AP

I am trying to imagine how you would talk about someone else's work in your SOP. As is, my advice is don't do it in the SOP. You have other places to show language ability (CV, WS, and LORs) and command of a theoretical framework (WS).

I want to input something that happened in the last few weeks and may help this forum. As many of you know, I'm in candidacy. For people who are not in candidacy, this sometimes means that I know what I'm doing. I don't. I moved back from the field two months ago and still find it difficult to settle back. I've been writing a lot and receiving nothing but negative feedback. Don't get me wrong, my production is not at its best, but there is only so much that I can take in a short amount of time. Yesterday I was in my regular job and just wanted to cry. So, I got home and called a friend of mine, who is also in academia (already with a job) and just cried in front of her. I ranted and she gave me perspective: This is just a job. Feedback is good. Turn feedback into a to-do list. This too shall pass. This too shall pass. As you transit grad school and you develop your professional network, also develop a support network. Two or three go-to people with whom you can get it all out and then resume your writing/research/whatever. I can't begin to say how important such a network is for your mental health. Just to be clear: this is not a network to vent and period. It is a network to give perspective, to 'translate' what is going on into effective results, to help you move forward. My two cents.

That is, assuming you write a book review that really puts you out there. First book reviews are not usually for major journals. My first three were exactly what you said: horrible books for small organizations newsletters. I had to make the very decision you described: take it to heart or play it safe. I wrote reviews I would have found useful (I hope). I am not exaggerating, these were books that I would never recommend to anyone except if you want an example of what not to do. They were not published by academic presses, which kinda tells you something. At his point when I have three of them, I feel it is ok to decline other reviews. My two cents is: what ever you do, be strategic. I took it to heart to write a review as an exercise useful to me. Reading critically and writing coherently is an excellent place to start an publication. We need both skills for any aspect of grad school (seminar discussions, prospectuses, grant applications, interviews, dissertation). Again, this was my strategic decision for one year (summer after my comps) so I had the time to do it, and it was a good moment to do it as well and not jump right into 'real' publications. PS: I never asked advisors about what they thought, I just told them that I wrote a review for X newsletter. Also, I only began writing reviews after my comps, because somehow after comps I felt super smart. I wonder where that person went...

Yes!!!! And personally, I think it is a great place to start as a publication.

Yes!! My panel got a great time slot. See you in Washington!

I do, and it saves me lots of time later on.

Actually, I think the subheadings will come in due time, especially if, as the OP said, they have very few publications. @miami421 you should clarify it is a review and you'll be fine.

Maybe I didn't express myself properly. They had your materials. You were missing a LOR. They could go back to the LOR while they waited. OP is asking about reusing SOP. I'm not arguing they saved their SOP. I'm saying it is a different document for the AdComm to revise. You didn't want to judge your PhD admittance with the previous one, right?

Yes, but LORs and SOPs are different things. We are responsible for SOPs, so if our advisors give the same LOR is up to them.

Oh, ok. Well, I wouldn't use exactly the same SoPs. Trying to paraphrase parts of them is a good idea because it shows you gave some thought to the application cycle. But I would start from scratch.

Your input in that class won't come because you think as a historian. It will come because you don't. You are in an interdisciplinary program, so ask interdisciplinary questions. I enjoyed having people from other in my history classes because they were not historians: they helped me think outside of the history box.

I don't mean to sound harsh but do you think AdComms remember your SoPs? You should update them in order to show sensitivity to the changes in your life (in theory you are one year more intellectually mature) and in theirs (if any. Eg: any major changes school/department-wise?). Remember that the fact that one SoP worked a year ago doesn't mean it will work again: AdComms change, the application pool is different, etc. But I would certainly recycle properly. Do you have a similar project? If so, paraphrase it somehow. Also, do you think of mentioning that you applied and were accepted?

@hats I see what you mean, and your response clarifies a lot, thank you for that. Because of the sources for some chronologies/places, we have to adapt our methods. Historians are very flexible about methods, or at least I was trained like this. Given the tight job market, we are more and more creative on how we 'read' sources and how we engage with other disciplines. What I mean to say is that it wouldn't surprise me if an archaeologist has a history professorship. (I have friends in Anthro, Hispanic Studies, Film Studies, and Art History departments, all trained historians). But you are making an excellent question which you should continue to bring up in your seminars/conversations.

My response is always the same: as many as you can afford money-wise and application-materials-wise.

