Sigaba

^ Although controversial, I think that's a nice post, CCB. Your comments provide food for thought. Sometimes, the leading edge can be the bleeding edge. Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s, there was a belief that naval historians would have plenty of job opportunities in the Ivory Tower. By the mid 1990s, it was clear that the opposite was going to be the case. A few years ago, a mentor told me that it was too bad I'd not been born ten years earlier. Amid his laughter, he made it clear that, given my areas of specialization, there was no way that I was going to get a TT job. Ever. But I'm not bitter.

In my experiences as a graduate student and from working in the private sector, I have found that if I unintentionally knock over someone's apple cart, putting things right is a good way to demonstrate good faith. But then, you might be right. I should have just said "chillax" and used the voting buttons. Those two tactics are proven winners in academic settings.

Oswic-- My view is that you should put the idea of summer prep reading on the back burner UNLESS your POI put a list in your hands and indicated a strong expectation that you know the books on it by the start of the fall term. During your coursework and your negotiations with members of your quals committee, you'll get an increasingly better idea of the books you must read cover to cover, those you should skim, and those you might skip altogether. Concurrently, you'll develop skills and methods to study history at the graduate level more efficiently. (That is, you might spend a few days with a book this summer only to find out that merits only a couple of hours of your time.) If you feel you must do some preparatory reading for your own peace of mind, make the list very short. Say two or three of the "must read" works in your field of interest or one or two of the significant works that have changed the way historians view their craft. You might also consider reading the short book reviews in the academic journals most closely related to your primary interest.

My understanding is that the standard work on the Thirty Years' War is now Peter H. Wilson's The Thirty Years' War: Europe's Tragedy (2009). I've not yet spent a lot of time with my copy, but I found the first edition of Wilson's The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806 compelling. Also, I understand that many fora and threads on this BB are informal. I accept and appreciate the fact many of you are decompressing from the rigors of the application process, and that you're entering the home stretch of your days as undergraduates. At the same time, I respectfully ask each of you to consider the competitive advantages of using every opportunity to incorporate the historical profession's best practices into even the most informal conversations about history between now and the time you pass your qualifying exams--if not beyond. Snarkfests can be a lot of fun. Many of you are quite witty and your playfulness reflects your intellectual skills and potential. Your senses of humor will serve you well. That being said, please remember that professors will be taking and comparing notes, even when they're laughing along with you--or letting you think that they are laughing with you. The contents of these notes will be disclosed to you with great subtlety. Even when professors are jumping on your skull during office hours or they're bouncing you off the walls in their comments for written assignments and oral presentations, it is exceedingly unlikely that they're going to tell you precisely what you're doing wrong until after you've figured it out for yourself and started the process of taking corrective actions. (And then, it will be on to the next lesson.) Moreover, because of the complexity of many historigraphical debates, there are hot-button words and phrases that can see you going from the life of the party to professor's chew toy in the blink of an eye. Even if you give as good as you get in such instances, you're still going to have bite marks that can take a long time to heal. (Or so I've heard.) Finally, I have learned that one dismisses the complexities of anything related to German history as "inane" or "convoluted" at one's own peril. My $0.02.

What about the needs of the profession, the concerns of your colleagues, and the interests of undergraduates?

I am not sure i agree with the assessment that it is a myth that there's an over supply of Ph.D.s. The last I heard (and I'll double check soon), for every vacancy there are about two hundred applicants. I do agree with SL's point about the adjunct positions replacing tenure track slots. This practice developed twenty years ago. I differ with SL on the solution. The answer is not unionization but rather a renewed emphasis on reconnecting with the general public. Over the last fifty years, historians have lost their ability to communicate effectively with the broader audience. The reasons for this disconnect are myriad. The end result is that fewer undergraduates want to take history courses, much less major in history. (The irony here is that four fields of history that are being driven out of departments pack undergraduates into lecture halls. But I'm not bitter. Not even a little. ) I am not sure that the focus on bean counting is inherently antithetical to the Ivory Tower's mission. I think too many cohorts of academics have been done a poor job at adjusting to this growing emphasis. They have not figured out ways to frame compelling counter narratives to the tales of the tape, much less use the numbers to figure out solutions the the problems discussed in departmental meetings. I am reluctant to support a frame of mind that frowns upon an academic institution's focus on athletics. Collegiate sports, despite all their ills, can play an important role in town and gown relations. (And the two institutions I've attended as a graduate student have strong athletic programs.) Finally, keep in mind that a major factor driving many budgets these days is the modernization and expansion of a school's infrastructure. Schools seek to increase their enrollment by doing what their "comparable institutions" do. This frequently means building new halls, dormitories, labs, and parking facilities. This type of master planning is complicated, highly controversial, and very costly. (In 2006, the average cost of building a new parking space was about $16,000.) Too often, academics come to discussions about master planning thinking about their own tomorrow rather than the Ivory Tower's next quarter century.

Please say a little bit more about your "professional history."

