ashiepoo72

I'm hesitant to put a number on it, but for the sake of argument let's say a program which takes more than ~10 per year is either painfully ignorant of the past 20 years of academic hiring trends or deeply reliant on graduate student labor. Or both. I haven't looked in a while, so IDK how many that is.

You're going to get through this! Try to read the intro and conclusion of each book before turning to reviews. The important thing is understanding how the books work together. How do the arguments intersect? How do they challenge each other? Something that worked really well for me was writing a precis for each section of my comps lists. So, for example, one precis would be on the historiography of WWI based on whatever 4-5 books were on my list, and another precis would be on gender in colonial America, etc. It was useful to have a sheet of paper focused on historiography from which to study, especially as I got closer to exam day.

I'm so sorry you're going through this. Rejection is a huge part of academia, but it doesn't mean the sting goes away. Your value isn't tied to an acceptance to a PhD program. I recognize saying that is easy, and feeling the truth of it is much harder in these moments.
It is brutal in the humanities right now. Absolutely brutal. And we haven't felt the full impact of it yet. Rejection now can be an opportunity for you to reassess if it's worth it when the number of jobs is becoming vanishingly small--and the number was small pre-covid. I started my program in 2015 fully understanding the challenges and accepting the risk. A sad realization I've had over the past year is, if I had to apply today facing the post-covid market, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't accumulate debt to get an MA when even the programs with good placement records are going to struggle to place their grads in academic jobs. But it's an individual choice. As always, each prospective and current grad student needs to assess the risks themselves.

You're going to get through this! Try to read the intro and conclusion of each book before turning to reviews. The important thing is understanding how the books work together. How do the arguments intersect? How do they challenge each other? Something that worked really well for me was writing a precis for each section of my comps lists. So, for example, one precis would be on the historiography of WWI based on whatever 4-5 books were on my list, and another precis would be on gender in colonial America, etc. It was useful to have a sheet of paper focused on historiography from which to study, especially as I got closer to exam day.

I'm so sorry you're going through this. Rejection is a huge part of academia, but it doesn't mean the sting goes away. Your value isn't tied to an acceptance to a PhD program. I recognize saying that is easy, and feeling the truth of it is much harder in these moments.
It is brutal in the humanities right now. Absolutely brutal. And we haven't felt the full impact of it yet. Rejection now can be an opportunity for you to reassess if it's worth it when the number of jobs is becoming vanishingly small--and the number was small pre-covid. I started my program in 2015 fully understanding the challenges and accepting the risk. A sad realization I've had over the past year is, if I had to apply today facing the post-covid market, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't accumulate debt to get an MA when even the programs with good placement records are going to struggle to place their grads in academic jobs. But it's an individual choice. As always, each prospective and current grad student needs to assess the risks themselves.

I'm so sorry you're going through this. Rejection is a huge part of academia, but it doesn't mean the sting goes away. Your value isn't tied to an acceptance to a PhD program. I recognize saying that is easy, and feeling the truth of it is much harder in these moments.
It is brutal in the humanities right now. Absolutely brutal. And we haven't felt the full impact of it yet. Rejection now can be an opportunity for you to reassess if it's worth it when the number of jobs is becoming vanishingly small--and the number was small pre-covid. I started my program in 2015 fully understanding the challenges and accepting the risk. A sad realization I've had over the past year is, if I had to apply today facing the post-covid market, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't accumulate debt to get an MA when even the programs with good placement records are going to struggle to place their grads in academic jobs. But it's an individual choice. As always, each prospective and current grad student needs to assess the risks themselves.

I'm taking comps on Monday and had to post here...I can't believe that 4 years ago I was researching grad programs while trawling through GradCafe, and now I'm about to be ABD *fingers crossed*
Thanks for all the support! This is the best community ever.

I passed y'all! I'm convinced my success is at least in part due to good vibes from friends and family, so thank you thank you!

I'm taking comps on Monday and had to post here...I can't believe that 4 years ago I was researching grad programs while trawling through GradCafe, and now I'm about to be ABD *fingers crossed*
Thanks for all the support! This is the best community ever.

