bleistift

Hey Cornell07, I just got a letter from FedEx today with an acceptance to the program. I believe it was overnight delivery, so hopefully a FedEx truck will come by today for you.

Yea, I just submitted my application on Sunday. Thanks for posting the information, and good luck to you!

You can find an apartment close enough to USC to either walk or bike. You probably don't want to go too far from campus as USC is not in south central LA, not the safest of neighborhoods. You don't really need a car, but in a city like LA you will find that public transportation is not as well developed and a car will be helpful. You can also live farther away and commute by car if you'd like; you'd probably save a little on rent and you can live in a safe, but affordable, neighborhood. I'm not sure about how your field works (I'm in history), and also not sure about post-tax stipend, sorry. You probably want to check The Bank for information about your finances post-taxes.

That's an extremely broad question. The answer will completely depend upon how well you budget, what kind of expenses you'll have, what you're willing to cut back on, etc. You'll need to provide more details and ask a less broad question. I can tell you that LA cost of living is about 170% of the national average. Rent you can find from common rental websites like http://www.craigslist.org. If you have a more specific question like which area is affordable and not too far, we can probably help you more.

There's a wonderful beach at Santa Cruz, about an hour and a half south. There are beaches along the Peninsula that are a lot closer, but I've never been to any of them so I can't say how good they are. By mountains I assume you want to ski? You'll need to head east to the Sierra mountains. Tahoe's a fairly common destination.

I just left Berkeley (as an undergrad), but I worked with a lot of the EALC professors. The faculty is wonderful, and all (really, all of them) the graduate students I had classes with were cool as well -- I sometimes wish I were still up there!

I may be in the minority, but I really don't see what's abominable about Palo Alto (unless you mean East Palo Alto, but I'd call that ugly at worst, not abominable). As a Stanford student there's really no need to leave Palo Alto unless you either can't afford the rent or you are bored out of your mind of suburbia. And the latter doesn't really make sense to me because as a grad student I'd imagine you'd be too busy to be bored.

San Francisco State is located in south SF, which is basically a more suburbanized, more affordable area of San Francisco, yet it still retains the same characteristic SF feel and is definitely a pretty safe neighborhood. SFSU has a Muni light rail station I believe, which should easily transfer to BART or Caltrain, and those will get you to the South Bay or East Bay with ease. SF's Muni bus system is also well designed, so I think you're covered in terms of public transportation.

You might know this already, but originally regional area studies actually came about as sort of a rival to traditional social sciences like political science. Area studies were mostly the result of post-colonial academic movements that shunned the type of ethnocentrism practiced in a lot of social sciences. This was, however, around 30-40 years ago, and these days the line is a lot more blurred between the two. Practically speaking, I'd agree with you in that an M.A. is the way to go to properly prepare you to read primary sources with language courses. However, since it seems your ultimate goal is to become a political scientist, you're going to meet some old school poli sci faculty who will look upon the sort of "soft" culturally-sensitive curriculum from a regional studies program to be somewhat inferior to a theory-based social science curriculum. I think this sort of thinking is dying fast, but I thought it'd be good to put this sort of information out there so you know what to expect when you're looking for a tenured position and are under peer review. Just FYI. (One of my areas of focus is the history of social sciences and Chinese area studies, so we are not too far apart).

What's your intended area of study in Middle Eastern/Modern European history? Both are still fairly large fields.

I didn't actually attend UC Irvine, but I live about 45 minutes away so I can tell you what I know. Irvine is basically a model for American suburbia. The streets are so squeaky clean you could eat off of them. The upside is that almost all the housing development, whether apartment or condominium, is near new and very high quality. The downside, of course, is cost. There are affordable areas in Irvine, and there are also less squeaky clean areas nearby, like in Santa Ana or Fullerton. Try checking craigslist in Orange County and look at descriptions that say something along the lines of "perfect for students."

Peter, thanks for posting your thoughts again; I didn't catch them in other threads. lousyreeds, I definitely have the same concern about whether professors will invest time in the MA students. I'm not so much worried about the specific research interests of the faculty, however. As you said yourself, we'd only be there a year before we're out, hardly enough time to worry about ideological diversity. I don't know about you, but an MA program for me would be simply a means to an end -- acquiring LORs for the PhD level, where faculty research interests matter a lot more. If you have the same goal, you probably just need MA faculty that are willing to get to know you. Btw, would you mind reporting back here about how the visit went? With no funding I'm almost positive I don't want to attend, and the $150 travel reimbursement barely covers half of airfare for me. But I'll probably "reactivate" my application for next year and hope for some funding. It'd be useful to hear what your thoughts are about the program.

Thanks dudemaster. International History is basically the history of IR, although naturally we tend to focus on a specific theme, time period, and/or countries. It's mostly archive research work and not a lot of theory or policy formulation. I'll have to pose that question for the program coordinators.

What did you think of the faculty? Were they helpful in trying to place you into PhD programs? Were they easily accessible? Were most of them from the political science department?

Yea you are definitely right, I'd wait to apply for Fall 2010 if I were to accept (geez...that's a while away!). I'd rather take a 1 year program actually, I'd have no problem getting a job or spending some time abroad to brush up my languages, which I'd prefer to spending another $40k.

