Sigaba

I recommend that you look very carefully before you leap. Will you have to start from square one? Will you be required to take qualifying exams that are more difficult? Can you delay taking quals at your current institution to study more? Is your desire to change schools more about pre quals anxiety? Will your professors at your new school be better teachers?

I think a challenge many aspiring graduate students is that it can be difficult getting a handle on how important historiography is to the craft. While upper division courses on American foreign relations were centered around specific debates, the "big big picture" was not really a focus. IIRC two theses as an undergraduate had next to zero discussion of existing scholarly debates -- just a set up of the question, immediate issues, and a plunge into the primary source materials. I remember one upper division lecture class ending with a discussion of historiography. One student said to a buddy with a degree of consternation, "That would have been a great first lecture."

I think that what's concerning to me is that so far it is hard to understand the tree you want to study and how that tree helps all historians understand a larger part of the forest. By studying X, Y, and Z, historians can understand better larger issues of A, B, and C. Insofar as a comparative approach, I urge you to determine a sustainable balance between your long term aspirations and your current abilities within the context of the task at hand -- writing a statement of purpose that will convince readers that you will fit into a department (not the other way around). FWIW, I'm not sure how I feel about @AP and @OHSP's recommendations on how well defined a provisional research topic needs to be--maybe identifying the exact fish one wants to swim after isn't necessary but I would think that knowing the school and where it generally swims would make one a more competitive applicant. YMMV.

I must say that your revised statement is more confusing now than it was before. FWIW, the terms you are using "modernization" "modernity" "conservative" "right wing" "nationalist" make me wonder if you are putting your words into the mouths of those you study. (It might help were you to disclose the two countries that you seek to compare.) I also wonder if you're implicitly or inadvertently arguing that one country got it right and the other got it wrong based upon criteria you've established rather than goals that were determined at the time. Here's what I'm taking away from your two versions. A contemporaneous debate in two countries over the same topic during the same interval played out the same but different. One can understand the debate in each country better through a comparative approach because...? The use of x, y, and z methods of historical analysis enhances the understanding because ... ? I wonder if comparing two countries is a sustainable approach at this time? Might you be served better by focusing on telling the story for one country and giving the comparison a go down the line?

@Strider_2931 Both @HardyBoy and @gsc are suggesting what may be turns away from your ideas. Yet, you may have an opportunity to position your research as exceptionally relevant to understanding the background of contemporaneous debates over public health (COVID-19), women's health (sexual violence against women), climate science, and medical sciences. My exposure to the works of social historians studying modern Germany have made me very skeptical of teleological approaches to the past. And I don't believe that history has "lessons." However, as the profession remains plagued by questions about relevance, you could play a role in helping to understand how the midwest got to where it is now on issues related to health and science generally. Just $0.02 from a person who has to wait an extra hour this morning before drinking coffee.

"Why should trees die?" a professor often asked.

I think that among the challenges you face is that you'll be competing for an extraordinarily limited number of positions with applicants who have fine tuned their visions of their personal professional development since they were in high school. As things stand, it is very difficult for me understand how your research will move the needle in broader historiographical debates among Americanists who specialize in the time periods you identify. How will a study of the discourse over public health at the transnational, national and local levels help us to understand better how the midwest became the midwest? In the grand scheme of things, are you suggesting that "section" still mattered as a category of historical analysis into the early twentieth century more/less than historians have argued recently? Are you seeking to point out that historians of the progressive era have overlooked key sources of the movement? Are you suggesting that the discourse over public health in the midwest is evidence of a project to "civilize" the interior of America much the same as missionaries sought to "civilize" a growing American empire? From my perspective, I think that readers of your SOP would benefit if you were to define your terms and boundaries more precisely. (I most strongly suggest that you reconsider how many things you seek to compare to each other. For now, two or three are plenty. Taking a whack at multiple regions may be a project better served by your third or fourth book.) I think that you should not refer to cultural history until you have a better sense of what is cultural history and why it remains both relevant to current professional practices but also dangerous. I very respectfully disagree with @OHSP. I think that you should have a serviceable definition of yourself as an Americanist, and that definition should tie in neatly (if also provisionally) with your research interests and career goals. (Think in terms of what undergraduate and graduate courses you would teach.) This POV is based upon my blind guess that this will go down as the most competitive application season in decades -- a "buyers' market" in which departments will be able to set the bar almost as high as they like.

How would you explain to faculty members at each school your range of interests as an Americanist?

Based upon the work the company I work for has done abroad, impeding foreign nationals from developing expertise in urban planning is an insidious counterpunch. American firms can make money but without enough in house skills, some countries will continue to experience inefficiencies, hardship, fatalities, and catastrophes.

After replying to the professor, take some time to absorb what the person wrote and how you can draw confidence from the appraisal. Rather than asking yourself "Am I good enough?" (a question kicked around the GradCafe often), can you ask yourself "How good can I be?"

If you "transfer" after earning a master's degree, the transition will be less complicated. In my experience (changing history programs) I had to start from scratch.

I recommend that you write a short email in which you: Thank him for his reply. Thank him for the compliment. Indicate that you'll submit an application. Indicate that you will be honored if you earn the opportunity to work with him. The key with this point is not to indicate anything along the lines of an assumption that you'll be admitted on his say so or a statement that you will commit to the program if you are admitted.

I would look for ways to get under the 500 word limit. I would start by looking at my longer sentences for opportunities to write more efficiently. [15 words] I would write more efficiently. [5 words]

I think that if you're clear on your time table and that you also indicate that between this December and next fall you will be working on your craft, you will be all right. IRT your concern about asking for too much, do what you can to draw sustainable boundaries around your requests for reference letters. The boundaries can be defined by the number of requests you'll make or the time period. If one or more professors really leans forward, send a thank you note and pay it forward. IME, it can ease the pressure on people receiving support when you tell them that you're glad to do it, and you're doing the same thing that was done for you.

