Sigaba

It might. If you get asked about it, I recommend that you be up front and honest. Be prepared to answer the question "Why didn't you disclose this event when you applied?" A program/department that had recent experiences with faculty, staff, and graduate students with chemical dependency issues may decide that it doesn't want to go down that path if it can be helped.

I would recommend that instead of writing out what you would have changed, you make a list of five to nine bullet points. I would tilt the balance towards what you would add rather than what you would change. During the exam itself, I would focus on the former and leave the latter category in reserve in case your examiners take the conversation in that direction. Also, I would go into the exam with printed out copies of your written replies. I suggest that if you mark up one copy, you either have a second set of copies that are clean or that you write your comments on the back of the previous page. (The purpose of having clean text is in case an examiner wants to talk about a specific page -- it will be easier to find that page if it has no marking on it.) I recommend that, if possible, you focus on developing a back up plan for your technology (if the oral exam is to be conducted remotely). I also suggest that you figure out how your body will respond as the exam progresses. Do you want to run the AC before the exam so you can stay cool during the discussion? Do you want to wear layered clothing that you can shed if you start to get nervous? Do you want to adjust your eating and sleep schedule so that you don't have that "I shouldn't have had that third espresso moment?" Please keep in mind that in the moment, comprehensive exams are extraordinarily stressful. As I've said a few times, for me, quals were more stressful than having a loaded hand gun pointed at my face. But if one stops and thinks about it, the exams are not life threatening. No one is going to shoot you in the face. Just focus on doing the best you can so that you can pass. (A tip. If you find that, during the course of the exam, the discussion becomes increasingly intense, it may be a sign that you're actually doing well and the members of the committee want to see how high you can jump intellectually.)

For current applicants to graduate programs in history waiting for news and planning their next steps, please consider contributing to this thread. Please remember that there's likely a difference between reasons why you suspect you were or were not admitted and the reasons why programs did or did not offer admissions. Distinguishing between the two will allow you to gain the maximum opportunities for insight both now and in the years to come. (As an example, I was initially told that I didn't get into Happyland University because of "politics" but over time I came to understand that my book review was not all that it could have been and that I simply did not work hard enough as an undergraduate to develop as full an understanding of historiography as I might have.)

FWIW/ICYMI, I indicated as much in the very post to which you're replying-- as well as others on this BB this season about higher education finances. ? The point I was making is that when it comes to money and promotions, people can easily convince themselves (and each other) that they lost or didn't get what they think is rightly theirs because someone else worked the system or jumped the line or pulled some strings. (There is a conversation among professors at the CHE successor fora about how money spent on X by another department could/should be reallocated to preserving jobs. This conversation persisted even after someone pointed out what I implied and you stated -- that's not how funding works.) We're living in an age of trumped up grievance and victimization. The question I raised remains for those who want to "leverage" funding: Is getting extra money one doesn't necessarily absolutely need worth it given the conditions of the day?

IME, there's a difference between negotiating and leveraging. Also, generally accepted practices are not always best practices and common practices may not be applicable during extraordinary circumstances. If you need more money, by all means ask for it. If you want more money, maybe think twice... $0.02

Thank you for the additional information.

You can do it. You will do it. If possible, consider the benefits of setting up a time table for completing and submitting the six remaining applications. Ideally, the time table will include breaks during which you'll take care of yourself. Give some thought to the kind of workflow that will work for you best right now. Do you want to finish one application at a time? Will you feel better if you work on your top choices first? Would a 'production line' approach help? What ever mix of tactics you select, understand that you've worked very hard to get to this point of the process and you're almost there. You will have time to relax during the holidays. When it's time to get back to it, consider the advantages of a "lessons learned" exercise -- you will be submitting more applications as a graduate student. You can do it. You will do it.

When a department asks this kind of a question, it may be so that it can benchmark itself against peers as a way of meeting a KPI. If you're confident in your application materials, the list may work to your benefit. If you're less certain, you can list schools alphabetically or not at all. What kind of message does a newly admitted graduate student send by trying to "leverage" offers of support--especially during a deepening economic crisis that may be inflicting hardship on schools, departments, programs, salaries, and jobs? The obvious benefit of the successful implementation of such a tactic is a more lucrative funding package. But what are the challenges one might encounter of being "that person" in a department where members of the administrative staff took a hit or faculty members were denied promotions? (The possibility that the additional funds come from a different bucket may not matter.)

