Sigaba

@buddy16cat-- If you do decide to reapply to graduate programs down the line, please consider the advantages of looking inward rather than focusing so much on who knows whom, a program's rankings or its prestige and rationalizing that such matters beyond your control are the only factors in one's acceptance or rejection. I specifically recommend that you ask yourself questions about (i) your ability to express yourself clearly and articulately, (ii) your ability to present yourself as a person with whom professors--and graduate students--would want to work, (iii) how you manage your expectations, (iv) and how you react to set-backs and to dissenting views. My $0.02.

iamincontrolhere-haig: You might be interested in the following article: John Lewis Gaddis, “Expanding the Data Base: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Enrichment of Security Studies” International Security 12:1 (Summer 1987): 3-21. The article is part of a symposium published in the above-captioned issue of International Security on the relationships between IR/PS and history. Also, you could take a look at some of the entries in the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs series--especially those published during the 1980s--to see if you can read these types of works without feeling too out of sorts as a historian. You might also take a look at a recently published collection of essays, History and Neorealism (2010) [iSBN-13: 9780521132244]. MOO, in addition to the notion of the "independent variable" in relation to the historian's sensibilities, I think one would also have to grapple with the notion of the "case study" and the implication that the study of case studies can lead to using the "lessons of history" to project future developments and provide policy recommendations. As I myself am an antiquarian who thinks that historians need to be somewhat more zealous in protecting the boundaries of the craft from the sensibilities of other disciplines--especially political science--I think that there's plenty of opportunities for getting entangled in the "quibbles" you mention. However, given the direction that many scholars of the Cold War want to take (as evidenced by The Cambridge History of the Cold War) I think there are plenty of opportunities for cross pollination between IR/PS and history if one can resolve those quibbles to one's own satisfaction. Moreover, given the profound influence that political scientists exerted on policy discourse during the Cold War, knowing how they approach issues related to diplomacy, peace, and war may prove useful down the line. (FWIW, if I were in your shoes, I'd consider the utility of following three-step path. First, I'd see if I could substitute statistics for one of my languages. Second, I'd look into taking relatively intense classes in statistics--rather than the "statistics for poets" classes many graduate students can get away with taking [guilty as charged]. Third, I'd look into doing an outside field in political science/IR that was heavy on quantitative methods. This way, you'd not only have the opportunity to broaden your approach to history from an intellectual perspective, you would also have a skill set that would have applications outside the craft of history. That is, you'd know how to count beans and to crunch numbers. Such a skill set could potentially make you a valuable asset to a history department down the line when it comes time for you and your colleagues to fight against the Powers That Be when they, for example, want to shift resources to another program.) My $0.02/YMMV/HTH.

@PaintedLizard-- To elaborate on part of Eigen's answer to your question about going over someone's head, please consider the following. Essentially, School B's participation in this conference is Mr. B's project. As the project manager, Mr. B is implicitly on point for logistics and transportation until he hands off those responsibilities to another person or says "everyone is on their own." By initiating your own conversation on these points (and in a very indiscreet way--"reply all" should be used sparingly), without first consulting with Mr. B., you've made him look like he doesn't know what he or his people at School B are doing. Based upon the information you provided in the OP, the fact that Mr. B. did not immediately rip you a new one is encouraging. I recommend that you follow the guidance you've received from Eigen. Going forward, please understand the valuable guidance being offered in posts #6 (regarding the writing of email messages) and #8 (regarding the standard processes for discussing transportation to off-campus events). Ah...you do know that going to the conference might be in your best interest now. Else, the narrative might look like this: Mr. B, can I come to the conference and participate? Is anyone else going to the conference? Oh, by the way, I'm not going to the conference.

My sensibility does not reflect "idealism" but rather the training I've received from a professional educator and a professional academic historian. To me, taking away from a person the opportunity to fail is also taking away an opportunity to succeed. It is clear that you have received formal training in a different set of sensibilities. FWIW, I have not characterized you as "a dream squasher." My personal opinion of your POV as expressed in this thread remains undisclosed and, ultimately, irrelevant. I have simply invited you (in post #20) to disclose fully your frame of mind to the professors you know and to see what they think. That is, print out your posts in this thread, let them read what you've written, and have a friendly conversation. (What you said earlier in this thread compared to what you wrote in post #51 indicates that there may be an opportunity for discussion.) Finally, I will respectfully disagree with your argument that the state of professional academic history is a byproduct of "the corporatization of academia." Based upon my experiences and my research, the issue is the professionalism of academic historians. YMMV.

