Sigaba

Hi, @DataCurious7. I think that the challenge you have to overcome on a personal level is how you reconcile the letter of a query about academic dishonesty with the spirit of the question. This challenge is compounded by the possibility that your sensibilities will shift over time. If you answer a question exactly as asked, you will remain vulnerable to the consequences when/if decision makers find out that you weren't as clear as you could have been. If you answer based upon the spirit of the question, you risk disclosing information that could have remained private and unnecessarily jeopardize your opportunity for admission. At the same time, such a disclosure could send a positive message about your commitment to academic integrity. My recommendation is that you read the fine print of the codes of conduct for your current school and your preferred programs. Is there as much room between an "academic violation" and being "placed on probation" as the text suggests? What are you willing to risk by parsing the words that closely? Can you get kicked out from a new program if what you did at a previous stop comes to light? I also recommend that you read the extra fine print that comes with any "I accept" check box for terms and conditions of submitting an application. Are you consenting to an ongoing background check. Something to bear in mind is that in your specific case, the D grade may actually be a tell. If you typically have very high grades, and you have a D that is the only low mark that term....

Parsing one's own writing is difficult. One has to determine what's essential and getting rid of everything else. Focus on cutting, clarifying what you keep, and, as necessary, adding back what you removed. Consider the following. 156 words I am applying to PhD programs in English as an undergrad. Part of what that means is, the longest paper I've ever written is only 30 pages, which is making it really tricky to cut it down to 20-ish pages for the sake of my writing sample. I don't really have the option of "excerpting" (I feel like 20 pages of a 30-page paper isn't really an excerpt?). Also, I really just make one major claim in this paper, so I don't really have the option of cutting certain of my claims out and still having a complete argument. I've been able to cut it down to 25 pages (27 including works cited) by cutting one of my short sections that just provides some background information that an admissions committee of an English department will likely already have. So my questions are as follows (any help would be really appreciated, my next app is due in two days and my advisor is MIA): 56 words I am applying to PhD programs in English. How do I cut a 30 page essay to 20 without excerpting? I make one major claim in this paper, so cutting certain claims out and still having a complete argument is problematic. My deadline is in two days, my advisor is non responsive. I welcome any suggestions. ^This parsing took less than two minutes. You have plenty of time to get under twenty pages. You'll experience a lot of pain, but you can do it.

Hi, @s.renteria. I believe the thread you're looking for is here:

I recommend that you write something along the lines of "my grades were down in the fall term of my third year due to a personal issue that I have resolved." Your transcript should "speak for itself" on this point when it comes time to apply. From a GPA management perspective, you could potentially see if you can withdraw from the problematic courses and retake them next term. You could also take courses this summer and "ace" them. From a grade point perspective, summer coursework may not move the needle too much, but from a Mark I eyeball perspective. readers will see the low marks bookended by a whole lot of A's. You can also check and see if there's an honors program in which you can participate and/or if you can compete for an internship this summer.

@wynntir, congratulations on submitting your applications and doing the best you can under the circumstances. PLEASE do more than wait. Do all you can to lean forward. Getting a running start on next fall will enable you to compete better against your peers, to exceed the expectations of your professors, and, most importantly, to maximize your potential as an academic. After getting an appropriate amount of time to rest and depressurize, please consider the advantages of the following. You can organize your application materials for future use -- you will be reapplying for continued financial assistance as well as new sources of funding. You can start getting ready for qualifying exams by finding the "must read" books in your fields, by picking three important academic journals and going through ten years' worth of issues (page by page and reading selectively), by seeing if there are opportunities to continue your interest in education as your outside field, by working on your writing skills, and by thinking like a historian. There's a lot of "received wisdom" that members of the GradCafe have earned through hard won experience and a significant amount of pain. Please consider the benefits of studying (not reading, but studying) the posts of the BTDTs, especially, @TMP, @dr. telkanuru, @AP, @fuzzylogician, @Eigen, @TakeruK, and @juilletmercredi. (I especially recommend the latter's highly valued post as well as her contributions in the If I knew then what I know now (Officially Grads version thread and @TMP's posts. (TMP is among most intellectually and emotionally courageous members of the GradCafe.) Here's why I'm urging you to lean forward. When you get to your next destination, you will likely find that professors, for worse and for better, are generally reluctant to spell out expectations to new students. They are even less likely to put students in the best possible positions to succeed. Instead, much of the instruction you will receive will be cryptic comments in your essays and belated suggests in end of term reviews that will not resonate until years later.

Where were you when I needed you? (IMO, exceptions to this rule would include biographies written by social historians, especially those specializing in modern German history, who qualify as "deans" in their respective fields but only if you can square the circle of broad historiographical debates that have been unfolding for decades.)

If you select a work that is highly specialized (which I don't know if I'd recommend based upon my own experiences with a similar review), please make sure that your review explains why the work is relevant to the overall concerns of the profession. Demonstrate that you understand that a "historian is a historian is a historian." To dovetail with @psstein's caution against using a controversial work, please keep in mind that some fields and methods of analysis are also controversial. Reviewing an important biography of a political/military figure that makes use of neglected primary source materials and provides new insights into the subject's life and times may get the eyes of social historians rolling.

If you go this route, consider carefully your MA options. A thesis option or a report option will produce a writing sample that may serve you in the job market. A MA earned by passing qualifying exams may not provide a similar benefit even though that path arguably has greater challenges. Either/or, make sure that your path secures eligibility to join your school's alumni association, and join that association as soon as possible. Also, don't show your hand until you are absolutely sure you want to stop.

