JD2PHD

Hello all. I am interested in seeing how narrowed in the average focus and dissertation thesis is. Would anyone here like to share there own? I'm also just generally curious about learning about the various subjects everyone finds to be very interesting. If you don't want to share that information about yourself, perhaps one of your colleagues has an interesting focus you'd like to share.

Yeah I dont imagine it could hurt you.

Thanks, after exams die down I am going to start reading some pure history articles (as compared to legal history) to really get a feel as you mentioned.

Very helpful thank you. Sorry to bring this back to a legal analogy, but would you say it is similar to explaining the legal precedents at the start of a law review article? (It shows how the law got to where it is, and then you contribute your thesis.)

As in a history of historical thought? For example, if one were to write a piece about environmental conservatism, would historiography describe how society viewed environmental conservatism differently in a given era of time compared to the present? Is the comparison default always the present? Would you trace the history through all the relevant changes (for example colonial > industrial revolution > progressivism > modern) ? Care to provide me with an example, maybe of something you have been working on? It seems like it assumes that the understanding of the past always has changed over time. Also you have answered a lot of my questions on here recently. So thanks for that

What exactly is meant by "historiography?" I have heard the term a bunch, but I can't find a satisfactory answer that seems to match the common way its used in jargon. Does it mean talking about bodies of scholarship relevant to the paper? And Scirefaciat I am interested in early american (18th and 19th century primarily) legal history. Did you already complete your PhD?

Could you elaborate on the "what adcoms want to see" part? Yes, I plan to base my work off of primary source material. (as a side note, do legal cases count as "primary sources" as well?). I do think I will need to beef up my discussion of pertinent historical works. As far as law review articles, you typically only discuss other works of legal scholarship briefly to support or counter your argument (unless of course you are writing a piece entirely for/against a particular body of scholarship/school of thought). I am coming to learn that history pieces focus much more on positioning the argument within the current body of scholarship (not to say law review articles ignore this completely, I just am a starting to think they do so to a lesser extent).

Are the other students in the meetings further along the program than you? If so, seems like just a case of your advisor already having a rapport with them and you are the "new" person who has to fit in. Give it time.

Very helpful thanks!

I am a current JD, and I want to have a legal history paper to present to PhD selection committees as a writing sample. My fear though, is that because I have not yet learned proper history methodology that I may turn out a product that actually hurts my chances rather than helps. Two questions (1) How much should I worry about using proper methodology when I am of course writing a legal history paper for publication in a law journal, not peer reviewed history. I assume admission departments would be aware of that? (2) Is there a book or lecture you would recommend I get to teach myself proper methods? Thanks!

I assume it depends on both professor and institution in general, but how often would you say a professor takes on a new student? Every other year?

I notice people keep referring to whether or not a POI is accepting students. Would anyone care to give me a rough outline of the selection process? Does an individual professor admit a student? I assumed it was a central selection committee and you mentioned some professor's work that interested you and you would hope to have as an advisor but that would not be finalized until after you are accepted?

Czesc, That was an incredibly detailed response, thank you. Let me address some of what you said in order, provide you with more information, and see if you can provide me with any more insight. Legal Courses: Yes, I am taking some legal history courses. These are courses that are cross enrolled with PhD students as well law students. The type where if you are a law student you take it under the title LAW### and if a history student you take it under HIST###. I wonder if there is a way to make that obvious to history programs when I apply? Though the course names are pretty obviously legal history related, I wonder if it could provide me a "boost" if I could explain that grad students cross enroll. I also have the opportunity to take "regular" grad history courses (as in not cross enrolled). I have not yet, but I intend to take at least one (I think I can max take 2) before graduating law school. Language: That is what I gathered, I will work on it still. Scholarship: My current goal with my scholarship is to write 1 - 2 legal history notes that will show history department that I am dedicated to the field (to make up for my lack of history major in college). If published they would probably be in law reviews, not history peer reviewed journals as you mention. So with my scholarship and taking history courses, those are the main ways I am trying to have my resume speak "history" LOR: You say use a max of one from law school. Does the fact that I intend rot only ask LOR from professor who have both a JD and History PhD change things? I am not sure how else I could get a LOR from a historian. Legal Market: I have done some substantial research into legal academia and understand how the hiring works. I understand the state of things and I appreciate you giving me a fair warning. --------- Mandarin, You are right, because I have done most of my research into legal academia I supposed I assumed "brand" was just as important in history. Is that not the case? I am of course, interested in both legal departments and history departments, I should have made that clear.

I am new here so any information would be greatly appreciated. I am a current JD student at a top 10 law school. I want to ultimately end up in legal academia, specifically I wish to be a legal historian. My biggest question is what caliber of schools should I be considering for my PhD? My undergraduate degree (did not major in history) was about a 3.7 from a large state school in the top 100. As far as language, I have elementary skills in 1 other language, though I want to focus on early american legal history. In law school I am working on getting some legal scholarship published, and hope to have 1 to 2 student notes published by the time I apply. Questions: (1) Would I be competitive at Chicago, Northwestern, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford? (2) Would my JD being from a "top" law school help me? (3) How committed to a particular era do I need to be before applying? I assume in my statement of purpose I would need to have this narrowed down. Of course I know I want to do US legal history which already is fairly focussed. Regarding specific eras I am interested primarily in 18th and 19th century (the founding up until incorporation). Is this already specific enough? (4) What do I need to be doing now (outside of studying for GRE, working on LOR, and publishing?) (5) How important is the school my LORs earned their PhD and/or JD from? Thank you!