Often, history graduate students will do a field directly related to their interests. For example an Americanist who focuses on the presidency may do a field in political science. Or someone who is focused on European culture may do a field in art history. I'm suggesting that one consider fields that will help in the arenas of a historian's career outside of the archives For example, many institutions have a school of education that offers graduate degrees. In which case, one can do an outside field that helps one become a better teacher. Alternately, one can do a field that will make one a more adept administrator in an academic environment. Since bean counting is more and more the name of the game in the Ivory Tower, one might do an outside field so one can understand how the beans are sorted and counted. Other options include facility operations, IT, fundraising, industrial psychology, marketing, and (facility) master planning. All of the options in these options can enable a professor to do committee work more efficiently and effectively, and, potentially, give a hiring committee something to think about beyond an applicant's dissertation topic, CV, and fields of interest.

Are the troubles confronting professional academic historians the result of external factors alone or has the House of Klio also contributed to the current state of affairs? (This is a rhetorical question. The answers await many of you--and not just in the sequence of classes in historiography you'll be required to take.) When it comes time to pick an outside field, keep in mind that while there are disciplines that will help you as professional historian, there are others that will help you as a professional academic.

@glf212 It is on you to prove that you did not start this thread so that you can thump your chest while many of your peers are in misery. It is up to you to make things right. I think getting a debriefing from BU and posting the useful information from that conversation will be a wise move for you at this point and time.

UM-- Before you make a decision, I strongly recommend that you wait until after you've done all of your due diligence (including waiting to see what Rutgers offers you but especially your meeting with your NYU POI). And once you make a decision, take another look at post #96--there's a lot of wisdom in it.

I think that regardless of what you think of the phrasing of the OP, it raises a good question and ultimately reflects a very good mindset. As you go through any process, the insights you gain from the how/why you did not achieve an objective can be more valuable than knowing why you succeeded. Also, one of the two greatest shortcomings of this BB is that very few members find out definitively why they did or did not get admitted to a program. Consequently, each application season, there more speculation by people currently going through the process than hard solid information from those who went through it in prevoius seasons. This need is especially pressing when it comes to those who make it into top programs and/or elite institutions.

Mr. Haviland-- Welcome to the gradcafe. Please note that over the past fifteen plus years, members of the academic community including professors, administrators, and staff, have become increasingly concerned with the dynamic in which the parents of students interject themselves in the educational processes of their children. The term "helicopter parent," a pejorative, is frequently used as a phrase to capture this dynamic and its disruptive influence within the Ivory Tower. Please note that many academic departments and their parent institutions have instituted policies to manage this dynamic from the perspective of risk management. In many cases, these policies end up working to the detriment of students. That is, academics are increasingly focused on limiting their exposure to risk (i.e., playing CYA) and they are increasingly disinterested in mentoring undergraduates and graduates alike. (In my own experience as a teaching assistant, it was increasingly difficult to support students who are constantly checking with their parents to see if was is okay to work harder and to develop their critical thinking skills.) Your decision to assist your son doubtlessly reflects your best intentions as a parent. Nevertheless, please understand that your intervention on his behalf may have unfortunate--but avoidable--consequences. Professors, administrators, and staff compare notes on their perceptions of students. While it takes time to earn a favorable reputation, unfavorable reputations come much more easily. Therefore, I respectfully request that you consider the utility of recusing yourself permanently from all third party activities on behalf of your son. If he wants copies of his LoRs, let him do the leg work. Graduate school is a very difficult journey. He will doubtlessly benefit from your emotional, psychological, and intellectual support in the coming years. However, the path he's about to take is his and his alone to walk. Please allow him the opportunity to build the knowledge, the skills, and the relationships he will need on this journey by himself. If you decide to continue on your current path, that is your choice. Please do understand that he will have to bear the consequences (favorable, unfavorable, and unforeseen) of your choices.

