Sigaba

Post number 10, above, has a link to a thread that discusses different approaches to reading. Maybe there's something there that will help you.

Bull moose

MOO, any graduate student who decides to step outside the boundaries of an agreement he or she signed should think the risks through thrice. In addition to taking the risk of getting on the wrong side of one's program and/or professors, there's another risk. If you work as a T.A., at some point you're going to need to hold a student accountable. If you've colored outside of the lines, will you still have the moral authority to tell that student "You must color inside the lines"? To be clear, in America, people cut each other slack all the time. The Ivory Tower is no different. And it is sometimes more convenient to ask for forgiveness than for permission. However, it is my view that this is an instant where the risk is not worth the reward. My $0.02.

I'm ambivalent about the feature in question. When I get voted up, I think the feature is the greatest thing ever. When I get voted down, I'm not so sure. I do think that some aspiring graduate students in history--if not also other fields--may be passing up good opportunities to develop useful skills that will serve them well down the line. Eventually, everyone gets called out for a comment or a POV. When it happens, there will be no +1/-1 buttons. (Or as a professor said to me when I called him out during a seminar and wanted to know why I asked a particular question: "You've got to give booty to get booty.") My $0.02.

generated start

bad omen

drop kick

rabbit season

dead reckoning

free fall

playing dead

I wonder why someone would ding a comment offered in this thread without taking the time to say why. In an earlier post, TMP suggested that those who are sure of their decision should make it as soon as possible so that others could get off of wait lists. In this post, TMP is disclosing that her decision making process took a turn for the complicated. Why is this disclosure at all controversial? What is the member of this BB who dinged attempting to say? That a graduate student in history should not do one's due diligence? Or maybe that one should not recognize complexity? If either is the case, then what is the point of being a historian in the first place? ETA: Another member of this BB has since balanced out the down vote for post #153.

dixie carter

double envelopment

Damn. Looks like I'll have to re-shelve the SuperLotto master plan.

Who said anything about fun?

@nate99-- Easy does it! There's a growing edge in your posts in this thread. I do not think the frame of mind in your recent posts is going to do you any good now or later. Please take a step back and revisit your OP. IMO, it reflects who you really are and it is the mindset that is going to get you through this situation--however it plays out.

I understand your point. However, there are intangibles that one cannot convey through a CV. If one includes a paragraph with one or two extra sentences that hints at those intangibles, a reader has the opportunity to read it or to ignore it. Here's the thing. As I have noted elsewhere, and as some may have noticed, I'm not necessarily people person. (As my mentor put it, I'm not a smiley face.) However, I am someone who is intensely interested in the craft of history. When I let it, this trait frequently gets professors' attention and, often, their respect--if not their agreement. Ultimately, this is a YMMV situation and these are just my $0.02.

I would include something in the cover email that added a human touch and gave a brief hint of my strengths as a historian. Yes, people are busy and yes they have to sort through a lot of paperwork. But they're still people and, IME, some people especially appreciate it when you connect to them as people. My $0.02

Yes. FWIW, a list of Bancroft Prize winners is available here. FYI, you might find that while there's a lot of overlap between American studies and history, established practitioners of the latter often have a different set of sensibilities when it comes to the writing of history. Read what you want to read, think what you want to think. At the same time, when it comes to guys like Mike Davis, do not be surprised if a professor decides to pull your card and ask, "Is he a historian?" (I witnessed an occasion when such questions were put to Mike Davis by a room full of history professors. His answers did not inspire confidence.)

Thank you for your reply. FWIW, I guessed that this was what you meant but wanted to be sure. My approach to reading does incorporate this sensibility. Sometimes, the crux of an important--if not central--argument will be found in the most unlikely places.

red scare

Yes, and in the case of post #26, inarticulately.

In your case, I recommend that you look at institutions at which you can acquire expertise in domains of knowledge that will make you a competitive applicant and productive team member in industries outside of the Ivory Tower. Also, as you're already earning a M.A., there might be an expectation--realistic or not, fair or not--that you'll have a defined set of interests. If you've not reached that point, you might do well by using your SoP to discuss an ongoing process of intellectual growth. Finally, I urge you to spend more time exploring your strengths as a person and as a historian and less time on your perceived weaknesses/shortcomings. We are all works in progress. Some members of this BB are farther along the path than they realize. This group includes you.

Pudwen-- With respect, I think you should post works in your areas of interest--if only ones that would appeal to a generalized audience of historians. In my view, one of the big issues tripping up professional academic history is overspecialization. For me (and your YMMV), a way to address this issue is for more historians to have a working knowledge of what is going on in other wings of the House of Klio. This isn't to say I'm going to have the time nor inclination to sit down and read fifteen or twenty books in every field, but I do try to position myself so that I can direct myself--or someone else--to the right hall. MOO, we do ourselves and each other a grave disservice if we're unable to relate to each other. If we put our hands in our pockets and behave indifferently--if not disrespectfully--to other disciplines within history, then why should members of the general public care what any of us say? I am not arguing that we should not discuss issues with concern with great intensity or that presenting a united front is even a partial solution to all of our issues. I am simply saying that we need to do a better job at holding fast the lines of our profession and having a working understanding of other fields may help us reach that goal. Also, as a right of center moderate specializing in America naval/military/diplomatic history, I think there's a pressing need for those of us specializing in America's past to understand the complexity of other areas of specialization. In my view, despite the tremendous advances of the past fifty years, there remains among the general public--if not also some historians--an egocentric view of our past. I think we need to do a much better job at bringing the "margin" into the "mainstream" without further alienating Main Street, Anytown, Red/Blue State, USA. (And if you think I'm understating this dynamic, let me know either here or shoot me a PM.) So please understand that while an objective of this thread is to give entering graduate students ideas for reading, this thread also seeks to advance our professional development. My $0.02