ashiepoo72

Yeah, I've heard it's way more important in science disciplines and anything that heavily uses quantitative methods, because apparently the math portion is a reasonable expression of basic knowledge (not for me, because I suck, but you know what I mean). I've also heard some science disciplines look pretty closely at the verbal score, too. I know for a fact some history departments care about the GRE. Generally it's a threshold (I won't pretend to know what the magic number is) but for many programs it's used for funding purposes, which means that even if the department couldn't care less about it, the university does and it behooves you to get great scores. I'm just gonna say, I don't have a perfect undergrad record, got a solid but not perfect GPA in my MA, and had a good verbal but lackluster quant score on the GRE. For some reason that continues to boggle my mind, a bunch of places decided to accept and fund me anyway. My conclusion is that my obsessive revisions on the sample and statement and research on fit paid off. I tell this tale for those applicants who didn't ace everything their whole lives and are now looking at every B on their record like it's an executioner. Fit and writing/research ability are the things that get you into programs. Grades and GREs are hurdles you need to jump. They have to be high enough to make the jump, but that doesn't mean they have to be perfect.

@alainIt ain't over til it's over. Try not to think about the perceived weak spots in your application (I say "perceived" deliberately, because we are our own worst enemies when it comes to criticism) and focus on the strengths. Better yet, try to do something nice for yourself while you wait for results.

Something above 90th percentile is not going to be near the cut off. I got a 165V and 151Q and got into plenty of programs. If your verbal was below 85th percentile I would retake, but if it's above you should be focusing more on the written components of the application and not worrying about your strong GRE, especially with your extensive language skills and high GPA.

Quant score matters if you do quantitative history. Your verbal is plenty competitive. GRE is rumored to be the least important factor in admissions--if your verbal is abysmal, it'll raise a red flag, but a perfect score won't get you in either. I'd aim for 90th+ on verbal, but I doubt a score in the 80s will keep a strong candidate with strong research experience, GPA and a great statement and writing sample out. Fit is huge, however you need to prove you fit in a rock-solid statement of purpose.

Petersons stats are outdated by a few years, give or take. At least for my program, which in the past few years accepted around half of what Petersons says and hasn't had incoming cohorts that break double digits. I don't know what that means for Harvard, if anything. I know this is hard to truly accept, and I certainly didn't when I was playing the waiting game last year, but it's the god's honest truth--the acceptance rate doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, a mythical program that accepts 80% gives you better odds, but statistics are essentially meaningless in this situation (so my friend in engineering tells me) because even if I say there's a 92% chance you'll get in, even if you don't, I'll still be right (that 8% is a killer, I know). Basically what I'm saying is, be confident in the application you submitted, in your fit with the program and POIs, and try not to turn your brains to mush calculating acceptance rates. I swear, I did more algebra during my application season than any time since freshmen year of high school, so I'm speaking from experience.

I'd suggest unsubscribing to frivolous emails so you don't flip out every time something comes to your inbox, only to realize it's a Facebook notification. The waiting game is painful no matter what, but try to keep busy and stay positive or you'll lose your mind.

I'm in the same boat as mvlchicago, I just can't swing it this year. Sadly, don't have anything to present or money to spare. I plan on going next year for sure. Let us know how it goes, Heimat! I'm sorry we won't be getting a beer together!

Made it through the first quarter about 2 weeks ago and now winter quarter is days away...I have never missed semesters more than I do now. However, I'm a contrary person by nature (and a glutton for punishment) so I'm also stoked to start classes again. You guys...it's been a year since we finished applications and were waiting for programs to respond, wondering where the hell we'd end up. Crazy.

Nah, I'm sure some POIs don't bother doing google searches. You'll be fine.

It's not superior...it's a different way of studying the same or similar phenomena. The humanistic social science disciplines are sisters. They're not the same, in fact many are quite different, but they're related and can speak to one another if they're willing to listen. And they should, especially history, which prizes a multiplicity of perspectives in order to paint a fuller portrait of events.

In between terms at my MA I read journal articles or the New Yorker, helped me stay sharp. Now I have a shit ton of research so that keeps me plenty busy. There's always lots of secondary lit in your major field that you can pore over as well. Don't stress...it's like riding a bike, you may be rusty at first but you'll get it back with some practice in no time.