I'm old school and still take notes by hand. Basically I buy legal pads and black pilot g2 .5 pens in bulk on amazon (I'm particular about writing implements) and clearly label date/class/lecture topic/professor so I know from where the ideas came. Usually I'll write down any book titles/historiographical arguments discussed and stuff that sounds interesting or challenges my perspective on the topic. If I think of questions during discussion, I'll write those down so I don't forget them for when I have a chance to speak. I don't think I've ever taken more than a page of notes in lecture, though.

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 don't think military history is out of fashion, I think the traditional way of studying it is. If we study war as battle to battle, tactic to tactic that is no longer fashionable, but I also feel it doesnt do the history justice. If we work under the assumption that historical actors experienced life in complex ways like we do--that their conception of everything revolves around a network of competing, intersecting, contested and negotiated ideologies, experiences and beliefs--how can we not study more than traditional history? What seems silly to me as that we need to break history into so many categories, when history in my mind should encompass them all. Makes me think we historians like the easier task of compartmentalization, as most humans do.

I study war and conflict, and I can tell you that when i look at the Vietnam War, for example, there's no way I can do cut and dry military history to get the richness I want in my research. How can we look at Vietnam without looking at the war as a crucible for the creation of gender identities, as well as a place where these ideas begin to crumble? When the female veterans, like nurses, experienced gender discrimination and hostility, yet their story is removed from the larger narrative? When Vietnamese women played such a huge role in the conflict, and we're some of its greatest victims? How can we not look at the environment as part of the soldiers' experience? How can we strip it of politics, which affected military tactics and battles? How can we not look at class when the majority of the grunts were working-class or poor, or age when the average soldier in the field was 19? How can we not look at race, when the civil rights movement began galvanizing african Americans against the war and many black soldiers felt commonality with the Vietnamese more than their white military commanders? How can we not look at the sensory aspect, the womp-womp of helicopters and buzzing of bullets and booming of artillery? Or the medical aspect--the medical apparatus was extremely well articulated during the war, and this colored the experience of soldiers and personnel.

I categorize myself as a social, political and global historian because our discipline still asks for that kind of categorization. But I don't believe that history is easy to categorize, nor do I think it should be. That's my long answer.

First of all, everyone goes through a sense of inadequacy at some point in grad school. You're in excellent company.
You have to be confident that programs accepted you because you have what it takes to succeed. They get plenty of talented applicants and from that large pool they spotted something particularly promising in your materials. I'd also like to give a shout out to all the state school grads! I got my MA at a state school that hadn't sent anyone to a PhD in like 3 years before I applied. The training there was amazing, though, and I still stay in touch with many of the faculty because they are wonderful. Don't let your state school lineage bring you down--some of the best scholars end up teaching at these campuses (which we could say is a reflection of the job market, but I feel like I lucked out getting excellent training for a fraction of the cost).
As to writing, I would suggest keeping your language simple, don't try to insert words just because they're trendy or sexy. If the words are awkward for you to write, they're going to be awkward to read. It's just as easy to write "in and of itself" as "ipso facto," and that might feel more natural to your voice as a writer. Also, we like these sophisticated phrases (my fave: raison d'etre), but when we fill our books with a bunch of academese and phrases in foreign languages, we are assuming the people we want to read our books understands what we're saying. Even I struggle with some of the academese I read, and I consider myself a fairly well-educated person. Simpler language isn't worse--it's more accessible. 
I've never had trouble with writing, and have even tutored others for years and years now (I would suggest doing this--tutoring GREATLY improved my writing because I actually had to think about why good writing is good), but everyone struggles with some aspect of the writing process. When I started my MA, some of my favorite professors tore my work apart and made me question if I ever had any talent at all. There was aggressive removal of passive voice, awkward sentences and words that I shouldn't have been using (because I thought finding sexy synonyms was smart--its only a good idea if you pick words that actually make sense, which I often didn't). What I'm trying to say is, you will improve the more you write, the more topics on which you write, the more people who comment on your work. Read an established historian's first book and read their most recent work--writing is a lifelong learning kind of thing, and everyone improves with practice, time and lots and lots of reading.

