Sigaba

Keep it together, everyone. I understand that you're under a lot of pressure and the anxiety is tremendous. But keep it together. The stress you're experiencing now is nothing compared to what you'll encounter when a professor decides to use you as a chew toy or when you're taking your qualifying examinations or when you're writing your dissertation. Use this moment to prepare yourself for the challenges that await.

If you have a bad relationship with your advisor, life can be miserable even if the streets are paved with gold. () At the same time, please do keep in mind that somewhere along the line, it is likely you're going to have a less than ideal relationship with someone who has power over your future. And sometimes good relationships deteriorate unexpectedly. So if you go with the more reputable program and the person for whom you don't care, you may have an opportunity to develop a useful set of skills on someone else's dime.

Well, the short version follows. S.L.A. Marshall and Stephen Ambrose were also frauds. J.F.C. Fuller's reliability is also increasingly in question. And A.T. Mahan has been raked over the coals as a historian at least once. Notice what all five had in common: the desire for celebrity. On the upside, there are a lot of subjects/topics that are now open to re-examination.

IME, what matters most is rapport with one's professors--especially one's advisor. If that rapport isn't there, a professor can impact your development negatively without even trying. Here's an example. While taking a course in early American history, I had a newly minted assistant professor who, for personal reasons, hated the navy. "Why would anyone want to study naval history?" she sneered at me a couple of times. Because of her mindset, she did not bother to point me towards important works that she had most likely come across during her time as a doctoral student. While I don't think she deliberately tried to screw me over, I do think the absence of rapport played a role in her not doing what other professors have done for me--direct me to works they think might be important. Example two. I switched schools because I wasn't happy with the level of instruction I was getting (and for other reasons). I ended up with an advisor who, unknown to me and my classmates until much later, had a well deserved reputation for being "selfish." It was only later, after a comparing notes with fellow students, and receiving some affirming nods from other professors, that this selfishness manifested in the negotiations over reading lists for qualifying exams. This is to say that he would direct his graduate students to books he'd recently read at the expense of works that we needed to read. Consequently, while we were doing easter egg hunts for the works he recommended, we would sometimes, if we were lucky, stumble upon more important works. More often, we'd made these discoveries as we began doing the historiographical research for our dissertations and/or supplemental research in support of our responsibilities as T.A.s. The bottom line is that many graduate students do work that is so specialized that one is responsible to find answers for unknown questions. Make no mistake that the operative word here is responsibility. It is ultimately a graduate student's responsibility to figure out the dynamics of his/her relationships with professors, to read what one needs to read, and to learn what one needs to learn. So before one makes a blanket decision that relationships with professors aren't that important, remember that they, because of their superior expertise in a domain of knowledge, can open and close doors that others cannot even see.

Jeffery G. Barlow, From Hot War to Cold: The U.S. Navy and National Security Affairs, 1945-1955. I agree with your assessment. However, I think it is important to point out that this isolation is because (i) military/naval/aerospace historians have a 'built in' professional audience outside of the Ivory Tower, (ii) military histories are popular, and (iii) many military historians feel that they've 'been there / done that' when it comes to the areas of interest that drive professional academic historiography. Make no mistake, I believe that military and naval historians badly miscalculated their responses to the "new" history and those in the 'pipeline' will continue to pay for this miscalculation for decades. However, it may well end up with the profession going full circle and the few military/naval historians who are left will say "Hey, we've been waiting for you." There's also The Ohio State University. Congratulations, iamincontrolhere-haig!

Before you read the balance of my post, I believe three disclosures are in order. First, the UCSB campus and surrounding areas are among my favorite places. Second, while I dream of traveling to Istanbul, my own political views would make travelling to Turkey at this point in time problematic. Third, given the state of international affairs, I would be very reluctant to travel to that region of the world for an extended period of time. I think a number of "push comes to shove" opportunities will arise in the near future. And if the shoving starts I would want to be on the other side of the planet. YMMV. Now, on to the particulars. MOO, the information in this paragraph should drive your go/no go matrix. If you do go to Turkey and end up needing to go through the application process, you will probably be able to get a high level of support. On the other hand, your destination and the work you will be doing will not directly help you get any closer to your objective. So while you're in Turkey teaching English, people who want to do what do will be developing their skills to compete in graduate school and beyond. Can you afford to take a year off against this type of competition? Also, while some have correctly pointed out that graduate school will always be there, an offer from UCSB may not. The State of California is broke, the governor is committed politically to cutting the budget, and in-state tuition costs for the UC system are on the rise. Meanwhile, the cost of living in California is heading ever upward. So while you may have the opportunity to live and to work in Turkey, that opportunity may have some costs on the back end of your journey. So my two cents are these. If you get into UCSB and are offered financial support, accept the offer, even if you're told that you can defer for a year, and even if you get it in writing. If you don't get into UCSB, but get into either of the two M.A. programs, consider going to Turkey. (Here's why. If you earn a M.A. from program A and then become a doctoral student at program B, it is likely that the Powers That Be at program B will have you jump through many of the same hoops you navigated at program A. In the long run, this repitiion may do you good but maybe much less fun than going to Turkey.) HTH.

