Sigaba

Hook 'em. Before picking The Forty Acres, I very strongly recommend that you do your due diligence for your tolerance for humid heat and for cedar pollen, especially if you have insomnia.

The guidance above looks like the post below.

I apologize for missing this comment. IMO, unless you have in mind themes that tie your interests together from the perspective of transnational or international history, your interests may be too broad for your own good. Any single one of the items you listed is enough for a career. IRT American history and Reconstruction, I strongly suggest that you find a different way to express your view of the former and interest in the latter. For many, Reconstruction and its historiography remain exceptionally controversial and painful subjects, especially with the current president fanning the flames of the Lost Cause. "Love with learning" can be misinterpreted as an insensitivity to that pain. As for American history being "kind of a dead end..."

IMO, you're misreading previous posts and you're making overly broad generalizations about what all white male academics have and haven't been asked throughout the history of the Ivory Tower. In regards to the latter, military and naval historians, regardless of gender and race, are regularly asked very specific "why" questions by members of armed forces and by veterans. (The thumbnail of the question is "Have you ever shouldered a ruck and stood a watch?") In regards to the former, the OP specifically says "They did not say 'you should do research on black women because you're a black woman." That is, no one said to @Adelaide9216 she should or must study black women because she is a black woman. So why are you changing what was said? (And along similar lines, please show me where I said anything about forcing anyone to answer any questions.) In terms of what I'm recommending @Adelaide9216 to do, I refer you to my post, as written. "I'm not talking about revealing your inner self. I'm talking about the kind of answer that will convince people that you've thought it out even if they disagree with you."

IMO, the largest challenge in front of you is that while you're imagining yourself doing history, the individuals with whom you'll compete for jobs are doing history. MOO, addressing this disparity should be your primary focus because your skill level is something you can control. You can learn to read, to think, to write, and to act like a historian. You cannot forecast the job market five to ten years from now. What is the craft of history? Why do you want to be a historian? What is public history and why do you want to specialize in that field? How do you see yourself impacting the key historiopgraphical debates in public history? IMO, the answers to these questions will be of more interest to historians than your GPA. I very strongly recommend that you start working on the thumbnail sketch that will indicate you are committed to the craft. Something along the general lines of: History is the study of change over time. Public history is [left intentionally blank]. By focusing on A,B, and C from the perspective of a public historian, I hope to contribute X, Y, and Z to debates 1, 2, and 3. As a graduate student, I will do j,k,l, and m, ideally with Professors Curry, Durant, and James. FWIW, one of the most brilliant people I've ever met was a UG classmate who double majored in math and history. He went to graduate school in history almost as an afterthought and he easily secured for himself a TT position. HTH

In this specific instance, the OP seeks entry into spheres of knowledge centered around immensely personal experiences. For these kinds of experiences, including violence, sexual violence, very serious illness, armed combat, Why do you want to know? is a valid question that deserves an answer for the sake of building trust. FWIW, my experiences have been a bit different. In the main, the answer to the question "why this topic?" is either freely given or quickly discerned. Or I will ask. I don't know what questions people should or shouldn't be asking in the Ivory Tower. As @telkanuru points out, there are questions that will be asked. If the persons asking have power over you, which is the preferable option? Having an honest answer, answering with a question, or refusing to answer at all? IME, a measured amount of candor can go a long way. YMMV.

Avoid these kinds of statements when talking historiography. It makes you sound like you don't know how to use Google much less how the profession works. https://history.princeton.edu/people/william-chester-jordan

To me, you sound like you're going into a program with one foot already out the door. To me, it seems that you're looking for reasons to justify why you're dedicated to your own best interests and not committed to the best interests of a profession you seek to join. Your ambivalence will stand out in contrast to your peers who are true believers in themselves, in the program, and in the craft. Who will your professors notice and decide to support and to mentor? Will your opportunism remind your department that the year to year renewal of your funding is not guaranteed (read the fine print)? My recommendation to you is that between now and the start of classes, you make a best honest effort to commit to the craft, to the program that has made a commitment to you, and, most importantly, to the people who have vouched for you. Pick either the thesis or report track to your M.A., bust your back to learn the craft and to develop your language skills. If you go in with a great attitude, do your level best to maximize your potential, and do your own legwork in developing opportunities, your professors will quickly show if they're worth their salt. IRT your socio economic background, your family history, your ethnicity, and your mental health, you're going to have peers and professors with life experiences similar to yours, in cases much worse. If you go into your program with a dim view of those who come from "families with money," and "those who get lucky," that chip on your shoulder is going to get in the way of building trust and rapport.

