Sigaba

You're going to need members of your committee to be references and/or write for you when you apply for jobs either in or out of the Ivory Tower. I recommend that you phrase doubts differently than you did in your OP. Based upon your OP, one make the conclusion that you're leaving your field at the first opportunity as opposed to applying to dozens, if not scores, of available positions. To put it another way, if you were to phrase your doubts and the professor to whom you were speaking asked "Well, how many positions have you applied for?" would your answer be a good one? What if she said in reply "Well, it's your lucky day...I've got a full time job for you..." would you still want to leave the Ivory Tower? Under which conditions would you want to stay? What if the committee members tell you that you're feeling what they and others felt at this point? Do you want to be talked into staying? Ideally, your committee members will understand your situation and respect your decision. However, there is also a likelihood that your decision could alienate one or more professor. Your education represents a huge investment in money, time, and energy. For you to get your spot, it is likely that someone else was told "no" and that person is going to stay in the Ivory Tower and have a solid professional career. If the conversation takes this type of a turn, do what you can to get change the topic or cut things short. Ultimately, you will have put in the work, you will have earned the degree, and it is entirely your decision on what you want to do next. What ever you decide, please do the current and future members of this BB a favor by returning to this thread and sharing what happened.

Chances are that since your idea is "very much" in the public consciousness via the media that other academics have done some sort of research on it. It is not likely that the two professors you've shared the idea with are up to date with all the latest research on your proposed topic. Use the skills you're developing to research the existing literature--you may be chasing information that's mention in passing or relegated to the references. Which will suck if your field uses short citations. (History is the greatest field of study there is in the humanities and the social sciences. Just reminding everyone. ) There's a big difference between creating new knowledge and being completely original. If one interpretation of the alphabet is A-Z, and another is A-X, Z, and Y, both are contributions to a field. You will be better off if you can anchor your approach to the issue to an established scholarly debate. If you're too far afield, the cutting edge becomes the bleeding edge. (Or so I've heard.) If your topic is heavily reliant on data analysis, it might behoove you to start looking into the potential impact of AIs and ASIs on your field. Are you learning skills that will be less relevant a few years from now? If you've not done so already, consider the benefits of keeping some sort of idea journal. Jot down your thoughts over and again--you may notice that you either phrase or conceptualize it differently every time. Over time, as you think, read, think, and think about your idea, the concept may become ever clearer. Or foggier. Or both. Or so I've heard.

These statistics say very little about your interests, aptitude, current ability, or potential as a graduate student. (You should lead with your interests and areas.) Your Twitter feed suggests that you hold strong, if not necessarily well informed, views and express them stridently. https://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/84192-protect-your-privacy-when-selecting-a-user-name/ Do you see yourself as an economic historian or a social historian or an urban historian? There's a lot of overlap among the three fields. You would serve your interests well if you knew the boundaries.

I used to believe that. Now I pretend that it's still true. http://tinyurl.com/yccs95x5

And just because one asks to keep a matter confidential, I don't know that the request itself binds the recipient of the request.

In one hour? Okay.

Pointing out inconsistencies in a post isn't "victim blaming," it is pointing out inconsistencies in a post. IMO, you are trying to have it both ways. You want readers to think that you're squared away and you want readers to think you're a victim of an undergraduate "bullying" you. You (again) point to your experience in government, your intimate knowledge of the dynamics in your department, and yet express continued surprise that the "individual responsible for the undergraduate program" sided with an undergraduate over a graduate student. My reading of your posts is that you attempted to throw your weight around in the department and tell professors how things should be done, things went differently than you anticipated, you took umbrage, and now you're here. My reading is that you've been told to drink a cup of STFU and to stay in your lane. My reading is that undergraduate tuition and fees are important to members of your department and they're willing to put up with behavior that you don't like. The way you have been told appears unprofessional, maybe actionable IRT your school's policy because of the violation of your request for confidence. Then again, I wonder about what information you're choosing not to disclose. However, going from there to allegations that your careers are being threatened does not make sense to me. A professor has the discretion to write or not as he or she sees fit. One is not entitled to glowing letters of recommendation. IRT your intent of asking "qualified individuals," you got good guidance--don't ask the acting chair for a letter of recommendation, you don't need it-. And then you argued with the posters who provided it. Since you asked in your OP, here are some suggestions. If you're going to present a biased account and selective of your experiences to strangers, don't take offense when strangers ask questions or point out inconsistencies. If you're going to use a phrase like "step up" multiple times, then maybe think twice before painting yourself as a "victim." Avoid the temptation of telling your bosses how to do their jobs unless you're absolutely certain your guidance is going to be well-received. You said it yourself, the department is aware of this UG's behavior. By you pointing it out in an email to your professors, you called them out for at least the second time this term. (I am still not sure why you sent an email to multiple professors before talking personally to at least one of them, especially given your work "in government.") Keep in mind always that money talks, even in the Ivory Tower. Don't allow yourself to be trolled by undergraduates' email or posts on social media.