Your undergraduate work helped you to define your interest around Central/Eastern Europe, you're gravitating towards the early modern era. You want to pursue a master's degree so you can refine your interests further, deepen your knowledge, and develop your skills as an academically trained historian. The writing sample may not be the most important piece of an application, however working on yours may help with the SOP. Not to take away from your experience, but ... There's a difference between a professor loving a student and seeing a student's potential and taking reasonable steps to nurture that student's intellectual growth. Also, a professor can, IME, lavish students with praise and affection as a tactic to motivate other students to work harder. And/or a professor may just find the usual group of students increasingly...boring. (This is to say that IMO the professor who loved you could and should have done more to figure out ways to cultivate and to support your intellectual interests through mandatory office hours and a clear statement of what kind of work is needed for a LoR down the line, regardless if a LoR will be needed.)

I am not qualified to comment on European graduate programs. Were you in the United States I would urge you to work on defining yourself as a historian, refining your SOP, getting strong LoRs and polishing your writing sample. I would additionally recommend that you focus less on the history classes you didn't take and more on the ones that you did. How does your coursework as an undergraduate position you to be a competitive applicant? (And I would suggest that you give thought to applying to at least one doctoral program.) I would also point out that your interest in historiography, the long nineteenth century, B.S. degree, and (assumed) fluency in German would make you a frightening classmate to have. Have you given any thought to the kinds of research projects you'd want to pursue as a graduate student? Are there ways to leverage your b.s.? (One of your fields could be "business history," your outside field could see you taking more business classes, and your knowledge of business practices could potential enable you to serve the historical profession -- one of the bigger lessons learned of COVID-19 is that academics don't know how to make sense of budget documents/spreadsheets.)

A shot of ice-cold Belvedere in a dimly lit room is more economical, if not convivial.

Take pride in the fact that you're a person of character who wants to do the right thing. Not everyone you encounter in graduate school will have the same mindset.

Yes. Please make sure that you do your due diligence at least two times. Is your supervisor really okay with it? What do others in your department who have power over you think? What are the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles you have to clear? What kind of unforeseen hoop jumping may you have to do? Who is the first among equals among the co supervisors? What's the plan if Professor Xavier is the main person and you decide you want to follow Professor Grey's recommendations instead? How will things work of your AO is in lockdown at crucial times? What kind of information is available about previous iterations of the specific partnership?

FWIW, we did Surface Pros a few years back. Things were going smashingly well and then things went sideways--battery life, graphics cards, overall performance. (No, I was not under my desk curled in the fetal position, sucking my thumb, I was looking for a Lemonhead I dropped--five second rule--and decided to do a duck and cover drill.) Now, now we're back to Dell. @goaldigger97, Lenovo customer service screwed me a year ago, I had a tantrum, and I may have made some kind of vow on Twitter, so I don't know what my next device will be. That being said, I've generally had good experiences buying refurbished ThinkPads from Lenovo's on line outlet. If you go this route, I recommend that you set up an account linked to a method of payment so you can pull the trigger on a deal the moment you see it (devices tend fly off the shelves). Financing is available through Klarna.

Set up a LinkedIn account and start looking at the requirements for jobs at places you would like to work. You may find opportunities for holders of some sort of certification centered around facility operations. Or logistics, including supply chain management. Here's the thing. Some a-holes will treat you like the help, but the smarter ones will understand that they can't do their jobs well without the support you provide. (A point you would make by working miracles for those who treat you with respect. It can be as easy as keeping the fridge stocked with Mountain Dew and diet Dr. Pepper and ordering the right kind of pies from the preferred pizza shop. Hint: if you consistently build in a small buffer to orders, you will consistently be ready to deal with an unexpected diner at a group meal or have an extra widget. Hint 2: Do not eat until you are absolutely sure that everyone else has food to eat. Sometimes, you will end up going without, and it will suck but a grumbling stomach is better than grumbling bosses.)