I think I get what you're saying. When I was a T.A., the professor in charge of training and for whom I worked most often was a Midwesterner with a bone crushing handshake, an exceptionally kind heart, and also, at times, a razor's edge about him. These days, I work for a consultancy that is based in the Midwest. Those of us who are Westerners at times have a hard time decoding what we're being told by The Powers That Be. A very senior VP, whom I refer to as Galadriel when describing her impact on our industry to new hires, cheerfully shreds peers, colleagues , and worker bees from time to time. My supervisor is from the Midwest and he more and more has an edge beneath the nice. When A makes a comment such as "Written in haste?" Do you press through the edge to see if the criticism has merit? Overall, are the criticisms consistent? Or does A sometimes say "blue" when other times the note will be "red"--to your or to others? If A's criticisms have merit and are consistent, I would see what I could do about having thicker skin. (This is easier said than done. Only you can decide if the price is worth paying.) IRT your self assessment, I recommend taking a look in the mirror from a different angle. It may very well be that A is expecting you to behave more and more like a peer and less like a graduate student seeking approval and guidance--even though guidance and approval are what you may need the most right now.

She should do her own legwork, including writing her own posts, and she should make her own decisions on what's right for her.

To @TakeruK 's points. 1. A potential impact of being a fish caught in a wider net is that if a scandal were to engulf a department and school, the stain could seep into one's own professional reputation. 2. This point merits careful thought. Schools, like other institutions, will brush off complicated issues rather than figure out ways to address underlying problems. This unfortunate approach to risk management can also include shooting the messenger. The kind of "cover" that would insulate the OP may not be a sustainable option to her or his school. 4. Arguably, the biggest benefits to self reporting are for the OP's sense of self. A general comment. IMO @seacloud 's posts in this thread and elsewhere thus far provide a learning opportunity for all of us. How careful should one be in managing one's on-line presence? Why should we do our own due diligence when it comes to learning the rules of the Ivory Tower IRT academic conduct? What should one do if one realizes that one has made mistakes after the fact?

I respectfully disagree with @TakeruK (a first time for everything?). Someone doesn't have to be out to get you personally for you to get caught up in a wider net, especially given the advances in AI/deep learning that are coming on line. The likelihood of you getting caught up in this net may be closer to n% than to 0%. It's up to you to decide if you want to get in front of it now or to play the odds that you won't be held accountable if your miscue is discovered. What you might do as a first step is to review your UGI's guidelines on plagiarism and then contact anonymously the ombudsmen at your UGI and your graduate program and ask for guidance. If the answers indicate penalties that will be catastrophic for your life plans, you'll have a decision to make. (IMO, your description of what you "most likely" did may not be as beneficial as a more straightforward recitation of the sequence of events: I have recently realized that I did not provide sufficient attribution for materials I used in my honors thesis. What can I do to make things right?) What ever path you decide to walk, please use this thread to provide updates.

Perform a literature review of your topic. Develop an understanding of how ongoing debates over various aspects of your topic have informed subsequent research and debate. Concurrently, perform a literature on your discipline. Develop an understanding of the "big picture" issues that are driving the profession. Through patience, diligence, and thoughtful reflection, do what you can to (a) establish a conversation among works on your topic as well as (b) a conversation among works about your discipline as well as (c) a conversation between (a) and (b). Your analysis of conversation A should reveal unexplored/unanswered questions. Your analysis of conversation B should reveal the received wisdom of your intended profession of what it needs to do to remain relevant. Your analysis of conversation C should reveal how your contribution to conversation A will move the needle in conversation B.

To clarify, you want to provide the program a copy of the cancelled check.

I recommend that you pay less attention from the critical remarks from people who don't know you well. I suggest that you find ways to be comfortable talking about your achievements. A number of activists and established professionals in the entertainment industry have Instagram accounts. Their posts and stories may provide examples of how to shine.

You've been struggling with that comment for some time now. IME, when a comment hits a nerve it's sometimes helpful to work towards a balance of being comfortable with the behavior in question and understanding why the criticism stings so badly. Here's the thing. You're going to need some shine and some swagger to reach the personal and professional goals you've mentioned on this BB. Just stay in touch with people whom you trust to call you on your own b.s.if your head gets too swollen. At which time you'll do some reflection and then get back to doing what you were doing. You mentioned Instagram. If you've not done so already, please consider taking a look at Ava DuVernay, Tarana J. Burke, and Lena Waithe. If not also Jameela Jamil and Kristen Bell. (The latter two make a conscious effort to share their struggle.)

