Sigaba

You either misread my post or you have worked in different industries than I have. Having been in the job market and also been privy to conversations about hiring and training, I hold to the view that the rules of the game have changed IRT to defining qualifications and training new hires.

You did. Since I read your comment about being fair, I've been thinking about ways of doing a better job of writing posts that reflect my reason for being here. And I've had a lot of coffee today.

I understand your point. You are probably right. And I respectfully disagree. FWIW, what I would like to see from you telkanuru is more swagger. That includes embracing, to the point of annoyance, your academic pedigree. Here's my POV. My intellectual inheritance/linage does not just include the professors on my committee, but also those who have taught me the craft. So while my areas of specialization and many of my tastes are "traditional" when it comes to history, I also claim as mine many of the sensibilities of those radical upstart historians who turned the profession on its head with their radical approaches and politics. (Okay, this will definitely be my last cup of coffee today. )

The extent to which so many professors are disinterested in teaching, mentoring, and training graduate students. The extent to which professors will allow you to learn the hard way (e.g. by screwing up). The extent to which professors who are in your corner will go to bat for you. How easily it is to check out the maximum allowable number of books from the library. The extent to which fellow graduate students are disinterested in teaching, mentoring, and training undergraduates.

Congratulations on a very successful application season! That being said, BOOOO! for not sharing your experiences with your fellow applicants. To even things up, please consider contributing to this thread

The purpose of this thread is for those who applied in 2015 to graduate programs in history to do some chalk talk. What would you do differently and why? What parts of the process did you nail? Did you take any risks and how did they pay off? Were you surprised by any hidden fees? What role did campus visits play in making decisions on where to apply or where to go? Did you apply to too many programs, too few, or just the right amount? Because many are still learning where they've been accepted, if you post in this thread, please provide a "snap shot" of your current status. Perhaps the easiest way for many to provide this snap shot is to copy and paste the biographical information from your signature. Or, you could employ a short hand to indicate the number of schools to which you applied, the yesses, the nos, and the wait and sees. Here's the deal. Year after year, many aspiring graduate students come to the history forum of the GradCafe and ask a lot of questions and provide a lot of blow by blow details of the process. Year after year, many aspiring graduate students stop posting soon after getting offers of admission and/or letters of rejection. When they leave, they take a treasure trove of useful information and invaluable experiences. The aim of this thread is to provide an opportunity for a cathartic "exit interview" of sorts so that future members of this BB can use it to build tool kits to use when they apply. For those of you who have not had as much success as you would like, it may be especially difficult to share your experiences. But I say if you did the best that you could under the circumstances, you should be proud of the hard work you've done. Hold your heads high and tell us what you have learned. If this concept has legs, perhaps down the line there will be additional lessons learned threads that will run almost hand in hand with other annual threads. A caveat. Many of you may be emotionally raw right now after years of very hard work, months of highs and lows, and weeks of checking your email every five minutes. Please do what you can to manage those emotions if you post in this thread. Do not betray any confidences. Do not do too much venting. Do not post anything that you would not be willing to say to a DGS or any of the other Powers That Be at any institution you would like to attend as a graduate student. Ideally, among the first respondents to this request for information will be the lurker the highly respectable telkanuru.

The departments in question may be managing their risk by not providing detailed answers. As a for instance, if you were to get a response saying that your scores were too low but it later came out that a candidate was offered admission despite having lower scores, there could be a problem (as in a cause of action for a law suit). Have you considered asking questions that help you look forward rather than backwards? For example: What can I do to make myself a more competitive applicant in future admissions cycles?

FWIW, I had views similar to yours until (a) I and other members of my cohort took our qualifying exams and worked as a teaching assistant. In regards to the former, I found that even the most conscientious professors took a measure of delight in the suffering of graduate students. In regards to the latter, it eventually dawned on me that some professors are more interested in feedback on issues that are not of critical importance to them and that there were often methods to their madness. From these experiences, I've drawn the conclusion that the optimal time to offer suggestions is when one is asked, that sometimes the "problem" is mine and no one else's, and that having what you call nerve is not about pointing out the shortcomings in an existing process but finding ways to implement alternative solutions that work within the context of those existing processes. YMMV.

Which means that you can too!

