navyblackmaroon

Another possibility is UNC- Chapel Hill. I know they have a sizeable cohort of Russian/East European historians (I know because so many of them applied to a conference I organized). They all seem to work on post-1917 Russian topics (especially culture and even literary exchange).

Yeah, they eventually contact you. So far, I haven't received anything from the department. However, UChicago already sent me a link to create my user ID (to access their websites and library) and I created my university email account.

I know my former adviser attended the programs years ago. He found it useful to what he thought he was going to be researching, but ultimately researched something more contemporary. He seemed to be positive about it.

Congratulations, Heimat! Ready for Big 10 football?

I will also be attending U of C this Fall. It was my top choice and I am pretty excited about it.

Considering the current job market, I really can't disagree with that advice. The issue is when all your options are from top 20 schools or from schools outside the top 20, then the decision making becomes more complicated.

My strategy was fairly cynical, but I think that is because this is my second time going through the decision process. My experience at my soon-to-be-former doctoral program shaped how I approached this decision. First, I wanted to be in a large department that offered flexibility in how I approached my topic. Having a good adviser is important, but I also considered other potentially key faculty members within the department. My experienced at my former program suggested the problems of going to a program based on working with a specific adviser. You become tied to him/her, and if your project changes (like it did in my case) that can lead to big trouble. Secondly, reputation was paramount. The first time I picked I thought reputation was not as much as a factor. Four years into my graduate experience, I have become aware of the importance of reputation. I tried the "up and coming" thing and it didn't really work for me. Most "up and coming" departments never reach the top. Their faculty starts getting offers from top programs, killing off the program's upward trajectory. That is what happened at my "up and coming" (and "very wealthy") program. A third consideration was the presence of other graduate students who work on your field. Being the only student who works on a specific country can be very isolating. Having other people working on your area suggests a track record for the program. Finally, the funding issue is pretty straightforward: can I survive with the stipend/TAship in that specific location? Anyway, those are the 2 cents I have to offer after doing this for a second time.

Congrats, Gambaosaka! I hope they don't give you a hard time getting the visa. Chiqui, I think the added generous funding demonstrates they really want you at NYU and that you shouldn't read too much into the (apparent) aloofness of the POI.

Well, I made up my mind. I will be attending the University of Chicago. @ashiepoo: I totally get it. The guy I turned down was great. Heck, I had followed his work and academic trajectory for the past 3 years or so (and rooted for him when he landed his current academic position). At the end of the day, however, U of C seemed a better overall fit.

Perhaps the POI will be a better communicator once the semester/quarter starts. I truly don't remember communicating much with my previous POI after I accepted the offer (he/she took a year off to write a book as soon as I was admitted).

Chiqui, is the POI on leave for the semester or doing research? Just based on my experience (and going through the prospective decision thing for a second time), most departments wouldn't accept a potential student over the objections of the official POI. The POI is assumed to be a deciding force when accepting an application. That said, there are departments I have encountered where the relationship between the stated POI (the person you mention in the application) and the acceptance is not as clear. In one of the places where I was admitted I was told that I was to decide on my adviser at a future date (once I started the program and met all the people working on my area of the world). Unsurprisingly, my intended POI at that institution seemed far less enthusiastic than the ones in other places where I was admitted. He/She also seemed to be on leave during the application period, so I was not even sure how familiar he/she was with my file in the first place. Did you get to meet the POI during the campus visit?

Congratulations!

Yeah, I got it too. I wasn't precisely excited to read the email.

Congrats, mvlchicago!

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if Vanderbilt sends their rejections soon. They have set up their visit week (and even alternative visit days for those who can't make it to the official visit).

As someone who has spent the past four years in Nashville, I have to say you are right on the money. The ethnic food scene is extremely limited (at least compared to where I am originally from) and that includes Mexican food (Nashville's Mexican food is downright mediocre). The sidewalk situation around Vanderbilt is alright, but the further you go away from the campus the scarcer sidewalks become. Finally, Nashville's public transit is far from ideal (it tends to funnel everybody downtown, making trips extremely long). I don't expect any of these things to improve in the short term.

I may go to the AHA if my panel gets accepted. If you haven't been to the AHA before, do it. It is a great opportunity to talk (and drink) with other historians.

UCSD sent me their rejection at 11:55 pm (Pacific Time). I was not surprised by the decision (the potential POI is super junior), but the timing is quite interesting. It's almost like when politicians release bad news on Friday afternoon so the news cycle buries the announcements. No San Diego weather for me. It's looking like I will be getting used to Chicago winters!

In the past Vanderbilt used to have a waitlist, but I am not sure if they have one for this year. For example, three of the nine cohort members of the class that entered in Fall 2011 were originally in the waitlist.

Well, I think that sounds like a pretty decent price considering that Nashville's rents have increased significantly in the past 5 years or so. The caveat is where the apartment is actually located, but it seems like anything by campus has gotten quite expensive (especially Hillsboro Village and the area from 21st to 12th South). I know some people were paying about $800 for one bedrooms in Hillsboro Village some years ago, but I am sure those places have increased their rents since then.

I disagree with the notion that there is a monolithic "modern approach" to history. In fact, it seems that there is a plethora of different approaches that historians can use as they see fit. That wasn't necessarily the case back 50 years ago. A contemporary historian has the advantage of selecting tools and approaches that simply did not exist back then. I also disagree with the belief that history was more inclusive back in the 1960s and 1970s. First, the boundaries of appropriate historical subjects and problems has expanded. We now have less restrictions on what we can research. Historians can now study history of gender or history of "whiteness" while still continuing to work on older traditions like women's history or history of a specific racial group. Secondly, the academy has become more inclusive of non-white, non-male, non-straight historians. It is not perfect. However, it is certainly better than it was back then. At the end of the day, I insist, everything hinges on your ability to market your topic and present how it is relevant to the historiography. I know people who work on diplomatic history, another field that has experienced a decline in importance, who were able to successfully navigate modern trends to develop and sell their projects.

I think that history's greatest strength is its porous nature and its ability to overlap (or even co-opt) interests and methods from other disciplines. As someone who studies a topic that has commonalities with what people study in other fields, I find history to be a better environment to develop my research. I can appropriate distinctive methods and theories from other disciplines, while at the same time I am not obligated to carry the theoretical burden that I would have to serve if I were working in another type of department. In turn, this allows me to develop a project with a distinct (historical) perspective. For example, I work extensively on issues of urban planning and "renewal" in Mexico. If I were working in an urban planning/studies program, I would have to dedicate much of my attention to theories of urban design. That is not the case when working as a historian. I recognize the importance of those theories, but my work does not revolve discussing them. I am interested on the impact and relationship of planning with local social movements, national politics, and the fluctuations of the economy. I could only really study that in a history department. As some other users already mentioned, the discipline does not exist in a vacuum. There seems to be a drive to find new and different things that challenge existing ideas or narratives. That may place some fields of historical research in a disadvantage. However, as ashiepoo pointed, there are ways for these traditional fields to fit the demands of the "academic market." It's really a matter of selling your research/topic in a way that is relevant to the trends and the recent historiography.

Congratulations, kblooms!

Congratulations to the UCSD admits!

Also, congratulations to the Vandy admits! If you have any questions about the program PM me.