Potentially. If you wrote a master's thesis/report, he could play "stump the band" when you defend. If your master's requires a written or oral exam, he could potentially approach it as if you were taking qualifying exams for a doctorate. Unless you can document convincingly the process by which you two negotiated the parameters of your defense, it might be very difficult to prove that he's being vindictive. Do what you can to manage better your emotions over this situation. Focus on the issue (determining a time/place for your defense) and the outcome you prefer (sooner rather than later). Let go of any and all rhetoric/thoughts/actions that do not help you solve the issue. I strongly recommend that you stop the "Johnson measuring" with this professor. It does not matter who is smarter or who is more ethical or who is a better person. Nor does it matter how many awards you've won. Your impressive record of achievement is not the issue. What matters is that this professor has something you need and he has power over you until you get your diploma (and maybe even after). I understand that you're upset with this person and that you hold him in low esteem. However, this POI may be an incredible political infighter who has rhetorical, procedural, and psychological tactics beyond your imagination. Treat the person with courtesy and as much respect as you can muster. Do not give this person an opportunity to point to your behavior and say to his peers "See? This is exactly what I'm talking about!" As things stand, since you intend to leave this program anyways, his peers and the administration have more reasons to take his point of view than yours. Not because he's right and you're wrong, but for the sake of pragmatism. As you work on managing your state of mind, begin, right away, the process of documenting everything. Archive on storage devices you control every shred of digital communication that you've had with everyone in your department. Take careful notes of every conversation you've had. Make a point to document contemporaneously your state of mind during and after each encounter. In these notes, do not write anything you'd not want to swear to in a court of law. By all means, do not include any revenge fantasies. As fun and as harmless as those may be, they can be used to burn you. (If you can help it, do not have any revenge fantasies other than going on your life and living well.) Consider the value of the guidance in post #4. However, think thrice before disclosing the details of your situation. Do not lie, do not mislead, or allow your new program to have a mistaken impression. Just keep your discussion of the matter as general as possible and disclose the details as needed. Do not try fight this battle in the court of public opinion either at your current program or your new one. Everyone these days has a lot on their plate--do not add to their burdnes. Moreover, as you've not proven yourself in your new environment, you don't want to give anyone a reason to draw the wrong first impression about you. One last point. You're in a situation in which you're getting to see the elephant. While it is unfortunate, it, given the nature of the Ivory Tower, may have been inevitable. Eventually, almost everyone gets screwed over by somebody. As best as you can, try not to let this experience embitter you. Do what you can to draw from this experience lessons that will make you a better scholar and a person. A request. No matter how this situation gets resolved, please, at some point, come back to this BB and let everyone know what you did and how things turned out. This step on your part will allow future graduate students to learn from your experiences. HTH.

One of the trends I've noticed over the years is historians thanking those who helped with the successful 'translation' of a manuscript across different operating systems and increasingly complex word processing programs.

You'll get to the point where, like Milhouse Van Houten, you'll forget stuff you already know from all the reading that awaits you. If you, or any other poster in this forum, ever needs free advice on how to handle it all, just hollar.

This is an open source site. The Ivory Tower is much smaller than you think and in it are established professional academics who are much more vindicitive than you realize. (If you doubt this, read some of the other threads in which people talk about the kind of issues they're having with POIs and other professors.) You are at the beginning of a path in which you are forming your professional identity. If you want to scoff at the two cents, that's your right. However, before you do, I recommend you bring something to the conversation other than spark and inexperience.

MOO, DeeLovely79 and Hahlj are offering outstanding guidance on how to balance the intellectual and emotional/psychological components of making a difficult decision. What ever path you pick, BL, please do what you can to purge the "Can I do it?" fears from your deliberations. You can do it. HTH.

Another possibility is that BU sensed that you're a big fish who'd get offers from bigger ponds. So the program made an offer to a student who was more interested in attending than you conveyed in your application materials. In any case, if you really want to know, call/write the Powers That Be at BU for a debriefing. Most of all, enjoy what you have accomplished. Harvard and Penn! Congratulations!

edost-- I might be misunderstanding the fact pattern. Initially you said In the first formulation, you compare "perfect" and "exactly" to "good". Now, you're saying: IME--and history is very specialized (some say overly so)--the distance between a "perfect" fit and a "good" fit is vast, especially when one throws a compatible relationship with a POI who does "exactly" the same thing as you want to attempt. Yes, with extra effort, you might be able to make up the difference if you stay closer to your familiar stomping grounds, especially if the qualitative difference is not as great as I initially concluded. But please do consider the position you could put yourself in if you go the the "perfect" program AND put in that extra effort. Also, please keep in mind that down the line, you may get a job that requires an even bigger move in a geographic sense. Might it be to your advantage to start the process of developing the coping skills to handle that kind of distance now, rather than later when the pressure will be several orders of magnitude higher? (If you want to see what this means, find threads on other BBs started by junior scholars trying to figure out how to teach their classes while doing their own research while doing their committee work.)

Without hesitation, I'd accept the offer of the Ph.D. program over the MA program. As noted, succesful completion of a M.A. program does not mean that you'll get into a Ph.D. program. But also, upon getting into that doctoral program, you might be required to jump through the same hoops again--in terms of requirements--and you'll definitely have to start from square zero in terms of buidling relationships with your professors. My $0.02.

MOO, the best way to answer this question is to contact people at Elliot and SIS who can tell you with 100% certainty why you didn't get in. There is no substitute for getting your information directly from the source. I understand that initiating this kind of conversation can inspire anxiety but you need to ask yourself how badly do you really want to know how to improve yourself. HTH.

MOO, you should grin and bear it, save your venting for your personal journal, and chalk this experience up to lessons learned. The mistake you made was not to call back the following week--and the week after that--and the next week, until you received absolute confirmation that all your materials had been received and everything was up to date. To paraphrase President Reagan, trust but verify. After all is said and done, a student bears ultimate accountability for making sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

For some, the question, however ackwardly phrased, may actually be a hint. The pursuit of an advanced degree, especially in history, can have a corrosive effect on one's personal and romatic relationships. Not for nothing do historians use the last paragraphs of their acknowledgements to thank profusely their spouses.