Some things don't add up. The OP has "worked in government" but is getting out foxed by an undergraduate. The OP has great relationships with other professors yet reports that she received one "yay" vote on an application. The OP has great relationships with others in her program yet comes here to get answers from complete strangers. The OP has "maintained good academic standing, have invented a completely new technique that changes my field, been internationally published (first grad in my department) and will be speaking at an international convention" yet is worried about a letter of recommendation that she does not have to request.

I would be more precise in describing the editorial support. As it stands, the bullet points suggest you looked over the entire manuscript. I would add information on project completion--did you do the work on time and on budget? Assuming that she's given you permission to include her name and the forthcoming work's title in your document, I would add more information if the title itself didn't indicate how serious the work of scholarship is.

I recommend that in addition to considering the guidance provided above, you try to get a sense of the department's recent experiences with issues/dynamics centered around gendered relations. It may well be that your professor is behaving defensively in the wake of a recent event/controversy. That is, he or a colleague got into hot water for making eye contact with a woman or focusing on her too much in seminar discussions or how tasks were delegated. Stuff happens and sometimes over corrections get in the way of applying lessons learned. I also recommend that you think long and hard about having a face to face conversation with him about your concerns. Yes, the disparity of power makes such a conversation risky for you and is (arguably) sufficient reason not to have that conversation. However, this is an opportunity for both of you to address an important issue. As to his conservative views, I urge you to reflect upon why you're surprised.

Congratulations. You've managed to write a post that is even more anti-intellectual than the OP. You will be eaten alive in the Ivory Tower if you respond to controversial questions/subjects by wrapping yourself in your faith, especially when it suggests a monolithic characterization of hundreds of millions of people.

I have done a poor job this application season pointing out such programs to aspiring graduate students. I would add to @gsc's recommendation a suggestion that one perform some due diligence before putting eggs into an inter-university basket. Just because two institutions have a relationship that enables cross pollination, it doesn't mean that worker bees can make honey where ever they like. Different hives will have different priorities and sensibilities. (Don't worry, I'm not going to drone on too long here.) In addition to contacting departments about the specifics of such programs, look at the works of the historians you envision on your committees. Do you see evidence of collaboration, collegiality, and genuine respect? Or are you going to be bouncing back and forth while cross town rivals use you as a ping pong ball?

I recommend a longer conclusion. A longer conclusion will allow you to show how well you can pivot from a specific topic to larger / broader issues. Demonstrating this skill may be pivotal as your intended emphasis differs somewhat from the emphasis of your WS. IRT the introduction, I would try very hard to it to five pages. Next year, you'll be writing review essays that summarize vibrant fields of debate into paragraphs. You will sit in seminars in which professors run through reading lists, summarizing 500-800 books in one sentence. You will spend hours in library stacks, skimming/reading selectively through books for their core arguments. There is no time like the present to work on this skill and no better opportunity to show readers that you can think and write like a historian. I understand that this recommendation may cause anxiety. As @Tigla points out, one becomes attached to one's writing. However, as a very accomplished professor commented on my writing, "sometimes less is more."

Well, thank you for slumming and enlightening us.