@thedig13 During my undergraduate days, I frequently took as light of a course load as possible. Part of the reason is that I was working part time in a physically demanding job and I wanted to maximize my availability to work and to do the work well without compromising too much on my coursework. As I held my own when it was time to do a senior thesis and the additional coursework to qualify for honors, and I was at a highly regarded public institution, my light course load--and a few "crash and burns"--did not factor into the graduate admissions process. However, please keep in mind that everyone's situation is different. While this approach worked for me, it may or may not work for you. Instead, I urge you to take to heart the guidance you've received in previous posts to focus on your language skills. Now, as for your interacting with professors, I think you need to develop your self confidence and to manage better your expectations. Please keep in mind that professors often have a lot on their plates, are not always the most sociable of people, and can be very ambivalent when it comes to dealing with undergraduates. So if a professor appears to be blowing you off, or appears to have non receptive body language, try to have a thicker skin. I also think you should disabuse yourself of the fantasy of the Vulcan mind meld/instant rapport with a professor. Yes, those types of relationships do occur and hopefully you'll get to experience them. However, you will also need to develop the skills and mindset to operate in professional relationships that are not as rewarding. The bottom line is that somewhere along the line, you're going to end up working with at least one professor who is disinterested--if not outright hostile--to you and to what you want to do as a historian. (But I'm not bitter.) Also, consider the value of figuring out your strengths and shortcomings as a student so you can play to the former while you work on the latter. For example, if you have doubts about your skills as a conversationalist but you're very good at writing things out, there's no harm in 'scripting out' what you want to talk about and taking a brief list of talking points when you go to talk to a professor. Or, if you feel more comfortable talking to people closer to your own age and experiences, you can have a series preliminary conversations with graduate students, and use those chats to build your confidence. HTH.

Here's a bump to request that those of you who have been admitted and rejected to do consider the value of communicating with programs to which you applied for a debriefing. That is, ask why you got in or why you didn't. Then, to the extent you can bear, share the results. This information might allow future applicants to focus in on the process and to escape avoidable mistakes. Also, the process of waiting things out can provide one with additional insight in regards to "lessons learned." I understand that these requests are asking a lot out of many of you. Rejection can bring more agony than acceptance brings joy. However, the future of professional academic history rests in your hands. There is no better time than the present than to start the process of supporting those who will follow in your footsteps. Unfortunately, Brian Bond, Michael Howard, and John J. Mearsheimer have documented that Liddell-Hart was something of a fraud. If America is to produce another great military historian in the years to come, she (or he) will have to find a different path.

Safferz-- If you want to take the conversation in this direction, I encourage you to develop your argument rather than just "stand by it." Specifically what is your evidence that Bush the Younger was and is "mediocre"? What are your bases of comparison? For example, if your argument is that George W. Bush was a mediocre president, then who would you rank ahead of him and why? Insofar as you taking umbrage with the tone of my post, I offer no apologies for my snarky reply. If you're going to privilege consistently your political and personal viewpoints over your sober judgement as a historian, you will likely encounter more of the same in the years to come.

I recommend that you work on your empathy. Or, at least, work ways to disguise your glaring contempt for those who will do jobs that you will not (or cannot) do.

Oseirus-- One of the many lessons you may learn as you progress through graduate school is that written words often impact readers, even those who are sympathetic, with greater weight than you may intend as a writer. As you're a new member to this BB, you may not have had the opportunity to read previous discussions of the OWS movement (). Many of the posts in that thread and this one indicate that members of this BB have invested time, thought, energy, and effort into the OWSM. Because of these efforts, glib comments about it may not go over well in this environment. Additionally, the philosophy of history that you present in your post is, as you will find out in years to come, highly controversial--if not anachronistic-- because it hinges on the concept of "objectivity" (see posts numbers 4-7, and 9-10 in this thread). Moreover, your comments about "simplistic assessments," "lazy assessment," and what "accredited historians spew" are a bit off putting given the fact that you do not offer compelling arguments to support your assertions. Why is the OWS nothing like the revolutionary movements of the Arab Spring? Why don't the sensibilities of the OWS reflect a revolutionary frame of mind? If each revolution is "unique," then do established academics spend time comparing and contrasting a variety of events to determine if revolutions across time have similar features? How would history be better off if your sensibilities about the craft drove programming at the History Channel? The point here is that if you're going to imply that participants in a discussion about history are offering views that are "simplistic" or "lazy" or that established academics are "spew[ing]" it is incumbent upon you to offer sustainable arguments that support your point of view. At the very least, you should know if what you say is "inaccurate, unfactual, or disrespectful." (That is, if you're going to talk trash to generate controversy, know that you're talking trash, be ready to back yourself up with evidence, and be prepared for what follows. )

Were I in your situation, I would take the editor's guidance and use the class in question to write on the historiography of occupation. IMO, it isn't an either/or choice that you face. Instead, you have an opportunity to increase your understanding of how a potential dissertation topic fits into multiple trajectories of historiography. As an Americanist who focuses on naval, military, and diplomatic history, I am dismayed by the ongoing perpetuation of the myth of World War II as "the Good War." IMO, a major reason why this myth persists--despite the corrective works of Europeanists--is that we still have not reached a critical mass of scholarly works that prevent Americans from focusing on operations in Western Europe and the Pacific. My hope for any work that focuses on Eastern Europe--where, IMO, the Second World War was decided--is that no matter how refined its argument, it will fit into the building tidal wave that will, one day, wash away many of the myths that persist in the United States. My (somewhat self-interested) two cents.

