Katzenmusik

The thesis shows you can successfully complete an independent research project, and attending a small liberal arts college is good preparation for the seminar discussion format of graduate school. However, I wouldn't try to explicitly market yourself as having the experience of an MA. Graduate school is just a whole different ballgame -- it's somehow a lot less forgiving and cozy-seeming, even if you attended a very rigorous SLAC. If I were you, I'd let the quality of my research speak for itself as a writing sample. I'd briefly mention the circumstances of its creation in my statement of purpose and have one of my recommendation-writers discuss the rarity of a student taking on this challenge. Then I'd let the admissions committee come to its own conclusions about what it all means.

Yeah. I think there's a certain come-down after the admissions frenzy of February. I was recently rejected from my #1 choice. Kind of a bummer, but I'm happy with the options I do have. Another roll of the dice wouldn't be worth the time, expense, or emotional upheaval. As for trolling of the results board -- it's a pretty dead-on satire of the comments some people leave. I'm enjoying it! (But then, I'm not waiting on any schools that now have phony results up...)

I've decided to base my decision entirely on which school's doctoral regalia looks the coolest. Unfortunately I did not apply to McGill:

Hmm, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms with my comment. The other side of the argument, I think, is that having a well-connected advisor or attending a program that is highly respected in a certain area of history can make up for the overall prestige issue. My own professors warned me against this thinking, because people on hiring committees might not be aware of the subtleties within your subfield. I had been planning to apply to a few other universities way down the rankings ladder but was counseled not to. For the record, I think prestige-discrimination is silly and wrong. There are insightful, talented scholars at all sorts of institutions. But this does appear to be an unfortunate reality in TT hiring. Anyway, I'll take a step back now and let someone disagree with me.

Here's my advice: Read the anti-grad school arguments: Pannapacker/Benton, Cebula, Burke, this guy's blog, Bérubé, the 100 Reasons site mentioned above, ad infinitum. Make sure you have a realistic, un-romanticized view of what grad school and life beyond will be like before you start down this path. This may be controversial advice, but the prestige of your PhD institution matters when it comes to tenure-track hiring. (Some research has been done on this re: political science, and it seems like history is similar.) Of course, there will always be exceptional people who break through no matter where they did their PhD. But personally, I figured if I couldn't get into a department ranked in the top 20, it wasn't meant to be, and I limited my applications accordingly. (I'm open to non-academic careers as well, but I wanted to open as many doors as possible with my degree.) If you're unsure of your chances, you can also throw a few applications to funded MA programs into the mix. For the MA, prestige is not such an issue. The important thing is to avoid taking out loans. If you're drawn to US history, you should go for it without worrying about what history topics are trending now. They might not be hot in 10 years, and there's no sense in pursuing a PhD in a field you aren't passionate about. If you're still interested in Europe, you might look into Atlantic World or some other form of transnational history as a field or subfield -- that way you can combine both. Apply to programs where you'd be happy to work with a few different professors. Best not to depend on one single advisor who could leave, retire, die, or not get along well with you for whatever reason. Have a polished draft of your SOP ready by early fall so that you have time to ask a couple of your LOR writers to look it over and give suggestions for improvement. (I waited until the last minute to write my SOP, which I regret.) I feel like I could keep going forever, but I'll leave it at that for now. Best of luck to you!

It's usual for programs to offer at least some financial support for the trip. One of my programs didn't offer any at first. I asked about it as politely as possible, and they told me they would pay for my travel and hotel. It turns out they had accidentally classed me as a local, and that's why I hadn't gotten that information previously. So I'd say go ahead and shoot them an email about it, phrased as czesc suggests.

Wow, I've been hanging around the Grad Cafe for 3+ years and I think that was the first time I've been down-voted. Je ne regrette rien!

I'll be honest, this place is a lot more lively when DontHate is around. She was (is?) a bomb-thrower. I don't agree with everything she said, but the discussions that were happening around here were a bit more intense and honest as a result of her presence. I like the encouraging, positive vibe of the Grad Cafe overall, but every once in a while it's good to have some abrasion.

It's totally normal to feel like you're out of your league when you start grad school. Many of other students will have been around a while and have read a lot more -- but over the course of the program, you'll catch up. I'd say to start simple. Try to identify what the core of the scholar's argument is -- what's the point of the article? How is it new, surprising, or different than what you'd encountered before? What kind of evidence is used to support it? Follow how the argument develops over the course of the article. Is it convincing? Probably as you start out, you'll be reading for basic information about the subject -- but as time goes on, you'll start to clue in to the different debates that are happening among scholars, and you'll be able to place the article within this broader conversation.

That does sound odd. Are you sure it doesn't mean you'll get a TA-ship if the fellowship doesn't come through? In other words, you'll get first year funding, they're just not sure what variety yet, and they'd like to lure you in with a fellowship but will work something else out if needed?

