twentysix

This has been my experience as well. My department has an almost weekly happy hour frequented by grad students and faculty. Some people talk about random things (sports, news, etc.), others talk about teaching, others about research. I've found that in some of these small conversations I've gotten great ideas or insights into my research that I hadn't gotten otherwise. Sometimes just being asked to give the 30 second version of your research can force you into thinking about it in a different way or allow someone else to say something you hadn't thought of. Without those conversations, my work would definitely suffer.
 
And yea, I'm one of those people who can't work all the time. Back when I did my comprehensive exams (which were multiple questions over like 10 days), I remember people in my department (mostly those not yet at the exams stage) being surprised that I was still attending the class I was TAing (I was mostly grading but went to every single lecture), working out, and even watching an episode or two of a TV show online. But you know what? You can't work for 16 hours a day for the 10 days without a break. And really, since I was limited to like 25 pages double-spaced per answer, I would've ended up writing way more than I needed if I'd worked that long. Instead, I rode my bike to the gym, worked out with friends (including some who had PhDs and thus totally understood what comps were and why you might need a break), cooked myself real food, etc. It's about knowing what you need to work efficiently and be productive and taking the time to do whatever that is.
 
Back to the original question though:
- Be open and willing to learn.
- If you're in the humanities or social sciences, take the time to just browse the library shelves in your general field and in your intended research area to get an idea of what's been published and what research resources are available to you. (Even better, meet with a librarian early on to make sure you know what your school has and the support s/he can give you.)
- Skim through recent journal issues in your field to get a sense of what topics are current and which are becoming dated. Pay attention to book reviews if there are any and use those to help you find relevant books for your discipline and research area.
- Learn to use reference management software (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, etc.) and start keeping track of your references that way.
- Figure out an easy to use system for staying abreast of current/new research in both books and journals that may be of interest.
- Read your graduate handbook (and TA handbook if needed) so you know what is expected of you. Ask questions if expectations are unclear.
- Start figuring out what, if any, courses outside the department you might want to take, how often they're offered, how difficult they are, etc.
- If you're going to need research methods training, figure out how to get that ASAP. In the social sciences, this often means taking courses in qualitative methods, statistics, and/or GIS and seats in those classes can fill because they're attracting students from an array of disciplines. Getting your methods coursework done means you can start collecting data sooner.
- Get to know whomever helps oversee grant apps (NIH, NSF, SSRC, Fulbright, IAF, etc.) at your institution and ask them what you can do beginning now to prepare to apply in the future, when you should be applying, what you'll need to be competitive, etc. And, while you're there, get them to help you set up some alerts for grant announcements.
 
There's probably more you could do, especially related to conferences and networking, but I don't want to overload anyone with suggestions.

Register with disability services / accessibility services!  They will be able to provide you with whatever help and supports that you need.  They will also be able to advocate for you if you run into problems with your advisor or other professors.  Or if you need any accommodations, they will be able to either provide them to you, or connect you with those who can provide them.

Reading cover to cover is not sustainable in graduate school. You will drive yourself nuts, you will fall behind in your work, and, paradoxically, may not do as well in seminar as others.  Keep in mind that the objective is to establish a "dialog" among the book you're reading and others on the same topic. 
 
As a graduate student, you should/will be able to write a five to seven page essay on a book within four or five hours. This includes the time spent with the book, doing the background historiographical and biographical research on the topic and the person who wrote the book, doing the editing to get under the page limit, an appropriate amount of proof reading, and, if necessary, putting together an outline for a presentation on the work. This practice is not necessarily the best one, but...
 
IRT reading method, there are some older threads in this forum. For example.  also  (I recommend that one pays extra attention to New England Nat's posts on this and every other topic related to studying history. NEN is the bee's knees.)
 
FWIW, I do a lot of background research on the historian, maybe find earlier iterations of the work (e.g. journal articles). I will have in hand reviews on the book, as well as the topic, and by the author on other works. Then I will read the bibliography first, and then the introduction and the acknowledgements. Then I will start jumping around, generally reading very selectively (and backwards) while paying very close attention to the foot/end notes. If a book is related to an area of specialization, you will get to the point where you will figure out a work's central arguments by reading the footnotes.
 
When I was doing coursework, I (too often) fell into the graduate student's trap of criticizing a historian for not writing the book one thinks that she/he should have written rather than focusing on the work in its own terms. Professors would stand on my head for these lapses. I got better at not doing it, but there's still room for improvement.

Absolutely. I can even do it for courses entirely outside my field, and pretty well.
 
Basically, you need to read the intro and conclusion very closely. I also pay close attention to the table of contents and index to find what concepts/events/people are important. Once that's done, I look at chapter intros/conclusions if the book has them, if not I either gut the chapters pretty quickly or choose 1-2 chapters that seem particularly important to read more closely. Sometimes in a pinch I don't even crack the chapters at all. Book reviews are a great supplement, too. JSTOR is your friend.
 
My first semester of the MA I read books cover to cover. Now that I've become fairly experienced at gutting, I understand the books I read even more than when I read word for word. The whole point, as everyone else has said, is to get down the author's thesis, main points, evidence and historiographical positioning. All the other stuff is superfluous when you're studying history at the graduate level.

