AfricanusCrowther

Somebody tell Slate

Okay. I am not an anti-constructivist, but I also think that name brand matters for placement, particularly outside top research universities (i.e., "I'm not a Japanese historian, but how bad could a person with a Yale PhD be?"), and, for admissions, other prestige factors unrelated to the socially agreed upon measures of quality scholarship play a role (i.e., "This candidate won a Marshall and went to Harvard undergrad, and both Africanist candidates have decent writing samples, so between the two..."). This is my attempt to explain why people who produce shockingly bad scholarship (again, by these very guild-history standards that are apparently enforced by the top programs) but with HYP PhDs still get great jobs.

I'd be very interested to hear your speculate about the nature of those real differences when it comes to the top three programs. From my experience, those differences to do not produce superior scholarship, although this feeling may be motivated by resentment.

It doesn't have to be study abroad. In my field, exposure on the ground is very important, even if that means taking time off to work for an NGO. It's not like Europe, and it's not just about languages. They don't want to recruit a student who realizes they hate doing field work in their fourth year.

Unfortunately, if this were true in general, then you wouldn't see the massive inequalities in placement between programs, even within the top tier. Wisconsin may claim that they have strong placement, but what percentage of their massive cohort gets a tenure track job? What is that percentage compared to Harvard or Yale? And in what fields (other than African history)? I've done a little bit of the data crunching myself, and it isn't pretty. And I wouldn't presume that the many thousands of PhDs on the market fail to get a job each year because they lack tenacity. Completing a dissertation requires tenacity. That said, it obviously doesn't hurt. You have probably seen this study: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005

My SoP (which I think was pretty successful, and was modeled on another successful applicant's) went like this: 1. Very brief introductory paragraph about what led me to my scholarly interests 2. How I explored those interests in undergrad 3. What I want to do with those interests in grad school and how I think I can contribute to the field 4. How X department is just perfect for what I want to do What also helped me, I think, was that I had a well-developed idea of the central themes of my future research work, but I also noted my flexibility and willingness to adapt to new research possibilities.

This person is your advisor? Isn't this a relationship that may be highly personal, perhaps with lots of close and hands-on work? And wouldn't you therefore want to send a fairly warm (but professional) email introducing yourself? I don't see why you can't discuss your interests and be brief, or why talking about yourself necessarily means you will come off as arrogant or "dumb."

I knew a grad student in history when I was in undergrad who was in her fifth or sixth year. She was close to completing her dissertation, but she had a great deal of trouble getting anything published because an associate professor had started a similar project and had already published a couple articles on the subject. So I would think that you would want to mention your concern to your advisor and give it serious thought...

Some schools I applied to actually encouraged sending my whole undergrad thesis. I got accepted to all the programs to which I sent my complete thesis. I got rejected from all the programs that requested a 25-page chapter. For the latter schools, I did the "select a section and write a brief cover letter rather than make major revisions" strategy, which evidently did not succeed in my case. It was a strong thesis, but that chapter failed to include a strong statement about a historiographical intervention (which was in my intro). This was clearly a mistake.

From the supplemental material : "In each discipline, the US News ranking most recent to the data collection was used (Computer Science 2010, Business 2012, and History 2009). The National Research Council does not evaluate business schools as a whole, and thus no NRC ranking is available for this discipline. Similarly, the computer science community rejected as fundamentally inaccurate the 2010 NRC ranking for computer science (47); thus, we used the most recent NRC ranking of CS prior to 2010, which was published in 1995. Finally, we used the 2010 NRC S-ranking for history; when multiple departments at a single institution appeared, we selected the one closest to a general history department." Then in a footnote: "Specifically, Brandeis University's History department was assigned a rank of 7, the rank of its American History PhD program, rather than 61, the rank of its Comparative History program."

That sounds good, but I would spend one or two hours each week in the spring familiarizing yourself with the logic games section. Once you learn how to solve every question type, you can begin drilling in earnest. I worked through the very-thorough PowerScore logic games book, and had great results, but I know people who swear by other study guides. But that's just my take -- there are many studying strategies for the LSAT (you can find plenty of suggestions on the toplawschools forum). All the credible studying strategies I've heard of, on the other hand, recommend developing a plan for at least a few months of studying. The LSAT is brutal for almost everyone.

I made the exact same decision this season: I applied to PhD programs for Africa and to law schools, and got int both. I ultimately decided that, given the interests that I pursued in undergrad, I couldn't justify doing African legal history and applying to JD/PhD programs (I'm just a wreck and I don't know what to do with my life). As you probably know, law school admissions is almost entirely numbers driven, so if you're planning on taking the LSAT, I would suggest making a study plan now (it's impossible to do cold and requires a great deal of study). It's a lot more important than the GRE.

Congratulations. Out of curiosity, why did you decide not to apply to Michigan?

Does anybody have any advice for those with limited vacation time? Is it considered acceptable to fly in Friday morning if the recruitment weekend starts on Friday Thursday? Or to skip events to go to work (I work near one program I was admitted to)?

I actually think it's appropriate to write to your POIs briefly noting that you submitted your application and thanking them for their help during the application process. At least, that's what I did and I got pretty nice replies. I feel bad for the MSU admit who applied to their terminal master's program...

Oh! I'm silly.

I actually had to upload my own transcript for all the schools I applied to.

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1238-the-postdoctoral-applicant

I've been trying to stay active by reading articles; I just wish I had the chance to analyze them with peers. But I'm sure you're right that it's not something to stress out about.

I'm worried about the opposite problem: ever since I left undergrad, I've had anxiety about my analytical and reading comprehension skills diminishing. I try to compensate by reading my boyfriend's workshop papers.

Unless you have no interest in going to a lower ranked program.

On the application website: "Please see Program Details to determine whether the program to which you are applying requires a writing sample. Please follow departmental requirements on type and size of writing sample. Unless noted, writing sample is limited to 20 pages."

That blows. I guess I'm less annoyed by the page limit (20 seems reasonable) than the lack of instructions on the department website (really, Harvard? You want a writing sample of "remarkable quality"? Because I was just going to send an old newspaper i found on the sidewalk).

Is the writing sample for Harvard really a twenty-page maximum?