Sigaba

Congratulations on your engagement! May you and your spouse-to-be find happiness and fulfillment together I recommend that you do your best to get a good sense of the departmental politics and a long glance at the skeletons in the closet before you disclose to anyone in your department that you're planning your wedding/honeymoon and that you might miss class time down the line. Your department is investing time and money into your professional training. Equally qualified applicants were likely told "no" so you could be told "yes." One or more professor may have a marriage on the rocks and/or have been "burned" by a graduate student's life choices. These and other factors could inform how faculty members interpret your disclosure regardless of what they say to you in person. (Things being what they are, professors in their right mind are not going to say anything but "Congratulations!") And, as some of the responses in this thread show, members of one's peer group can be petty. You want to protect yourself from a classmate sand bagging you with faculty members (Merollam is always talking about the wedding).

MOO, if you want to be a historian, you should pursue a master's degree in history. Pick the option that has you write either a thesis or a report. Think twice before doing your outside field in women's studies -- if there's a significant amount of overlap, you might benefit more from picking an outside field that diversifies your skill set. When you apply to doctoral programs, some professors who look at your application materials and writing samples are not going to agree with the notion that a master's degree in women's studies is equivalent to a master's degree in history. My $0.02.

Were I in your situation, I would see if the not so great program allows you to have academics from other institutions on your committees.

PM headed your way.

FWIW, my areas of specialization are American naval/military/diplomatic history. I have been sandbagged by a professor who dislikes naval history. I have been told that I will never get a job as a professor in the Ivory Tower because I wasn't born in the 1950s. So I am aware of the issue on a personal level. That being said, I think that your conduct in this thread is an embarrassment to yourself and your alleged interest in military history. In regards to the latter, you have failed to demonstrate a familiarity with decades of historiographical discussion among military and naval historians on the future of the two disciplines within the profession. You have also failed to do any research to see how military and naval histories published over the last several decades incorporate the methods and sensibilities of the (no longer "new") social and cultural historians that have come to prominence over the last half century. You have completely and utterly failed to show a basic aptitude for research by not identifying the departments in the United States that emphasize military history even though those departments have been discussed on this BB on a yearly basis. If your contributions to this thread are examples of what you are going to bring to the table as a graduate student focusing on military history, you are going to be a chew toy. Put down the shovel. Show some respect for your alleged field of interest. Treat your peers with respect. Read more, post less.

Yes. Wait until you receive an official notice of acceptance. Even if he's the big dog in the department and even if you're his choice, it doesn't mean that he's going to be able to bark the loudest when it comes time to decide who gets to join the pack and who doesn't. In your reply, thank him for his gracious email and his supportive remarks. Indicate that you would like to join the program. Indicate that, in the event you are admitted, you certainly hope to speak with him at greater length. Do not, repeat, do not commit to anything IRT working with him. That's a decision to be made after you've had a considerable amount of face time.

@TMP IMO, the primary factor here (that is, with this specific issue) is not your gender but your level of experience as a teaching assistant. You have a different view than your boss on how attendance should be tracked. Your boss has given additional guidance on how to handle potential abuses of the policy. Your boss's syllabus gives both of you the opportunity and the authority to address excessive absences when evaluating students' work. I think the problem is yours: you've been tasked administer a policy that you simply don't like. (I have been in similar shoes several times. Sometimes, the best one can do is to embrace the suck.) If n (the number of email messages you receive) is so large that it impacts your ability to do your job, it is incumbent upon you to find a more efficient way to count the beans. This issue may require building a better spreadsheet. It may require you convincing your professor to "tweak" the policy by telling students to email both T.A.s and then the two of you splitting the email 50/50. It may require you building rapport with those students who are frequently absent and trying to motivate them to come to class more often. (A way to encourage students to attend class and to work hard is to suggest that they think of you as their advocate. If they want that boarder line grade to go up at the end of the term, they need to prove to you during the term that they're worth the effort.) I do suspect that your gender may have been factor in how your team mate responding to your concern. Rather than leaning forward and saying "Tell me more" or asking "What can I do to help you?" he blew you off. IRT to the broader discussion of gender bias in the Ivory Tower. I am of the view that it exists, that it is virulent, and that all parties pay an incalculable cost for allowing it to continue. I further believe that stakeholders are not where they need to be when it comes to listening, and to talking about it and finding solutions that work. My $0.02.

@Mannequin1 I recommend that you immediately research the policies of your department, school, and college on fraternization and sexual harassment. In the very likely event that you have violated policy, I recommend that you disclose the relationship to your boss or your advisor or your department's DGS because the relationship with the student may have exposed your department to additional risk. IMO, you should not embark on any course of action on your own that can be construed as sweeping things under the rug. In the event your department decides to put this skeleton in its closet, you will have another decision to make. Document everything. That includes the textual messages you have had with the student, and your recollection of any and all conversations that you have had with her. Additionally, I recommend that you start figuring out what type of historian you want to be. To assist this process, I recommend the American Historical Association's Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, available here.

Did you do this before or after you started this thread and asked if you could get into trouble? If so, then why the need to start a thread asking about the "probability" of universities finding out?

You claim But... I think that you do bear some, if not most, of the responsibility for the situation you now face. You tried to game the system and not until it seems that you might be caught do you worry.

If you think you have an issue with her or she with you, go to her office, close the door and talk it over. The central point of conversation should be mending the fences that need mending. After you have addressed the fences, ask her if she's still comfortable writing LoRs for you. The key to having a good conversation with her is that you understand that your relationship with her is more important than the LoR. If your end game is simply the LoR, she may quickly view you in ways you don't like.

