jpb

I agree with this point, as I also received an MA (partially funded) from a top-tier program and found that it was one of the better experiences of my academic life. My interests changed a bit and solidified. My writing sample improved dramatically. My letters of recommendation were superior to my undergraduate ones. I've ultimately landed at my top-choice program with full funding. I also learned that academia is exactly where I want to be, where many PhD candidates straight out of undergrad question their choices a year or two into the program. While I agree that one shouldn't take on a significant amount of debt to obtain a Masters, the notion that an MA doesn't do much to improve one's application materials is a bit silly. I even received two personal notes from schools that rejected me, saying they loved my writing sample, but I just wasn't a thematic fit with the faculty. There's no chance that I'd be this prepared for doctoral work without my MA.

I did my MA (not in history) at UChicago. If you have questions about the MAPSS program, feel free to message me. I didn't do the program myself, but I have a few friends who did.

Finally heard back from Cornell today. It was a rejection, but one of the most encouraging and sweet rejections that I have ever received when applying for graduate programs, haha. I still have a couple schools from which to hear; however, I'm becoming more confident and excited that I'm going to accept my offer from Notre Dame! I've enjoyed reading the forum this winter, as it has largely kept me sane. Best of luck to everyone.

I've been trying to brush up on the work of a few POI for my interview in a couple weeks, as I really have no idea what I'll be asked. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. As I'm in the midst of a gap year, I plan on reacquainting myself with my research that I submitted for my writing sample. Flying blind is always anxiety-inducing!

I'm happy to say that I received an invitation to Notre Dame's recruitment event in a couple of weeks; however, it seems a bit odd in that my invitation today indicated that they'd be doing interviews (along with other standard recruitment activities). I know that I haven't been accepted at this stage. I'm just wondering if anyone knows anything about Notre Dame's processes. That is to say, are their "recruitment/interview" days a mere formality, or will a significant portion of the invitees ultimately get denied admission? I'm sure that I'm overthinking everything, but it would be delightful to begin the cycle with a "yes" rather than a "no"!

I'm not. I know her research interests lie in cognitive science at the moment, but she's also the chair of the Catholic Studies dept and I focus on American Catholic history. We talked over the summer and autumn about my fit at UCSB. She sounded as if she was on board; however, I'm nervous about her shifting interests and whether she'll choose to look elsewhere instead of at my project. We'll see!

Ann Taves

I haven't heard anything yet. My POI suggested decisions were being released this upcoming week. Fingers crossed!

As someone who has enjoyed his MA experience, as mentioned above, I agree with this.

This may not pertain to you, particularly, but I turned down a PhD offer to take an MA offer at a better program. Obviously, Brown is a lovely school. You don't really have that concern. However, I'm thankful I did take my MA offer because my interests have shifted dramatically over the past two years, which has been a product of my particular research projects, conversations with professors, etc. I'd be nearing my comps in a PhD program right now, and I'd have no opportunity to act upon my growth and evolution as a scholar. As my thesis advisor told me last week: "Too many graduate students are concerned about finishing coursework early. Coursework is how you prepare for your research, how you learn to be in academia, how you prepare yourself for a future role as an educator, and how you find yourself as a scholar. Don't be so quick to leave it." For some people, the MA program can be transformative. It was for me. EDIT: However, my transformative experience is primarily why my applications weren't particularly strong this year. I was in flux. So maybe it wasn't a great thing, after all.

The point ashiepoo72 made about finding two POIs at each program is crucial. I was denied from two places this year because the POI with whom I wanted to work couldn't take students (for separate, understandable reasons), but then I had no chance. I marketed myself to the individual so strongly that when they were out, it looked as if I had no fit whatsoever. I'll likely be reapplying next year due to personal reasons; however, I'll be able to compile applications far superior to what I submitted this year.

The MAPSS program has a high rate of success when it comes to getting applicants into high-level PhD programs, including UChicago itself. They have a lot of freedom and support to pursue whatever they'd like for their thesis. The sticking point for you, though, is that they require a gap year before professors will be recommenders for your PhD applications. They (rightfully) argue that they cannot possibly know your work prior to the completion of your first term -- thus, it essentially becomes a two-year program. If you don't want to wait that long, I'd look at accepting one of your PhD offers, no matter how good UChicago's faculty may be. To put this in perspective, I'm currently finishing an MA degree at the University of Chicago in a different field than US History, but I'm looking to transition over to US History for my PhD. My lack of history coursework on my transcript (as it has all been this year) is the reason UChicago denied me, despite having multiple recommendations from the faculty. We've talked a lot about the MAPSS program as a one-year solution for me before reapplying. So I'm quite familiar w/ the workings of the MAPSS program and the quirks of it.

