Sigaba

I respectfully disagree with you here, Morgan18. One thing you can do is demonstrate that you're aware of the ongoing debate, that you have a point of view, and that your POV is provisional. IMO, this step would send a message that you're engaged with this sprawling debate and dedicated to figuring out how you can contribute to it. Understood. I think your assumption is a sound one.

FWIW, as an undergraduate, I participated in an internship in which we participants were mentored by graduate students. The question posed in the OP was one of the central topics of discussion/debate. Three of the best reasons for not taking time off were offered by those graduate students who had done just that. One grad student pointed out that he had difficulties making the transition from the private sector back to the life of a student. While he was not especially well paid at his old job, the standard of living he enjoyed was several notches above that of a graduate student He also pointed out that the sense of independence that one develops from being out of the academic environment at times impinged upon his relationship with his professors. He indicated that there were instances where intellectual deference might have been a better course of action than the mindset of the work place that he brought to the class. (If you've ever tuned out a boss and done as you were told just because you were told to do it that way, you know what this guy was saying.) Others who took time off pointed to the the vicissitudes of every day life as a challenge to getting a degree. That is, some students planned just to take one year off and, before they knew it, it was several years later. In some cases, they had to redo a lot of leg work before they could apply to graduate programs. While these students did not regret their choices, you could tell they were impacted by their other responsibilities as spouses, parents, and employees on top of their duties as graduate students/teaching assistants/mentors.

ZeeMore21-- You have, again, misread a post. My comments were directed at those members of this BB who want to study history at the graduate level in a history department. (Hence, my emphasis on the word "history".) Why are you offering advice/guidance in a forum for history and in a thread asking about admissions to a doctoral program in history? Is it your actual experience that getting into a doctoral program in English is the same as getting into one in history? Do the conventions on an internet BB translate into the 'best practices' of professional academic history?

Morgan18-- Is there any possibility that you can disclose the topic of your thesis? Or at least the broader field (social history, religious history) and time period (century if not decade)? As written, my answer to your question is "It depends." The debate over the extent to which American history is over specialized has been going on for decades. If members of the admissions committee believe that there is too much specialization, it may behoove you to find ways to reposition and/or 'tweak' your writing sample. That is, consider finding ways that your topic addresses broader questions of interest to those (hypothetically speaking) studying nineteenth century America rather than just those studying the formation of working class culture in the industrialized north east during the 1870s). If committee members are not worried about overspecialization, then being focused may not be an issue. You can find out the answers by calling--anonymously if you prefer--the programs you want to attend. You could ask if you may know who is on the admissions committees, and then doing some research on JSTOR. In any regard, you may profit from taking another, much broader look at how your topic fits into the existing historiography. It may be that the specific topic, narrowly defined, has not received much discussion yet. (In which case, you might profit from knowing why your topic has been neglected thus far.) It may also be that your topic may touch on broader background issues that have escaped your attention because of your narrow focus. MOO, your ability to place your tree into a bigger, established forest will strengthen your candidacy.

T4PHD-- Consider your intended audience as you figure out your answer. As you are changing your field of study from late antiquity to Latin America, you need to balance the advantages of revising your existing writing sample with the disadvantage of that work being read by a Latin Americanist who may not have the background nor the interest to appreciate the sample's historiographical validity. On the other hand, if you write a new sample and place it in the historiography of your intended field, you may need the touch that only can be provided by more experienced hands. I have two recommendations to help you make a decision. First, do some research on the historians you would work with most closely at your preferred institutions. Find out how connected or disconnected they are to the broader issues confronting academic historians today. If they are disconnected from these issues and are narrowly focused on Latin American history, you may be better off writing a new essay. If they are connected to the broader issues, you may be better off revising your essay in which it touches on those broader issues. Second, start the process of finding experienced hands who can give you good feedback if you write a new sample. You could ask Latin Americanists at universities in your area and/or you can find graduate students who are preparing dissertations in the field. As you perform this search, figure out how to answer the question "Why should I help you?" in case you are asked. HTH