@esk0 sometimes, a supervisor says "no" as a way of saying one (or more) of the following. "This is a bad topic." "Convince me this is a good topic." "I'm not a good supervisor, so maybe make the case for doing it your way, anyways." A question. Have you read most/all of what your supervisor (or his chief critic/rival/nemesis) has written/said?

...you encounter an interface that asks for exact start and end dates for schools you've attended and jobs you've held.

I recommend that you provide all information in the requested locations. One never knows who (or what) is reviewing/sorting application materials before members of the admissions committees start reading. Don't put yourself in a position where missing/misplaced/incomplete information can sidetrack your application.

Hi, @UFA. Applying to programs is stressful. Understandably, the urge to "read the tea leaves" is great. What I'm trying to recommend to you is that you make no assumptions until you receive official notification (or unmistakably clear unofficial word) one way or another. Instead, focus on following the instructions you receive to the best of your ability.

It just means that your application won't get further review until you submit IELTS/TOFEL and GRE results. Control what you can -- make sure those items are submitted and then confirm that they were received.

Please make sure that the organizations you seek to partner and their members know that this is how your group will make decisions. Don't be surprised if you receive various forms of pushback when you do. In your opening meeting, please address the privilege that is impeded in your organizing principles. While BIPOCs have to deal with the myriad cascading impacts of white supremacy on a daily basis, you want "to be fun." Just how does that principle communicate anything resembling a serious approach to those whose asses are on the line the moment they walk out their front doors?

A bit of a rant. The need for applicants to read the tea leaves at all is increasingly infuriating. I don't think that it's unreasonable for departments and graduate schools to harmonize the guidance they provide. Professional academic historians worry about the craft being in crisis yet won't do all they can to put applicants in a position to succeed. More grist for the mill. If you're really stressed about your SOP, don't read the following. (The double espresso may have been a HUGE mistake.) When it comes to conflicting guidance on the application, a relevant question may be What's the relationship between the graduate school and an academic department? And from there: Is the former going to rubber stamp the recommendations of the latter? Does the graduate school have final say IRT offers of admission and/or funding? Are there unknown conflicts (political, personal, philosophical, budgetary) between the two and aspiring as well as current graduate students are getting caught in the middle? Also, consider this. Applicant B exceeds word limits on a component of his application (be it SOP or writing sample). Professor Laufeyson says to Professors Rogers and Stark I really like Applicant B, maybe even more than Applicant C, but C writes more efficiently...and is better with boundaries.

In the humanities, it may be field and program specific. (Also, in history, describing approaches to subject areas is a subtle way to name names.)

You, your aspirations, and the discipline are worth the money and the effort it will take to submit at least one additional application.

I disagree slightly with @SocDevMum. I would be reluctant to name names. Instead, I would make it clear how research interests align. I would make the argument that your research is a good fit to the university, to the program overall, and to a cluster of the program professors. (The key difference between this approach and SDM's centers around the definition of "fit." It's like "don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.") Why the reluctance to name names in general? One simply does not know if a professor is telling every potential applicant "I would be delighted to work with you" while he's packing his office to take another job, if he's despised by his colleagues, if he has a reputation for having crappy rapport with graduate students, or if he simply doesn't have the political juice this season to get anyone admitted. (In your particular case, mentioning this professor by name would be the next to last, or even last, point I'd make.)

FWIW, a usable summary of object relations theory can be found in Freud and Beyond . Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory goes into greater detail. I did a field in psychohistory/psychoanalytic theory. I was taught by a psychoanalyst who was a training analyst. From a historical standpoint, one can understand why it happens to this day. But, as a layperson, I share your concern. As the saying goes, when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This kind of conflicting guidance bothers the heck out of me. (But I'm not #OCD.) FWIW, I would aim for 1k words. As @killerbunny points out, cutting down SOPs can help one feel better about the result. Cutting is painful.

Have you considered the University of Texas at Austin? If you can stand withering heat, debilitating cedar pollen, grackles, and a research library shaped like the Lone Star State, you may find what you're looking for in Phillipa Levine <<link>>. The master's program includes a thesis option and a report option.

IRT "thank you" notes and email messages, give some thought to including brief comment in which you share an additional thought about something the professor said about the process or the discipline or a subject. While writing such a comment can require one to step outside one's comfort zone and may end up leading to one spending several hours to write one sentence, it's a good way to remind the professor of the conversation and to indicate that you think like a historian.

I sent you a PM.

When you start taking graduate level classes in a history department, you will have professors who can summarize 800-page books in one sentence. Some will add a sentence like "this book could have been an article." Is staying under a word limit about counting beans? Or is it about being concise in a discipline in which decision-makers increasingly value brevity? "Sometimes less is more," is how an Americanist who has an award named after him put it to me.

@4everstudent writing with a word budget is hard. However, you may have more to work with than you realize. Consider the following. A double spaced page with one inch margin will have about 250 words and take two minutes to read aloud. So a 500 word SOP is basically the script for a four minute "elevator speech" for convincing your audience that you'd make a good addition to a program and to a department in the near term and to the historical profession in the future. The following paragraph has 48 words. Imagine yourself listening to yourself talk about your aspirations for graduate school and beyond. What are the essential pieces of information that must remain? What elements would you like to keep, but don't necessarily need? What words simply don't belong? Are there ways to tell "the story" better? The following revised paragraph has 28 words. Explain how the program will help you become a historian who will advance historiographical debates and serve the profession. Keep only essential sentences and words. Cut everything else. [If you have Netflix, consider watching The West Wing, season 2, episode 9 for inspiration. The episode is ostensibly about NASA. It's also about the power of the well-written word.)