RaymondDale

Two comments: First, to suggest that only 2% of applicants can get into a decent Ph.D. program is just patently false. Example: Stanford is the top history department in the country (tied with a couple others), and the most selective, and as to Americanists -- by far the most popular and most competitive field -- they accepted over 3% this year, and wait listed a couple more -- this, in a year where the number of spaces is the smallest ever due to the economy. But that's the MOST rigorous it gets. Further down the line, take a place like BU, whose acceptance rate in the graduate History department as of a couple years ago, was over 40 percent! (Not sure how many of those were offered funding.) Granted, this year things are worse because the money's tight, and the pool is larger than ever. But 2% is pure hyperbole, and you are discouraging many people on this board with such comments. Second, for all the time you spent learning esoteric vocabulary and other useless standardized test tricks for the GRE, and otherwise doing everything in your power to coddle and impress anonymous, pointy-headed academics sitting on some stiff admissions committee -- most of whom, let's face it, history will promptly forget -- you could have written two dissertations and made history yourself. Please don't take this the wrong way. I am just trying to give people some perspective. These adcomms are not the arbiters of your worth and abilities. Where you get your Ph.D. -- and, indeed, whether or not you get your PhD in the first instance -- do not matter. One of our greatest and most respected historians, Joyce Appleby, did not go to a top school. Many others -- David McCullough, Parrington, Ron Chernow -- never wasted time getting a Ph.D. Going even further, one of the greatest and most trenchant thinkers and writers of the 20th century, Eric Hoffer -- who, by the way, taught at Berkeley, received the presidential medal of freedom from Ronald Reagan and was well-respected throughout academia -- never graduated from high school! Hoffer did it with a few library cards. Getting into Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford is far more likely to make you lazy and complacent as you rest on your laurels. To be a great historian, you need to be HUNGRY! Those places will not make you hungry. I have a friend who got into a tippy-top graduate humanities program and then proceeded to spend the next 6 years of his life doing pretty much nothing, except lusting after undergraduates and (on worse days) cougars who, as far as I can tell, considered him a buffoon. Now his Department's denying him funding and threatening to kick him out. Another friend went to a lesser known school, finished in 4 years, published his dissertation, and is now writing articles on politico.com There is no substitute for hard work -- not Yale, Harvard, or Princeton. The question is not, Where did you go to school?, but rather What have you produced? What have you done? What do you believe? If you have a good idea now, chances are that six years at Harvard are not going to make it any better and might even make it worse. Alternatively, if you don't have a good idea now, Harvard's not going to give you one. There, I'll shut up now.

In my opinion, this is very unwise. Do not borrow a penny to go to graduate school for history. You are hurting yourself, and enriching a bank. If people keep accepting these ridiculous no-funding offers, it will soon become the status quo. Don't do it. If your wife can support you, write articles, write a book this summer, then re-apply. Don't let graduate school determine your career. If you want to be an historian, become one, now. Graduate school does not determine that. You do. David McCullough? No Ph.D. Vernon Louis Parrington? No Ph.D. There are many other examples. Require funding! Because -- and I know this sounds cliche -- we deserve it!

Hi, is there some consensus as to the best GRE prep COURSE available? Especially for verbal. Please don't answer by saying it's not worth it to take a course, etc. Perhaps I should put it a different way, For those of you who (1) scored VERY high on the verbal or know someone who did, and (2) took a live prep course (or know someone who did) -- what course was it? Thank you, and best of luck this year on your apps.<br clear="all">

When I think of ETS, I think of three words: avarice, Nazi, Monopoly.

That I don't know. The prof I was in contact with said the Americanist committee met a couple of weeks ago, and admitted 3 out of the hundred applicants in the US field. The prof said also that it seemed to be a stronger field than usual, "perhaps because of the economy."

I see one acceptance to UCLA. Any ideas as to whether there will be more? Seems like there has to be. Based on last year's results pattern, it looks like they first accept people with funding, then a few days later accept people without funding, and then finally reject people. Comments? I hesitate to call this Department because they tend to be very terse and snappy.

Off-topic, but congrats on UCLA. what is your field?

Stanford has completed the process. As to Americanists, they accepted 3 people out of a field of 100.