a.rev

Ashiepoo describes exactly how I feel. I also can't help but be a little put off by the concept that historians have nothing to glean from reading popular histories (specifically GGS) because my whole rethinking of GGS was the result of my adviser explaining to me why it's important for historians to read. (Even though it's not history.) This is someone who is very well respected in his field. The point of all this is that he's not some layperson or student who doesn't understand the complexities of historical training but that seems to be the insinuation. I'd to reiterate my point that all histories have flaws or pitfalls. Popular histories more so than scholarly ones but that doesn't mean they don't have value, even to historians. On the topic of big histories, Fernandez-Armesto's Civilizations is one and you might consider Bentley's Old World Encounters. To be honest though, the best thing I've read that helped me find what I enjoyed about global/big history is Ross Dunn's reader called The New World History which includes everything from world systems to periodization. It also helped me to ask the "big" questions in my own work. As much as I dislike O'Reilly wasn't he a high school history teacher? I remember hearing that somewhere as validation for why he can write books about "killing" historical figures. (I decided to edit something out because I'm paranoid someone could track down who I am. Crazy, I know but oh well.)

I like GGS because I like World History, and not the kind they typically teach in schools, but the kind that stresses broad themes (for Diamond it’s environment, for others it’s trade, or cross-cultural interactions.) I’m not an environmental determinist, and I’m not going to pretend that Diamond was 100% correct, but I think that he was one of the first people to really come out and say how just how much environment has shaped the outcome of history (obviously Crosby, McNiell, and a handful of others had also done this but on a much more narrow scale.) I think another problem with Diamond’s, or at least seems to be a problem for others, is the broadness of the topic. I think there are at times he generalizes but when you’re discussing a theme as big as his, it’s nearly impossible to do otherwise. Unless you read and enjoy global history (this is not nonwestern history but history that stresses broad themes across several regions) you will almost always see this as a negative. Others say Diamond leaves out evidence to support his thesis or is reading only certain interpretations of history. Quite honestly, you could say this about any historian, there are several times I read books by well-renowned authors/professors and think “well, that’s not how I learned it.” There will always be multiple accounts of the same event, you pick the one you feel is most plausible. No one wants to admit it, but I think at least some degree of cherry-picking happens in all works, whether or not it is intended. Very few writers will thoroughly address all other arguments and then tear them to shreds, some do (Thornton is brutal), and those tend to just mention them in passing. I think the popularity of GGS causes people to look at history from a new angle, one that combines history, geography, environment, and people. Again, I don’t agree with Diamond’s environmental determinism and I certainly think he has gotten some things wrong, but I think the value in GGS is that it causes many to think differently about telling history. Have other authors done similar things? Yes, but none on the scale that Diamond has attempted. These are just my opinions, I'll admit that I hated GGS going into my program, for many of the reasons listed above. It was only after taking a global history course that emphasized the theory and history of the subject that I started to appreciate the book.

Apparently she mentioned it when talking to my adviser and his class. I assumed she probably said it elsewhere but maybe not. I completely agree with you about it being a "historian" club thing. I'm sure everyone can agree that much society has this idea that anyone can be a historian (I'm looking at you Bill O'Reilly), so when specialists from other disciplines write a semi-big books that dabble in history, they become agitated. I think it's a shame that a handful of big names have all but outright discredited her research because of it. I'm a huge fan of GGS (although I think he owes a lot to Alfred Crosby), and really like Big History in general. When I told my chair I didn't think I would be accepted to a PhD program this year he asked me to teach an online World Civ I class next semester. I briefly considered a big history approach but it might be too much out of the ordinary for a non-lecture course, so I'll probably have to nix it. I really liked Gomez's book but my favorite book I've read on African diaspora/Atlantic history (and I've only read about 10, so I'm still pretty limited) is John Thornton's Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World. It was one of those books that completely blew my mind and altered my view of something I thought I knew pretty well. Some people in our seminar labeled racist which made me sad because I read it as completely the opposite.