Hi, @Aditya_Aditya. The bar for foreign nationals as employees doing work for the American space program is set by ITAR. Foreign nationals are denied entry into SpaceX facilities as visitors. So one thing that you can address right now is understanding if you are lamenting the passing of an opportunity that was always out of reach OR taking the steps to make sure you can work where you want to work after you've received the training you need to get the job you want. Please keep in mind that one can work in the software industry without being a software engineer or having advanced training in computer science. I'm writing from personal experience -- I worked at the R&D lab for a globally prominent business and consumer company. It took a while to understand what was going on but well before that, I was coordinating projects across departments, the Western hemisphere, and even into the Pacific. These kinds of jobs are still out there. They often require specific training and certification, but not advanced degrees. (The kicker is that you will have to be available for long hours of unscheduled work, the ability to prioritize tasks when project managers are all telling you that they need things right away, and pressure pressure pressure pressure on top of pressure.)

It's not either/or. If you dig deep down and find a way to write more efficiently you can do more with less. You can do it!

Your post inspires questions. The scale of the problem for whom? Would those of you who have earned your doctorates had gotten TT jobs would you have the same concerns? (I can ask counterfactual questions -- I work at a consultancy. ? [And we're addressing similar questions.]) Are academic historians -- a group in which I include undergraduate history majors as well aspiring and current graduate students--paying an appropriate amount of focus to the question "What do we owe each other?" In my view, the fact that so many need to come to the Gradcafe to get information from strangers rather than being able to rely on the bespoke guidance of graduate students and professors during office hours, speaks poorly for the craft overall. What are the ethical responsibilities of tenured professors to tell historians in training that getting a TT job is exceedingly unlikely? Where would we be if trailblazers like Du Bois and Woodson and Lerner and Kerber and Foner the Younger had been deterred by the obstacles they encountered and the sand bagging they endured? (At my department, I was one of a handful of graduate students being advised by a professor with a well earned reputation for never finishing (and placing) anyone. Were others supposed to pull me aside? I sometimes wish they had and I also understand why they could not. It was my responsibility to figure it out and my fuck up that I didn't do so in a timely manner.) To borrow a question that some professional service firms have been addressing for decades--how does the historical profession increase the demand for its work while also commanding fees (in this case TT jobs) commensurate to the services it provides without sacrificing standards of practice and care?

I think you may be underestimating what you have learned as a graduate student--the ability to coordinate / support and evaluate multiple projects as a teaching assistant, the ability to participate in the event planning process, and the ability to manage a publication are skills with a high degree of lateral transfer to coordinating and managing projects, and to working as an analyst. The ability to navigate one's teaching responsibilities while preparing for qualifying exams are not dissimilar to preparing time sensitive, mission critical deliverables while also attending to the needs of internal and external clients. The ability to do research, and then to synthesize hundreds of published works and to analyze thousands of "data points" into a coherent argument that can be summarized a report that can be distilled in a handful of bullet points that's a big part of consulting. (The bigger part are "people skills" that allow a five minute conversation to last two hours and turn the direction of a project ninety degrees with no adjustment to schedules or budgets. But I'm not bitter.) And if one's fields / areas of specialization center around anything resembling strategy, operations, and tactics, one can earn a place in conversations about project approach, product development and organizational/division/group "strategies." IME, the big difference between navigating the Ivory Tower and working in "the real world" (as if one version of everyday life is less/more important or challenging than another), is the pace of work and the focus on money. Can graduate programs in history be reimagined so that graduate students can learn additional skills that make them more competitive for non-academic jobs? IDK. In my division, every recent hire has a degree in their area of practice as do the interns. Some flourish, some flounder, some don't work out. Notwithstanding my objections, the management team is concluding that it's not about experience or education or but something else --about being "wired" or the dreaded "t" word. Are we asking the right questions about the purpose of earning degrees in history? Is the purpose of earning a doctorate to get a TT job or is it to develop a skill set that enables historians to create new knowledge multiple times through the course of a professional career? Are we using the appropriate key performance indicators to evaluate the job market for historians? What is optimal for individual newly-minted historians--more opportunities for TT jobs across a wider range of areas / fields -- may not align with what is optimal for individual departments, if not the profession as a whole. (Ultimately, who is responsible for picking areas / fields that are out of fashion? Graduate students or the department that offers admissions?) Are our assumptions valid? Members of other professions also have to compete for jobs in an ever shifting marketplace. Not every lawyer makes partner. Not every engineer makes principal. Should it be different for historians?

