Sigaba

Think of the page limit as a word limit (250 words/page) as well. And also think about the SOP as an opportunity to demonstrate your skills as a historian. Making a complex argument both effectively and efficiently is a core skill

I would start from scratch with copies of prior SOPs at hand. I would assume that readers would remember my previous effort and are expecting improvement. Just because. Good enough last year doesn't mean good enough this year if the bar has been raised.

Okay.

Two minor points. A very senior historian once corrected her students: "That's primary sources and secondary works." Also, the line between a primary source and a secondary work can be blurry, especially when a topic of contemporary historical interest has contemporaneous political and policy implications

@Karou IMO, using physical copies increases opportunities for serendipity. The front and back matter, the advertisements, the physical dimensions of a journal, paper, and font size can provide opportunities for additional insights that lead to more questions. For the same reason, at a library or bookstore, I will put my eyes (if not hands) on as many books as possible. The same goes for going through a digital catalog. Some years ago, a university library had a record for Upton and the Navy. This was a typo: the work in question was Upton and the Army. The mistake prompted questions that remain either under-explored and unasked by American military and naval historians.

I think that you should look at your attitude. There's a chance that the contempt that you show on this BB for those who have QA/QC positions, higher GPAs than you, graduate students, and those who have earned doctorates comes across differently than you realize. That is, you look good enough on paper to get some interviews from potential employers, and once you start talking, you convince them that they should find someone else.

It's possible that this professor feels like you're badgering him already. As an alternative to @TakeruK 's guidance, I recommend figuring out a less intrusive way (a physical note, not an email) to communicate the information you'd like for him to have, including when the LOR is due and where, and then backing off for four to six weeks.

IMO, because professional academic history is so compartmentalized and due to your specific circumstances, I think a running start may be a better (and more challenging) way to go, especially given your area of interest and experience level relative to some of your classmates. I recommend that you select three to five academic journals related to your area of interest and spend time going through 10+ years' of volumes. I recommend using physical copies rather than digital versions. Try to put your eyes on every article, historiographical essay, extended reviews, presidential address, and round table. Read very selectively those pieces that strike you as vitally important and/or very interesting. As @DGrayson points out, you'll see a variety of methods used but you will start to see patterns/rhytms in how historians present the questions they address within the contexts of ongoing debates. I cannot offer much in making specific recommendations IRT journals for you to select. One article that may help you get your arms around your field is Mark T. Berger, "Civilising the South: The US Rise to Hegemony in the Americas and the Roots of 'Latin American Studies' 1898-1945," Bulletin of Latin American Research ,Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 1-48 available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3338811 . What follows is a list of the 54 journals related to Latin American studies available at Jstor. Afro-Hispanic Review 1982 - 2013 The Americas 1944 - 2012 Anales de la literatura española contemporánea 1981 - 2013 Anales de la narrativa española contemporánea 1979 - 1980 Journal of Spanish Studies: Twentieth Century 1973 - 1980 Anales de la novela de posguerra 1976 - 1978 Anuario de Estudios Centroamericanos 1974 - 2013 Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies 1997 - 2013 Bulletin of Latin American Research 1981 - 2006 Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes 1984 - 2010 NS, NorthSouth 1976 - 1983 Caravelle (1988-) 1988 - 2013 Cahiers du monde hispanique et luso-brésilien 1966 - 1987 Caravelle (1963-1965)1963 - 1965 Caribbean Studies1961 - 2015 Chasqui1972 - 2013 Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures1976 - 2017 Confluencia1985 - 2013 Cuban Studies1986 - 2015 Desarrollo Económico1961 - 2015 Diálogos: Artes, Letras, Ciencias humanas1964 - 1985 Economía2000 - 2015 Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos1986 - 2017 Demografía y economía1967 - 1984 Estudios Económicos1986 - 2016 Demografía y economía1967 - 1984 European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe1989 - 2016 Boletín de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe1974 - 1989 Boletín de Estudios Latinoamericanos1970 - 1973 Boletín Informativo Sobre Estudios Latinoamericanos en Europa1965 - 1969 Foro Internacional1960 - 2017 Guaraguao1996 - 2013 Hispamérica1972 - 2013 Hispania1917 - 2015 The Hispanic American Historical Review1918 - 1999 Hispanic Review1933 - 2013 Hispanófila1957 - 2013 Historia Mexicana1951 - 2017 Iberoamericana (2001-)2001 - 2014 Ibero-amerikanisches Archiv1924 - 2000 Notas: Reseñas iberoamericanas. Literatura, sociedad, historia1993 - 2000 Iberoamericana (1977-2000)1977 - 2000 International Journal of Cuban Studies2008 - 2017 INTI1974 - 2013 Journal of Haitian Studies1995 - 2015 Journal of Latin American Geography2002 - 2013 Yearbook (Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers)1984 - 2002 Proceedings of the Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers1981 - 1983 Publication Series (Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers)1971 - 1980 Journal of Latin American Studies1969 - 2011 Latin American Antiquity1990 - 2014 Latin American Literary Review1972 - 2013 Latin American Perspectives1974 - 2013 Latin American Politics and Society2001 - 2013 Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs1970 - 2000 Journal of Inter-American Studies1959 - 1969 Latin American Research Review1965 - 2013 Luso-Brazilian Review1964 - 2011 Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos1985 - 2015 Mexicon1979 - 2014 Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica1947 - 2016 NWIG: New West Indian Guide / Nieuwe West-Indische Gids1992 - 2012 Nieuwe West-Indische Gids / New West Indian Guide1960 - 1991 Christoffel1955 - 1958 Vox Guyanae1954 - 1959 De West-Indische Gids1919 - 1959 Portuguese Studies1985 - 2017 Problemas del Desarrollo1969 - 2013 Reis: Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas1978 - 2015 Revista española de la opinión pública1965 - 1977 Revista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos1976 - 2015 Reflexión1972 - 1974 Revista de Crítica Literaria Latinoamericana1975 - 2014 Revista de Historia de América1938 - 2011 Revista Hispánica Moderna1934 - 2013 Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana2003 - 2014 Revista Mexicana de Sociología1939 - 2013 Social and Economic Studies1953 - 2013 The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review1984 - 2014 Lawyer of the Americas1969 - 1984

