Hi everyone,
I'm an undergrad that has just made the decision to apply to graduate programs in history for the fall of 2015. I realize that the job prospects are horrible for history PhDs - I've been on the Chronicles of Higher Education website, talked to younger professors, perused the forums here, etc. and realize that my chances of coming out of a PhD program (even if I happen to get into one) with a job is very, very low. But, I think I'll regret it if I at least don't try.
Concerns about job markets or placement aside, I'm currently trying to narrow down my interests identify what programs that I might be interested in. I know what themes I would like to study and the general timeframe (empires and the process of colonialization from the 17th to the 19th century). As for geographic area, not so much. I know that many historians tend to identify the region he/she is interested in and then identify a time period and topics that they're interested in. For me, this seems to be the other way around. My broad geographic interest led me to look into fields such as Atlantic history, or Transnational/International history.
One concern that I have is that most of these programs (in the case of transnational/international history) state that students should be contacting individual advisors from different fields for research direction because the advisors are scattered in different fields and the connections are not well-established. Then, is it worth applying for programs in Transnational or International history, rather than applying to an established field and then, for your dissertation, working with faculty from different fields? Wha would be the advantage of applying to a Transnational or International program versus a more traditional one in East Asia, the United States, or Russia and then looking at the global implications and interactions?
Thanks in advance for your answers!