FWIW, I agree that your writing sample may be top heavy. Are there opportunities to take some elements of the historiographical discussion out of your introduction and integrate them into the middle? What follows is a rough sketch of what I'm proposing. Paragraphs describing an event E or a dynamic D. Paragraph summarizing existing interpretations. (Thus far, historians studying X have fallen into one or more categories...) Transition. (However, these interpretations overlook [A, B, C] and therefore merit (slight/significant) reinterpretation.) Paragraph with your analysis of E or D. Transition. (The same factors that shaped E or D, played a less/more significant / different role in ...)

Congratulations. Be careful. Make sure that this job isn't a "hustle" in the eyes of any professor who has power over you. Also understand that approving a course of action and approval aren't always the same thing. It's very unlikely that a professor is going to pull you aside and tell you what she or others in the department really think of student affairs. (To put it bluntly, the existence of this forum and other virtual communities speaks volumes of what a critical mass of history professors ultimately think about students.)

Think of your current specific interests like playing in a classical orchestra. If you switch from one wood wind to another, it's unlikely that any eyebrows will raise. If you switch to another section, just be prepared to discuss the transition as part of your growth. A jump to an entirely different group of instruments or genre may require you to convince Professor Eleanor Shellstrop otherwise when she sniffs, "That's not music, that's EDM."

Be mindful of an unfortunate fact of the Ivory Tower -- many academics are disdainful of those who aspire to teach. Even if your potential advisors have won teaching awards, others sitting on admissions committees may want graduate students who are focused on research.

"We." I read your note. I don't believe you. If you really cared about this issue as much as you'd like others to believe, you'd have filed a lawsuit against the professor, his department, his school, and the parent system. You'd have gone to the press. You'd have gone to all of the schools he's attended. You'd have identified former classmates and interviewed them for evidence of similar behavior. You'd be financing the effort with crowdfunding. And you would be using your true name when leveling allegations that could torpedo a guy's career. If you really cared, you certainly would not be dithering around, parsing words, asking leading questions, tasking others to do your research for you, and arguing with anyone who dared to disagree with you. My theory is that you were a student of his. As a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar; my theory is that you were caught doing something dishonest and/or he thought less of you and your work than you do. You got what you had coming to you. Did he take away your funding? Did he take your name off an article? Or maybe he just didn't nod his head vigorously and sit in awe of your brilliance. (One does not wonder why.) In retaliation you're conducting a whispering campaign that would be actionable under the California civil code--in a word, the word starts and ends with 'l'--were it not for your intellectual weakness and lack of will. You dress up the latter with self serving catechisms and the former by adopting a username you're unworthy to use. Here, let's play your game. Unless you provide exhaustive and conclusive proof that the theory outlined above is untrue, then one can rightly assume that there's something to it. Next step is to make a mountain range out of mole hills while weaving a tapestry of self righteousness. TL/DR: Read more. Post less. You will find numerous threads started by members with actual courage. Notice the differences between the way you approach your issue and the way they address their problems. It's not even close.

Since the OP clearly has it all figured out, the question remains. Will the OP take his concerns and evidence to the responsible institutions, publishers, and professional associations and shares the subsequent experiences here or will the OP continue to strut around like Galileo did after he discovered Las Vegas? TL/DR: Don't talk (and talk and talk) the talk if you're not going to walk the walk.

What have you done with your findings? That is, other than starting multiple threads on a BB.

This would be a good time for those of you who are lurking to register and to post how things are going this application season. Sure, there's plenty of information to be gained "for free," but why not share what you know? Have you received especially information from professors and graduate students at your current school? Have you received information that is at odds with the recommendations provided here? How have your attempts to establish rapport with potential POIs worked and not worked? Have you been welcomed warmly as a prospective graduate student? Have you been given mixed messages? Have you been ignored? What is your "to do" list and schedule for the rest of the current term? How are you balancing your current responsibilities with your applications? But most of all, how do you define yourself as an aspiring graduate student in history? What are your fields, areas, and intervals? What direction do you see the profession going in the next ten, twenty, forty years?

...may constitute harassment under your school's policies, if not also law.