Hello! I wanted to chip in. Begin with three literature reviews and write a summary of the book in your own words. Identify big themes (race, ethnicity, immigration, etc) Jot down the table of contents Skim through notes and index to have an idea of what sources/archives the author uses, who they are engaging with, and what is the main focus in that big theme (e.g.: immigration in the Caribbean because you spotted Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti). Read intro and take notes of main argument and chapters synopsis. Read one chapter (at this point you should have enough information to choose) Read conclusion. I also encourage everyone to have a look (if you haven't already) at Dr. Raul Pacheco's tips for note-taking, reading, identifying theses, etc. This is an excellent resource which I regret discovering only recently.

I agree with you in that 'Pre-Columbian' is a very artificial watershed for us to categorize the history of one whole continent. Although we use it in Latin American History, I concur it is not easily applicable to the territories north of Nueva España. Yet, I couldn't understand how your two questions were connected. Historians that study the Maya civilization are historians. Art historians that study Maya art are art historians. Archaeologists that undertake digs in Yucatán are archaeologists. The discipline is informed by the questions and the methods, not by the object of study (which is a great thing, because it means we can collaborate with scholars of other disciplines). But I think I missed something in your post and suspect I didn't understand correctly. Not necessarily.

I'm also very sorry about this. I hope everything turns out the best way possible. I wanted to throw an idea. I don't know how big your university is, but have you thought of your husband getting a job there? In many cases for some job openings, they look for internal applicants. Maybe if you know some staff they can help you with this. I have a student job but I work with regular staff and because of this I knew of a job opening in Parking & Transportation for a friend who was kicked out of our program with a MA. If you have any close mentor in your program, I'd talk to them under strict confidentiality. They may know of more resources and help you make the right decision at the right time. My two cents.

Focus on the main questions, not the area. I mean, of course you'd want a Americanist, but don't search for someone who does exactly what you do. Search for someone that can help you with your questions.

I'd like to chip in with some extra advice. All sorts of teaching can be educational for TAs. In the worst case scenario, where the professor is actually a messy, unfair, dull cartoon, you can see situations that you would handle differently: the what-not-to-do situations. If this professor is in fact a bad professor (in what ever sense this could be), then you can think of ways in which you would do things differently. Here are a bunch of possible questions you can observe: Are they disorganized? (How would you organize your classes?) Are they unfair? How? (How would you handle the issues more fairly?) Are they boring/disengaging? (How would you engage students?) Do they have a bad presence in the class? (low voice, monotone, hiding behind desk, etc) You can imagine others. Also, the bright side of being a bad professor's TA is that you can meet with them periodically, ask questions about the reasons for ways they handle things, and even make suggestions. (Of course, this depends a lot on other factors. I TAed for my advisor so I was a little confident in making suggestions).

I'm not an expert in your field, clearly, but I wonder if the History of Science is a good path given the Public Health-y perspective you want to get. I know several people that did a 'regular' PhD in History but took courses and exams in the school of Public of Health or Environmental Sciences Dept at their university. I'm sure you have POIs in mind, how do they work? Do they co-teach with people from the departments you are interested in? Have they done any scholarly collaborations? Also, scout the Digital Humanities infrastructure as many scholars of Public Health use digital tools for visualizing data (in case you haven't already, of course). thinking out loud here.

So, I re-read the story yesterday and I had nightmares. I don't know if this happened to you, but as I read I remember thinking "this won't be me, I can trust my advisors". And I dreamed I started crying because everything is too damned overwhelming. I saw myself in a PhD-related desperate situation that I couldn't handle. I saw it, and hence it is possible, and thus it is scary, and thus, nightmare. I wanted to share that with the grad school community because we think sometimes we are alone both in thinking we won't make it or in thinking we actually will. The dream hit me hard because what the author describes (plagiarism, robbery, violation, isolation) can happen to anyone, including me. Including me. It was only yesterday when I read the four posts (the last one wasn't out when I first read it) that this can happen in any other form. Nightmares.

Oh, yeah, I read this elsewhere. Horrific.

I took it in early September because it coincided with a easy-going moment at work. I had to retake it and work-wise and date-wise I could sit for it in mid-November, which was a very narrow window for deadlines.

Absolutely. You are always inadvertently building on your own knowledge, skills, and research, even if themes look apart from each other. In my case, I have incorporated work from undergrad into MA and then into PhD by reading my past paper, pulling a face in disgust, and then improving my past self.

Digital-- Yes. The other day I found an old paper from a class I took in my third year and oh my. OH MY. It was fun.