What are your fields of historical interest?

I think you'll be better off being your own copy editor. (Also, depending upon how technical a definition of plagiarism one uses (or is held to), the suggestions of a copy-editor could cross the line.) I suggest that you spend time figuring out how writers who write the way you'd like to write write effectively. Ideally, the pool of writers will be mostly in your field with some being academics in other fields, and maybe a couple who aren't academics at all. In your particular case, you might look at academics who have the same first language who are then translated into English, or themselves publish English language works. As you write, think about how Writer A or B would put it and emulate their styles just a bit. Over time, you'll incorporate bits and pieces of others' styles into yours and (ideally) readers will compliment your skill development. Don't try to emulate too many writers at once. Don't go too outside the box, unless you like professors standing on your head. Or offering evaluations of your writing using words like "baroque." (Not that that has ever happened to me.) I also suggest that you establish a loose rule on how you budget your time writing with a significant percentage of the time allotted to revising your own work and with at least a full day off before making revisions. For example, if you budget ten hours to write, give yourself six hours on Tuesday and then three hours on Thursday or Friday for revisions and maybe one hour on Saturday for proof reading. (IMO, Sundays are for watching NFL football.)

FWIW/IMO, I'd put the year closer to 1990 for works by Americanists. A potential work around is to find journal articles and book reviews by the same historian that were published before a book was printed. Or, if a work ends up having lasting significance, one may learn enough about it in "roundtables" published in academic journals, stand alone historiographical essays, and state of the art collections of essays. I would urge caution when using either tactic based upon how a professor talks about a specific work or her relationship with its writer.

