Sigaba

Good research is part of the job. Other, arguably, more important parts include using the findings of one's research to develop arguments that advance historiographical debates. MOO/IME the constellation of motivation factors that drive one towards the study of history as a graduate student shift over time. If viewing the craft as a hobby works for one person, then it works. (How one talks about history is a different issue.) FWIW, one of the most acclaimed naval historians is a self-trained independent scholar. Had the Cold War not ended when it did, his first book might have impacted everyday life in America and changed the trajectory of America's relations with the Soviet Union. FWIW pt 2, I was sandbagged by an elderly woman who had recently been hired as a professor at a major department. Why would anyone want to study naval history, she sneered more than once. I later found out that her husband was a nautical engineer for General Dynamics Electric Boat. Much much later, I figured out what articles in William and Mary Quarterly she could have pointed me towards, but chose not to. Not bitter, though. Not bitter. No, right. The point is that isms exist in the Ivory Tower but don't let your preconceived notions or even your bad experiences keep you from going after what you want. If you can contribute to the craft, someone will make room for you at the table. (Getting a job remains a different topic.)

I got a polite glaring smile. The AVP to whom I was speaking let me know that Adventists have dietary restrictions and don't drink coffee.

Almost a year later, I'm still not sure why @NoirFemme got dinged for this comment. Something to consider. An academic department is a work environment. Some professors talk to some graduate students when making decisions about bringing new people into the environment. IME, the opinions of graduate students do not make or break someone's chances, they can help a professor clarify her (or his) thinking on how well someone will fit in. Some programs will bring in rock stars because they're rock stars. Others will pass because even rock stars can break Rule #3.

FWIW, my POV is informed by an interview of Caroline Walker Bynum published in The Historian in 1996, especially her closing remarks at the end of the piece. Also, when one applies to a program or for any position, one doesn't have full knowledge of available resources and support. You cannot learn if you qualify for a fellowship for the study of X at Happyland University if you don't apply to Happyland University. (Maybe because of the way I phrased my point,I don't think we're in disagreement over the second sentence. By "genuine" I meant programs that have resources and people who can get you where you want to go.) A year from now, you may have an entirely different perspective on the relationship between the "subjective" and the "objective," as well as the possibilities of the unknown. In any case, and FWIW, In my experience, on multiple occasions, diligent searches on craigslist and word of mouth have put in places where the tension between my need for privacy and limited finances. Similarly, many unforeseen opportunities (as in research and job opportunities) have fallen in my lap because I kept in mind an axiom of diplomatic history: The moment one says "no," is the moment one stops being a diplomat. My $0.02/YMMV.

IMO, one should always apply to schools/programs of genuine interest regardless of concerns about adequate funding.

There are a few disadvantages. You can end up working hard enough to get a high mark that will improve your GPA and only have a P to show for it. You can miss opportunities to develop your writing skills. You can miss an opportunity to develop a relationship with a professor who could potentially offer you unexpected (but needed) support. You can miss something that might improve your understanding of a domain of knowledge because, in the back of your mind, you know you're not playing for keeps. IRT "spin." There is no spin in graduate school. Professional academics are gatekeepers. You're not going to wow anyone with spin. And just because no one says anything to you about your "spin," it doesn't mean that it's not being discussed.

MOO, the former is an important distinction that mitigates the latter. IME, historians can give the same presentation/talk over and again only if they're reached the pinnacle of the profession and are presenting findings to a general audience.

The aforementioned professor distributed each class / section meeting a version of this form https://forum.thegradcafe.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=638 The return rate will be low and you'll get some venting and you'll also get some good feedback. HTH

Make a list in a spreadsheet of what you want and what you don't want to gain from your graduate school experience. The list should be comprehensive but not exhaustive. After you make the list, rank all of the issues from most important to least important. After you've done the ranking, add another column which you will use to categorize each item as "town" or as "gown" (alternatively, off-campus and on-campus). If he "gown" items are more important than the "town" items, you should prioritize visiting the schools with stronger programs and better resources. If the "town" issues are more important, you should prioritize visiting schools that are in areas/regions that may be out of your comfort area/experience. When you make your list, be careful not to underestimate how "town" issues can impact your ability to do well in class. If you're not used to the cold and you go to Boston, you may be miserable for months at a time. If you don't like rainy weather and you go to the PNW, you may experience depression. ICYMI, this forum has information that may help you in developing your list. https://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/18-city-guide/ I would caution against putting too much emphasis on the bolded metric. Within five minutes of your first class with a POI (or a semester of working with someone else), one can come to understand that Professor Moneypenny is not the person for you.

If you take this approach, I recommend that you define deal breakers provisionally. Allowing for a shifting definition can help you navigate down the line thoughts like "Well, I knew the job was dangerous when I took it so I have no right to complain now." "If the students don't seem exhausted and unhappy, then perhaps whatever is happening behind the scenes isn't great." @MarineBluePsy, I fixed your post for you.? I would recommend caution in reading too much into the body language of people you've never met before. Even Pollyanna Harrington has bad days. If you're getting an odd sense from someone, figure out a way to "check in" without being intrusive. Or just ask a question that is so piercing that the person may give a heartfelt answer. "If you had it to do over again, would you still come here?" "Is this program bringing out the best in you?" "What single piece of advice would you give to a graduate student on her first day?"

