Sigaba

With respect, I disagree. The fact that this BB, and others like it, exist indicate that many--if most--established academics are disinterested in (if not hostile to) mentoring undergraduates, if not also graduate students. Moreover, as this sensibility is increasingly pronounced, it seems unlikely that the Powers That Be consider this type of support to be part of the job. These two points aside, I recommend that aspiring graduate students put aside their concerns that they're going to the well once too often. Just make sure that you manage your relationships with professors who write you LoRs with respect. (This includes asking for LoRs in a timely fashion, keeping them informed of your progress, giving suitable expressions of thanks, and sincerely demonstrating interest in their well being.) (As you go along and earn the confidence of professors, you will hear a wide range of opinions about mentoring. Depending upon your frame of mind, you'll find some viewpoints admirable and others disappointing--if not outright deplorable. The bottom line is that a tenured professor will have his or her agenda and if you don't agree, it is your problem, not his or hers. The best you can do is to keep your mouth shut--what is said behind closed doors must remain behind closed doors--and to conduct yourself according to your own vision of your profession.)

MOO, the essays in this work are helpful but the coverage is uneven if one's focus is military or naval history. YMMV. One of the more challenging phases of my coursework was a three-week sequence in which a professor assigned Roll, Jordan, Roll, Battle Cry of Freedom, and the full version of Reconstruction. Nature's Metropolis is among the best works of history I've read on any topic.

If a member of this BB disapproves of the question I posed in post #13, I think he/she might advance the conversation more effectively by saying why rather than simply using the voting button. As you go through graduate school, you'll find that different historians will define terms differently and that they often pause to ask "What do you mean by X?" and the conversation proceeds from there.

tough luck

fool's errand

gold standard

nate99-- In my opinion, you're handling this situation very well. Hopefully, the Powers That Be will reinstate your acceptance. My suggestion is that you remain patient. If you don't hear back from the DSA in a timely manner, drop her a polite "How are things coming" inquiry. (If circumstances allow, a phone call might not be such a bad idea.) If she's unable to resolve the issue to your liking, calmly ask her about the next steps you might take. Without nagging her, see if you can keep the conversation going long enough so that she can think through all of her options ("No, there's nothing else I can do...no, wait a minute, let me try this...") If she cannot help you any more, you'll have to decide how you want to escalate the situation. I strongly recommend that as long as you are dealing with this unfortunate issue, you maintain the clear head and good nature you displayed in the OP. If you are on the phone and you start to feel frustrated or angry, check yourself and pull back. Conduct yourself with a sense of optimism and that this is just a hiccup that you and those who are going to intervene on your behalf will laugh about next fall when you go and introduce yourself. I really want to underscore my appreciation for the way you're handling this situation.

contact high

ALCON-- In addition to your contributions to this thread, please also consider the utility of posting a reply in the thread.

lafayette-- The process of selecting which programs you want to attend may benefit from refining one's definition of "top program" and "safeties." Is a top program one that has institutional prestige, a top tier faculty roster, and an established track record of its graduates getting TT jobs? Or is a top program one that has key faculty members who have research interests similar to yours and a departmental culture conducive to your personality traits? Is a 'safety' school a program with relatively less institutional prestige, a middle of the road faculty roster, and a mixed record of its graduates getting TT? Or is a 'safety' school one that has key faculty members who have research interests similar to yours and a departmental culture conductive to your personality traits? What I'm suggesting is that one's perspective can play a key role in winnowing down the options and finding programs in which one will fit. I am also suggesting--and the following will be controversial--that one should balance long term objectives with short term goals. That is, before you can compete for a TT job, you, in reverse order, need to get expert training as a professional academic historian, you need to finish a dissertation, you need to pick a dissertation topic, you need to pass qualifying exams, you need to develop relationships with professors, you need to do well in your coursework, and you need to be admitted into a program. That is, the objective is not simply to get a TT job. It is also to put yourself into the best position possible to maximize your potential as a historian. For that task, what are regarded as the top programs may not be the best programs for you regardless of who is on the faculty, how much prestige the department has, or the job placement rate.

Ganymede18-- Please elaborate on what you mean by "a more holistic approach" to reading.

grlu0701-- My primary concern centers around backing up your files. Please consider saving copies of your notes in multiple formats (.txt, .rtf, .docx, .PDF) and in multiple locations (your computer's HDD, a back-up HDD, and in the cloud) and having also at least one hard copy of your notes. Please keep in mind that as you go through graduate school, it is likely you'll become an increasingly skilled reader and note taker. Therefore, I recommend that you perform periodic self assessments to find ways to streamline your reading/note taking. Today you may need to take ten pages' worth of detailed notes for a book while in two years, sometimes five to nine bullet points will do the job just as well. That is, develop a frame of mind that allows you to trust your own judgement so that you can use methods appropriate to each particular circumstance. Also, please find out as soon as you can what tools you'll be allowed to use when you take your qualifying exams. If you have a very old school professor on your exam committee who says "no computers!", you might be well served by taking your reading notes by hand so that your penmanship and spelling skills don't deteriorate too badly between now and then. (I use the computer so much that my hand writing is just about illegible to me.) HTH.