Ok good, that's basically how I treated it (learning experience, building brownie points, etc.) When I saw your comment I started questioning myself because I thought it would be really strange and...boastful (?) to mention it in a statement, but obviously I'm not an expert at applying to PhD programs so thought it might be something widely acceptable that I somehow I missed. I know that I receive a shout-out in his acknowledgements but can't say whether or not he mentioned it in his letter. I did enjoy the process through, despite having very different writing styles.

Is editing a professor's manuscript something worth noting on an application? I had a professor ask me to do it last year but I just did it as a favor, mainly to pick out things that seemed inconsistent and strange wording.

I was told not to stress the writing part of the GRE. Very few people do well under pressure and if they want to know how well you can write they'll just look at your writing sample.

My topic is over the indigenous arts service in Morocco, the intersections of a heritage that has been ordained and promoted by colonial government and perhaps a little bit of discussion on authenticity...if I can swing it. I came into my program with zero idea of what I wanted to do. I actually switched to history from a semi-related degree. By the end of my first year I knew I wanted to discuss colonialism, at the time I was most interested in Korea but had little hope of learning Korean or Japanese. I decided to focus on French empire and originally wanted to study the influence of British and French women vacationing to Algeria on the local population in the early 20th century. The person who actually encouraged me to apply and join the program was an Africanist (although not North or even French colonial Africa) and had been at the university for some time. (I came in with an interest in Latin America, particularly in Brazil, but there had been several Latin Americanists moving in and out so I didn't want to take any chances on a thesis chair leaving.) Anyway, we were doing introductions and when I mentioned my idea he suggested a better one. One of the things that interested me most in Korea is how Japan utilized heritage and traditions to try to manipulate the Korean public into feeling inferior and when that didn't work they used them to promote a pan-Asian identity.

I'm curious to know if you have read any of the critiques about Black Rice and what your thoughts are? Specifically the one(s) by Eltis, Morgan and Richardson but also Hawthorne's middle of the road take on it (I think he called it brown rice. AHR actually asked Africanists to weigh in on it, and devoted a whole section to the debate because it was so controversial.) I'm with Hawthorne in that I don't necessarily agree with her thesis entirely but I also don't think it's absurd like the others. I think part of their criticism stems from Carney being a geographer but she's writing history. (Which is the same thing that's happened to Jared Diamond.) She's very vocal about the fact she thinks they don't like her work because the topic tends to be a "boys club" and she's obviously not in that group. Either way they do raise some interesting points. Apparently my adviser had her come talk to our school several years back and said she was wonderful, African rice cultivation is something he's interested in and we live near a rice producing area so it made sense. I also really enjoyed Race & Reunion. I don't really have anything on 19th century American history per se but since it seems that everyone is suggesting themes close to race and slavery I would suggest Reversing Sail by Gomez that discusses the African diaspora and the creation of a pan-African Atlantic identity/culture.