RNG-- The issue is not so much about not offending anyone. Often, you know you're doing something right because you offend certain people. The issue is about not offending unnecessarily people who might otherwise help you.

RNG-- Such a stance is likely to be considered rude, unacceptable, and maybe even self-destructive. As a first year graduate student, you may have a good idea of what you want to study, but you probably don't have a clear notion of what you need to study for you to be a competent historian who can compete in the marketplace of ideas in an era of continuing debate over the relevance of history in the contemporary world. So, I recommend that you find a sustainable balance between taking courses that develop your interests in accordance with your vision of who you want to be as a historian while also doing work that might help you expand, refine, and sharpen that vision. If you find yourself in a class that is not your cup of tea, do more than just "embrace the suck" and mark time. Instead, do what you can to use your historian's imagination to immerse yourself in the materials. Figure out how you can use the course to develop a different perspective on your own preferred area of interest. This type of approach may help you discover broader themes that link together trajectories of historiography that, at first blush, seem completely incompatible and unconnected. Here's an example that (I hope) illustrates my point. I've been to a number of "job talks" in which a newly minted Ph.D., after spending some time talking about his thesis, would get destroyed by a senior historian asking a straightforward question: Where are the women? To some, such a question may seem unfair, if not irrelevant. However, as aspiring professional academic historians, one could (and should) make the case that it is our individual responsibility to know what is going on in key fields, and how one's own work does or does not fit into those trajectories of historiography. HTH.

In my experience, one can pretty much stay within one's comfort zones when it comes to departmental coursework. However, one may find one's emerging sensibilities challenged by the methodological and theoretical approaches of a class. For example, you have an interest in nineteenth century American political history and take a class on nineteenth century America and the professor is a social historian who stressed race, class, and gender throughout the semester. When it comes to coursework in one's field outside of history, there can be less flexibility.

@AbaNader It depends upon the sensibilities of the professor doing the advising. I've been in two situations where my advisers weren't that interested in mentoring anyone. In the first situation, the professor was a senior scholar in the twilight of his career with a wife who was dying. Within the matrix of his priorities, he simply did not have enough time to be as hands on with me as I'd have liked. Consequently, I actually changed schools because I didn't feel I'd get the kind of support/ass chewing I need to maximize my potential as a historian. In the second situation, I've benefited from having three mentors (one of whom who has since died) to balance out a less-than-ideal relationship with my adviser. An additional point. A previous comment that characterizes as "silly and potentially dangerous" a dynamic in which an adviser "begrudges" a grad student for finding other mentors is, in my view, overly broad. First, in a discipline like history, the degree of specialization and range of philosophical views can lead to a graduate student being caught in the middle if an adviser and a mentor are from opposite ends of the spectrum. Second, there are often issues going on 'behind the curtain' within a department that professors will not disclose even to their most trusted graduate students. A professor can have professional and personal issues that make him or her a less than ideal candidate for a mentor despite that professor's best intentions. For example, a professor could be up for tenure but the writing is on the wall that he isn't going to make the cut. Or a professor can have personal issues (a messy divorce) that are going to drain that person's time, energy, and concentration during a graduate student's intervals of greatest need for mentoring. Is it inherently "silly" for an adviser to warn off a graduate student even though she cannot disclose the details?

MOO, a serious evaluation of the two options would include figuring out if the State of California's ongoing budgetary crisis might impact one's study at Cal. Potential questions include: Is there a chance that funding might be reduced or pulled all together? Might increases to tuition and fees lead to unforeseen expenses? Are faculty and grad students thinking about relocating to institutions that may not be as vulnerable to the vagaries of the ongoing recession? Have the budgetary issues led to a demoralized administrative staff within one's department? Might the ongoing budgetary crisis and approaching general election lead to increased political activity on campus by the student body and does one want to be around during such activity? (During my undergraduate days at Cal, there were intervals of significant student protest--especially among graduate students--that were disruptive to the learning environment.) @ANDS! FWIW, I nearly laughed up lung tissue reading post #6. Well done.

