Sigaba

@arrowtotheknee If writing her an additional email in which you retrospectively reply to her papers will make you feel better, and you can write that email very well, it might be worth the effort--if only for your state of mind. (If it sounds like I'm straddling the fence it is because I am.) It may also be worth your while to do a "lessons learned" exercise for the interview in question. Why did you freeze up? How might you respond in future interviews when you encounter an unexpected question? How does one say intelligently "I've not read it" and/or "I don't know"? More generally, take gellert's post to heart. Keep a positive view of yourself and all the hard work you've done to get yourself to this point. FWIW, I've had a couple of experiences in which a professor or two bounced me off the walls and come away from the experience absolutely convinced that I'd acquitted myself poorly--only to find that I'd actually done all right. Based upon the comments she offered after the "flub," such may be the case for you. HTH.

holdon-- Again, if you'd used the search function, you'd know how badly off you are in this thread. Moreover, given you might not be well positioned to criticize others for their contributions in this thread.

holdon-- Your criticisms of the discussion of diving in this thread are somewhat confusing given the levity you have expressed in some of your previous posts. Also, as a civilian, I think it is bad form for you to treat a member of this BB who is a veteran with such discourtesy. Moreover, by not availing yourself of this BB's robust search function you call into question your expertise as a researcher.

Gellert-- FWIW, where I am going with this is a concern over the blurring of lines between the clinical application of psychology and the popular understanding of psychological terms. A mentor of mine, a training psychoanalyst, believed that this blurring contributes to a sensibility in which members of the general public do not professional clinicians take seriously and seek to paint as pathological the behavior of others. While you, JM, and others may not bat an eye when such colloquialisms are used, I agree with those who argue that intellectuals should re-enforce lines of demarcation between the popular application of a concept and a more precise meaning. As for my comparison, I respectfully disagree that they are not at all the same thing. MOO, one of the many reasons why American political discourse is so toxic is because too many people--especially those on the right--refuse to familiarize themselves with the work political scientists and historians have done to differentiate left of center political thought. They instead go with colloquialisms and turn to Red baiting. Just my two cents.

As an alternative to CandI's thoughtful plan, you might pursue a doctorate in political science at an institution that does not mind students who have policy-oriented career objectives and do your outside field in history. (Finding an academic historian who will support your aspirations may still end up being a challenge.)

JM-- Does the fact that American political right colloquially equates progressivism, socialism, and communism mean that the current president and his supporters are communists because his critics say so?

I think you are responding to an argument I have not offered. Please read post #14.

It connotes that living and working the Ivory Tower are not the same as similar experiences out of it and, somehow, not "real." This construct flies in the face of the fact that many of today's most contentious issues of debate were anticipated--if not formulated--by academics. For example, consider C.P. Snow's 1959 Rede Lecture and the ensuing critical responses and how similar that debate is to the ongoing "cultural wars" in the United States. MOO, a more sustainable way to go is to phrase things in term of one's experiences, perspective, vantage point, or preference. Such approaches allow one to disagree without being disagreeable. You never know when you're going to encounter an idea that makes you reconsider long standing assumptions.

A potential draw back of going the M.A. path is that some master's students treat that path as a pit stop as they figure out what they want to do with their lives. This dynamic can result in you be surrounded by classmates who may not push/challenge/support you the same way as doctoral students. Even if there are students in your program trying to earn a doctorate, they may also not push you. For example, in my experience, there were a couple of masters students who, because of a lack of experience in the study of history, were not at the same skill level of the doctoral students. We in the latter group definitely treated these two students differently. (We did not hammer them the way we hammered each other.) An additional factor to consider is that a doctoral program may want you to jump through many of the same hoops you did as a master's student. If you're committed to learning the craft, you might not mind. If you're at a point in your life where such requirements grate on you, it could be an issue. (As I've noted once or twice, I 'transferred' from one doctoral program to another after earning a master's. The second program treated me as if I were at level zero.) If you do go the master's route, I suggest that you apply to programs that require either a thesis or a report. These options will position you to gain valuable research experience, and, potentially, to identify a topic for your dissertation. HTH.

oserius-- Are you prior service? (Specifically USAF?) Regardless, you might want to check your references to the "real world" at the door (as well as the underlying sensibilities) before you go back into Ivory Tower. This is not to say you should compromise your beliefs but rather it is a suggestion that you find more collegial ways to phrase them. Graduate school is going to be difficult enough without lobbing those kinds of pejoratives in seminar.