I know it sounds really discouraging.  But honestly, do you want to enter in a PhD program when departments are fighting for funds to help people finish their degrees once those people have exhausted their 4-5 year funding packages? Departments do want to be able to commit to their PhD students to the fullest extent, thus not abandoning those further along. To do that, they would prefer not to admit (w/ blessing of the Powers to Be) new students who they cannot provide the same amount of support for the next 5-8 years. They are also freaking out about graduate students who have recently passed their exams and now need to travel to archives. Those students are supposed to be able to travel to the archives but because of travel restrictions (mostly imposed by the universities), they can't go anywhere to get going on their research.  Instead, those students are using up a semester (or two!) of their guaranteed funding packages and working as TAs and doing what they can with online archives.  Essentially, they are losing out a semester or two of guaranteed funding to the pandemic and no one knows if they will be granted extensions later on to make up for that kind of loss.  Current students come first, not any considerations for next year's cohort.

With that many high-quality programs not accepting applicants this year, it's also a good idea to contemplate the fact that others are, and why that might be the case. 

The experience is very, very helpful.  You learn what it takes to write an original 30+ page research paper based on primary sources, not secondary.
 
Your writing sample needs to be just that- a demonstration of your capabilities as a future historian to be able to collect, interpret, and analyze various sources and reconstruct historical accounts with a methodological approach.  If you have a seminar paper like that, then great!  Use it!  
 
If you don't want to take honors courses to be able to qualify for a thesis-writing course, ask a trusted prof for an independent study/research course.  I'm sure s/he will be delighted at the opportunity to teach the historian's craft in a serious, intimate manner.

Some programs will allow you to transfer maybe one or two MA courses--usually this is listed in the grad handbook or department website, so you should be reading these with a fine-tooth comb as you research (actually, you should do this anyway). But the impression I got was that programs want to leave their particular stamp on you, and part of doing that is going through coursework, including methodology and historiography. Honestly, having taken a few MA courses doesn't mean you won't get anything out of PhD coursework. There is always more methodology and historiography to learn. You may want to research PhDs in the UK, they jump straight into the dissertation, but keep in mind unless you do like Oxford or Cambridge you will have trouble getting a job in the U.S.--because UK PhDs forgo the coursework part, programs here view them as (generally) less rigorous.

The most important parts of the application:
1. Fit (this is how you figure out where to apply)
2. Statement of purpose that demonstrates fit, engagement with relevant historiographies, the ability to conceive a dissertation-worthy project, evidence of previous research experience and generally showing you understand what a history PhD is all about. For the SOP to be successful, your project needs to be narrow enough to be a dissertation. From what you've described, I have no clue what your project is about. All I know is geography, time period and the very vague umbrella of "social and cultural history." So you need to really think about the specifics before you can even approach an application. I do, however, recommend demonstrating a level of flexibility; your project will more than likely change as you proceed through the program, and your adviser will more than likely not want to deal with someone who is incapable of accepting that change. This could be as simple as discussing how you started a research project expecting one thing, but the primary sources led you to another thing--as they should! Could also be along the lines of expressing that you look forward to working with Professor Awesome on X method to explore Y and Z and how that may impact your project.
3. Writing sample based on original primary source research, preferably using the methods and tools of the history discipline. I have colleagues and friends who used writing samples in related disciplines because they didn't start out in history. If you do this, you need to explain in the SOP how your experience will elevate/inform your research as a historian. Since you're interested in public history, this should be an easier selling point for you.
To figure out fit, which is central to every application, you need to know the departments to which you apply inside and out. Find 2-3 scholars in the department with whom you could work, whether they are thematically, geographically, methodologically in line with your research interests. You need to show why these scholars make sense as potential committee members. TMP gave great advice on how to find such scholars.  Moreover, you need to show what you bring to the department. How will your research add to the intellectual environment? It's a good idea to consider what resources the university has--any collections in the library that are pertinent to your research? Archives nearby? Also consider what other resources the department can provide. Funding, placement record are very, very important. Any department that won't tell you their placement record is suspicious. You don't want to go somewhere that uses you as cheap labor and is incapable of placing their grads in jobs inside or outside academia. 