Even with COVID-19's impact on the Ivory Tower generally and this admission cycle in particular, professors may interpret your request for reference letters in support of job applications as a lack of commitment on your part. I recommend that you phrase the request as honestly as you can and that you understand that not all professional academics behave professionally at all times.

@kchistory, the only response that would make me change my plans would be if a POI were to indicate that she's not taking students or is going to retire/change jobs.

@MarineBluePsy I agree that telling well meaning self described allies to buzz off is an appealing option. And at the same time, moments like the one we're in don't come often. (FWIW, I'm continually refining a number of responses that I can deploy depending upon the sincerity and intellectual skills of the person asking. Most of the responses center around urging the person to do a better job of listening, of learning the dimensions of the issues, and of figuring out ways to contribute to solutions that help people of color in the short, intermediate, and long terms.)

I recommend that you read the fine print very carefully two or three times for every application. You want to make sure that you don't confuse questions like "Have you ever been found guilty of academic dishonesty" and questions like "Have you ever been accused of academic dishonesty?" (Based upon your OP, the answer to the first question is no, the second is yes.) Please do not miss this opportunity to revise your note taking tactics. It's ever easier to make this kind of mistake and ever easier to identify plagiarism. The changes you can make range from using different colors of ink and paper for hand written notes or different fonts/colors/formatting for notes made using software. You can also document in your footnotes everything that does not reflect original thinking or "commonly known facts." You might also revisit the tactic of saying "I'll add the footnote tomorrow." To paraphrase Fritz Leiber, tomorrow becomes never.

Based upon your OP, options 1 and 2, if not also option 3, may put you at risk for a rescinded offer of admission. (I would count on programs doing their due diligence given the recent scandals.) For the fourth option, if you cast about using the advanced search function, you may find previous threads centered around addressing sub par grades in one's SOP. (IRRC, the short answer is that there's general agreement that one should not dwell on it too long in one's SOP, one should take responsibility/not make excuses, and one should mention lessons learned, but there's no consensus on best practices based upon comments from graduate students who encountered similar challenges.)

FWIW, after spazzing out and blowing up a professor's comms trying to get an update on a letter of recommendation, I learned a valuable lesson. The lesson follows. Don't spazz out and blow up a professor's comms trying to get an update on a letter of recommendation. (When I next saw him, I tried a sheepish, preemptive apology. He shot me a smile that would make a shark flinch. "Don't do that again," he said.)

@mbat72 , welcome to the Grad Cafe. The following forum may a better match for your interests than this one. https://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/8-psychology/

This reply is rushed. Use your SOP to ell the story of how focusing on specific interests led you to consider broader themes -- how does focusing on a couple of trees in one forest help you to understand other forest and from there, a wider eco system. (Not my area of specialization so the following may insult you. Let's say you were focused on how Irish immigrants assimilated in America during a given decade. From that, can you imagine big picture questions that would impact other immigrants in other parts of the world and even different centuries? A bit more in my wheelhouse. If a student is focused on how the U.S. navy prepared to fight a general war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the student should be able to relay his or her findings to the broader themes of what was once known as "the New military history," if not also to the revolution in military affairs policy debates, and the historiography of the military revolution.) As an initial step, I recommend that you consult journals that specialize in your area of interest. Look for state of the field historiographical essays that lay out themes. It is likely that many of the footnotes will include works that initially seem loosely connected, but I think that's what they're talking about. Pie in the sky, scholars in the programs you seek to join wrote one or more of these pieces.

This conclusion may be a bit of a stretch. A department can be so overwhelmed from helping a member of the faculty who is struggling with addiction/dependency issues that it decides it needs a break from such complicated commitments for the time being. A department could be under pressure to get graduate students to finish and it may understand, based upon experience, that complicated life stories impede upon its ability to meet performance goals.

The number and areas of students could be driven by key performance indicators centered around revenue and expenses. Do Americanists studying social history complete the program faster than Europeanists studying early modern intellectual history? How many TAs will be needed if the department offers crowd favorite courses? Which professors need to be nudged to supervise more dissertations to justify their continued employment? Who among a group of applicants could provide a lot of "bang for the buck" because their interests will see them using other resources at Michigan and/or could be funded by other sources and/or could be dual hatted as a TA for other departments/programs? What are the financial benefits of offering admissions to students who already live nearby? (Do applicants already familiar with Ann Arbor need less support?)

I recommend a systematic review of the journals and publications provided at the website of the Center for Archeoastronomy and a general search on Jstor. What is the state of the art? Who are the key practitioners in the field? Where do they work? What kind of work do they do? Are there opportunities to move the needle on existing debates by bringing to the table a different set of perspectives and skills? How do you want to approach the topic? Will you be an expert in African studies with an emphasis on archeoastronomy or will you be an expert on archeoastronomy with a focus on how its history unfolded in Africa? Do you want or need to develop an expanded set of skills? Do you want a career outside of the Ivory Tower? For example would you want to work for SpaceX by making presentations at high schools so young people might say "Hey, I can do that!" and they start thinking about STEM as a path to working in space industry. (During the Cold War, it was not uncommon for people working in the defense industry to visit area public schools to talk about careers in aerospace engineering.) When you start looking at programs, keep in mind that it's never too soon to think about the kind of research you might do for a dissertation. When you look at the archival holdings and resources of a specific institution, also look at what may be available within a short drive. ETA: If you are a foreign national, your access to private companies like SpaceX may be limited.