Yes UBC would easily be an R1 if it were in the USA. It does over $500million in research annually. I was just making clear that there is specifically a list of R1s, and having a med school does not make a school an R1. The low end of R1 universities is around $150,000,000 USD worth of research annually, SFU might actually make the cut to be one of the lower R1s (if it were an American university).

I teach an English Composition class, and I have had that question asked several times. Use to drive me nuts, and I eventually found a way to respond by reflecting back, "what grade, based on the rubric, do you think this draft deserves?" It's a good way to learn what they actually know in a critical thinking way. 
 
Usually I found that there was a disconnect, or misunderstanding about what the rubric was looking for. Many students can't explain to you what they "don't know" so, testing them on the spot lets you identify their weak-spots.

GIVE ME ACADEMIA OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!

Hiring committees probably care, especially the members of those committees that are outside of your sub-field.

I think the two conclusions that we can come to are 1) grad school rankings from large agencies are super bullshit, and 2) trolls can troll successfully even after people realize they're trolls.

No, because that isn't how an aquifer works. Aquifers are not giant hollow spaces (caves) filled with water. They are water in a cavity that is entirely filled with sediment and tiny rocks in addition to water.This was a huge misconception that had to be battled in one of my GE science courses. One of my science profs attributed it to 1980s Hollywood which misrepresented what an aquifer was and some how the public latched onto it. I too thought what you thought prior to this course.

Just as an exercise of hilarity, I unscientifically used my computers calculator function to see how long it would take for UC tuition to be $1,000,000+ a year at a 25% increase per year. It's not even 2 decades. I think you maybe meant 5%.

Nope. Not a bit. Nada. Nein. Niet. No.
 
If I were going into graduate school as a turnip farmer maybe I would have cared.

Yes, it is very likely having an online degree could hurt your chances of acceptance to PhD programs. Whether they're right to or not, many academics have strong negative opinions of online education.

UToronto is listed at #24 in the world #1 in Canada.
UBC is listed at #37 in the world #2 in Canada.
McGill is listed at #67 in the world #3 in Canada.
 
http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings/McGill-University.html
 
Another resource gives the universities slightly different world positions, but keeps the 1, 2, 3 order the same.
 
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
 
What resources are you using to show McGill as the stronger university?

Riding a motorcycle or scooter in LA is a sure way to die. 

No. McGill is more like the Ohio State of Canada. It isn't even the best school in Canada, UBC and UToronto are both better...
 
McGill might have a program or two that is really great, but the university as a whole isn't even a top 30 school.

No. McGill is more like the Ohio State of Canada. It isn't even the best school in Canada, UBC and UToronto are both better...
 
McGill might have a program or two that is really great, but the university as a whole isn't even a top 30 school.

Nope. Not a bit. Nada. Nein. Niet. No.
 
If I were going into graduate school as a turnip farmer maybe I would have cared.

Just as an exercise of hilarity, I unscientifically used my computers calculator function to see how long it would take for UC tuition to be $1,000,000+ a year at a 25% increase per year. It's not even 2 decades. I think you maybe meant 5%.

Nope. Not a bit. Nada. Nein. Niet. No.
 
If I were going into graduate school as a turnip farmer maybe I would have cared.

It doesn't matter when you submit. What matters is when you did the work. Along with the others, I would recommend aiming as high as possible with this. If you get rejected, you can always then submit to a lower ranked journal. Three years should be a long enough time to go through the review process, even if you need to do it twice. Since it sounds like you are off to an MA program, I would consider whether or not it would be beneficial to have someone from your new school look the paper over and see if there are ways of improving it so it goes in as good a venue as possible. A good publication will help you more than a publication in an obscure journal, even if it means that you spend a few more months polishing the paper or doing some more work on it. 

I'm way outside your field but of the opinion that it's best to submit to the best possible journal that you can. You have some time, so what's the harm if it's rejected from a great journal or two in the meantime? Submit to the lesser known journal as a plan B or C.
 
As to your question about being an undergrad or MA student when you submit it, my vote is that it doesn't make a difference. It's impressive to have one's undergrad work published, but when you submit it doesn't seem important.

Everyone in academia has a mac. It's one of the rules.

Why not both? I published my master's thesis.
 
If your goal is academia published papers are always better than a master's thesis. It's not just about your ideas being validated; published papers are the coin of academia. They're what get you jobs and fellowships and grants and such (along with other things). In fact, doing a master's thesis is supposed to be the preparatory experience for writing publications in academia.
 
So when applying for PhD programs: MA thesis is good, publications are better. MA thesis AND publications is best.

Here's a way to approach the task.
 
Pick a topic/subject of great importance to your field of study/the profession you want to join.
 
Briefly sketch out how you felt about each before you started graduate school. This is point A.
 
Briefly sketch out how you feel about each now, after almost a year in graduate school. This is point B.
 
Now tease out the steps (coursework, reading, thinking, talking) by which you got from A to B. Your intellectual identify should still be "under construction" but you can align yourself provisionally with those steps that were most significant in getting you to B.