The most important parts of the application:
1. Fit (this is how you figure out where to apply)
2. Statement of purpose that demonstrates fit, engagement with relevant historiographies, the ability to conceive a dissertation-worthy project, evidence of previous research experience and generally showing you understand what a history PhD is all about. For the SOP to be successful, your project needs to be narrow enough to be a dissertation. From what you've described, I have no clue what your project is about. All I know is geography, time period and the very vague umbrella of "social and cultural history." So you need to really think about the specifics before you can even approach an application. I do, however, recommend demonstrating a level of flexibility; your project will more than likely change as you proceed through the program, and your adviser will more than likely not want to deal with someone who is incapable of accepting that change. This could be as simple as discussing how you started a research project expecting one thing, but the primary sources led you to another thing--as they should! Could also be along the lines of expressing that you look forward to working with Professor Awesome on X method to explore Y and Z and how that may impact your project.
3. Writing sample based on original primary source research, preferably using the methods and tools of the history discipline. I have colleagues and friends who used writing samples in related disciplines because they didn't start out in history. If you do this, you need to explain in the SOP how your experience will elevate/inform your research as a historian. Since you're interested in public history, this should be an easier selling point for you.
To figure out fit, which is central to every application, you need to know the departments to which you apply inside and out. Find 2-3 scholars in the department with whom you could work, whether they are thematically, geographically, methodologically in line with your research interests. You need to show why these scholars make sense as potential committee members. TMP gave great advice on how to find such scholars.  Moreover, you need to show what you bring to the department. How will your research add to the intellectual environment? It's a good idea to consider what resources the university has--any collections in the library that are pertinent to your research? Archives nearby? Also consider what other resources the department can provide. Funding, placement record are very, very important. Any department that won't tell you their placement record is suspicious. You don't want to go somewhere that uses you as cheap labor and is incapable of placing their grads in jobs inside or outside academia. 

The most important parts of the application:
1. Fit (this is how you figure out where to apply)
2. Statement of purpose that demonstrates fit, engagement with relevant historiographies, the ability to conceive a dissertation-worthy project, evidence of previous research experience and generally showing you understand what a history PhD is all about. For the SOP to be successful, your project needs to be narrow enough to be a dissertation. From what you've described, I have no clue what your project is about. All I know is geography, time period and the very vague umbrella of "social and cultural history." So you need to really think about the specifics before you can even approach an application. I do, however, recommend demonstrating a level of flexibility; your project will more than likely change as you proceed through the program, and your adviser will more than likely not want to deal with someone who is incapable of accepting that change. This could be as simple as discussing how you started a research project expecting one thing, but the primary sources led you to another thing--as they should! Could also be along the lines of expressing that you look forward to working with Professor Awesome on X method to explore Y and Z and how that may impact your project.
3. Writing sample based on original primary source research, preferably using the methods and tools of the history discipline. I have colleagues and friends who used writing samples in related disciplines because they didn't start out in history. If you do this, you need to explain in the SOP how your experience will elevate/inform your research as a historian. Since you're interested in public history, this should be an easier selling point for you.
To figure out fit, which is central to every application, you need to know the departments to which you apply inside and out. Find 2-3 scholars in the department with whom you could work, whether they are thematically, geographically, methodologically in line with your research interests. You need to show why these scholars make sense as potential committee members. TMP gave great advice on how to find such scholars.  Moreover, you need to show what you bring to the department. How will your research add to the intellectual environment? It's a good idea to consider what resources the university has--any collections in the library that are pertinent to your research? Archives nearby? Also consider what other resources the department can provide. Funding, placement record are very, very important. Any department that won't tell you their placement record is suspicious. You don't want to go somewhere that uses you as cheap labor and is incapable of placing their grads in jobs inside or outside academia. 