I'm actually still waiting on a couple programs -- the only two religion programs to which I applied -- but it's looking more and more like I'm going to decline whatever offers I may have and reapply next year. My wife got an offer for a promotion and would like to stay where we are for another year. Plus, I'll actually have my MA degree in hand next application season, a better writing sample, better grades, and a better plan of attack. An unplanned gap year will be uncomfortable and undesirable; however, it very well could be what's best for me in the long run. I know this page is for those who are deciding between different schools. I'm deciding between accepting any offer or taking a gap year. It's not what I expected to be doing at all. Kudos to everyone who will be attending a program next year. Best of luck, and I look forward to reading your future published work.

I've known for roughly a week, but I've finally received the official letter from Syracuse and can let y'all know. I'm in.

He's referring to some of the co-ops that are available in the area, many of which are affiliated with divinity programs. They can be substantially cheaper than standard housing.

Thanks for this! I'm anxious to hear back from them, as it was the only Religious Studies program to which I applied.

I'm wondering the same about UCSB.

Thus far in the application cycle, I have yet to hear positive news. I have a BA in Religious Studies and am finishing my MA in Religious Studies from a top-tier program; however, I opted to not merely petition to continue into the PhD program at my school with my current advisor because I want to study American religion in a U.S. History program. In particular, I'm interested in education and immigration history in the United States and how those stories intersect with religion. Thus, I think my main obstacle has been a lack of US historiography, which I'm trying to address right now (but was obviously not on my transcript). It's difficult to think that I could've continued in my current program, especially if I'm forced to take an unexpected year off, but my heart lies in broader US history. Stay the course, I suppose?

I can also assume that you're one who laments the scholarship opportunities for white, straight, middle-class men and blame that on the massive increase in scholarships available for "new-fangled scholars" like women and minorities. Not that you dislike the latter, of course, but you just feel that every scholarship created to help a traditionally underfunded sector of the academic community should be met with a similar scholarship for traditional white guys.

Of course they critically analyzed documents and had a viable method for obtaining the answers they sought. I simply am unconvinced that the questions they asked were as important as the ones historians are asking now, especially those about war, which is why they've fallen out of favor in the academy.

Certainly, but I think that was precisely the point of bringing it up, no?

There's certainly room for the "old school," as long as that old school methodology is contributing to the larger historical project. If military historians are merely seeking to uncover strategy on the battlefield or determine the number of casualties in a given conflict or describe the military greatness of a specific general, I'm not sure that's going to recapture significant space in the academy. At least, in a narrow sense. That type of military history seems to struggle to take the story a step higher and engage with theoretical concepts and questions, and that's really where historians should live. Studying war and military conflict through a historical lens is imperative, but only insofar as it moves us toward understanding something about the larger historical moment -- and if it can do the latter, there's always room at the inn for that type of history.

I don't think anyone suggested military or wartime history is unimportant and shouldn't be studied. Instead, people have questioned the methodology utilized in traditional military history. Simple strategical analysis that ignores social, cultural and political ramifications will ultimately be dogged by the "so what?" question. How does traditional military history help us understand how military battles and wars shaped and changed a culture, a people, a nation, an institution? Perhaps you have an insightful response to that, which could then thrust narrow military history back into popular historiography and be gold for your statement of purpose. History isn't just becoming more "open," it's becoming more inclusive and attempting to embrace a methodology, rather than a specific set of agreed upon subjects that must be divvied up within a department, if that makes sense.

As someone who studies one of those non-traditional historical fields, as you called it, I don't agree that history departments should deny them or force them into other departments. If someone wants to study U.S. environmental history, for example, it seems strange that they could adequately study their topic w/out a broader knowledge of U.S. history. Similarly, it seems strange that someone could call themselves a U.S. historian without understanding environmental history in some respect. It's a bit of a rambling answer, but fragmenting history into specific departments creates historians who struggle to understand how their research focus fits into the larger portrait of U.S. history.