Secretly_yes-- In many programs, a grade of B+ or lower is considered a failing grade. So a professor can give a "failing" grade without actually issuing a F. Without knowing the specifics of your circumstances, I recommend that, between now and the time you hand in the paper, you work almost exclusively on the writing. Clarity of expression and graceful prose can, to a degree, balance out less than ideal research and analysis. As you revise your paper, stay calm. Clear your mind of "what could have been," of "what you might have done," of "what you should have done," and of "what might happen." Stay focused on the task of writing as well as you can under the circumstances. If you need to eat or to sleep, do so. Just don't do either in excess as time is of the essence. I recommend that you be careful with your caffeine intake. IME, caffeine and stress can lead to an upset stomach and batty thoughts. I also recommend that think twice about working with any media running in the background. After handing in the paper, treat yourself to a nice meal if not also a beverage. Later, have a brutally honest conversation with yourself in which you figure out what you did right, what you could have done a bit better, and where you made mistakes. While it is important for you to be candid with yourself in this conversation, do not let it turn into an exercise in self flagellation. Understand and accept that almost everyone crashes and burns at least once during their first year. Understand that you're traveling a path that isn't easy and that you will stumble, even fall, along the way. When you get back the paper, read through the comments through carefully. Then, read them through again. Incorporate that information into the "lessons learned" conversation you had earlier. If necessary, schedule a face to face meeting with your professor to make sure you understand the feedback. During this meeting, avoid the temptation to make excuses. Instead, keep the discussion focused on learning what you can do to improve your skills for the next task of this nature. HTH.

KS-- Could you use one (or more) of your four required history courses as an opportunity to prepare a research paper that you can later turn into your writing sample? IMO, writing such a paper in a directed environment may be a more productive use of your time. Also, please do keep in mind that it doesn't necessarily have to be either/or when it comes to deciding between history and Spanish literature. For example, you can make use of your work in Spanish to become a historian of a specific literary style or period. Or, you can focus on Spain's culture and use literary works as sources. Please don't psych yourself out worrying about your background in history not being adequate for graduate work. Yes, you may have some catching up to do and yes that extra work may see you upping significantly your caffeine intake for weeks at a time. But have confidence in yourself--you can do it if you apply yourself and if you put yourself in a position to ask for help when you need it. HTH.

In addition to following the typically sound guidance offered by fuzzylogician, I recommend that you have a closed-door conversation with at least one faculty member whom you trust and has her/his finger on the pulse of the department. In my experience, relationships between graduate students and professors can be so up and down that the feedback one gets tomorrow ("I love that guy! He's great!") can do a 180 turn by the end of that same term ("I hate that [so and so].")

TMP-- Maybe it is possible that "this woman" is a really big deal in American military history, that she has a different (if not more accurate) view as to what is going on in the black box than your sources of information. Also--and at the risk of sounding curt--I don't know how one can interpret a well defined interest in nineteenth century American military history as a potential interest in Latin American dictatorships or civil war in South Africa, especially given the vibrant ongoing historiographical debates over the Mexican-American War and the American Civil War. IMO, unforth has articulated a clear, sustainable, and appropriately general vision of what she wants to study that is clearly informed by previous research and reading. (Joseph Glatthaar is not a household name but he, like Reardon, is a big deal to those who have invested the time and effort to study the field in question.) IMO, the focus should be to empower aspiring graduate students in history so that they can get to where they want to go and to be the types of historians they want to be, not to discourage them by suggesting that what they want to study may not really be what they want to study after all. My $0.02.

No, I am not at the conference. It just seemed like you were talking about Professor Reardon given your interests and her background Also, I was this [] close to buying her most recent book late last night on Amazon, so her scholarship was on my mind when I read your post. FWIW, my areas of interest (in chronological order) include the reform and modernization of the United States Army during the Gilded Age, the formulation of naval strategy and policy during the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and the impact of the RMA debate on U.S. grand strategy during GWOT,

Are you talking about Carol Reardon? MOO, I think that rather than allow yourself to be pushed into an area or areas that don't appeal to you or spending time worrying about how you compare to an imaginary strong applicant, you would be better served by developing a SOP that includes a dynamic affirmative argument for the historiographical relevance of your interests and brushing up your writing sample. Keep in mind that while military historians are going through an extended phase that sees us on the outside looking in, our central areas of focus provide competitive advantages in relation to many other fields of history. If you bring these advantages to bear in your SOP and your writing sample, I am confident that you will acquit yourself well in the coming application season. My $0.02.

