lelick1234

Brilliant!
I graduated from a (British) private school in Cairo a few years ago, and although I took History as an elective throughout my 4 years of high school, I never really considered studying History at university. Simply not 'done'-I come from a family where the humanities and social sciences are valued, but even then, only disciplines like Economics/Political Science/Law are considered 'acceptable.' At college, first started off with Political Science, and began taking some History courses, and after some soul-searching, decided to do the obvious thing and major in History as well. 
It's definitely true that many of the people who do major in History in Egypt do so because it's an 'easy' major, which is a shame. Egyptian/Middle East history is such a rich field, and so under-developed and under-studied, that we need more historians, not less. Plus, Egyptian students have the advantage of being bilingual whereas foreigners have to go through several years of intensive training to work with Arabic sources. Of course, there's no rule that Egyptians need to specialize in ME/Egyptian history, although understandably that's what many gravitate towards. 

Like what everyone was trying to explain, we don't do this for the big bucks.  

An MA in something other than history will not derail your chances. That being said, you need to make sure that any program you do helps the kind of scholarship you want to do (US foreign policy and a religious studies degree seem like an odd mix to me, but if you think you can make it work then go for it) and helps position you as an applicant to PhD programs. For the study of the Middle East or broader Islamic world languages are a big thing. If you have the necessary language skills already or can figure out a way to get them during your time at UCSB then all is well. If you don't, or you can't, then you'll have a tough row to hoe when it comes to receiving admission.
 
Many people who do MA's use their thesis as a writing sample for their PhD applications because it shows research skills and the ability to think independently. If you do this program you'll need to figure out a way to write a good sample some other way. I would suggest talking to your professor about the kind of training you'll receive in the program and how that maps to what you want for your future.

Yeah, so is selling your soul to the devil.

The GRE won't get you in a program but it can keep you out. Some programs have GRE cut offs because it helps them weed through applications quickly. Others that don't have hard cut offs may use GRE scores as an across-the-board comparison, because grades are often subjective and a B at one institution is like an A at another--how else do adcomms do a real comparison? Also, if you have holes in your application, high GRE scores can act as "filler." I had a low undergrad overall GPA, but I did pretty well on the GRE (165v 5aw). I should qualify that statement with my history GPA as an undergrad was like a 3.75. I know that's way more important than my high GRE scores.

Honestly, just about all other parts of your application are more important than the GRE. The writing sample and statement will make or break you, and if you have reasonable scores (I'd say around 85th percentile verbal, at least a 4-4.5 in aw, and screw the quant unless it's like 20th percentile) you should forget about it and start working on the real money makers.

Hmm, I personally hate studying for the GRE.  Would excellent language preparation possibly limit the importance of GRE scores?  For example, I am an Americanist, but I am close to having advanced reading level in Arabic.  There has to be some exchange.  I personally believe that spending my time learning a language is far more beneficial academically then memorizing test-taking tricks to pass the GRE.  

Lot's of political science Ph.D. applicants with masters' degrees come from interdisciplinary area studies programs. This is particularly true for people who want to study comparative politics. 
 
The question you have to answer is if you actually even know what political science is. Because it is quite different than history as a discipline. Saying "I know a lot about X politics and enjoy it" is a lot different than saying "I like political science." In general, there is a surprising little amount of actual 'politics' in the study of political science.

I don't have the figures on hand, but each year the AHA publishes PhDs granted and jobs posted by geographic subfield. If I remember correctly, there are about 450 PhDs granted each year in American history and about 200 jobs. For Middle Easter history, while a decade ago there were, say, 30 PhDs granted versus about 60 jobs, by now this has reversed to about 45 PhDs and 30 jobs. Fields like East Asian history are now starting to pick up with something like 90 jobs for 60 PhDs, African and Latin American history are on par with about 30 PhDs and jobs each, while European history has something like 150 PhDs and 100 jobs. So, it basically all depends on your preferences. There are certainly fields with much better PhD:job ratios; in your case this would be Middle Eastern history. On the other hand, if you want to have more selectivity in where you would like to end up, although the grad:job ratio is the hardest, American history has about as many job openings each year as all other fields combined. But I do second the advice that if you're looking for a CC-type job, teaching experience is probably more important than field.