I recommend that you focus on resting up. Your posts radiate exhaustion. Follow @rising_star's guidance for at least the first six weeks of your summer. Don't do a damn thing related to graduate school. Not a damn thing. (No, not even that.) Then slowly build moment for a few weeks, and then plan for at least one long weekend during which you do again don't do a damn thing related to graduate school. Don't get me wrong. At least once during your first year, you'll curse r_s and me. Those a-holes done me wrong, you'll drawl. And that's okay, because without resting up now, the inevitably miserable first year will be even more taxing.

FWIW, a number of graduate students who have gone through the process, some multiple times, have provided guidance in this thread and others that differ from the information quoted below. The writing sample. There are a variety of opinions on using one's best work versus using one that best reflects one's likely research interests as a graduate student.There are posts on this BB in which graduate students find that writing samples proved less critical to the decision than other factors, not the least because some members of admissions committees don't have time to read the samples carefully. If you only have yourself and one adviser to scrub your sample, you may be in for some tough sledding. Advisers are busy and after a while, it's ever harder to find glitches in one's own work. The statement of purpose. A cover letter and a SOP are entirely different documents. A number of established members have provided guidance about displays of passion in SOPs. Not a few recommend professionalism as a superior trait for SOPs. YMMV. Letters of recommendation "aren't as important as the latter two". If you don't think LORs are as important as other components of your application, you're imposing on yourself a considerable disadvantage. You need to establish genuine relationships with professional academic historians or advanced graduate students in your department who respect your work and believe that you will be able to contribute to the profession. You will be competing for admission against undergraduates and graduates who have taken multiple courses with POIs. The best "benefit" of being a graduate student in history is that you will have the opportunity to be trained to be a professional academic historian. If you're doing it for a "free ride," you may get eaten alive by true believers in your cohort. LANGUAGE SKILLS If you're not an Americanist, how far along are you in your mastery of multiple languages? Are you on track to pass language exams so you can do archival research abroad for your dissertation? Or will you need to bust hump to catch up your first two years in a program? Test scores, GPA. Some programs have minimum thresholds for GRE scores and GPA. If you're applying to such a program, what is more important, your writing sample or keeping your grades up? If your practice test scores put you on a bubble, what's your priority going to be? Academic pedigree Bottom line, bias exists in the House of Klio. If you majored in history and your high school is Happyland Preparatory Academy, and your UGI is Happyland University, your pedigree gives you a competitive advantage when applying to Happyland College of the Canyon. If you have this ace to play, play it with a little swagger, an appropriate amount of humility, and without shame. (What ever you do, don't go Kanye. It's a small world.) All components of your applications are important. The challenge aspiring graduate students in history face is deciding which components are most important for a particular application, how to change what can be changed the most in a limited amount of time and being at peace with the choices they make.

Do research on those who have the kinds of academic jobs you want and look for trends. Maybe build something with a spreadsheet app. Name/ gender/ department/ position/institution / Field of phd / year of ph.d. You might add another layer to your analysis if you look to see which field leads to more extra-disciplinary positions.

I understand your point. I agree that the system is broken. I agree that at least one contract has been broken. However, I don't agree with the reasoning. My perspective on the OP is that it proposes gaming the system in a way that works to the detriment of qualified applicants who want to attend that program. Also, while the professors at this institution are beneficiaries of a broken system, it is undetermined if they're working to changing things as individuals. If they are such individuals at this school, will they just grin and say @hellocharlie beat us at our own game and move on? Or will they be pushed along the path that has gotten us to this point in the first place? IRT the plan, I would point out that it's a smaller world than the OP may realize. A graduate student who screws over a department is going to generate chatter. Even if names are not named, given the (over) specialization of the profession, how hard will it be to figure out who that person is when he/she applies to programs and for fellowships and for jobs down the line?