Bump.

I would recommend getting in touch with ABDs who have had at least a year to recover from whatever qualifying exams they're required to take. (IME, the opinions of pre-quals graduate students are too fluid and graduate students right after quals are raw.) Try to have the conversation in person or use a medium that allows for candor. And deniability... Before having any communication with graduate students, try to develop a good sense of what information you want and what information you need. Try to figure out how you're going to evaluate the information you receive as it arrives. If you talk to five people and you learn that a topic or a person is polarizing, what kinds of follow up questions are you going to ask to get to the heart of the matter? What are you going to do with information that is unexpected but potentially very useful? (As an example, what if an ABD tells you that a rock star POI smells? Are you going to discount that information because working with said POI is worth it? Or are you going to have at hand questions/comments that tease out the layered implications of such an observation?)

I learned the hard way. Do not ask/talk/joke about coffee or any other caffeinated beverage. (I recommend the Starbucks at 1690 S Tippecanoe Ave over the one on Redlands Blvd.) If you're driving the campus, make sure you know well in advance where you can park, develop a couple of parking options, and make sure you budget enough time to walk from your car to your destination and refocus on the interview. If you're instructed to park in P3, please be advised that the drive aisles are tight and the functional design is ... unconventional. If you're coming to campus in the morning, you may encounter a surprising amount of traffic and a lot of sun glare. If you're driving to LAX after the interview, do what you can to leave campus by 3 PM else expect the worst of Southern California traffic.

The relationships between professors and graduate students cannot be forecast from the size of a department or a school nor from conversations/correspondence during the application process. You're not going to know if you're being mentored or getting good advice until you've been in a program for a while and you've screwed up for the second, third, or fourth time. (And maybe not even then.) IRT job placement, many critical questions about placement can be answered through one's own research. Ultimately, the craft of history centers around research. Historians understand the difference between questions and research-based questions. Compare the following questions. Q: What is the job placement record of Happyland University? Q: In the past X years, Y out of Z historians coming out of Happyland University have secured tenure track jobs at research universities within K years. Of this group, N wrote their dissertations on J history and had Professors Xavier and Logan on their dissertation committees. I am hoping to understand the extent to which N's placements center around their dissertation topics, the dissertations themselves, and the support they received from Professors Xavier and Logan. IME, it's much better for one's reputation to be known for asking research-based questions. YMMV.

MOO, a good rule of thumb for posting anything on an internet bulletin board or social media is to not post anything one would not mind reading on the front page of the New York Times. And, FWIW, I have learned the hard way that how one thinks and communicates privately about the craft, the profession of academic history, and the Ivory Tower generally shines through much more than one realizes and also in ways one doesn't expect. Finally, for those who have the sensibilities of the "Millenial generation," previous generations are strugglingly mightily with the changing times.

Please clarify. Did the work remain the same as the OP's did?

I don't agree with your reading of the tea leaves. If Person A hits the right notes during the interview and indicates a preference to attend Happyland University, why would a department automatically interview Person B, especially if Person A has applied to "comparable" programs and if Person A is "ranked" higher than Person B through a variety of metrics?

Agreed. My comment specifically related to how applicants talk to professors about fit, not how aspiring graduate students analyze fit.

Of late, applicants speak of how a program fits their individual needs. In years past, aspiring graduate students were more inclined to speak primarily of how they fit into a department with their individual needs/desires/objectives being a secondary consideration. Ultimately, the profession belongs to established academics. As the gatekeepers, it's their prerogative to decide who is a good fit and who isn't.

Or one could argue that the Cold War began during the First World War. And "domestic national politics" can refer to myriad events, trends, and dynamics beyond elective politics. @ipavineri please be mindful of how you discuss "fit" when you're talking to professors. This season in particular, applicants are, IMO, turning the meaning of fit sideways.

It may depend upon how one defines "domestic politics" if not also the "early Cold War."

Your boss wants you to work harder. Don't tell him that you're working hard. Show him that you're willing to work harder, and then work harder. If he can't / won't show you how to do what you need to do to work harder, try to find someone who will train you and/or find more time to develop the skills you need. The tactics recommended by @Hope.for.the.best merit multiple close readings, careful thought, diligent consideration, and practiced execution. Meanwhile, take care of your knee--physical pain drains motivation. Take care of your spirit. Take care of yourself. Keep up with your other responsibilities. If possible, seek support from people you actually know if they can provide you the support you need (rather than the support you want).

Yes, maybe not in the way you most want it to be right now, but definitely in the way you will need it down the line.

Try as hard as you can to focus the here and now by making a strong finish. Your senior thesis, your knowledge development through study and reading, your relationships with your professors, your GPA. The resiliency you develop now will serve you well when you're a graduate student.

Check your PMs (personal messages).