My thoughts: It sounds like you do have a good rationale for wanting to pursue the degree at this point in your life. Moving from poli sci to history is not such a big deal, but dropping out of a previous grad program may make you seem a bit scattered. You may have to mention this on your application, depending on what they require, but avoid drawing any extra focus to it. It sounds like you want to stay in the same town, but if you're open to moving, you might be able to find some programs that offer funding (assuming your alma mater does not). Be warned that an MA program in history will likely involve a lot of theory, which you said you hated. The readings may be heavy and dense, akin to what you experienced in the poli sci program.

Yeah, everyone says it's harder to get a tenure-track history job with an interdisciplinary degree. Many alumni of this program seem to end up in "studies" programs, though some are in history departments. My sense is that those people present as historians -- by having a known historian as an advisor, presenting at history conferences, publishing in history journals, etc. All that said, I'm open to alt-ac careers. Anything but eternal adjunct-hood, really. So the question isn't "how can I land on the tenure track?" but is "how can I optimize for an interesting life without impoverishing myself?" I'd like to keep the TT option open, but I won't be devastated if life doesn't work out that way.

They meant history hiring will be different. Both of these historians mentioned that they thought practical skills and public-oriented scholarship would be more in demand than the traditional ivory tower type academics. They work at different universities, and they both have decades of experience on hiring committees, so I thought it was interesting that they emailed me separately with the same thought.

Doesn't sound creepy or weird to me at all. If anything, I might be slightly annoyed that my email address hadn't been BCC'ed on the original email, thereby making me vulnerable to spammers. But I wouldn't classify a welcoming email from a potential cohort-mate as "spam." In fact, I'd be happy to get a message like that. So don't worry about it; I'm sure it's fine and hasn't ruined anything.

High fives all around to the recent admits! Good to know the Grad Cafe will be well-represented in the F13 history cohort.

I had thought the same -- but when I mentioned the job market rationale to a couple different professors, they said history departments might look completely different in 10 years, and I shouldn't assume that the traditional academic path would be more advantageous. Their advice amounted to: "Make sure past placement has been reasonable, then go with your gut." Yeah. I am a bit nervous about leaving the safe confines of History and giving up the chance to work with the scholars in that department. But the interdisciplinary place may be more accepting of my brand of weirdness overall. Certain interests that raised eyebrows at the History Department have been embraced (via email) by the Interdisciplinary Program. Sigh. Hopefully my upcoming campus visit will make the choice clearer. No sense in driving myself mad with indecision just yet! And thanks to you both for weighing in -- I appreciate being able to share the situation here, even in my quasi-anonymous, vague way.

Haven't visited all my options in person yet, but it's looking like the decision will come down to this: 1. Awesome History Department with super-star advisor, lots of historians working in my area of interest, and tons of resources for research vs. 2. Exciting Interdisciplinary Program with more openness to publicly-engaged scholarship and unconventional approaches, but not as much support for my field of study I feel like I need to figure out what kind of historian I want to be over the next couple of weeks. This is hard.

In a different humanities field, yes (though I had been wait listed for funding at the PhD program in question). The funded MA was a really good choice for me. I've raved about it Especially if you're unsure about committing to graduate school and aren't quite settled on a general range of interests, an MA can be very helpful. It can give a huge boost to your later PhD applications, and the chance to do it without taking on debt is excellent.

Oh yes, history with all the art taken out of it would be a pretty dull affair. It always makes me a little sad to enter the phrase. Brings to mind all the charts in the appendices of social history texts. *braces for criticism by social history chart lovers*

Ha! I've been entering "history -art" so many times I started to think of our discipline as "history minus art." I'm so relieved that the waiting is almost over! Half my notifications arrived over the last couple of days -- I've hardly had time to absorb all the options, but I am really really excited for the future.

Your happiness in a certain location is important to consider, since morale may affect your work. And it sounds like you love UNC for lots of reasons, not just the warm weather. That said, have you visited Chicago yet? Good to keep an open mind until visiting in person. Also, perhaps both departments could furnish you with a list of recent job placements? Then you could compare the actual outcomes for students and factor that into your decision as opposed to relying on perceived prestige differences. Good luck! Edited to add: I have no personal experience with either department, but it would definitely be important to take into account the behind-the-scenes problems that New England Nat is mentioning. Be sure to hang out with some of the current grad students when you do your visits (if you haven't already) -- they can (or should) give you relatively honest answers about their experiences in the program and how these issues have affected them.

You laugh, but PhDs are being proletarianized. The academic system produces more scholars than the market can sustain, which means labor conditions are deteriorating. Academics tend to have a high degree of cultural capital -- but you can't pay the rent with that. There are infinite writings about this situation on the internet. Google "adjunct exploitation" for starters. Also check out what Marc Bousquet and William Pannapacker have said. Then read about PhDs on food stamps: http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/ (Before I submitted my PhD apps, I subjected myself to every argument against grad school I could find. It's still the thing I want to do, but I'm going in with open eyes.)

No! It's important to visit a program in person, even if it's your only option, just to make sure you can really visualize spending the next 5+ years there. You could love it, or you could decide it's not for you and that you'd rather do another round of applications next year. Plus the Michigan iron remains in the fire -- what if it comes through? So I'd go ahead and accept the visit funds without qualms.

Datatape: Ha, so simple! Thank you. Here's my contribution:

Edited for HTML failure. How are you all embedding videos?