Exactly. You're purposely "regurgitating" (your words, not mine) information to get a rise out of others. Don't get offended when people call you on it. I'm not a fan of postmodernism, and in fact disagree with many of the approaches derided in this thread, but assuming that people who study the so-called diluted areas of history aren't "serious" is pretentious and wrong. Who says history is supposed to be objective? Life isn't. This is something actively, and seriously, debated in grad programs across the country because the discipline hasn't come to a consensus on it. Throwing around a term like objectivity to criticize subfields you disagree with is ridiculous. Just because someone takes an interdisciplinary approach doesn't mean they are subjective. Anyone with a brain in their head knows that. Interdisciplinarity means using sources from multiple disciplines, in many ways a task that attempts to capture more faces of history that "pure" history does, one that is also attempting to be more representative of the human experience. Some might argue supposed pure history is subjective because it ignores these sources. I think there's a need for both (which sure is more tolerant than your position)...but you already think I'm irrational so I'm not going to try and defend myself. Scholarship needs to use certain tools and not obscure evidence that would detract from an argument, but that doesn't mean emotion has no place in history. I am so sick of people assuming they know how to define history, and know what doesn't constitute history, and people who think they can belittle scholars who approach it differently. It is a complicated discipline with many facets and opinions, and that's what makes it viable. I can agree that scholars need to treat sources and historiography with an objective eye, but I won't pretend that I know what pure history looks like, nor will I force my opinion on others. I'm in the Zinn camp--subjectivity guides my choice of research topics, objectivity guides how I conduct research on said topics. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this thread.

I thought we killed this thread? Let's PLEASE kill this thread as a holiday gift to all.

Thanks for the suggestion! The more research I do, the more I realize I need to save for an iPad. I tested the camera on an Amazon and android tablet, both weren't sharp enough for what I need. I'm thinking I'll lurk on Craigslist and eBay after Christmas in the hopes that people who got new versions for Christmas will want to get rid of their old ones. Until then, my iPhone will have to do! Please let me know what that organization app is when you do! It sounds fab.

MSU notified me on January 26th, Davis on the 30th. I was rejected by Northwestern in early February and received most of my other acceptances (UCSB, SUNY-Albany, Minnesota-Twin Cities) in early February as well. SUNY-Binghamton notified late February, Maryland-College Park early March. I had to contact OSU after everyone else was notified because I didn't hear from them (due to being wait listed for funding, so don't be alarmed if you don't hear from programs when others do--you may be informally wait listed). Most programs notify in early-mid February. Time is going to fly for you guys.

Haha! Omg I'm dying over here. That is the best thing I've heard in months.

Well, duh. I'm trying to say, apply where you want to apply. You might be surprised at who funds you well. I mentioned the lower-ranked programs because, despite having less money to give grad students than most places in the top tier, I got great funding at those, so assuming a place won't fund you enough and not applying there because of it is self-rejecting before having all the details. If they really want you, they will fund you, maybe more than you think--that definitely happened to me at multiple schools, even places known for mediocre funding. Worry about fit when you're applying, then when you have actual offers, choose whatever program will best suit your needs. If you have multiple offers in hand, there's a good chance you can get some bennies from the program you truly want to attend by telling them X program gave you summer funds and you would accept Y program's offer if they do, too. Obviously, don't do this unless you actually intend to accept Y program's offer if they follow through.

When I applied, I chose programs based on fit. When I was actually in the position to choose a program, rank and funding became way more important. I would've happily attended the lowest-ranked program on my list, but once I got into more "prestigious" places that offered me more money, those became more important--the dream is to get a TT job, but I would've settled for having a really cool intellectual journey at a lower-ranked place if I didn't get in anywhere else. Also, some of the lower-ranked programs funded me fully and even gave me sweet perks like summer funding, but I was wait listed for funding at two more highly ranked programs. Bottom line, focus on fit first, worry about the rest when you actually have options. Right now, the 2016ers are courting programs. When they're courting you is the time to be more cold-hearted about money and rank IMO.

