MastigosAtLarge

You CANNOT talk about World War I and not consider the spectre of global communism revolution. Europe was on fire and the Left was a scary possibility to Europe's capitalist elite and their politicians. See, in particular: Ireland, Russia, labour unrest in the UK, and Germany.
 
The concomitant rise of communism and its watered down forms in conjunction with capitalist-nationalism is a narrative that need be told to offer non-teleological alternatives to the carnage, exploitation, and death wrought by imperial-capitalist competition.

I just wanted to echo this recommendation. Joll and Martell have an excellent overview of the causes of the First World War. It is concise and extremely informative approach to the European alliance system, domestic political conditions, and European economic policies. It did incorporate some coverage of non-European elements, I thought the discussion of the influence of the 1904 Russo-Japanese War was especially fruitful. 

OP did ask for a historiography. Tuchman's book is a must for not only the assumed causes of WWI up to the 1960s, but how Americans thought about WWI--which is practically a forgotten war in our society. If historians get touchy about the book, they are looking at it from a narrow perspective. 
I'm a cultural historian, so my points of emphasis would be nationalism, imperialism, and race both before, during, and after the war. And I'm siding with Du Bois's thesis that WWI began in and because of Africa. ^^

Paul Fussell's The Great War and Modern Memory is a classic, and one which has been a major influence on how I write history.

Most of my undergrads were split between Germany and Austria when asked to place the blame for starting WWI after a well-done, well-balanced lecture by the professor.  Two put out brilliant arguments for Britain, namely Britain's claim to imperialism   I don't think a single person blamed France.
But the book lists above by other posters are good.  WWI is so large that you need to figure out the precise question you want to ask and discuss in the podcast.

If you're going to use Sleepwalkers, be aware of the fact that he likes to victim-blame the Serbs.
I took a seminar on WWI.  I'm going to post what I thought were the best books we read in that class:
James Joll, and Gordon Martel, The Origins of the First World War
Jay Winter and Antoine Prost, The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies 1914 to the Present
Norman Stone, The Eastern Front, 1914-1917
Tammy M. Proctor, Civilians in a World at War, 1914-1918 
Susan R. Grayzel, Women's Identities at War: Gender, Motherhood, and Politics in Britain and France during the First World War
Both All Quiet on the Western Front and Storm of Steel were great in terms of cultural history.
J. M. Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History
I'm also going  to attach the syllabus for that class, in case it would be useful.  Our professor studied at Harvard, and was in the habit of posting books each week that we HAD to read, and like ten others each week that we could read for additional context, so there's an entire host of other books here that you might like, but I can't comment because I didn't read all of the ones he labeled "suggested".  He recommended that we read the required one and then two or three "suggested" books a week.

(And speaking of Pity of War, you'll see that our professor did make us read it.  Oh, god.  I do not believe there was one person in the class who thought he should include it for the next class.  His economic sections are enlightening, but beyond that, it reminds me of when news channels insist on having two sides to every story, when some stories have six sides and some stories only have one.  Check it out before you assign it, definitely.  His overall claim is that Britain should have let Germany take over Europe, because they only wanted to be a colonial power too, and they would have had "their time in the sun" is I believe his line, stopped at France, and then Ferguson claims Europe might have seen something like the EU much earlier. Again, I'm not telling you not to assign it.  But my thought was that it was contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and to draw attention, and honestly, I can't think of one person in the class who did not tell our professor that he should take it off the syllabus for next time.)
 
Hist500WWIsyllabus.docx

Yeah-- as I recall, Ferguson's best stuff was looking at casualties and interest rates.  His political judgments were based on the very ahistorical problem of being unable to see a real difference between Ludendorff and Angela Merkel.  

In the strongest possible terms, I respectfully urge new/newer graduate students in history not to make assumptions about one's advisers also being one's mentors.
Professors decide if they will mentor students based upon criteria known only to themselves. A handful of professors will be generous with their guidance. Some professors are much more selective than their peers. Some do no mentoring at all. A few scoundrels will sandbag you in ways you won't realize until you figure out things for yourself. #notbitter

Did you not email with your potential advisor after you were admitted but before you committed to attending? If you did, I might let it stand. Or have you registered for courses? "Dear Professor So-and-so, [introductory stuff], I was thinking of taking Courses A and B, but for my third/fourth course [depending on what's normal at your program], I was choosing between C and D. The pros of C would be xyz; the pros of D would be mnp. What do you think?" is also a good, actionable reason to write. (Perhaps I am a lazy beans, but I am not doing reading ahead of time for any of my own courses.) If you haven't corresponded ever, I would send the email, personally.

Hi! I'm student and and they assigned me a project about the hippie movement .
I already have it made 70% but I lack the political reaction and the Church against this movement 
There is one who knows about it? 
Thanks very much 

Are you seriously asking us to do your homework? 

I was just at campus two weeks ago, I guess you're the PhD student he mentioned was starting!  It's you, me, and two other PhD students!  Small group of us.

If you're interested in the "socio-historical context of architecture" you should really consider an art history program. You will probably only have to take one semester/quarter of methodology course work, and if you're at one of the serious architecture programs (like Harvard or MIT) you can take your exams on architectural topics. I'm very familiar with the field, and I'm not sure that someone from one of the programs you've named would be competitive against a Harvard or MIT history of architecture PhD. The people hiring architectural historians are primarily art history departments and architecture and design schools. They like Art History PhDs. 

Sweet! Similarly I am interested in the 17-18th centuries anglo-world and will be working with Owen Stanwood as well! I am more interested in a transatlantic look at the Irish during this era but am very much interested in colonial/revolutionary America as well. Cool

FWIW, I think your areas fit very well together. Do you see your research interests being similar to those of Meredith Roman at SUNY Brockport?

I should have put (African) Americanist! I'm concerned with the presence of AAs in Europe during WW1 (maybe 2) and how that influenced their responses to the Cold War. Plus, AAs and communism, and racism and US foreign policy. But the advice about the types of primary sources I might use is a great point.
 
Thanks!

Dear all, 
I must admit that I was a bit annoyed when I initially read responses in this thread. This was because I was hoping you'd all just say, "long is fine as long as it is good." 
Fortunately for me, you all did not let me proceed in my folly. You guys really saved my goose. Judging by the consensus on this forum, I think I would have been royally screwed if I had submitted what I had planned to submit.
Anyways, it took me two days--at least 7 hours on each day--to get the essay down to the page limit. And I really hate to admit it, but it's a much better piece now.
So, thank you.
P.S. Thank you also for the specific recommendation about copying and pasting into a new document. I actually did that three times. So, it took me three passes to get it down. But, the process allowed me tighten the argument and improve the flow. I'm REALLY pleased with the end result. Thank you!!
Yours, 
Contrite.

Go to Cornell and give me the fully funded Cambridge offer. 
(Just kidding. Congrats on both offers.)

This is your life. You should do what you think is right for you. Don't commit to attending a 5-year PhD program in the US, and presumably therefore a different career path, if you would rather be in the UK, just because the timing worked out a certain way. The only thing I would advise is to be very sure, and to do it quickly, if you are going to tell Cornell you've changed your mind. If you are professional and respectful, hopefully this should not burn any bridges for you. 

Me too! Whatcha study? 

Attending Boston College =D

Attending Boston College =D

Attending Boston College =D

I declined UMD--College Park for MA.  The professors were perfect for me, but I was worried about the size of the program and the fact that they said I had basically no chance of getting any funding.  Boston College, where I accepted, gives TAs tuition remission and a yearly stipend, and the program is really small (they accept ~6 every year), so those who want to TA have the chance.

Attending Boston College =D