Oserious-- One of the issues with this BB is that it presently has too few members who have gone through the process and then gotten a debriefing as to why they did or did not get into certain programs. Also, it appears that there are not many members who have been taken behind the curtain to learn how members of their department think and how decisions get made. (Some who may have such experience are sitting on their hands and laughing rather than bellying up to the bar and throwing in their two cents. ) As far as the desire for "hard and fast rules" to success and a clear cut rationale to the whole process, what would be the fun if such rules and rationality actually existed?

SD-- Why are you speaking of the OWS movement in the past tense? While municipal governments have moved along those decamping in public spaces, this does not mean that the movement is finished. Also, it is wise for a historian to impose his or her own vision of what is "real"? If one were to revisit the history of British colonial America, one would recall that the sentiment for revolution developed slowly. And if one were to take another look at the historiography of the American Revolution, one would recall that there is ongoing debate over the truly revolutionary nature of colonial America's journey to political independence. We do not know how things are going to play out with the OWS movement--just as we don't know if the TPM will have a lasting impact. As individuals, we may have our preferences as to what we'd like to see happen. But as historians, should we privilege those preferences and use them to inhibit the intellectual curiosity of others?

FWIW, a trick I've learned over the years is that when I'm "too busy" to back up my files , I use a couple of gmail accounts to email myself my most important files.

While it remains to be seen what the historical legacy of the OWS movement will be, I augur that it will stand as an example of history working from "the bottom up" and from "the margins." In this case, social and international historians (among others) will to point to the OWS as a by product of similar movements in non-western regions of the world. In the scope of American political and social history, the OWS movement--along with the Tea Party movement--will serve as examples in discussions of populism, political gridlock in "the Beltway," the ongoing "crisis of modernity," and the role of new media. From there, one can easily transition backwards to reflect anew on the American Gilded Age, among other topics. A broader point here is that as a graduate student in a doctoral program, every aspiring historian should know how to do three things: (1) to sleep in any position, no matter how uncomfortable; (2) to find "free" meals (because no matter how generous one's funding may be, one often go hungry); and (3) to make arguments that tie contemporaneous events to broader historiographical debates and, in turn, point to the relevance of those debates. That is, the reason why the OWS is "nothing new" is because historians have been talking about similar subjects for decades.

Keep the replies coming, everyone. The information you provide will help those who follow. When you think through the "lessons learned," please be mindful to look forward as well as back.

C-- Check your PMs. S.

@Goldie. Congratulations on news of the nomination for the fellowship. While there's a certain prudence to taking TMP's advice and waiting until you see it in writing, consider the possibility that the information was disclosed to you for specific reasons and to use the disclosure to your advantage. (FWIW, I am not surprised. You and a few others here are 'ten feet tall.' Candidly, I'm somewhat relieved that I didn't have to compete against you for admissions to programs.) @SapperDaddy With respect, if you're a 12 series, and/or have been deployed in support of OIF and/or OEF, and/or use this same screen name elsewhere, you may want to increase your level of PERSEC. In any case, you might consider upping the level of your SA. The comment that follows is representative of the type of behavior that is UNSAT in a graduate history program. @ALCON-- To the extent possible, do all you can to manage the constellation of emotions surrounding your wait. Do all you can to stay focused on the objective at hand (the book you're reading, the paper you're writing, the class you're taking. the course you're teaching). This narrow focus will help the days of waiting go by a bit more quickly. The focus will also help you to finish strong and position yourself to get a 'running start' as you prepare yourselves for the next set of challenges. If there's an expressed interest, we who are ahead of you in the "pipeline" can build a thread in which we share tips/suggestions/recommendations on how to manage the transition from candidate for admission to graduate school to graduate student seeking a doctorate degree. (Ironically, some of those who will have earned M.A.'s by the time you enter the next phase may find it inexplicably more difficult.)

MOO, too many educators confuse paternalism for pedagogy.

How do you get along with the other professors in your department? Do any of them have a well-earned reputation for being a "go to person" when a graduate student is having issues with some aspect of your program?