As an undergraduate, I used my thesis on how a foreign war impacted an ongoing debate over policy and strategy for one of the American armed services. Happyland University was not impressed but it was good enough for my "back up." When I sought to "transfer" to another program, I submitted a biographical/historiographical essay on a prominent historian of the Cold War and my master's report on the impact of a group of reformers on efforts to modernize another armed service. Happyland University on the Pacific was not impressed but the essay were good enough for my first choice. I guess. (The report wasn't read until much later.) I recommend that aspiring graduate students submit writing samples that incorporates @ashiepoo72's criteria. I very strongly recommend focusing on the writing as the first and second priorities. You want to convince Professor Opens Up a Can of Whoopass that spending the next reading your writing is going to be a good use of her time. Show you're familiar with the existing historiographical debates by offering concise and focused summaries. Demonstrate your historian's imagination by describing at least one historical event/moment/person so well that readers slip back into time. Show the best parts of your personality by turning a phrase and/or showing a certain flair. The passive voice should be avoided by you. Fragments, too. Above all else, do what a historian of Jacksonian America regularly exhorted his students to do: define your terms, and "take the reader by the hand." (Or so I've heard.)

Is the report by William B. Herlands a primary source? Or do you have already relevant materials from the ILA as well as RG 38.4 and RG 181.2.2?

Don't neglect looking at what kinds of archives are available at the schools of interest and nearby. Analog > digital. Keep an eye on the faculty rosters of history departments that are close by. Some programs allow for committee members from neighboring institutions. You'll definitely want to read the fine print and learn the lay of the land before going down this path. Learn what you can about a department's culture and how you might fit in. Do you need community and collegiality? Do you want people to leave you alone most of the time? Will you mind if professors treat graduate students like "indentured servants"? Try to get a sense of how demanding the language requirements may be. Who will administer your proficiency exams? The Italian department? The history department? Or a professor who is going to rattle your cage because that's the way she learned to do things. Also, if you've not done so already, do what you can to find the masterwork(s) in your fields of interest and then diagram intellectual "family trees." You may find that Professors Big Deal, Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread, and Been There Done That have all been influenced by Professor You've Never Heard Of and she's really the one who has what you need. The following recommendation may generate some controversy. Focus less on individuals with whom you'd like to study and more on how the portfolios of faculty members fit together. A lot can happen between the time you receive an enthusiastic reply to an email of inquiry. What's your back up plan if the professors you most want on your committee end up not being on your committee--just because?

Why history? What kind? For what purpose? (What do you think history provides that you can't find in English?) Regrettably, this approach is going to have limited effectiveness in the House of Klio. In this forum alone, there are 118 threads with the word "switch," In at least one of those threads, the language requirements of a doctoral program in history is discussed

What can you do about changing the balance between the passages above and below in bold and your self descriptive comments? IMO, there's a competitive advantage to being able to define one's interests as a historian and talk about how one's scholarship is going to impact relevant historiographical debates. Defining even more clearly your analytic focus may also work to your advantage. That is, how do you prioritize your fields of interest and analytical methods? (Imagine you've finished your honors thesis and its exceptionally good -- to which journals would you submit it for publication and to which ones would you not?) Which path will be the most efficient use of your time, especially since you still need to prepare for the GRE, and plan on writing a honors thesis while also applying to graduate school? Would you be better served by spending another 40 hours on the existing writing sample, or 100 hours on reworking the "less polished" piece? The choice may be crucial given the chance that committee members may not read your writing sample until after you start attending, if at all. Many, if not most, professional academic historians labor in obscurity and never enter the popular consciousness. Members of this cohort may take exception to those who want to climb into the ring with popular narratives. Other historians won't care. Some will be right there with you. Unless you're going to do very good research on admissions committees, you're not going to know who is who. Are there ways that you can rephrase your interests so that you both remain true to yourself but also provide a bit more cover? Similarly, the way you phrase your interests between teaching and researching leaves open the interpretation that you specifically want to teach undergraduates ("aspiring history students"). As worthy as this objective may be to some (IMO, it should be the primary mission of the profession), to those established academics who dislike teaching and don't care for undergraduates, you're providing an opening for them to argue that you're not really committed to Klio. Would you be willing to consider ways to rephrase your vision of yourself as a professor so that you make your priorities clearer? One last comment. Without knowing which programs you're considering, I recommend that you think about casting a wider net to include departments that have multiple faculty members with overlapping fields of interest. I strongly caution you about putting the majority of emphasis on people with whom you can work. Yes, chemistry is important. But relationships change over time. There are many threads on this BB about relationships going sideways at the drop of a blue book for this reason and that one, or for some other reason, and graduate students wondering what to do next.