The Nescafe (don't judge me) just kicked in so I will take the hypothetical a step or two further. Expect questions from Professor Three along the lines of "Which questions do you wish you'd answered differently? (With the why and how implied.) @serenade If you encounter this type of question, please avoid saying "I'd do everything differently." Instead indicate that you'd build upon what you wrote by adding X, Y, and Z. Three may counter with a follow up "Whatabout?" question. If he does, understand that you're doing well--quals are partly about finding the limits of your knowledge and seeing how well you can step out your comfort zone. I think you're going to do well in this conversation.

In your conversation with Professor Three, I recommend that you do the following. Take personal responsibility for not knowing what was expected of you. I am suggesting that you say something that includes the words "I failed to understand..." in a way that indicates you've reflected long and hard about the role you played in things going sideways. I am not suggesting that you grovel. I recommend that you be ready to answer the question "Why didn't you know that you were expected to provide synthesis and analysis?" Make an affirmative argument why you should be allowed to take your exams again. You are a historian who has contributions to make to the profession. You have been trained to prepare for and to pass qualifying exams--and you will prove it when given the opportunity to do so. Treat Professor Three's approval independently from the other two committee members. (Do not use the approval of One and Two as a reason.) Briefly outline your plan for preparing for taking your quals (have additional detail ready upon request, but don't over do it). Be ready for Professor Three to ask you a quals-type question during the conversation. Prepare for this possibility by re-reading your written responses and by thinking through the questions that gave you the greatest difficulty during the oral exam. When your conversation with Professor Three ends, look him right in the eye and thank him for his time. When you get the okay to retake your quals, make sure you know exactly what you need to do to dot the i's and cross the t's--paperwork, scheduling, and everything else that comes to mind. You don't need to do it all right after you get the okay, but you should do it soon. If possible, see if you can get one or two people to sandbox the conversation with Three. Treat the exercise like the real thing. @serenade, do all you can to put all of your other concerns out of your mind until you have this conversation with Professor Three. Visualize yourself having a positive experience with him. You will be poised, you will be knowledgeable, you will be professional. You are going to show Three that you just had an off moment. Imagine the conversation going well and getting the answer you want.

I am bumping this thread for the 2018 application season. Although understaffed and, for the most part, poorly (read: incompetently) lead, the administration of the incumbent president--and many of his supporters--have demonstrated that the gloves are pretty much off when it comes to settling scores. Please do all you can to limit your risk when picking your username and providing information on this BB.

@LowAchiever patient use of the search function in this forum will lead you to many threads centered around security studies. Some of the information may have a limited shelf life. Also, Foreign Policy maintains an online guide that may be helpful. https://fpguide.foreignpolicy.com/

Please keep in mind that some programs may allow you to have a dissertation committee member from a different department, even another institution as well as take courses at nearby schools.

Few burdens are heavier than the expectations of professors. I recommend that you start finding ways to manage your expectations--you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself. What you're doing should be challenging, and it should also be fun. At least some of the time.

I think that you need to lean forward a lot more if you want to earn an offer of admission to a top research university. IMO, the first step would be to abandon the "which path is easier" line of thinking--it comes across as lazy and entitled. Your playing the numbers game defies the received wisdom of this BB. Every season, there are members who seem to be sure bets to get into Happyland University but end up disappointed while others are very pleasantly surprised to receive offers from College of Happyland at Nirvana. The second step, already detailed by @Comparativist, is understanding that the study of history is different than the study of political science. Practitioners of the latter often argue that the two disciplines are closely aligned. Historians often push back. IMO, should develop a firmer understanding of the differences between the two fields of expertise--one that isn't based upon what you've heard from your professors. The third step, as mentioned by @ltr317 would be to develop an affirmative argument for attending a specific school in a specific department. Why you want to go to School Z to study A is not the same for wanting to go to School Y to study B. FWIW, IRT history, I don't agree that you have to define a specific research question. (If a specific question is framed too narrowly, you could send an unintentional message to readers.) IMO, one is better served by demonstrating an understanding of how one wants to engage specific trajectories of historiography. YMMV.