ZeeMore21-- A key question that aspiring historians on this BB might ask themselves is: "What are you doing to build your identity as a credible professional academic historian?" Subordinate questions include: "Is your expertise in a field going to be based upon the work you've done or on your gender and skin color?" If aspiring historians decide to address questions such as these, they will soon realize that they will most likely not receive direct guidance from established professionals on how to answer. Many of you will find that opportunities to receive hands-on / behind closed door mentoring from tenured professors will prove to be the exception than the rule of your coming experiences. Many of you will find that your professors will allowed you to make otherwise avoidable mistakes. They will do so for reasons ranging from teaching philosophy, to disinterest, to dislike, to legitimate ethical reasons, and to the fact that sometimes, older adults like to watch younger adults fumble around looking for the light switch. (Once you find the light switch, you will have the option of telling others where it is or letting them find it for themselves.) Consequently, much of your professional training will thus require you to pay close attention to how established historians do things. In my experiences, I've not encountered a professional academic historian in any field who uses gender and race as the lead indicators of expertise or as qualifications. These experiences include: undergraduate and graduate coursework, and reading academic journals, monographs, and dissertations. I've also interviewed established historians in support of historiographical research, attended endowed lectures, "book talks," and attended invitation-only "job talks." (These invitations should come as you advance along in a program.) I've also had the good fortune of having excellent mentors (and the misfortune of having one really bad one). Yes, historians do talk about the overlap between their personal experiences and their professional development, most notably in introductory graduate seminars on historiography, closed door conversations, published interviews, and in autobiographies/memoirs. Even then, such comments do not come anywhere close to being the leading point as they are in the OP. Insofar as some members of this BB taking umbrage with my perceived tone, I say "How about that." Those members of this BB who make it into a graduate history program will find themselves in an environment of intense debate. They will find themselves in wide-ranging conversations that focus on all aspects of history and historiography. These conversations will include what one studies and why as well as what a historian says and how he says it. (I know of a highly reputable historian who was not offered an endowed professorship in no small part because faculty members of the hiring department took exception with his use of a single word in a presentation.) Consequently, if a direct question about why someone describes himself a certain way strikes you as too strident, you may want to reconsider your field of study. Otherwise, you might prepare yourself for the possibility that, somewhere along the line, someone is going to ask you a question you dislike, you don't understand, you don't know how to answer, or you don't find relevant. How you address that question (or avoid answering that question) is going to shape how others regard you as a historian.

I've heard tenured professors of history describe such experiences as intellectual "inbreeding" and "incest." The fact that you did your previous work in a different field might not register when members of a job search committee are quickly sorting through two hundred plus applications and looking for the least reason not to read someone's application.

ZeeMore21-- You have misread my post. It will remain as written. I did not question his field of study. I questioned the purpose of his decision to identify himself first in terms of his gender and his race. His introduction as written implies that he thinks his skin color and plumbing are more important to his candidacy than what he's done as a history major, and what he wants to do as a graduate student. The purpose of my question is to provide SBP an opportunity to consider the efficacy of this approach. As for your closing remark "just for your sake," you might have gotten more traction had you written "for my own sake" or omitted it altogether.

Questions Is the gossip among the MA students different than the gossiping you do in the OP? What "phase" of development are you in (other than being "above" your peers)? Have you shown character by addressing these behaviors with your fellow students? Have you demonstrating leadership by conducting yourself in a manner worthy of emulation? Or do you just gripe about your peers behind their backs? RecommendationsLook in the mirror to see if you're part of the problem you're experiencing. You are feeling isolated for a reason. You are getting hammered in this thread for a reason. And I don't think that reason is because you're being misunderstood. [*]Keep in mind that your professors may have the same doubts about you that you have about those whom you feel "above." [*]If you don't want to participate in the activities of your peers, then opt out but keep your options open. (It sounds like they're blowing off steam.) [*]Seize every opportunity to build the skill set you'll need as an academic. [*]Do not post anything on line about your peers that you'd not say to their faces.

