Sigaba

Minimize or cut from your to do list tasks that keep you from working on how you define yourself as a historian, your SOP, your writing sample, getting your LoRs lined up, preparing for the GRE, improving your language skills, and the courses you'll be taking in the fall. For CVs, use the guidance that @jujubea in conjunction with CVs that you can find on line for graduate students in history. IRT the non academic archival research that you did, I recommend that you exercise caution in how you highlight it. If the research was performed for an organization that has objectives, interests, and sensibilities that are counter to the values of professional academic history, you may want to consider minimizing the experience or omitting it (if possible). Examples include think tanks that produce politically controversial policy recommendations and firms that seek to privatize history. IRT "padding," if you think it is padding, it probably is and will likely be viewed as such. That being said, it's likely that your CV is going to have a lot of blank space on the page, so you will do what you need to do to fill up some of the blank space. Understand that over time a CV, like a resume, evolves. A recommendation. Do what you can to craft your SOP so that it's a lens through which interested parties will read the information on your transcript and your CV. A second recommendation. Do what you can to differentiate between building the tools that are going to get you where you want to go and crafting totems that help you manage the anxiety of the application process. Pie in the sky, you're going to spend most your time building tools that also serve as totems.

LT-- You might find useful information in this forum https://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/17-the-bank/ The exact information you want will likely need to come from institutions you have in mind and that information may vary. That is, what the department tells you may be different than what the graduate school and the financial aid office may offer a third interpretation of the applicable policies.

It is never time to panic. As stressful as graduate school will be, the worst case scenario is that you go on with your life. You don't have a gun pointed at your head as someone wants to take something that you're not going to let him have. You're not living though a natural catastrophe. You're not going through a once in a century global economic meltdown. As a rule of thumb, I recommend that when listening to the grousing of graduate students that one ask bluntly, "Have you spoken to Professor Xavier about your concerns?" More often than not, the answer is "no." I also recommend that one considers where a graduate student is in a program. The cares and conceits of a graduate student who is pre-quals can be vastly different than those of a student who has been around longer. The age and life experiences of a graduate student can also be important. A "non traditional" graduate student may have perspectives that are vastly different than a traditional graduate student who is heavily invested in a program. As an example, when it was my turn to hand off information about writing qualifying exams for a particularly difficult professor (read: POS/#NOTBITTER), the recipient of that information, a retired USAF pilot with combat experience, laughed as I ranted. (Later, this gravel-voiced warrior shrugged as talked about having terminal cancer.)

For better and for worse, there's a saying that history professors like to replicate themselves. I recommend extreme caution before labeling oneself as a "storyteller." You may put that in a SoP thinking that the reader will envision a BTDT like Cronon when she could also remember that Ambrose told stories, too. ALCON-- please exercise great care in how you support each other when it comes to writing SOPs. In some quarters, incorporating detailed guidance into one's own work can cross the line. A safer way to approach the task is to give general recommendations. That is, recommend revisions so that a SOP is more X or less Y without saying how to achieve those objectives.

Right now, you're all over the place. Please try the following. Rephrase your OP as a handful of statements and questions that define areas of inquiry and methods of investigation. What can we learn about X if it is approached from the perspective of A and B? Why is a perspective centered around A not enough? Why must B also be considered? If A and B are not commonly used together, what may a reader of your work use as basic tools/concepts to link the two together? Previous sociological studies of X have revealed this, that, and the other. If one looks at X from the additional perspective of B, what more might we see? IRT finding a program that is going to get you where you want to go, I recommend that you find schools that are strong in A (sociology) and B (philosophy). Look at how the two programs are structured. Does A have a requirement for an outside field that can be satisfied by doing work in B? Are there established trajectories in A and B that can inform your work? IRT finding programs, you're probably going to have to prioritize, if only provisionally, A and B. (Are you an A who uses the tools and select sensibilities of B? Are you a B who uses the methods of A?) Find schools that have strong departments of A and B that also have an established track record for interdisciplinary work. (Start drilling down into the faculty rosters so you can really get a sense if professors are walking the talk.) Look carefully at the degree requirements -- will there be opportunities to do an outside field in B? Look at local resources -- especially nearby schools; do those schools have departments that are strong in A or B, if not both? (Is a materialist [read: Marxist] approach to Korea going to open up doors for you in the old country?)

persona non grata

Before meeting your boss and handing over the letter of resignation, make sure that your personal effects are boxed up and ready to go as your boss may decide to show you the door then and there. If this event happens, understand that it's (probably) nothing personal.

Even if you can do it one year, and do it very well, should you? Professors can hold strong POVs about graduate students accelerating their paths to a degree. Will the savings in time and money be worth the potential, hidden cost of losing prestige in their eyes? (I knew a guy who burned his bridges rather spectacularly because he wanted to get his doctorate on an accelerated time table. He got his degree and a PNG on about the same day.) Recommendation: Get a sense of the lay of the land in your department. Understand that the response you receive may not be the actual answer.

IMO, there should not be a "hook" of any kind in anything an aspiring graduate student writes. A "hook" for its own sake can come across as inauthentic. Instead, your SOP should be a well-written genuine expression of who you are, where you want to go, and how you want to get there. IME, if a question phrased for historians has an "obvious answer," there's a good chance the question is being misread and/or the answer is ill considered and/or needs development and elaboration. If you want to be a professional academic historian, the next question is what kind? Do you want to be a rock star public intellectual? Do you want to be the rock of a department? Do you want to a grey man or woman whose influence won't be appreciated until well after you've left the scene? Do you want to mentor and to teach? Someone is going to interpret the question as the most important one and will be motivated to nail the answer by providing a vision of her personal professional growth, career objectives, and impact on the profession. Why not spend a couple of minutes/hours/days figuring out how to phrase a response that will be as noteworthy?