This statement does not reflect the way the hiring process has changed in many industries since the dot com bubble burst in 2000. These changes, which became entrenched during the Great Recession, reflect employeers' understanding that they're in the driver's seat when it comes to hiring. Today, companies can, and do, define the requirements and responsibilities of entry level positions (e.g. administrative assistant) in such a way that only those with years of experience and extensive expertise can make the first cut. Additionally, more and more companies are outsourcing various states of the hiring process to third parties and web portals. These surrogates are tasked to look for pegs that fit as exactly as possible into round holes, that will require minimal training time, and have a track record for success. What all of this means is that if you are looking for an entry level job, you are competing against applicants with managerial experience and your resume is being glanced at by people and/or software algorithms that are looking for specific qualifications and experiences and ignoring everything else. Here's a true story. . Last summer, the consultancy for which I work re-started its summer intern program. Successful applicants to the program often had master's degrees in hand or were in the process of getting such a degree. Before the recession, successful applicants to the program were generally undergraduates between their third and fourth years of study. So when someone like Jim1986 despairs one should not be too surprised. (That being said, Jim1986, you might benefit from doing a better job at staying focused on what you want to accomplish and fine tuning your situational awareness. Because of your tirades in this thread, there is no way I can recommend the aforementioned internship program to you.)

Keep your head up. The Ohio State University is the place to be for military history. In the event there is a next cycle for you, please find ways to self assess your effort this cycle in a manner that is fair to you. If you did the best that you could under the circumstances based upon what you knew at the time, then you did well.

Does the package cover tuition during the summer?

Your point is well made and taken. Please accept my apology for being unfair. Hopefully, the following suggestion is useful. Here's what I suggest. Use a spreadsheet to develop an alternatives analysis matrix. Build a matrix that specifically addresses the question "How will attending school A position me in the job market?" Brainstorm and make a provisional list of factors that strike you as important insofar as being a strong candidate for a tenure track position at school Z down the line. Allow yourself time to develop, revisit, and revise the list. Arrange the list into categories and sub categories. An example of a category could be geography. Sub categories of geography could be "distance to other departments" in case you want to make a trip to talk to professors and graduate students about the job market and/or watch "job talks". Another example of a sub category of geography could be "similarity between school A's setting [urban/suburban] compared to where you see yourself teaching down the line." Another category could be "emphasis on teaching." Subcategories of "emphasis on teaching" could include "training for T.A.s" and "opportunities for graduate students to teach upper division courses for undergraduates." Once you've got your categories and sub categories set up to your satisfaction, assign point values between 1 and 10 to the sub categories and then assign to the categories values that rank their overall importance. Set up simple formulas that weigh the subcategory point values based upon the importance of their respective master categories. Once you have set up your formulas, hide the column that spits out the calculations. Now, for each of your options, develop a list of questions that will allow you to assign point values for each of the subcategories. Some of the questions are clear cut -- what is Department A's job placement rate for recent graduates ? Other questions could be off the beaten path. For example, how many job searches has Department A conducted in the last four years and how many positions is it seeking to fill in the next five years? Along the same lines, are graduate students allowed to attend "job talks?" Do graduate students get to sit on search committees? Does the department have funds to subsidize travel to conferences or interviews? Do the professors at Department A like to teach/mentor graduate students? Upon developing and refining the list of questions, consult different sources for answers. Google Earth Pro may indicate that the distance between two schools isn't that big of a deal, but graduate students who have made that journey may have a different take. Professors may think they prepare graduate students for the job market, but graduate students in the pipeline may have different views. If you reach out to current graduate students, try to talk to as many ABD's as you can. If you do talk to ABDs, make sure you find out how long ago they took their qualifying exams. (As many of you will find out, it takes time to recover from quals and until one does, one can be a bit batty, if not bitter.) If possible, find a way to get the ABDs to answer touchy questions like "If you knew then what you know now about this department, would you have enrolled here?" and "Do you feel like you've been adequately prepared to enter the job market?" Please also keep in mind that every relationship between a graduate student and his/her professors is different and,often, very fluid. Joe Campus may think Professor Q is a douchebag while Jane Doe thinks Q is the bee's knees. By the following semester, the views could very well switch. Based upon the answers you gather, start populating the matrix with scores. When the matrix is entirely filled in, unhide the column that spits out the results of the calculations. The highest scoring school may be your best choice, all things considered, for positioning yourself in the job market down the line. If choice A and choice B have similar scores, consider developing additional categories and subcategories first; try to avoid changing scores if you can. HTH.

IMO, the portions in bold suggest that there's a lot more to this situation than the OP is disclosing. For example, for a graduate student to be six years into a program and to "have never asked for any help" is problematic. The belief that the "whole world" wants/needs to know about this situation is out there as well.

