculty, check on their publications . You don't want to work with someone who hasn't published in the last 5 years- he/she won't give you updated literature and methodology. No matter how famous.

How the heck could you have applied without him knowing? Wouldn't you have needed his letter of rec to support your transfer?

vtstevie, I would think very hard about "deferring in order to apply to other programs to see if I can get in anywhere 'better'" because that will backfire. Academia is a small, small world and professors will get a wind of what you're doing- whether at Temple or elsewhere. You're much better off asking Temple about your funding now so you can make a decision of whether or not to accept the offer or not. But if Temple does offer you a nice package, that's your "now or never' moment. Once you turn that down, it'll be quite difficult to convince Temple to re-admit you with solid funding. If Temple doesn't offer funding or a poor package, you can decline and re-apply. If, at the end of the day, you choose not to go, you are certainly more than welcome to e-mail other POIs for feedback. Remember, the PhD admissions process has no exact science and it's like playing the Russian roulette. Weigh your decision carefully.

My point exactly. If you can barely pass a map quiz, you aren't going to understand what happened in terms of invasions and relationships between monarchies and nation-states that complicated European history.

Sure, it's nice. But the reality is that the market is demanding and desiring a diverse set of teaching abilities so you might as well have them under your belt. You do learn a lot along the way by sitting in the class and working with the professor to prepare discussion sections. Generally, if you have a minor field interest, it's all perfectly good enough. In my program, most people will teach in their major field and do some courses in their minor fields. Yes, undergraduates would appreciate your knowledge in lower level courses. But it's only in upper level courses where your specialized knowledge is really needed. While I haven't actually TA-ed yet, I have sat in a lower level undergrad course and it's incredible how the students lack basic knowledge that a smart grad student who can digest a chapter in a textbook can just give a lecture...and the students would be perfectly satisfied. Don't worry about it, csezc. Programs know what they need and do think ahead a bit for teaching needs.

Remember, it just takes one funded offer. This world is insanely competitive.

Great advice above. In all honesty, you don't know what you will find until you get there and open up the files. It's like opening doors to find the prize. Worst case scenario: The collection turned out to be useless. So you get to play in the city! Best case scenario: Gold mine- more material than you know what to do with! If this happens, just take a very deep breath and say to yourself, "Now I have real evidence of telling the next grant source why I need to come back here, big time." Good archival research means strong sleuthing skills. Be a detective like Sherlock Holmes or those people on the tv crime drama shows.

My particualr field has been doing memory for yeaaarrsssssss. We're tired of it though we know it's important... but blah. Transnational history is very difficult to do- largely because of methodological and field training that you need, not to mention languages. A friend and I talked about this the other day. She and I agree that if you want to do transnational for your dissertation, you better damn know what your dissertation topic is going to be by the end of your first year. Otherwise, the road to the PhD will be very, very long. So my dissertation will be my baby longer than most.

Haha. Tis the truth. I spent a year abroad brushing up my research language (which is actually #1 if I had to rank in order of necessity). Then I spent the next year interning (on wages only!) in public history in a major city. I maintained an active research agenda- just kept doing research and writing as if these rejections couldn't stop me from being what I wanted to become. Disillusional? Perhaps. But I had strong support network that cheered me on.

Take it from me. I graduated with a MA from a top public and had 2 LORs from solid scholars (including a superstar). I had a fabulous, ground-breaking (in ways) thesis and converted a chapter of it for an article that went under review by a well-respected journal in my subfield (and used it as a writing sample). I had 3 working languages. Of course, my GRE wasn't great but I was told not to worry too much about it. I went (accepted-declined-waistlied) 2010: 0-3-2 2011: 1-6-1 (unfunded acceptance) 2012: 2-2-0 (one additional withdrawn) My list varied each year with only one school that I applied to for 3 years in a row. I applied to 2 other places twice. Also, the application improved dramatically over the years. Why didn't I get in? Part of it, I learned, was that my application got caught in departmental politics. One school said that my statement wasn't strong enough. One said that my specialized language wasn't advanced enough. Nonetheless, many of the professors were interested and I've kept in touch or caught up with them at conferences. Also, my subfield sometimes didn't make it to the final cut. Too many variables and there's not much you can do except just put your best foot forward, apply, and make sure you're already doing something else so that you already have something to do in the fall should nothing pan out in your favor. I spent a lot of time scrambling to keep my life pieced together and the 10% unemployment rate at the time hardly helped at all. It does happen to the best of us. Certainly I've become much more thankful for being in a PhD progam and the opportunities that come along in my way. The process was very, very trying emotionally but it's a good professionalization experience. Learn how to accept rejections gracefully and understand that it's not always about you. There is a reason why academia is considered to be soul-sucking. You have to try and divest yourself from the process emotionally.

