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 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.

A professor at my undergrad university did her PhD at Notre Dame and said it's a wonderful program and school, so congrats! 

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!

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FWIW, my areas of specialization are American naval/military/diplomatic history. I have been sandbagged by a professor who dislikes naval history. I have been told that I will never get a job as a professor in the Ivory Tower because I wasn't born in the 1950s. So I am aware of the issue on a personal level.
That being said, I think that your conduct in this thread is an embarrassment to yourself and your alleged interest in military history.

In regards to the latter, you have failed to demonstrate a familiarity with decades of historiographical discussion among military and naval historians on the future of the two disciplines within the profession. You have also failed to do any research to see how military and naval histories published over the last several decades incorporate the methods and sensibilities of the (no longer
"new") social and cultural historians that have come to prominence over the last half century.

You have completely and utterly failed to show a basic aptitude for research by not identifying the departments in the United States that emphasize military history even though those departments have been discussed on this BB on a yearly basis.

If your contributions to this thread are examples of what you are going to bring to the table as a graduate student focusing on military history, you are going to be a chew toy.

Put down the shovel. Show some respect for your alleged field of interest. Treat your peers with respect. Read more, post less.

I am not really sure the problem you posit is real so much as it is made up.

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.

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.

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.

Congrats to the Cornell admits! Here's hoping this weekend is more eventful than the last few have been

I just had a pizza date with my daughter...probably the most relaxing moment I've had in the past 3-5 months haha

I actually made contact w/ all of my potential supervisors. In relation to two of my three rejections, both said they were unable to convince their committees to take me due to concerns about my interests in religious history. Of course, they could just be saying that, but that's what I've been told. Neither of those POI have explicit expertise in religious history, but have research interests in my broader thematic interests. It is what it is, though, and I've already been thinking how I need to emphasize my work and interests in broader U.S. History, rather than just my projects in American religious history. It has just been frustrating and needed an outlet to vent.

I actually made contact w/ all of my potential supervisors. In relation to two of my three rejections, both said they were unable to convince their committees to take me due to concerns about my interests in religious history. Of course, they could just be saying that, but that's what I've been told. Neither of those POI have explicit expertise in religious history, but have research interests in my broader thematic interests. It is what it is, though, and I've already been thinking how I need to emphasize my work and interests in broader U.S. History, rather than just my projects in American religious history. It has just been frustrating and needed an outlet to vent.

I'm frustrated because I'm a U.S. historian who focuses on religious history within the United States. I have a B.A. and am finishing my M.A. in religious studies; however, I've decided to apply to History Departments to better explore the history of immigration and education, in order to better understand American religion at the turn of the century. Not to mention I ultimately want to teach broader U.S. history. But as soon as programs find out my research interests have something to do with religion, they immediately try to shift me over to a religion department -- and I would've just internally petitioned to stay in my current program, if it were that easy. I've been declined from three places, and all three places said that I should apply to their religion department. It's been maddening.

It's my understanding that internal offers have been made, but not all external offers.