Exactly, @mvlchicago. It's something we should probably be doing every few years to stay on top of our fields. Glad it worked for you @meo03!

I hate to say this, because it's going to be a ton of grueling work, but this is exactly what I did and it really helped me. I went through this list of U.S. PhD-granting history programs by state (only the regions I would be willing to live): http://secure.historians.org/projects/cge/PhD/StateMap.cfm Then I pretty much went through each department on each state's list one by one. That means I went to department websites, looked through all the professors, wrote down people who sounded interesting and relevant to my research (temporally, methodologically, geographically, whatever...remember, advisers don't need to match you exactly, just be close enough to guide you), looked at what they've published, tried to read something written by them if I could (or at least a book review and citation check to see who was using their work), typed their names into a spreadsheet, went to the next department on the list, rinse and repeat. After that I contacted people, saw who responded positively, who suggested I not apply (usually because of department finances or retirements), put asterisks next to people who were enthusiastic about my work and fit my interests really well (I took that as a "major adviser" rather than "committee member" sign, but both were important in my search...you should looking for both). Any program that had less than 3 people who could support my work in some way got nixed. If any of my less-than-3 programs had excited me I might've deviated from the rule, but I'm confident sticking to it is what got me the number of acceptances that I did. Basically, when I started the process I knew that Madison had a badass modern U.S. program, knew where rockstars in my field worked, but otherwise was pretty ignorant. After doing the legwork outlined above, I know more about many many departments than any human should, but it's useful. The best way to figure out which programs will fit your interests is by doing your research and searching them out. Spreadsheets are your friend. Good luck!

Thanks, that's a great idea! I love Apple products, the price totally is why I don't want to get a new iPad. I figured it wasn't worth it when all I need the tablet for is pictures and organizing. I will check out refurbished iPads and see if I find anything in my price range.

Some advisers are quirky, just like some people you meet on the street. I was warned by grad students about certain professors, stuff like "they're super nice and helpful, but take awhile to warm up and are awkward at first" or "this person has trouble socializing and may come across as indifferent" etc. One of my profs reminded my cohort that professors are not our friends, even if they're friendly, at least until we are on the other side of the degree. Their job is to train us as professional scholars. They don't need to conform to social norms that make us comfortable, but do need to be respectful and professional. The real question you should be asking is if this person is able and willing and the best fit to support your work in grad school. If they are, then you should try to get over the awkwardness and focus on being professional. You're going to meet plenty of people in academia who come across as strange to you. You probably come across the same way to others and don't realize it. Humans are an interesting species like that. Learning to work through those differences in personalities will take you far, in grad school and otherwise. I second not having a discussion group to compare how awkward your adviser is. This stuff tends to get around, and imagine how even more awkward your relationship can get if your adviser finds out you're talking about them in what can be construed as a negative way. If your adviser isn't doing something wrong (like deliberately trying to mess up your grad career or coming on to you or being a total and obvious jerk, etc) and is professional and involved, then you should try to be as professional as possible and not talk about him behind his back.

Thanks! My sources are almost entirely in modern type, mostly I just need something that takes good pictures and can organize stuff. I'd like to set up folders or something within the device so I know what archive, collection and box things come from, which I'm now doing by hand. A bigger screen than a camera or phone would be nice, but if there isn't anything worthwhile I'll probably stick with my iPhone/laptop combo, even though it's unwieldy.

Hey guys, I was wondering if any of you use tablets to take photos in archives. I've been using my iPhone coupled with a laptop, but I like the idea of only having to carry a tablet and having the bigger screen to read documents and see if the photos are clear. I lost (personally I think it was stolen and sold, but that's another story) my iPad 2 a few years back and don't want to buy a replacement because I'm a broke grad student. I was hoping for recommendations of tablets that take good pictures and have decent organizational capabilities, but are also reasonably priced. I take notes by hand (old school right?) and use my laptop to write papers and surf the net, so I don't need a fancy tablet that can do everything. If you don't use a tablet, what do you use?

I'm not saying it's related, but my academia.edu profile got way more hits during the interregnum between application deadlines and admissions decisions than any time before.