For better and for worse, one's academic pedigree counts for a lot. Professors have a lot of committee work to do on top of their other responsibilities. Some will cut corners by using an applicant's pedigree and fields of interest as a first sort. Others will reason that an applicant's pedigree is a good predictor of an applicant's future performance. Maybe a few will read every part of every application before making decisions. If you do not have the opportunity to attend a top tier school, you can balance things out by demonstrating that you're a top tier student who is committed (rather than just dedicated) to becoming an outstanding professional academic historian. There are many ways to travel this path but the journey should probably include many of the following bench marks: participating in your school's honors program (that is, write an honors thesis in addition to the senior thesis), building strong language skills, developing strong relationships with faculty members both at your current school and at your schools of choice (professors will help you in ways beyond writing LORs), doing a research internship after your junior year, getting something published, presenting at a conference, learning the historiography of your fields of interest, developing a vision of how you will contribute to that historiography and to the profession overall, and figuring out how to write an outstanding SOP that discusses the path you've traveled and how the journey should continue at a school of your choice. Be realistic and understand that undergraduates at top tier schools will be doing many of the same things to show their commitment. And then use that realization to drive yourself even harder.

What about your LORs, your writing samples (thesis and honors thesis), and SOP? MOO, what will make you stand out is your view that the focus on race, gender, and sexuality is a function of popularity (rather than genuine and legitimate intellectual interest) and that you want to focus on labor history (rather than working class history). Make no mistake, many strong arguments can be made to support the viability of your interests. However, framing those interests as being oppositional to what you think is 'popular' may not be the best way for you to go. (There will be plenty of time to fight those fights after you get into grad school.) As soon as possible. Give some thought to sending an actual letter rather than an email.

Why do your gender and your ethnicity figure so prominently in your description of yourself and your goals?

MOO, you should be as upfront as possible with those you want to support your application. The last thing you need is an academic thinking that you burned him or her. Were I in your position, I'd be ready to answer the following question: "Given your changing research interests and the time between getting your BA and now, what steps have you taken to learn the history and historiography of Latin America?" If the answer is along the lines of "not a lot," you can turn that into a positive by developing the narrative that Henry Hudson suggests above. (And make no mistake, your background is compelling.) In developing that narrative, I strongly suggest that you accentuate the positive. That is, do not talk about what you do not want to study and why you don't want to study it, but focus on what you want to do and why you want to do it. In regards to which schools you should apply, before making a firm decision, check to see if UCI, Cal State Long Beach, or Cal State Fullerton have reciprocal agreements that allow graduate students to do work at local universities and/or to have professors from those universities sit on your thesis committee. HTH.

Teacher4MA-- When you go from a MA program to a Ph.D program, your GPA in that program may not figure as prominently in the decision making process as your thesis, publications/presentations, letters of recommendation, statement of purpose, and, for better and for worse, your field of specialization.

Yes. The price of laughter can be getting tagged in an end of semester evaluation from a professor, so if you're going to be snarky, it may help to be a strong contributor in class.

If those issues are within the specific field of study, one should speak one's mind provided one is willing to receive responses you might not like hearing. If those issues are of a more general nature, I recommend holding one's cards close to the vest especially when talking to fellow graduate students.

Are you talking about the University of Southern California and is the adviser in question Joe Styles?

The place to be in military history is the Ohio State University. Then, in addition to North Carolina, consider Duke, Kansas, Kansas State, Yale, Texas A&M, and the University of Texas at Austin. HTH.

What is the topic? What do you love about it? What have you written and what remains for you to write?

Nytusse-- Have you had the opportunity to discuss your performance and your expectations with your instructors? Some may be willing to tell you exactly what you need to do to improve your performance.