Please keep in mind that no matter how conducive an environment, the chemistry/collegiality/cohesiveness among graduate students can vary greatly from cohort to cohort. Year X's cohort could mesh together like red beans and rice to the delight and enrichment of the entire program. Year X-1's cohort may be a collection of strangers with little in common and even less desire to build relationships. (I was in cohort X-1 and I can say that we were neither jealous nor envious nor bitter... )

No disrespect, Professor Plum, but I would not recommend the CHE fora to history graduate students who have not had considerable "seasoning" before hand. (GradSecretary's most controversial posts on this BB are cheerful, upbeat, and positive in comparison to what can be found "down the street" at the CHE BB.) YMMV.

Carly, my recommendation is based upon my experiences. That is, I have heard how some tenured professors talk about undergraduates who write/say things like "really?" in reply to guidance they don't like, what they think of individuals who, for what ever reason, attempt to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and the process which some call "networking," In my experience, and maybe the halls of history departments are unlike other areas of the Ivory Tower, professors have codes of conduct and personal preferences. Sometimes, undergraduates and graduates don't know they've crossed a line, or that there even was a line, until they realized that they're not being mentored or supported while their peers are. IRT to your usage of the word "spin," I made no assumptions. I suggested that you not use it so you would not develop the habit of using words that can be unintentionally controversial. (I once got my head ripped off for calling a professor "doctor".)

I think that this thread is ill considered, even self destructive. What kind of statement are each of you making about your trustworthiness and judgement by posting letters with identifying information on the internet? (Did Professors Sider and Zollman give each of you their consent to post their private correspondence on the internet?) Would it be terribly difficult for a member of a graduate admissions committee or a department administrator to use the information in your profiles to figure out who each of you are? (Yes, they do come to the GradCafe and lurk.)

In the short term, I recommend that you take a look at many of New England Nat's posts on this topic. To NEN's observations, I would add that, IME (that is based upon my discussions with professors and observations of "job talks"), that it comes down to how motivated a search committee is to define the type of historian they want to fill a position and how hard the committee's members are willing to work. Some professors will make a first cut based purely on the academic pedigree of the applicants. Some professors, especially if they know a field, may be more inclined to look at the names on an applicant's dissertation committee. Others will be willing to put another K-cup in the Keurig, roll up their sleeves, and drill down a bit deeper into an applicant's materials.

I suggest finding the ponds with the big fish first and then going fishing.

When you research potential committee members, please pay very close attention to how potential POIs are discussed in the acknowledgements of published works. Did the POI just read a draft of a chapter or the entire manuscript? Did she/he share research notes? Provide emotional support? Provide food and housing during research trips? Or is the "thank you" more of a professional courtesy/ crossing of a t ? (Or even a "F you very much / thanks for nothing.")

With all due respect to the OP and others who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend that you not concern yourself too much with the job market at this point because it is entirely out of your control and liable to change greatly over the next several years. Instead, focus on what you can control -- defining more precisely your areas and topics of interest, your fields of study (including your outside field), your language skills, your relationships with your peers and your professors, and, most of all, getting ready for qualifying exams. There are was to determine the cachet of programs but it takes time, effort, and hands-on research. Briefly, get your hands on physical copies of recent editions of the AHA guide to history departments. Look at the faculty roster for every department. Make notes of where professors with interests similar to yours got their degrees (undergraduate and graduate). Go to the faculty rosters of those schools, and see where professors with your interests went. If you commit to looking at every department, you will start to find groupings of academics with interests similar to yours. Institutions that have such groupings probably have cachet. Simultaneously, find hard copies of the academic journals related to your areas of interest. Go through at least ten years' worth of back issues. Focus on the shorter book reviews. Look at the institutional affiliations of both authors and reviewers. Cross reference the institutions with your findings from the AHA guides. Pick two or three historians whose books are very well received (and/or who write especially helpful reviews) and do intense biographical/bibliographic research on them. To the extent possible, do this research using hard copies of articles, papers, and books. Find all you can about their institutional affiliations as well as the affiliations of other historians who they acknowledge or frequently cite. If you do the three steps with a certain amount of intensity, you will be able to develop a very good list of programs that specialize in your areas of interest and you will also increase your familiarity with the relevant historiography. (The reason why I recommend using hard copies is so that you maximize your opportunities for serendipitous discoveries. Sometimes the book you need is two books over and one shelf down from the book you want.)

Before taking FL's sound guidance, I recommend that you first check the professional guidelines of the relevant professional academic associations in your field of study. More generally, I respectfully recommend that you not use in public terms like "sell" or "spin" or "network" or "hook." While such terms may be popular among some of your peers and acceptable in some quarters, they may not strike the right chord among those who take their craft and their profession seriously. Just my experience-based two cents.

FWIW, there are many posts on this BB in which members tell of not receiving notification of rejections.