@JD2PHD I suggest that you find a copy of Peter Charles Hoffer's cv. Compare pieces he's written for law journals to those he's written for journals geared towards academic historians.

I agree with TMP unless one is especially good at painting historiographical thumbnails. Even then, a 50/50 split is unbalanced IMO.

@maelia8, You are attending one of the top universities on the planet. You are in a department with a well earned reputation that is matched by a mere handful of others. I very strongly recommend that you lean forward and learn all you can about your craft from these conversations. If you have the opportunity to share knowledge with your peers, do so. If you want to change things up, bring up issues that are still related to the craft but present opportunities for playfulness. However, under no circumstances do I think you should attempt to change the conversations. Those talks are arenas in which participants are sharpening their skills and building bonds of intellectual fellowship, if not also life long friendships. It is not enough to love Klio. She will, sooner or later, break your heart. When that happens, it will be your skills as a historian that will get you through.

Did you send an email like the one you suggested in post #7?

V-- Welcome to the Grad Cafe. Do all you can to develop relationships with additional professors while working closely with the ones you think will write strong LoRs. Relationships with professors can go south, people get new jobs, people die. Consider the University of Texas at Austin as a possible program for you. Worry less about how admissions committees might see you. Spend more time focusing on framing the narrative that shows precisely how your academic career makes you a viable candidate for admission to a doctoral program.

Based upon the way you are flip flopping on your position, shrugging off well reasoned counterpoints, and still managing to advocate a self destructive approach, I wonder if you have actually navigated successfully a situation like the one the OP describes.

@ilovelab And you know this how? Have you read her job description? Do you have access to communication she's had with her department and the school? Have you read said PI's performance evaluations? Are PI's obligated to mentor their graduate students? (The answer, unfortunately, is no.) The point I'm making is that the PI is not doing what the OP wishes she should do. That doesn't automatically entail that she's not doing her job. By suggesting that the OP's efforts to address the former should be informed by an assumption of the latter ("the situation has to change") you are recommending that the OP escalate an uncomfortable situation before obtaining more information or by acknowledging the (often unfortunate) power dynamics of graduate school. @justmeandmycells Yes, you are jumping the gun. Have you made an effort to identify other professors in the department who would be interested in mentoring you? While these professors may not have your PI's exact fields of expertise, they may have the skills to guide you through your current crisis of confidence? Have you talked to those in the know for additional insights IRT your PI's disposition?

Understanding what type of relationship one has established with professors, fellow graduate students, and undergraduates is a difficult but crucial task. Equally important are being honest with one's self about why one is offering support, and then managing one's own expectations of the support being accepted.

I recommend that you take a look at the University of Texas at Austin as well as the schools already on your list. Generally, I think that all aspiring graduate history students should apply to at least one doctoral program. I'm aware that this POV is not the consensus--I simply feel that students should not self-select themselves out of opportunities. Also, I understand that to many, metrics are the coin of the realm, but it is never too soon to start thinking of yourself as a historian with research interests that while embryonic and provisional, are legitimate -- because they are of interest to you. What are the big picture questions you want to help answer? What are the leaves on the trees you want to investigate to help bring the forest into sharper focus? Finally, don't sell yourself or your schools short. If they are "unrecognized" it is because others haven't been paying attention. Comport yourself with the frame of mind, with the quiet confidence, that you are going to be part of the process that gets the uninformed to lean forward and take notice. HTH.

I had a fellowship that covered tuition and fees for summer school so I did additional course work. As there was no stipend for the summer months, I spent a lot of time in the stacks. After the summer sessions, I shuffled for work and tried to control the insomnia.

Thanks for the close reading. I did fail to connect A to B. The point I am trying to make is that if one does not know a department's recent history, an announcement could inadvertently touch a nerve. The example I used is a hypothetical "for instance." A department could feel burned by a member prioritizing his/her personal life (point A) and then have a less friendly approach to those who subsequently appear to fall into that pattern (point B ) . I was suggesting, albeit inarticulately, that the OP sniff the wind before disclosing information that could be misconstrued by a professor as "another newlywed here we go again." To be clear, that kind of thought pattern is in appropriate if not also illegal if it impacts behavior. But how would one know one was being punished? Also, I am not convinced that the professor I mentioned could not have been given a temporary reprieve had she demonstrated a higher level of commitment to her craft. She had a manuscript that was close to completion. She said in a seminar, and later denied it, that she'd received an accommodation when she'd been hired. So I think she may have experienced point B herself. (My thought is she could have been guided through the process of taking a maternity leave, finding a way to tack on some more leave with the guidance "if that book is not in press by the time you are scheduled to come back, don't bother coming back.") Instead, she didn't get tenure, left, and her book was published the following year.

The example is meant to illustrate that no matter how collegial and nurturing a department may be (she was genuinely admired) there may come a point where the Powers That Be interpret life changing events in ways one rather they not. In her cause, my informed guess is that they grew weary of waiting for her to become the historian she could become. As for a general rule of thumb, I tend to be very reserved when it comes to details about my personal life when dealing with professors (and bosses in the private sector) until they get to know me and I them. This approach may be too restrictive for those who are genuine people persons. But I think the approach earned me a certain level of trust, and from there, mentoring, from a few professors (and bosses). I also benefitted by not getting drawn into any of the personality clashes that bubbled up now and again.