Most PhD programs make students choose multiple fields.  You'll have a major field and a minor field (or two or three, depending).  The minor fields are intended to supplement your training for dissertation research and/or teaching.  Most people in my program will choose World History or a non-Western field to enhance their teaching ability.  The folks working in Ottoman Empire/Middle East in my program usually choose World History (which they can teach through the lens of Islamic world).  The American historians will usually pick up Latin America or a thematic field (like women's history) to expand their teaching breadth.
 
Most programs will want you have some sense of focus but will not push you to choose a field upon entering.  Your adviser will expect you  to have chosen a major field by the end of your first year.
 
As for job placement, community colleges want to see LOADS of teaching experience, mainly in survey courses.  Your best bet for such a CC job is to rack up world history and/or US history and/or Western Civilization courses regardless of your actual research specialty.  That's my understanding at least.

It's worth, I think, distinguishing between the job market for particular and still generally geographically-defined subfields, on the one hand, and "hot" themes in the historical profession, on the other.
 
The AHA publishes statistics on the number of doctorates conferred and jobs advertised in given subfields. In 2011-12, for instance, there were roughly 425 degrees conferred in North American history and roughly 150 jobs advertised. In the same year, there were roughly 60 degrees conferred in Middle East/Islamic World history and roughly 25 jobs advertised. You can do the math. 
 
My perspective on themes is more anecdotal. We inhabit a discipline suffused (perhaps determined) by academic fads. Many of us, in the past ten or fifteen years, have discovered that we are in fact historians of capitalism, or transnational historians. These fads--not to pathologize people's research interests too much--are doubtless reflections of our particular times. And as you know, fads (and the times) are fickle. It therefore strikes me as unwise to let your research interests be too greatly inflected by what you perceive as the overarching thematic interests of the historical profession.
 
Bottom line: If your proposed project could be easily overseen by either a specialist on US foreign relations or a specialist on the modern Middle East, statistics say that, all else being equal, the latter gives you a better shot at landing a tenure-track job. (Because it's the subfield I know best, I'll say there were 4-5 TT jobs in the US/World subfield last year. I would guess the figure for Middle East jobs is higher.)

Several reasons. I was wait listed for funding. After visiting Minnesota and Davis I knew those were my top choices, even though I liked Salim a lot and plan on maintaining contact with him throughout my career. My adviser at Davis has a lot of qualities I admire and hope to learn from. She knows the professional side of academia really well on top of being very active in the field. Finally, Davis offered me a lot more money and security. I cannot stress enough how important having financial security is. I wouldn't be able to do my best work if I was scratching pennies together and eating ramen and hot dogs for dinner every night (which I did in undergrad). Visiting the programs made a huge difference in my decisions--as in, I was almost decided on Minnesota and completely changed my mind. It's a fabulous department, I absolutely loved the professors and grad students, but in the end Davis was the perfect fit for me. I am still in the honeymoon phase for sure. I couldn't be more excited to go there.
 
I should say that I thought Davis (and Minnesota) was a shot in the dark, and I very nearly didn't apply, so when I was accepted I went into shock. I hadn't even considered going there because I never thought they'd take me. So to all of you who feel "unworthy" of programs, don't. Do your due diligence in researching and applying to places that can help you grow as a scholar and you may be surprised where you end up.

Salim is amazing, he is a dream adviser and such a nice man--another coincidence, he really inspired me to move my research in the direction I'm now taking it. I PMed you some suggestions. Keep in mind that if your main adviser is strong in your general period, as long as the department has people who can supplement their knowledge you'll be just fine. My adviser is an expert on the Cold War but doesn't study the exact area I want to look at, but she is excited about my project and said Davis has good coverage for me. Basically, you want an adviser who feels they have enough expertise to help guide you and a department that can fill in any gaps. 
 