horn section

war plan

IME, graduate courses in history centered around either (i) reading or (2) preparing a research paper. Courses falling under the second category generally had regular meetings the first several weeks as students did some assigned background reading, figured out a topic, and started doing the research. After the halfway point of the semester, class meetings were held intermittently to talk about outlines and drafts. This phase also saw one-on-one conversations with the professor. Towards the end of the semester, we'd talk about the finished product. Courses in the first category generally had readings in common from a syllabus (a monograph and some articles) along with two or three book review assignments and, sometimes, presentations. (One professor offered a specific class only during the summer and we were required to write an essay for each meeting and to make a presentation.) These courses often required the preparation of a longer essay that was due at the end of the semester. (FWIW, I did have a professor who structured his seminars to include lectures and final exams based upon his lectures.) Independent reading courses centered around tasks negotiated with the professor supervising the work. Er...ah...um. When I started my coursework as a graduate student, I failed to understand the fundamental differences between studying history as an undergraduate versus studying history as a graduate student. Consequently, I did not get all I could out of my initial coursework even though from the perspective of my grades, I did all right. (The core issue was that I was indifferent to the importance of historiography and of theory to the profession of academic history.) Although my professors and a mentor took turns standing on my head, the light did not go on until well into my second year of course work and, later, as I prepared a report to earn a master's degree. (The Forty Acres required graduate students to earn a M.A. before being admitted to candidacy for a Ph.D.) For reasons beyond the scope of this post, I changed schools after earning a MA. I took this change as an opportunity to focus more on historiography and on theory. This focus caused some conflict with my primary POI. (But then he had issues with all of his graduate students for one reason or another. And I'm not bitter. ) But the focus opened other doors. (For example, I had the privilege of reading a draft of a professor's manuscript--an opportunity that I would never have had with my POI.) My point here is that I strongly urge graduate students in history programs to take very seriously seminars that center around reading--even if the course itself is not centered around your core interests. There's an ongoing discussion about the (over) specialization of historians--especially Americanists--and the role that (over) specialization plays in the declining prestige of professional academic history . While the craft is now far too complex to be a generalist, casting a wider net during your coursework may improve your ability to communicate effectively with historians outside of your core areas of interest. As for the requirements for an outside field, after changing programs, I took two graduate-level courses in a different school at the university. The first class was an "Introduction to X." The second covered an aspect of X in greater detail, it required assigned readings, and the preparation of a long essay. Both classes were taught by the same professor. He agreed to let me write the long essay on a topic related to history and to sit on my qualifying exam committee. He also tasked me to formulate the questions I wanted to see on a written exam. HTH.

war game

The purpose of this thread is for graduate students currently in M.A. and Ph.D. programs to suggest works that their peers may profit from reading. This thread aims to compliment the thread in which general guidance is offered but few, if any, specific titles are mentioned. I respectfully request that all participants in this thread state clearly how far along you are in your program. This information can be as simple as "I'm in my second year of coursework," or "I'm taking my qualifying exams in two semesters." I also respectfully request that participants differentiate between works they've read as a part of their general coursework and those works that are directly related to their fields of interest (i.e. areas that will form all or part of your qualifying exams) or one's master's report/thesis or one's dissertation. I encourage participants to mention works that are off the beaten path. That is, works that are only tangentially related to your core interests but have influenced your views of the craft of history. As historiography is about debate, please do mention works that offer viable alternatives/counterpoints to the suggestions of other graduate students. I do ask that you phrase recommendations in this category professionally. (That is, let's not re-enact the Maddox-Alperovitz brawl.)

Spunkrag-- Although I don't agree with part of your solution (i.e., going to the dean), I respect your perspective. The search button is a wonderful thing.

The short version is that you're airing your department's dirty laundry (tension between a graduate student and a professor) out of house. This practice is a good way to burn bridges while you're standing on them. Some of the most important instruction you'll receive will take place after professors have determined that you can keep your mouth shut. (That is, they won't show you where the bodies are buried until they know you can be trusted.) By talking about this issue outside of your department, you've planted a seed for gossip that, if it takes root, is unlikely to bear fruit that has any nourishment for you. The fact that you've disclosed this issue to an undergraduate who most likely does not have the expertise nor influence to help you resolve your issue adds another level to the risk you've taken. In my experience, each graduate program has at least one professor who has earned the reputation for being the fixer of students' problems. If you cannot find a way to talk directly to the professor with whom you're having difficulties, find and talk to the fixer. HTH.

Runaway-- I would add the following diagnostic questions: What type of work is the piece under discussion (Examples include: a narrative history of the conduct of operations during the American Civil War, a community study of Cincinnati from x to z;, a journalistic account of the Eisenhower presidency, a social history of Chicago, a cultural history of the movie industry during the 1970s, an international history of the Korean War, a psycho-biography of Richard Nixon, a political polemic disguised as a historical work.) For whom is it written? (Examples include: a popular narrative history aimed at educated laypersons, a reference work, an introductory work for undergraduates, a monograph written for graduate students and specialists,) What does the work seek to accomplish? (Does it refine existing arguments? Does it tentatively explore a new direction? Does it seek to reopen closed issues? Or does it seek to change radically the trajectory of scholarship?) What school of thought/project does the work represent? (A revisionist account of America's decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, an analysis of slave culture informed by the works of Gramsci, a materialist examination of American foreign policy during the late nineteenth century) What is the precise nature of a work's primary sources? (Archival research can mean personal/private papers/letters, recently declassified government documents, tax records, court cases/transcripts, and oral histories. The more precisely you define the nature of the sources, the better you'll position yourself to make informed decisions down the line about other works covering the same topic.) How well are the primary sources used? A suggestion. Please do not let your sense of embarrassment ever deter you from asking questions, especially in class. Chances are, some of your classmates will have some of the same questions. Sometimes, the asking of an "embarrassing" question will help you to understand who among your peers you can trust and those you might be better off avoiding. And sometimes, the willingness to ask that question will earn you the respect of a professor. HTH.

Please keep in mind that this type of research can be very useful when you're a graduate student. Knowing who is who, where they are, what they do, and why they do it can be important pieces of information when writing review essays for one's coursework. Also, the research you do now can benefit others down the line. Examples include an undergraduate wanting to talk to you down the line about gradate programs or a professor on a search committee asking you informally about the top scholars in your field.

The reading tips thread is