BlackBear50

Very good answers. I mean I think some of them are a little too assumptive; I was merely curious on if it is even worth bothering contacting/applying to big names, but it's not a necessity or number one goal (I still have time to think about that one). But I appreciate it all. It really would be silly to go to a school for one "big name," and then have him/her be too busy, retire soon, not mesh well with you for whatever reason, etc. That'd be unfortunate indeed. I will say, for my personally, there is another academic at this institution I think I would rather have be my official adviser and merely have the "big name" on my committee. But this is all hypothetical and in the future. These have been some useful and insightful responses, I do say.

I like to think of myself as a Thompsonian but inclusive of all peoples and with a dash of postmodernism (but just a dash, much of it frustrates me). Marxist. Though not a classical, teleological or progressive.

Thanks, but that was merely to use as an example. Personally, my desire is with Rediker.

History and The Self: A seminar meant to introduce students to the nuances of what History is. Perhaps a course to take just before taking upper-division courses, or a first year grad seminar. This class would explore attempting to understand History via the project of writing an autobiography of the student's life. We would introduce the student to a myriad of historiographic means of understanding: class, sex and gender, race, ethnohistory, biography, etc. It would likewise introduce students to fields such as global history, environmental history, and comparative history. The purpose of the course would be to introduce students, at a foundation level, to a vast array of historiographic understandings and challenge them to ponder the many ways we can understand history whilst placing their own life in the context of world history. The American Revolution The Early Atlantic World: As Told By Seamen, Indentured Servants, Slaves, Savages, and Prostitutes: (Savages just to catch people's eye). A look at the Early Modern Atlantic World from the point of view of the lower sorts.

It's almost hard to put into words. I understand it in my head but using writing as a medium? It doesn't do it justice. In short, many reasons. Musing to myself: First, I have oft thought... Is History not a means by which humans attempt to escape immortality? Is studying the past not a metaphoric (and very real, I think we can agree) reminder that the past (and thus the people who lived before us) are still affecting us in the present. This awareness can give of a sense that we're escaping mortality whilst studying History. When reading the words (or even just about) of Jefferson or Pericles or Ashoka or Martha Ballard or whomever, it is as if the past is still alive. It's as if we have escaped mortality. Second, I fundamentally believe studying history makes us better judges for the present. I will not waver on this standpoint. It is my unshakable belief that through studying history we can come to a better understanding of how a myriad of forces result in the present we live in now. Understanding, as best we can, this complicated process makes us better at judging the present and future. History helps answer exisential questions like "who are we?" or "Where do we come from?" For many of us today, we no longer take for 100% truth our religious teachings. As such, our world understanding is altered, even shattered. History, then, can give meaning (both in a good way and a bad way: see nationalistic movements for independence or see Nazi Germany for extreme examples) to existence, it can offer us an identity. History gives meaning to death. History allows us to understand the past. Truly understand. As Telkanuru touched upon, it takes a lot of understanding to understand people from different times and places. To understand what language meant to them, their world view, their gender biases, their religion, their experiences in life, their age, their racial biases, their class, their political institutions, their traditions, etc., are all aspects of past peoples experiences we need to understand to understand the events and developments of their time. History is creative. History is fun. History is complicated and challenges my brain + it improves valuable skills: reading, writing, comprehension. And so much more that I can't hope to express, much less at 11:48 pm of mid-term week.

Interesting and thoughtful responses, all of you; thank you. I would certainly imagine that they don't take on many students and then only take on the cream of the crop at that. But I'm sure the rewards would be plentiful, yet with possible drawbacks as noted. I like the idea of a committee member rather than an adviser; that seems like the more beneficial route for both student and scholar. I suppose there is nothing to fear about rejection; rejection happens. Yet I have this irrational fear of being a waste of time to such a professor or being woefully unqualified to work with such a strong scholar. Interesting stuff...

Question: Is desiring to work with "big names" something so competitive and unlikely that it ought not be considered fully? Say Alan Taylor, or Laurel Ulrich, or Marcus Rediker (the latter of which I am most interested in, personally). But apply this to any big name in your field (I mentioned early Atlantic World because that's my thing). Advice? I'm positive they receive numerous requests, how do you not seem like some annoying, if well intending, historical novice to such giants in the field? Thoughts?

It is fascinating! I took a course on the Acadians, coincidentally also in my second year as an undergrad. Very interesting historical experience. I think I actually made a mistake posting on this thread, at first glance I thought Fall 2015 applicants meant students applying IN Fall 2015 for Fall 2016. I have become aware of this mistake decided to fess up I'm working on my senior "capstone" a semester early, as a third year student, and am exploring turn of the 20th century Maine labor history. I am a big E.P. Thompson-Marxist-social historian. Nevertheless, should we still both end up there, I would very much like to meet up, discuss research, and make a friend. Best of luck!

Long version or short version? I'll go with short. So I'm interested in early modern Atlantic World history, though my preferred narrow interests is Northeastern North America in the 18thC with an historiographic interest in Marxist/labor historiography. Think Class Matters. Dalhousie particularly interests me because of Both programs interest me with their Atlantic and naval/seafaring promises. Todd McCallum's take on social history, his "hobo" article, and specialty in Marxism & anarchism attract me in that facet while other prof.'s focused on the early modern Atlantic World obviously provide that facet. I think Banister (and Riordan's) editing of the Royal Atlantic is fascinating and was a great addition to the conversation of the A-Rev, and Roberts's examination of wealth inequality, while outside of my specific specific specific interest, is also strongly appealing. I want to study early modern Atlantic World social history from a labor/Marxist perspective/

Thank you! I keep adding and removing BU from my list, simply because I don't want it to be "too big." Thornton seems to add an interesting facet to early-modern Atlantic history that I must admit I am not the best versed in though I desire to, obviously, improve on that.

Literature: I am in a HUGE Halldor Laxness kick. Independent People, The Fish Can Sing, and am now reading Iceland's Bell. I highly recommend him. History, outside of class: Ireland in the Virginian Sea & Class Matters: Early North America and The Atlantic World

An American student looking at a number of schools, including two Canadian: both Dalhousie & Memorial University. I actually think Dalhousie is my best of all schools- American and Canadian.

Long time lurker, now that it is time to finally get serious I've decided to join. Third year undergrad; History major, Spanish minor. In the name of brevity: I am interested in subaltern studies, but particularly in labor/marxist historiography. I also am most interested in the colonial era, think Class Matters. I speak Spanish near fluent and am at the intermediate level in French. I'm looking at, for Ph. D: - UPenn, Boston College, William and Mary, Dalhousie, Brandeis MA: University of Maine (my current school), University of Vermont, Dalhousie, Memorial University And am, of course, open to suggestions. My personal leanings are that Dalhousie is perhaps my best fit, though I don't know much about Dalhousie besides its faculty I've looked into. There is also a Prof. I'd love to work with but he's at Montana and I do not want to leave the East Coast.