hw_man-- FWIW, I worked as a coordinator at a software/hardware R&D lab for five years and change. I remain in touch with former team mates who give me the skinny on how things are going at 'the salt mines.' IME, the cohort you describe was very much like some of the most capable developers/software engineers at the shop. My suggestion is that you take a step back from the "grass is greener" expectations you have about the private sector. I recommend that you understand that the golden days of software/hardware development are over. The corporate types maintain an unending focus on the bottom line. If you manage to find a job, it is likely that you'll have a demanding work load, encounter a fair share of "anti-social people," marathon conference calls, an unrelenting barrage of email (some of my colleagues received 300+ messages a day), and a lot of frustration as good ideas will take a back seat to business related priorities. (Unfortunately, numerous NDAs prevent me from giving you concrete examples.) IMO, these factors should be weighed against the many benefits and rewards of working in a creative and dynamic field. In addition to the sense of satisfaction that comes from participating in leading edge projects, you will meet people from all walks of life and have opportunities to make life-long friends. Hence, my caveat aside, if you can find work as well as a plan to manage your transition from graduate school to the private sector that leaves open the option of returning to the Ivory Tower, I do not see why you should not explore your options. I do, however, recommend that you be as up front with your PoIs/advisors/mentors as possible. It is my observation that some of the most successful members of the industry are those who happen to be honest brokers in addition to having advanced skill sets. HTH.

ALCON-- Rather than just voting oseirus down for post #23, why not also articulate why you disagree with his viewpoint?

Safferz-- As a historian you should know better than to offer a definitive assessment of a living person. Bush the Younger's legacy as a president will remain unknown until professional historians have had the opportunity to sort through the millions of documents that are currently unavailable at the George W. Bush Presidential Library as well as the archival records of foreign governments, the oral histories and private papers of people from all walks of life, and the ensuing historiographical debate. It is one thing to offer a personal opinion of a figure, but be careful of risking your intellectual credibility with one-off statements. (Also, given the fact that you're an aspiring Yalie and that institution's ties to the American intelligence community, is it wise to offer such a dour view of that institution's admissions process on an open source BB? )

Yes.

IMO, there are too many variables to offer hard and fast generalizations. Departmental politics, personal rivalries, and a given professor's state of mind during the deliberative process can upset the applecart at almost anytime. If you are in a position where a PoI and/or DGS has said that she'll go to bat for you and you've done your best to submit the strongest application possible under the circumstances, do what you can to put your anxiety out of your mind. Focus on those tasks that require your immediate attention. Alternatively, you can work on the assumption that, come the fall, you'll be attending a program somewhere and thus spend the wait time developing skills you'll need where ever you are.

It depends upon how one defines "knowing." For me, the priority is to obtain practical knowledge centering around my activities. The best places to park, the quickest routes to the libraries I use, an intimate knowledge of certain areas of the stacks, the quietest library in which to read, the locations of the most reliable copying machines, the most useful paths to walk when I want to encounter specific people (or to avoid others), the vending machines that keep sodas the coldest, the best places to get food/coffee, and the restrooms that afford the most privacy (because they will also be the cleanest restrooms). HTH.

kotov-- While I will not question your decision to post infrequently, I will say that I regret your relative silence.

Not everyone in a program is going to get along with everyone else. Sometimes, you'll know you're doing things right because certain people don't like you. Moreover, sooner or later, almost everyone--including professors--has at least one meltdown. (Hopefully, you'll do it in seminar rather than when writing an essay or taking your qualifying exams.) The key for many of you will be knowing when to cut others slack just as they're cutting you slack. Equally important are doing your best to have a thick skin and keeping a sense of humor (especially about yourself) at all times. My $0.02.

Congratulations, CPetersen! If you end up a Trojan, I suspect you'll find scholars in the history department as committed to the development of their students as one would like. FWIW, this was my experience as well.

FWIW, I earned my B.A. at Cal. In my experience, the faculty and students (both undergraduates and graduates) were able to discuss controversial issues from a variety of perspectives and with a little snark from time to time. (I once argued during an upper division seminar on the Cold War that Elmer Fudd and Dwight Eisenhower were actually the same person.)

edost-- It depends. At some institutions, graduate students do the lion's share of the teaching.

MOO, there's a tremendous difference between going along to get along and STFU on the one hand and actively engaging in a pattern of deception on the other. From a purely pragmatic POV, two things are likely. First, that one's PoI's will realize that one has been less than upfront with them. Second, that one will need said PoI's somewhere down the line. IMO, one's interests would be better served by picking a course of study thoughtfully, submitting a well crafted SoP that argues how one's career objective advances the House of Klio, and treating one's PoI's with the same level of dignity and respect one would like to receive.

SD-- If you've not already done so, please check your private messages.