In addition to the guidance you've received from other members of this BB, I recommend that you avoid forays into psychology. First, the behavior you describe is not "passive aggressive" according to the criteria set forth in DSM-IV-TR. Second, you are not in a clinician. Consequently, you are not in a position to define why your PoI is behaving in the manner you describe and your efforts to do so in psychological terms undermines the legitimacy of your argument. (If you think this point is trivial, consider the way men have used issues of mental health to dominate and to control women. Now ask yourself: Do you want to play a part in this dynamic in any way?) Additionally, I strongly recommend that in your subsequent discussions of this person, you only allege publicly what you can prove. (And by prove, I mean with documents and first hand accounts of conversations you witnessed.) Keep what you know (or think you know) in your back pocket. Those events are for other people to tell/document. You do not want to hinge your credibility upon others. Strive to build an argument that can stand on its own. Leave it to others to determine that the PoI's behavior towards you falls into a broader pattern. Penultimately, consider the utility of rereading isobel_a's contribution. To the extent possible, take a "step back" from your situation and evaluate it from a disinterested viewpoint. IME, it is not uncommon for a group of graduate students to compare notes and conclude that a PoI is a this or a that and not go to the person and try to talk it out in private. And finally, it bears repeating: document, document, document. This guidance includes documenting your state of mind.

I would take the steps necessary to correct the error.

Yes. However, you might consider the advantages of altering slightly your perspective of the exercise. That is, do not just look at the guidance as helping you to write a better SoP and to improve your prospects as an applicant. Instead, also view the exercise as hands-on guidance on how to write more skillfully.

Specific dates could matter at an institution that has attempted to "move up the rankings" in terms of its academic reputation. This attempt can include significant upgrades (for lack of a better term) in faculty rosters, the re-formulation of undergraduate and graduate admissions criteria, and the implementation of higher academic standards for students. Also, dates of attendance can matter if a school went through an interval of upheaval that saw extra-academic events impacting the established patterns of a particular institution. A discussion of such upheaval can be found in ISBN-9780691149622.

C-- Do you have feelings of sadness, of emptiness, and/or depression? Do you feel like you could easily sleep for twelve or more hours? If so, you might consider going to the student health center and taking advantage of what ever counseling services it may offer. Or, if you don't like the thought of others being in your head, you might join a support group after you vet it very carefully. Else, and brace yourself for this suggestion, you might try cutting back on the Joe.

Kevin1990-- I recommend that instead of stressing out about the grades you've earned, sit down with a copy of your transcript and your course materials and spend a few hours figuring out how/why you got the grades you received. The objectives of this exercise are two fold. First, you want to make sure that you understand the core themes and lessons of a given class. If you do understand a course's main points, that B+ is going to serve you a lot better than you now realize. Second, you want to identify your strengths and weaknesses as a student and to identify ways to improve the former while shoring up the latter. During this exercise, see where you might have missed opportunities to do better and give yourself credit for exceeding expectations. In some cases, you might decide that you are who you are as a student For example, you might not do as well in lecture courses where the professor talks to the whiteboard and expects undergraduates to write down everything he says and then do a memory dump in blue books. Or you might just prefer to wait to the next to last instant to write an essay. In other situations, you might decide to adjust the way you approach certain types of tasks. You might conclude that listening to music while reading decreases your focus more than you previously thought. You might determine that you benefit from making flash cards for the identification portion of exams. You might find yourself benefiting from spending more time with professors during their office hours. (You might decide to trust your instinct and drop a class if you realize you won't develop good rapport with your professor.) More generally, I think that if you are going to walk the path of a historian, one of the best ways to advance your candidacy to graduate programs is to develop answers to questions like "Why should professional academic historians study war?" and "Why should military historians study professional academic history?" To be clear, you do not have to develop an argument that military history is the most important field of history. (IMO, it isn't--at least not in the study of American history.) But prepare yourself to participate intensely in conversations with, for example, social historians so that they may reconsider long held views on the relevance of war to their research interests. From there, start developing your views on which aspect of warfare is the most vital. From your posts on this BB, I think your answer is "strategy." But why? Why not grand strategy or operations or tactics or logistics or C3I or civil-military relations or technology or special operations or any of the other many sub fields. This exercise will start you on the road of figuring out how your tree fits into the thicket and how that thicket fits into the larger forest (of military history) and where that forest is on the broader historiographic landscape (i.e. the impact of warfare on the history of region X during interval Y).