I'm 99% sure I've struck out this year. When I talked to my adviser he gave me the same advice he gives when people ask about publishing, that if I wasn't getting rejected I wasn't aiming high enough. Next year I plan to cast a wider net. As I explained to him, I only applied to my top choices this time around for a handful of reasons. Number one is that I wanted to go through the process and learn from it, if I was accepted it would be great but I didn't want to apply to programs that I knew I could get in to without testing the waters. Next year I'll likely switch up a few of the schools but apply to at least 8. I also utilized the CIC app fee waiver so it wasn't like I was dropping $300 just to apply. I have to agree with Telkanuru, a recent report (like last week I think) showed that the number of TT jobs in history tend to go to graduates from just a handful of schools. As much as we don't want to admit it, where you go matters. Where this gets tricky is when it comes down to specialty. I'm going to use my specialty as an example since I know a little more about it. Unless you're joining a school that already has several Africanists, chances are most people are not going to know MSU is in the top 5 of African programs. They're just going to know you went to MSU, where you've published, what awards/grants you've gotten, and what your research is. (Obviously this is the case for most small-mid size state schools, where I assume most of us will probably get jobs. At least in the beginning.) Something my professor suggested to me is to apply to well known schools with lesser known African programs, Johns Hopkins is an example. They are probably not getting as many applicants for your specialty so they're willing to take a chance (maybe not in the case of JH but other schools.) Now, if you go to a top program in your specialty you will have a built in network and more funding. However, the downside is that you have a lot of competition for money and that your professors may not have as much time to devote to you as a student. Typically they are very high performing and might be overseeing multiple dissertations, one of the people I wanted to work with had 7 they were advising. That's not including just being on the committee. There are pros and cons to both situations, just make sure to look at both sides and weigh them accordingly. At the end of the day it's what you think is best for you. On the otherhand, I had another professor suggest I look into what programs are just now trying to sink money into an African specialty. They'll be more forgiving with languages, more willing to throw money at you, and less competition. He did exactly that and it's worked great for him. He recieved his PhD just a few years ago, has a TT position, published several articles, has one book coming out next year and another in the works. Part of this is that he's brilliant but also that he was in a position where the school wanted to cultivate leaders in his specialty so they put a lot of time and effort into those students. He and almost every one of his cohorts have actually surpassed many of those who went to more prestigious universities in his field. As for my plans, I've applied for a Middle Eastern studies grant to spend six weeks conducting research in North Africa this summer. If I get it, I'll try to get in contact with an NGO or at least an English language school (ideally in Tangier). I plan to stay stateside until next December to get my ducks in a row (but also sinking more time into my thesis and defending) and then will hopefully live in Morocco for 6 months teaching English or working at an NGO. I'm not going to pretend that my application was perfect but not having lived in the country I want to study was a glaring flaw. As my professor put it, schools don't want to put 2-4 years into a student only to have them visit the country for the first time and leave the program because they can't handle living there. Anyway, I spent about one day being sad and then immediately started asking how can I better myself, how can I become a better applicant. I think this is key, don't give up, don't wallow in self-pity, and don't question your abilities. There are so many reasons you didn't get in this year and most of them have nothing to do with your intellectual abilities or quality as a student.

My first cycle as a PhD applicant hasn't gone well (rejected from 2/3 places I applied to and am awaiting the 3rd), but I've certainly learned some lessons so I thought I would share. I'm going to echo mvlchicago and say that if you're applying to a Latin American/Asian/Atlantic World/etc. program but have yet to step foot in your proposed country of interest you're going to have to be spectacular in all other aspects of your application. I was forewarned by my adviser and one of my POIs that it would be difficult to be accepted without this experience. Aside from not having done archival research in these countries, there is also a fear that students have a romantic or idealized view of what these areas will be like and when it doesn't live up to that expectation they will drop out of the program. (I'm speaking in terms of Africa here but I'm sure it applies most everywhere.) Archival research. One of my LOR writers told me that I would struggle because I did not have archival research experience. Although others told me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal, I'm realizing now that it actually is. If your university is like mine and doesn't really have archives you will need to find a way to get to the archives that are relevant for your topic. Apply for funding, couch surf, whatever it takes. Making your SOP too personal. I talked with one of my LOR about my personal reasons for pursuing history and my path to getting where I am today. He suggested I include it in my SOP and I'm no regretting my decision. I should have focused more on academics and only talked about my personal life when it came time to explain a two year gap between undergrad and my graduate program. Choosing a sample that showcases your foreign language ability. My paper used primary sources but they were all in English, (which was relevant to the topic) I should have chosen one that showed I could read another language. Also, submitting a sample unrelated to your field or area of interest. I should have submitted my prospectus or a chapter from my unfinished thesis. No, I haven't passed my defense but if I want to study something on the Atlantic world, I should probably not submit something on the Japanese empire. I didn't follow this advice because I didn't want to I didn't want to submit something I felt was "incomplete." If you cannot avoid this, say you are switching topics, make sure your sample shows your strengths as a researcher. (Neither of the above are my topics but just examples.) One of my LOR did this, he switched from studying something like Ozark folk music to the emergence of radio in the Mexican revolution. He was able to do this because he had a strong writing sample that showed his skills in archival research, but also because he built a relationship with his potential department. Additionally, he took a chance on an up and coming Latin American department and it worked out extremely well for him. (He has 2 articles just published, a book coming out next year and another in the works. Additionally he procured a TT position right out of his program.) Lastly, don't be discouraged by a bad cycle. There are always things you can do to better yourself. Apply for funding so you can complete research in your field. If your university doesn't offer these or you find out too late, apply for Fulbright's program to teach English. I didn't find out about a middle eastern studies grant offered by my university until last semester. Instead of defending over the summer I've decided to defend in the fall so that I can be eligible for the grant. If this doesn't happen I'm considering applying for a Fulbright (it will be the first year we have one up and running at my current school). The point is that if you really want this, you should constantly be working towards it. Don't take the year off as a vacation, take the year off as an opportunity to put all available effort into bettering your application, and building a relationship with your prospective departments by going to conferences and reaching out. As I said, I haven't had a good cycle but I've learned a lot. Academia is tough and rejection is a natural part of it, you just have to grow thick skin and keep on going.