For future applicants, I highly recommend/suggest/cajole/insist you research entire departments in depth before choosing programs. Look at related departments, too, if you're interested in area studies and interdisciplinarity. Look at university resources, archival material. Look at what the surrounding area has to offer, if anything (Archives II near UMaryland comes to mind). When you write your statements, show the departments you did the legwork and know how you fit there and how the department and university fit you.

Tip: look at who advised your potential supervisors' dissertations. You can do this by searching the AHA's dissertations database, or by looking at their CVs. Who advised Professor Yaqub? Have they died, retired, moved, become emeritus/a? If so, that really is a sign that Yale is a stretch, because people do not get into programs where they are not good fits. However, you may be overlooking somebody (I know I have often done this), who would be a second, and maybe better, potential supervisor. But then look at all the other professors you are interested in working with. Do any of them have advisors who are still working? Those are worth investigating.
 
I mean, I personally can only find professors who'd match my interests and provide good support at one top ten, one Ivy type that falls a little outside of that, and a couple big universities in the 15-30 range. It is what it is, though, so those are the places to which I am applying.
 
ETA: Ashiepoo seems to know your field much better, so I defer to her! But the AHA database is something that was also very helpful for me.

Also, they are not very established in their fields (yet).  You'll need to get another professor with a bigger name and stronger reputation to write the second letter of recommendation for bigger fellowships and clout in the department for funding.

Rarely are they the primary advisor, but they do usually serve on dissertation and comps committees. The chances of you getting accepted into a grad program with an assistant professor listed as your person of interest is not very good, as they no seniority in the department. I've been told even applying to work with associate professors can be iffy for departments with larger pools of applicants. 

I think that how you decide to take notes is a very personal thing that can only be determined through trial and error. I tend to write brief summaries of arguments, with each sub-chapter getting a sentence, each chapter a paragraph, etc. It generally turns out to about two single-spaced pages for a monograph and I like it because it makes it quick and easy to track down precise pages for references as well as to grasp the overall argument and how it's supported. I know other people who prefer to rewrite specific quotes that they find important, being sure to be accurate and provide page numbers for future reference; this seems especially useful in seminar discussions. Other people tend to take notes of their own musings and thoughts about books. Still others combine all three, with summaries interspersed with quotations and interjections of their own thoughts in parentheses. They're all good options because they work for the people doing them. In short, experiment with different styles before/as you get to grad school and figure out what works for you.

Leonard-- Learning to read like a grad student is a great skill to achieve before you start grad school. I'm sure others will have different advice, but I've found this is the best way for me to get what I need from a book quickly. Being that we read an inordinate amount of books as grad students, reading quickly is key.
 
First things first, I look closely at the title, Library of Congress information, table of contents and index. The LoC info usually gives you basic information to situate the book. I like to note years, because the period a book is written can often influence the author (I recently read Nell Irven Painter's Standing at Armageddon and she admits the book was influenced by being written during the Cold War, for example). The ToC shows how the author (deliberately) structured the book--we should never take the author's chosen structure for granted. The index can give hints about what the author thinks is important, based on number of pages dedicated to that topic/person/event/etc. So if I'm skimming an index and labor and class have lots of pages dedicated to them, I know the author probably thinks these are particularly important topics in the analysis/argument.
 
Second step: read the introduction and conclusions with a fine-tooth comb. This is where most of my note-taking comes from. Look for clues from the author. Some mention structure and methodology, so note those. Definitely figure out what the thesis is. Sometimes it's a sentence saying "The thesis of the book is...." (it's awesome when that's the case haha), and sometimes the thesis is spread over several paragraphs or kind of implied but not overtly stated. Whatever the case may be, you NEED to pick out the argument. Some authors try to be fancy and put it in the conclusion, but most of the time its in the intro. Look for any historiographical review and if the author has key terms they define in the intro and make sure to note those. Also determine what the date range or thematic emphases are.
 