Hello,
Thoughts numbers aside, have you done any primary source research? What are you doing for a capstone project for your MFA? Would you be able to take a graduate-level historiography course in the fall at your current institution? A historiography course will give you a better sense of what it means to practice the discipline of history that will be different from art history (You could transfer that credit but whether it'll help you opt out of the PhD program's historiography course is highly subjective)? Do you have French or German reading knowledge?
Museums are also very difficult to come by-- getting a job in a museum is highly dependent on your network connections. You'd need to find a way to fit in an internship in your extremely busy PhD program to get your foot through the door if you haven't done one already. You'll want to look for a program that has a public history as a field so you can devote some time to reading relevant literature and learn how to communicate with a public audience while most of your coursework revolve around high-level academic conversations with more jargon.
JHU and UNC wouldn't be the first place I'd think for women/gender history at all.  Rutgers, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin definitely do come to mind.  Madison is truly a lovely place to live (though very cold!) with a direct bus ride to Chicago O'Hare or MSP airports. @gsc can give you more pointers as her interests overlap with yours.  Read books and articles on topics of your interest-- where are the scholars based?  Where did they get their PhD from? That's how you develop a list of schools to apply to, not the USNWR, which is outdated.
My $0.02.
 

A carefully selected mandatory outside field could help. Especially if that outside field dovetails with a primary field. As an example, an outside field that presents opportunities to develop ArcGIS skills that will (ostensibly) used to make maps for one's research projects. Another possibility is to do an outside field in finance with the intent (wink wink, nudge nudge) to develop a skill set that will be valuable when you're a professor sitting on various committees.
I would run the risk assessment on being upfront IRT asking questions about non academic careers especially because of COVID-19. The coming years are going to be especially competitive for anyone seeking funding and support. If two candidates are equally qualified but one is not as committed to the profession as the other, it is not unreasonable to assume that the gate keepers will look more favorably on the true believer will get the nod over someone who is ambivalent. (Disclosure: As a former true believer, I generally had a competitive advantage when it came to admissions, support [including/especially when I screwed up], and, with one critical exception, rapport with professors. Not bitter, though.)
In the event you decide to ask direct questions about non academic jobs, please develop great questions and practice how you will ask those questions as well as the follow up questions. There is a generational divide in the Ivory Tower and it s expanding. This divide can serve as a filter that alters the way questions are heard, if not also how they're asked. Do your best to ask questions that are in your self interest without sounding selfish. One can find numerous threads on the GradCafe that center around how to phrase tough questions. If the existing threads do not provide adequate support, please consider the benefits of asking your questions in this thread.

This.  I was inducted in my final semester of undergrad.  I thought it was something just to put on my CV, which my advisor told me to do for grad schools.  Once I got more awards/fellowships, I took it off since it seemed that a lot of history majors who went into History PhD programs were inducted into PAT.

I wouldn't have joined Phi Alpha Theta as a PhD student, but I did as an MA student after a very mediocre BA career. I figured being part of an honors society would help me find a more serious community of students, form a writing group and have a support network on a campus where I knew no one. I enjoyed my time with PAT and still talk to many people I met through it. Don't join because you think it'll make a difference on your CV--it won't. Most people remove PAT from their CV once they start receiving awards and honors at the PhD level. @starshiphistory is spot on: PAT's worth depends on how active the chapter is. Do they put together workshops for writing and presenting at conferences? Invite guest speakers? Do fun things together (movie night was my fave)? How involved are the mentors/professors?
Btw, PAT offers small grants to members who are pursuing a PhD. I haven't applied for one, but I like knowing it's an option if I ever need to.

I wouldn't have joined Phi Alpha Theta as a PhD student, but I did as an MA student after a very mediocre BA career. I figured being part of an honors society would help me find a more serious community of students, form a writing group and have a support network on a campus where I knew no one. I enjoyed my time with PAT and still talk to many people I met through it. Don't join because you think it'll make a difference on your CV--it won't. Most people remove PAT from their CV once they start receiving awards and honors at the PhD level. @starshiphistory is spot on: PAT's worth depends on how active the chapter is. Do they put together workshops for writing and presenting at conferences? Invite guest speakers? Do fun things together (movie night was my fave)? How involved are the mentors/professors?
Btw, PAT offers small grants to members who are pursuing a PhD. I haven't applied for one, but I like knowing it's an option if I ever need to.