Regardless of what policies are in place at your friend's institution and department, how would your friend know that it didn't? That is, if a professor wants your friend gone and she/he cannot say "Well, there's this arrest record...", that professor can still say legitimately, "This person isn't committed to graduate school..." Are there other forms of political activity that find a balance between personal conviction and professionalism: voter registration, teach ins, letter writing, editorials, and so forth?

The search for "disability" produces over 800 hits, not just one post. Did you read that one post and stop? Did you do your due diligence to find "apples to apples" matches? https://forum.thegradcafe.com/search/?&q=depression&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy https://forum.thegradcafe.com/search/?&q=PTSD&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

IRT "great interpersonal qualities," that is a highly subjective assessment that is dependent upon individual differences and the circumstances of the moment. It is unlikely that you can make this kind of assessment until you're working with a potential supervisor closely, e.g. in a graduate research seminar. Even then, you won't really know; relationships can change. Also, it's the graduate student's responsibility to "get along" with professors, not the other way around. There are a number of threads on this BB in which doctoral students share their experiences. One may be more successful, if not better served, by getting a sense of a professor's knowledge, experience, success rate, and professionalism.

For what it's worth, this topic has been discussed in depth a number of times over the years. https://forum.thegradcafe.com/search/?q=disability

I would add that it's also dependent upon the institution and the department. As an undergraduate, I received so much instruction from graduate students that I didn't see some of the big names at my UGI ... until I attended as a graduate student lectures they gave half way across the country. Hey, OP. You're all over the place with your questions and your offers of support. Please keep in mind that for many aspiring graduate students, this BB is an important resource.

I suggest that you select a professor who is going to respect you enough to stand on your head if that's what you need to maximize your intellectual potential.

As the attorneys I know say, It's law school, not lawyer school.

Check your messages, please.

Check your messages, please.

Read and reread all of your school's policies and training materials on work, on teaching, and student conduct. Make a list of the grey areas between policies as well as of the questions you have. Make sure you get those questions answered before stepping in a class room. Read and reread the course syllabus. Understand that at some institutions, if not in a court of law, it is a contract between you and your students. Revise it as necessary to give yourself flexibility without compromising the overall structure of the class. Read and watch Oleanna. Regardless of what you think of Carol, make sure you understand what she's saying about the dynamics of power. Accept that there's some of John in all of us. Watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Regardless of what you think of Jade Fox, make sure you understand what she's saying about personal ambition and betrayal. Avoid the CHE fora on teaching. That place is a swamp in which educators disrespect their students and thereby themselves and the craft of teaching. #HTH

How would you ever know? Is your sense of individuality and desire to be rebellious more important to you than putting yourself in the best possible position to get offered admissions to graduate programs? TL/DR Use a school email address if you're certain you'll have access to the account throughout the application process. If you use a personal account, use an address that is less likely to get caught up in a spam filter or to generate curiosity or controversy.

To E-P's point, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/your-money/paying-for-college/student-loan-payments.html

Could you say more about your transition from sociology/anthropology to law to earth sciences?

MOO, you have not. Among the challenges you face is demonstrating that the lessons learned from your previous experiences in graduate school have improved significantly your decision making.The arguments that you were "self-directing [your] entire thesis" (emphasis removed) and that you were essentially a victim that "got caught up in some political B.S." (emphasis removed) and committed acts that violated the code of conduct and workplace harassment policies" suggest that you have not. My recommendation is that you do what you can to have an appropriately honest conversation with yourself about the choices you made as a M.A. and T.A. and how they contributed unplanned exit from graduate school. Do not go to the opposite end of the attribution spectrum. What happened isn't entirely on you any more than it's entirely upon your old program. Being able to discuss where and how you went off the rails is crucial to your development as a graduate student--as are the abilities to learn from your mistakes, and to forgive yourself and move on.

(FWIW, this conversation is a discussion about tactics, not strategy.) Read a printed version of the document backwards word by word. Assemble a red team with at least one member who is tasked with finding typos and grammatical errors and nothing else. This scrub will be the penultimate or last tasks performed by the red team. Find a certified court reporter and pay the person to proof read your document. Use a search feature to look for common typing mistakes like extra periods and white spaces. Be careful in your use of the replace function, though. FWIW, I make my living as a writer at a consultancy. For better and worse, many segments of the private and public sectors have stopped caring. Quality control is expensive and the return is hard for project managers to quantify, especially when clients don't bat an eye. (Lawyers and certain kinds of bureaucrats still notice. The former cannot be avoided. The latter must be satisfied and then fired as clients.)

Agreed. As written, the comment suggests that you think established academics have failed and that you're going to show them what they should have been doing all along. To many readers, it may instead seem that you've not done enough historiographical research to establish the parameters of the broader debates in which you want to participate. For some, that conclusion will be an excuse to stop reading and to move on to the next applicant's writing sample. Would it be possible to cast a broader net? http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601124 http://www.jstor.org/stable/29776197 ISBN-13: 978-0253209047 As someone who's prone towards editorializing, I strongly recommend not developing the habit. No matter how well you do it (or think you're doing it), or how learned, charming, or entertaining your comments may be, you're still passing up opportunities to impress readers that you can do the job like a professional academic historian. My $0.02.