Finally, I gut the actual book. I tend to read one or two chapters closely, taking notes on specific examples the author uses to further the argument/analysis. Mostly, I skim. I like to note at least some specifics to basically "show the thesis in action" but don't spend much time on the actual chapters. Most of what I needed I already got from the intro/conclusion. Some authors structure chapters so they have a mini intro and conclusion at the beginning and end--in that case, I would read those closely and skim the body of the chapter. I also attempt to keep the historiography in mind the entire time I'm reading. For example, I recently finished Leon Litwack's Been in the Storm so Long and Heather Cox Richardson's The Death of Reconstruction. Litwack is kind of a big deal (understatement haha), and Richardson doesn't engage with his work (or much of the secondary literature in general), so I took notes on how this weakened her overall argument and where she could've used Litwack and other relevant historians.
 
At the end, I write a precis which I view as a glorified summary. The way I learned to write a precis is like this: Title is a full Chicago style bibliographic citation, Intro paragraph notes the structure/methodology/sources/thesis of the book, several paragraphs summarizing the key themes/arguments/important information with specific examples, conclusion paragraph that discusses the historiography (a focused analysis of the book's position in the historiography, other works the author engaged with--be it as a foil or to support their argument), strengths/weaknesses of the book (basically, why it's useful) and any questions it leaves unanswered.
 
Hope this helps!
 
EDIT: Precis should be short. One of my professors wanted one page, single spaced. Mine tend to be around two pages double spaced, but no more than three. If you can't write a concise precis, you're too caught up in details.

I also had 6 years away from academia before applying for grad programs.
 
Are you a US citizen? You mention "language" - are you talking about improving your English? Or building proficiency in a relevant "foreign" language?
 
If your undergrad major was unrelated, then I would look at taking classes at a local university or online that can improve your foundations. Consider building proficiency in a second or third language relevant to what you want to study/research.
 
Research graduate programs and start making your list now of which schools you'd like to go to according to your interests, and which faculty you'd like to work with. Faculty may be gone by the time you apply, but it is a good exercise to help you prepare. As you decide which programs you are most interested in, you will be able to see which strengths they look for in applicants, and you can form a plan for your next few years according to what the specific programs look for.
 
If you don't know hat you want to research, then read!
 
Look at helping with some relevant research, perhaps at a university, or find someone who is writing a book on a related topic who needs help. 
 
With 3-4 years, you don't have to choose between either GRE prep or language prep - do both! 
 
As for whether to apply to a Master's program, that really depends on which programs you want to apply to, so, again, you should look into that sooner than later!
 
Good luck.

Others may know more, but it is very common for grad students to teach foreign languages as TAs. I know that sometimes TAs in Spanish are actually students in a different department but they work something out with the Spanish department. If Arabic is her language, I wouldn't know about that specifically, it is generally a much smaller department.

This may be of interest: https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/workingpapers/upload/cheri_wp94.pdf

One thing you should be very, very aware is that many, many fellowship programs do not give additional support for dependents to travel with the grantee.  When you apply for funds to travel/study language/whatever, your wife and child do not factor in.
 
You'll want to reach out to married students in the humanities/social sciences and find out what it's like to be a Ph.D. student with a family (especially young children).  it's not impossible but takes plenty of logistics, understanding, and patience to make it work.  (I'm at a PhD program where a good number of students came to the program married and sometimes with very young children so I hear a lot of those issues).

1. They can be. Normally, quantitative scores are irrelevant at all but the most neurotically competitive humanities programs, but I suspect 20th percentile is low enough to catch anybody's attention.
2. Do you already know any Arabic? Assuming that you took a few introductory courses in college and continued using Arabic in Egypt, that might be enough to get you into a graduate program. If you find that your Arabic still needs brushing up, you can pursue undergrad courses during the year or summer language study, but after you've been admitted to a program.
3. Not qualified to comment on this.
4. I'd urge you not to take out loans, especially for a graduate degree.
5. While I'm sure that having children alters plans a bit, it IS possible to simultaneously pursue a PhD and raise a child. Alternatively, plenty of PhD students were high school teachers in previous lives; perhaps you could briefly put the PhD dream on back-burner while you figure things out, and pick up a teaching job while figuring things out and/or saving money.