@Doll Tearsheet I would think that there's some miscommunication here. One doesn't need to read all to be very well versed in and engaged with the secondary literature. You can contribute to the scholarly discussion by splitting a hair. Group of scholars A says Author X is this. Group of scholars B says she's that. Group of scholars C say she's something else. Based upon your reading of her work, informed by your research, you've concluded that she's more this under some circumstances but the rest of the time she's that, and then some. Your findings could be in line with a subset of Group A, or an emerging Group D. Down the line, you'll be expected to create new knowledge. Right now, I recommend that you get comfortable doing some research, developing questions based upon your findings, doing a little more research, and then writing what you think.

IMO, one should make at least one close friend as a graduate student in history. Eventually, you're going to need someone to call you on your b.s. when you rant and rave for getting a disappointing grade on an essay that you were sure, absolutely sure, would make Richard Hofstadter jump out of his grave and say "THAT'S WHAT I MEANT TO SAY!" That friend doesn't have to be in your cohort -- it could be a faculty member. But that's different. Or should be. IME, being in the mix socially with fellow graduate students can be a mixed bag. If the group is good overall, there's the opportunity for synergy. But there's also the opportunity for a bull session turning into a grouse session during which a common concern becomes an overblown issue ("Professor Xavier, he's so mean") that could be solved by a five minute conversation with said professor behind closed doors. Or, you could make a very close friend who ends up being bat shit crazy and you don't realize how looney the person is until you're in the passenger seat during a high speed chase as your pal talks about the felonies he's going to commit on the driver he's pursuing. Fun times. Or so I've heard. @SarahBethSortino, I urge you to relax and to be patient. It's going to be what it's going to be. Just understand that if you opt out of too many opportunities, the invitations will stop coming and you'll be fair game for the gossiping that goes on when first- and second-year students get together and yak about the latest show and whatever because they don't quite understand that every waking moment should be focused on preparing for qualifying exams. (That's your out. "I'd love to talk, but I'm scared shitless about quals. Did you know that we're technically responsible for the entirety of our fields?")

@Adelaide9216 for your ten pager, see if you can get on jstor or similar data base and search for journals related to your field of study. You may find articles that you can use as "templates." The best examples you find may not fall into your specific areas of interest. For this exercise, printed copies of the articles may be more helpful than digital versions. For your thesis, your school may have a library that has theses and dissertations written by former graduate students. If it does, see if you can find works done by grad students in your department/program--ideally for your thesis supervisor. IRT your professors, your supervisor, and potential thesis committee members, IMO there's a lot to be learned by reading what they've written. You may be able to get a better sense of how they think. Knowing your audience can help you write more effectively. If some of your professors are outstanding writers, you may find elements to add to your own tool kit.

Immediately start developing your relationships with professors who might write your LORs. LORs are discussed extensively in this forum http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/75-letters-of-recommendation/ I suggest that you give thought to the impact that Harvey may have on those you may ask to write for you IRT available time, focus, and interest.

Do the best that you can, @Embee. Use the exam as an opportunity to see how well you can do under adverse conditions. Down the line, you'll be able to draw on the experience for both "lessons learned" and "I've done this before".

@beebeebee I recommend that you talk to the DGS and see if you can change your focus to earning a master's degree at your current program and then reassessing before leaving it. If you can, please make a point to have woman to woman discussions with members of the faculty. I suspect that they'll share experiences that may allow you to see things from a different vantage point. FWIW, I don't think that one should be too concerned about being in love with your advisor after one year. As long as you don't hate the person, and he/she is providing an appropriate amount of support and resistance, the relationship has the potential to evolve over time.

@Steph Smith, please exercise greater care in how you describe your research, your findings, and your interests. Saying that your search faculty member websites have provided little indication that historians are working on the war on drugs is vastly different than saying "There isn't a lot of study in this area currently." IRT "free sources" please keep using Google, available library catalogs, libraries near you (https://library.drake.edu/), and maybe online booksellers. Also, when you do research on a professor look for his or her CV and course syllabi. Those documents will generally provide more information than web sites. If you manage to get into a good periodical library or access to Jstor, I recommend very strongly this article. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24911839?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents The article provides a framework for an event in the recent past becoming a topic of historical inquiry.