I've concluded that we only represent a tiny portion of the applicant (and acceptance/rejection) pool, chances are the others just aren't on this site. I've only met one other person applying to one of my programs on here, but I was told they receive 100+ applications each cycle. I wish more people knew about this site.

Chiqui, the only archives I've been to have been the ones at my university. Today, I think it's pretty common to have students not visit archives because so much is scanned in and available online. I do think archives are important, especially when relying on search engines. I know when I search my school's library vs. WorldCat vs. Google Scholar not everything shows up on each, whereas sifting through a box means you won't be missing out on potential documents. I've only had one professor tell me that archival research is vital for success, he's fairly young and has only been out of his doctoral studies for about 5 years, I'll take the advice of my other professors who are well published that it's good but not necessary.

I had an artist friend move from Chicago to Portland this year. She had tons of art supplies, panels (which are heavy), and books, she shipped them via Amtrak and said it was pretty cheap.

You applied to 10 schools, just remember you only need to get in to 1! Looking for jobs is always good but skip food service and apply to office jobs. You might work 40 hrs a week but they're regular hours, more responsibility, and you'll be able to focus on boosting your application for the next cycle. (Because you're not having to close at 11 and be back at 7am.) If I don't get in I'm looking for a job in an office or working front desk at a hotel (did this full time throughout undergrad, I could study in my downtime and didn't have to waste gas going to work for a 4 hour shift like I do now.) It's good to be realistic but when you've still got 8 schools to hear from you shouldn't already be counting yourself out.

I'm going to put this on a canvas above my desk, that's really profound. (In a sense that, history is important but also that what happens in our past is also a new beginning, yes I'm a sucker for quotes.) I'm not good at painting but that's what I married a painter for, if not for money than for free art! All of this, I like feeling connected to the past. It makes me feel a part of the whole "human experience." As a side note, I'm submitting a grant proposal next week to try and get money to do archival research over the summer. One of the things I mentioned is that one of the archives I visited has recently been moved and reopened but some of the files have been misplaced, so the potential is there to "rediscover" a previously lost record. I would be contributing to its reorganization but also might be the first to find a vital piece of information or insight. I mentioned this to my husband and he thought it sounded like torture, but to me it's utter excitement.

That's awesome Ashiepoo! The fact that they're willing to take time out of their Sunday to email you means they're probably pretty excited about your work.

I just...do? I'm with Ashiepoo in that "I like dead people more than living people" but in all seriousness learning about the past gives weight and importance to today. I've always been someone focused on the past, in elementary school I read books about time travel (does anyone else remember Time Warp Trio?), Helen of Troy, and colonial America. At 10 I was the nerd who came to history class dressed as Eva Peron to give a biographical presentation, how does a 10 year old even know Eva Peron? I checked out a book from the city library on "great" women and she was one of them. (The year before I dressed as Hernando De Soto.) I'm just infinitely curious about the lives of those before. When I see the worn down steps in older buildings I immediately think, what where their lives like? What inspired them? What were their worries, triumphs, and tragedies? I wish I had a more scholarly reason for studying history but I don't, I just couldn't imagine myself anywhere else. (The added benefit is that my peers get my bad jokes instead of just staring at me blankly.)