Wow, 2 weeks after I'd given up all hope and moved on to preparing for next year, I receive a (big) package in the mail from University of Chicago offering admission into their MA program for International Relations. No funding, but I'm wondering if it's worth it to bite the bullet and take loans for a year? Would attending an MA program significantly increase my chances of getting into a top 10 PhD program?

I just received in the mail an acceptance to the M.A. program at University of Chicago for the Committee on International Relations. This comes as a rather big surprise to me as I'd applied as a Ph.D. candidate in History at Chicago, and I'd been rejected to all the Ph.D. programs I'd applied to. So, as a history candidate I pretty much know next to nothing about IR or political science programs. Can anyone shed some light as to Chicago's prestige (in CIR), faculty, and most importantly, track record as to placement into top-tier Ph.D. programs? (Disclaimer: I know there's already a thread on Chicago's MAPSS, but there was no information about CIR so I was hoping to get more specific information.)

Your cumulative GPA will rise. It's a mathematical inevitability as a greater percentage of your coursework will be history classes, for which you have a higher GPA. By the time you graduate the two will be similar. And I also disagree about the discrepancy between cumulative and major GPA. Almost all of my friends had higher major GPAs than cumulative GPAs. This includes electrical engineers and computer scientists who took the easiest general education courses they could find. It's just a matter of what interests you and what your strengths are. Your history GPA is the one that will matter when you apply. None of my professors said "oh, you got a B- in Calculus, I have to question your future potential as a historian."

I can't say for sure exactly how important your GPA would be, but I do know that as a sophomore you don't have to worry too much. As a sophomore I had a 3.3 cumulative GPA as well (due primarily to the fact that I was an engineering major until 1.5 years in), and also a 3.7 History GPA. By the time I graduated, I had a 3.65 cumulative GPA and a 3.80 History GPA, and I attend a top 5 school with fairly tough grading as well. Basically, the further you go into college, the more "specialized" courses you will take. You'll clear your prerequisites, which you may not find interesting, and you'll have access to upper division and graduate level coursework which you'll just love. And as we all know, interest is directly correlated with grades. I still watched my grades because I knew I'd need a high GPA for grad school, but my interest in the subject matter usually was good enough to get the As and A-s.

I think many schools don't offer terminal MA programs, so either you're accepted for a Ph.D. or you're denied if that's the case. However, some phrase Ph.D. candidacy as conditional upon completion of a non-terminal MA (i.e. completing 2 years without failing out). Usually it's clear from the department website whether they offer a terminal MA or a non-terminal MA or no MA at all.

Most of the institutions I applied for allowed a generic cover letter and recommendation letter. I emailed the departments at all the schools I applied for, and only two schools asked me to use their specific cover letter (UCLA and Harvard). The other 6 said letter services were common and I don't need to worry about it.

I have to jump in and comment. Like AMC, I was born and raised in Southern California. I'm not taking offense to the characterization of LA as grossly polluted, overcrowded, etc. It's true. But like all stereotypes, it's ultimately, well, stereotypical. First of all, UCLA is located in west LA, which is only miles from the coast. You will experience very little of the terrible pollution that affects the inland areas. I'm not sure if you are aware, but about half of LA, including downtown, is nestled in a valley between mountains (we call them mountains, but they're actually hills). The pollution generated by our terrible auto-centric culture is trapped in between the hills of east LA and the San Gabriel mountains, which essentially leaves the LA basin swimming in a cloud of pollutants. However, in UCLA you will be lucky -- the sea breeze in the day means your air quality is often 50% better than that of the inland. Second, California has perhaps the most wonderful weather anywhere in the US. It's sunny all year round. Our idea of winter is 60F and cloudy. Rain bothers us perhaps 3 weeks a year. Even when you're stuck in the library, it's difficult not to smile when you can still enjoy the blue skies and sunny warmth permeating through the window during paragraph breaks. West LA has quite a lovely culture, plus Westwood Village is definitely catered towards the college students. Wonderful restaurants (including an In N Out minutes from campus) abound, nightlife if you head east on the 10, and easy access to the beach to the west. Oh, and you're talking about a school that has been in the Final Four, what, the past 3 years in a row? And a football rivalry that is among the fiercest in the west coast. I guess it's strange to mention sports in a history forum, but you'd be surprised at how 3 hours of cheering on a Saturday will lift your spirits after a week of being locked up in archives and seminars.

[quote name="Louiselab

It is possible, but you'd be at a significant disadvantage if you're planning on applying directly for a Ph.D. unless you have significant preparation in your undergraduate coursework and letters of recommendation from faculty in your history department. I'd suggest you apply for an MA program first, as they take a lot more non-history undergraduates than a PhD program would. I'm going to respectfully differ with Minnesotan and say don't bother with another BA, it's a waste of time. The MA will cost the same and will be far more valuable down the road. If you still have time left in your undergraduate schedule and can afford to take history classes, absolutely do so. Try to get into small seminars where you can get to know the professor really well, go to office hours a lot, and express your interest in pursuing history in graduate school. They'll guide you further. You also want to prepare your languages, so take whatever Medieval languages you'd need to do primary research.

I couldn't agree more. It seems especially unfair when you're willing to trade in your salaried position for a dirt-poor graduate student stipend, yet still be rejected. Anyone accepted at a Ph.D. program interested in a stable long-term career want to trade? Your spot for my job