Yes, my apologies. But the prof's attitude that you referred to sounded a lot like the inner workings at Michigan, which I'm familiar with.

You must have been talking about Michigan. Yes, their exams are a bit more rigorous and more time-consuming-4 to 5 different fields (some related). It is true that "employers" want broadly trained PhDs and that's why my program does well placing people in teaching positions. We have to do 3 different fields and do have multiple opportunities to teach courses of our own in those fields once we pass candidacy. Yes, my program's graduate culture is gearing more towards teaching positions at teaching-focused colleges and LACs. As for rigor, it is possible that the standards for a well-done dissertation differ from one program to another, from one adviser to another. There are times that one just needs to get the dissertation done in order to get out before there is no source of funding left. Also, mind you, Michigan aims to place people in R1s, not teaching colleges. So it's not surprising that its research standards are geared towards R1 positions (which are far and few anyway). Michigan doesn't train people to be teachers- I have known Michigan PhDs who complained that they didn't learn how to teach until they had their own courses further down the road or on their first job as professors. Or their advisers, those who care enough, taught them how to teach. This is why I do agree with AHA's take- programs have their own strengths and it's better to judge by those. Also, I do strongly believe that one should be considered about the rankings within the subfield. In my particular subfield, people generally can identify 2-4 solid programs and then the rest are based on the adviser. Given the choices that I had, neither (potential) adviser had a track record for placement in this particular subfield. But colleagues ranked them equally and told me to pick the one who I felt most comfortable with. The best way to find out is go to a major conference within that subfield and chat around. Or look at the program book and see who's doing good work and where they're working (and where they're getting their PhDs from). That's my cheat sheet.

It is a privilege to have a helpful DGS who works for the students. I say it's a 'privilege" because I have heard how awful past DGSs have been before the ones who I talked to came to "power." Being a DGS is not something that every professor wants- it's like being a Department Chair, only for students. The Department Chair takes care of the faculty. I work with a DGS so I can speak from experience. Make your judgments based on your interactions with your future adviser and graduate colleagues if you're thinking about people.

As a native New Yorker and a big sports fan, I'm completely with NEN over proper identification. Even in high school, we just referred to various SUNYs by their location.

playingivory- Don't make it a make-or-break deal. You honestly don't know what the professor's schedule is like- could be abroad or in middle of an intense conference or has a family emergency. You do want to mention during your conversation that communication is very important to you and you can ask what to expect as an advisee. You will also want to ask his or her graduate students about his/her responsiveness and how they deal with it.

BC1010 and hdunlop- check your PMs.

vtstevie, I stuck to top 30 and chose based on adviser. I'm in a subfield that combines US and European history and it's about who you work with and your accomplishments. If you get into a top program, then great. In any case, your adviser better to do a damn good job of training you. (it's no wonder why my adviser's freaking out over my candidacy exam list. ) Unfortunately, you do need to learn to set limits, even as you go through the program. You do not want to be one of those people who graduated from a so-so program with a "meh" adviser and go into $100K in debt. It's very easy to get trapped in academia and can be difficult to leave. So students who know that they should cut their losses early on but just wimp out because they don't know what else to do with their lives. I was actually told by 2 PhDs from this particular low-ranked program that only this particular professor gets his students jobs- nobody else does. Katzenmusik just chose to set his/her limits early on.

To put in perspective- my program accepted less than 5 US historians out of dozens of applications. True, you should pick your topic that you love, not for the job. That said, be sure that you can be comfortable with the idea of doing this PhD out of sheer love and you're willing to spend 6-7 years of your life (not to mention accept financial and emotional tolls that they take on you). As you're thinking through what you're interested in, be prepared to be questioned by others why you didn't include certain "hot" topics. To say that you're "not interested" can send off dirty looks unless you can convince people why this or that topic don't belong in your story. Getting in is not the toughest part. It's tough but it only gets worse. You do have to come up with an "interesting" project that catches any committee's attention- in your department, in other departments, within the Graduate School, AND external people. It's a lot of people "to wow." I agree- do some reading and find some "state of the field" articles to see what's been done recently and still needs to be worked on.

Don't do US history unless your'e interested in race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality. Those are hot. Everything else? Not. The competition is really insane, a bit more so than European.

My program has reduced the number of admits as well with hopes of having a smaller class. That... remains to be seen.