The world does not exist in a vacuum nor is it relegated to "the march of time." I think there is plenty of room in departments for "traditional" historians but the prevalence of us who focus on history interwined with other disciplines is also on the rise. I think you're assuming that because more departments are admitting these types of students they are not admitting tradition historians, instead of considering that perhaps the admission rates reflect ratio of "traditional" historians to environmental/gender/etc. If only 10% of the applicants study what you have defined as traditional does that mean they should constitute 100% of the department? I don't think so. The idea that we need remain in the archives and write histories that exclude all other disciplines makes me uncomfortable and a little sad to be honest.

I think history is all encompassing and where you find yourself really depends on how you approach the topic. I'm interested in cultural history and material heritage but not exactly art history, anthropology, or heritage studies. Although I focus on traditional arts, I'm more interested in discussing the politics than the aesthetics. I'm familiar with both approaches (my undergrad is in art history and anthropology) but feel what I want to do is more akin to history than the others. I'm also a fan of big history, something many might just think is physics or, after a certain point, biology. Charles C. Mann discusses how the Columbian Exchange forever altered the global landscape and Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism blends biology and history to show how environment/biology lended itself to European expansion, but that doesn't mean they're not history. I don't think that people should be discredited or discouraged becoming more interdisciplanry in their research. I'm in the camp that believes casting a wider net leads better perspectives. There are still plenty of departments that seek out "traditional" historians, but these departments are also admitting those interested in gender, technology, and environment. More competition isn't always a bad thing and I think these new approaches make history more relatable to the general public.

I have one school left and when I told my professor he said "Well, you only need to get into one." I think a lot of us are on the same page, we tend to be the best and the brightest in our departments but when every applicant is the best and the brightest things become complicated and admission committees have to make tough choices. They could range from not a great "fit" to the professor you want to work with just took a job at a different university (I had this happen to me and it's happened at my school mid semester, the professor finished out the year but still), another option is that your POI has so many students that they can't really take on another. One of the schools I struck out of told me I didn't have enough "experience," I've never set foot in the country I want to study and have yet to begun studying one of their languages. (I've got French but my school doesn't have an Arabic program.) You know what, they're right. As sad and upset as it makes me, I would rather a school tell me I'm not ready and allow me time to work on myself than to admit me only to fail. Rejection hurts, no doubt about it, but it's also an opportunity to grow. If I don't get admitted this cycle I plan to take full advantage of it. These words probably don't make you feel better but just know that you're not the only person out there facing an unplanned year off.

Hey everyone, I was one of the Ohio rejections but I'm strangely ok with it. I realize that if I don't get in this cycle that means I'm not ready. I would rather not attend next year so that I can boost my skills, than to attend and strike out. I know this doesn't help anyone else still waiting but it means that if you haven't been rejected yet you're still in the running!

I have the honor of living in a state that is on fire in the summer and cold in the winter. It's currently icing over and classes are cancelled tomorrow, last year we missed a ton of school for snow/ice. I actually ended up with a 3 foot snow drift at my door, which turned into an ice slide. Unfortunately no one here knows how to drive in ice and we don't have the infrastructure to deal with it...despite it being a yearly thing. This commercial is an accurate representation of the entire state:

I didn't apply to Chicago but I got one. They started sending me stuff after I took the GRE again this September.

Looks like I'll be in limbo until March, BU just informed me the committee will be meeting until the end of the month. Let's hope Ohio rolls out the second wave soon!

I was told by my adviser that most "big names," or at least those that publish often, rarely take on students. They might teach one or two courses a semester but spend most of their time going to conferences and doing research. I would say approach them like you would any other professor but be prepared for them to not respond or let you down gently. Or, you could even just mention it in your SoP that you're interested in working with them and perhaps someone else from the department, if your research and writing sample catch their eye they might go ahead and take you on. As a side note, if you got to work with Rediker that would be awesome. I really enjoy his work.