The following passages are what I found especially controversial. IMO, when you attempt to take away a person's opportunity to fail, you also take away an opportunity to succeed. Also, the way I was trained as an educator, you do not mess around with or question others' motivation unless they specifically ask for guidance. Had @NoirFemme written that those who dream of being a history professor may find the path exceptionally challenging, or suggested that such individuals consider the benefits of broadening their constellation of motivational factors, I would have nodded in silent agreement. But that's not what she wrote. Instead, she editorialized ("the height of conceit"). But also.. ^The position that one's background alone bequeaths an understanding of how doctoral programs are designed, is debatable, especially given the absence of qualifiers. IME, it is the kind of generalization that historians are trained not to make -- autobiography is not history. One's background and experiences may provide additional insight, but do not, in and of themselves provide expertise. Had @NoirFemme summarized her experiences as being consistent with what is being reported in this and other threads--with or without the disclosure of race, gender identity, and socio economic class, I would find her comments more memorable and less controversial. You continue to conflate your individual experience as a graduate student in one history program as a global view of all doctoral programs as well as of thousands of higher education institutions. The latter is especially interesting as individual institutions are themselves trying to figure out if COVID-19 is the cause of their financial misfortunes or, as many administrators and consultancies are arguing, an accelerant. "Being honest" about one's experiences is crucial, and, IMO, a conversation among historians is not well served by over generalizing and over simplifying cause effect relationships. Positioning oneself in a role is not the same as fulfilling that role. You sought to establish an order by which people should consider applying to history graduate programs. For whose benefit did you offer the opinion? Certainly not for the benefit of "true believers" who might be able to submit application materials that resonate with like-minded professors who go on to do what history professors are known to do -- lean in and support graduate students who remind them of themselves.

And rather than offering your experience and expertise in one program to serve as a source of support, you are positioning yourself as a gate keeper.

Is judging others based upon assumptions of their motivation through the lens of one's own experiences an effective tactic in getting aspiring and current graduate students in history to manage carefully their expectations? What are the consequences of telling readers, some who may be people of color, that it is inappropriate to dream of being a professor?

Guessing blindly... Less inclined, fewer posts, people waiting for next season or deciding not to pursue a doctorate in history at all. IRT fewer posts, it's my hunch that over the last several years, each application season brings more lurking and searching and less posting. Intuitively, I think that among this season's applicants will come a handful of graduate students who will go on to achieve great things as professional academics. Maybe not Klio's answer to the USMA class of 1915, but one for the ages nonetheless.

Is your objective to receive positive feedback or to receive information on how to develop skills as an academic historian? I started in one program to work with a specific historian. He provided positive feedback and little else in terms of skill development. I changed programs and ended up with a couple of professors (X, who has a reputation for being hard to please, and Y) who were more than happy to bounce me off the walls, give me the grades I'd earned, and to stand on my head when necessary. They did not offer much praise, but they did enable me to learn the craft. (X and Y have also written letters on my behalf for jobs in the private sector.) Here's a slightly different mindset to consider. Your professors have something that belongs to you -- knowledge on how to be a historian. What are you willing to do to go and get it?

It seems to me that the professor is treating you like a doctoral student and expecting you to lean into your work much more. Making the transition from having an undergraduate's mindset to a graduate student's seems to be an ongoing challenge that's complicated by her distant approach. The B+ you received was meant to be a kick in the head. (An unwritten rule of graduate history programs is that anything but an A is a F.) Your "lessons learned" appear to have been more tactical than strategic. So when you got her comments on your draft it is possible that you took her compliments to be an endorsement of your adjustments when, from her point of view, she was encouraging you to work harder from a strategic perspective. This is to say that while you're trying to figure out how to write to make her happy, she's urging you to produce work that enables you to create new knowledge. If you follow @killerbunny's outstanding guidance, I recommend that you be prepared to talk about either your understanding of the historiography or your analysis of primary source materials in that order. Your objective is to understand how you can understand / practice history better, not how you might have gotten a better grade. (You will, I suspect, benefit greatly if you understand and truly believe that the former is more important than the latter.)