Let me put your mind at ease. Well, sort of. It is highly likely that you will jump on your crank while wearing spikes at least once as you get used to the tempo of graduate school. (Indeed, you might be better off if you make a mistake earlier in the term rather than later--so you will have enough time to recover. I'm thinking of a classmate who wrote a paper on American films during the Cold War without knowing that Alfred Hitchcock was British until the day we handed in our papers and discussed them as a group. ) The challenge will be what you do afterwards. If (when) it happens, stay cool, don't freak out. Understand that making mistakes is part of the process of learning. Draw what you can from the experience, make the adjustments you need to make, and move on. (A lot of these kinds of issues can be worked out best by talking to a professor during office hours rather than wringing hands, comparing notes, and reading tea leaves with one's classmates.) Unless a professors is a hard ass, he or she will likely let you off the hook (maybe after using you as a chew toy for a few minutes). And if there's a classmate who is a bit too snarky at your expense, just make a mental note and decide if (and how) you want to even the score down the line. HTH.

TCL-- Enjoy the moment and take satisfaction in your accomplishment!

How do the two schools compare if you project that you will be too busy to do as much socializing with your friends and that you will have significantly less time to spend with your boyfriend?

Could you please clarify what you want to do? Do you (i) want to replace one supervisor with another or do you (ii) want to have two supervisors so that your second supervisor can "check and balance" the original supervisor? If you want (i) what role do you envision for your first supervisor? Do you want him/her on your committee at all?

CT-- It was my good fortune to have as a mentor a professor who held doctorates in a humanity and in psychoanalysis. (He was also a training analyst.) What I learned from working with him is that the using psychoanalytic theory in an academic setting is drastically different than applying psychoanalytic training in a clinical environment. (He was of the view that the two approaches were increasingly incompatible.) I also learned that debates among clinicians over "best practices" can require a tremendous amount of thought to work out and have political implications. Consequently, rather than focusing on the relative prestige of your two choices, I recommend that you try to figure out how your potential POIs view clinical psychoanalysis. Specifically, do the programs feature practicing clinicians? Are any of them also training analysts? What are their views of the ongoing debates among clinicians? Moreover, I urge you to consider carefully that at some point you may have to decide what you are: an academic whose research is informed by psychoanalytic theory or a clinician who is driven by the needs of your analysands. HTH.

FWIW, when I worked as a teaching assistant, I handed out an evaluation form at the end of every weekly section. (The form was cribbed from a similar document that a professor in the school of education used with his students.) I cannot say for certain how giving undergraduates a weekly opportunity to provide feedback impacted their final evaluation of my work. I can say that the weekly feedback--as sporadic as it was--allowed me to make adjustments during the semester and to have a better sense of what materials merited additional discussion/clarification. @jennyb I appreciate the effort you made to 'get it right.' As an undergraduate, one of the most unnerving experiences I had was when I attended a study session for a midterm in cultural anthropology. Two anthropology graduate students hosted the session for their sections. The session basically fell apart when the two of them started to argue the correct answer for a potential identification question. Rather than getting it right, the two sought to win the argument. If they don't know, what hope do we have? was my thought.

Will the private sector offer a drastically different--much less more satisfying--experience? IME working for two companies in two different industries, the demands of the 'bottom line' turned great work environments into increasingly toxic places that crushed the spirit of even the most steadfast true believers and resulted in 'restructuring.' Even before the sledding got tough, there was plenty of drudge project work that people did not want to do but did anyways, office politics, narrow thinking, unproductive competition, and isolation. If you leave your program, you might strike gold and find something that makes you happier. However, given the state of the economy, I don't know if the odds are in your favor. If you stay, hunker down, and learn to embrace the suck/adjust your mindset, you can continue to work towards your degree while (potentially) avoiding the ongoing ravages of the recession. HTH.

FWIW, I very strongly disagree with this prevailing view. I think that it is not only unfortunate, but profoundly, ah, controversial. I recommend that applicants NOT make themselves sound like something they're not and have no intention of being. Do not lie or deceive established professional academic historians. Get in on the merits of who you are, what you've done, and what you want to do. If one travels the path of deception, ask yourself if you're ready to be PNG once a department figures you out, and word gets around, and you're trying to put committees together. Instead, I recommend that you do your research carefully when it comes time to picking programs. Find ways to make it clear that your interests center around a sector other than the Ivory Tower. Do some research. Find examples of the type of historian you want to be. Figure out how you can follow in their footsteps. Develop a vision of how your path in .ORG .GOV or .MIL or the private sector will help the regeneration of professional academic history without compromising the House of Klio.

I recommend Lawrence Levine's Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America.