ManifestMidwest

Try to keep it two or less, ideally size 12, Times New Roman, double-spaced.  The goal here is to be as concise as possible.  Explain briefly what you've done before, where you see it going in Grad School, and why the university you're applying to is the best place to go for that.

Ya I wasn't seriously suggesting that it was more inclusive in the 60s...that was a tongue and cheek way of comparing the rigidity of the old system with the rigidity of the new one. The whole thing kind of reminds me of those civil rights activists from the 60s who were all about free speech until they go into a position of authority after which they realized the need to control the message.

I disagree with the notion that there is a monolithic "modern approach" to history. In fact, it seems that there is a plethora of different approaches that historians can use as they see fit. That wasn't necessarily the case back 50 years ago. A contemporary historian has the advantage of selecting tools and approaches that simply did not exist back then.
 
I also disagree with the belief that history was more inclusive back in the 1960s and 1970s. First, the boundaries of appropriate historical subjects and problems has expanded. We now have less restrictions on what we can research. Historians can now study history of gender or history of "whiteness" while still continuing to work on older traditions like women's history or history of a specific racial group. Secondly, the academy has become more inclusive of non-white, non-male, non-straight historians. It is not perfect. However, it is certainly better than it was back then.
 
At the end of the day, I insist, everything hinges on your ability to market your topic and present how it is relevant to the historiography. I know people who work on diplomatic history, another field that has experienced a decline in importance, who were able to successfully navigate modern trends to develop and sell their projects. 

I do not mean to offend anyone and I'm non of this is intended as ad hominem attacks. That said, it concerns me that you are offended...I don't think it is healthy to be so attached to your work that you are offended by criticism of it...but that's just me! I don't think your study is less worthy than any other. I have no idea what you are studying but I'm sure I would be interested.
 
I still do not see how history is more inclusive. It was inclusive in the 1960s and 70s when the old time historians made way for the new fangled approaches. Now it seems that history is more limited than ever. If your work does not fit into the modern approach you SOL.
 
Any your point about arm-chair historians is interesting. It seems to me that more and more history departments focus on histories that are only interesting to historians and other academics. Maybe it is time we stop focusing on how historians study history and start thinking about how our work is received in our societies. Do we really write only for a small group of academics who appreciate novel methodologies? Does that not represent the 'ivory tower' syndrome that Beard decried in the 1930s?

Welcome aboard to the postmodernist bandwagon.

I'm applying to speech programs and for the applications that didn't specify a limit I wrote a 2 paged single spaced essay for each. I would not write anything too long because I have heard some schools may just skim through essays if they seem drawn out. Especially if they receive hundreds of applications. You could contact the schools and ask how many pages the essays usually are for there program.
If the program doesn't have many details online you could look at their graduate curriculum. That way you could mention something like "I look forward to required courses in pediatric dysphagia after volunteering at a children's hospital" and then describe a relevant experience. Looking at the differences in their curriculum versus other schools you are interested in will show that you've done research on their program and have specific interests in the field.
Just my 2 cents

Try to keep it two or less, ideally size 12, Times New Roman, double-spaced.  The goal here is to be as concise as possible.  Explain briefly what you've done before, where you see it going in Grad School, and why the university you're applying to is the best place to go for that.

It actually is. The motivation behind why someone overindulges and the reasons why certain people have a more thrifty metabolism can of course differ, so there is a component that will affect just how much you can eat to stay at a healthy weight. But it does boil down to thermodynamics in the end. And a lot of those issues impacting the metabolism can a) be treated or mitigated, or only "decrease" the metabolism by, say, 20 - 30%, which I think is still alright as far as being able to eat reasonably normally. In any case, it's clear that Mordekaiser was exaggerating and that people can still eat and lose weight. Brains and other organs still require a certain minimum amount of energy to keep working. So saying people have no control is an excuse. I understand psychological factors might make it hard to do so, but ultimately they can control their weight.

Well, there you go.  Someone has FINALLY stepped up and CURED the obesity problem in the US.  You can just STOP EATING!
 
Seriously though, the misinformation from people on this thread is appalling.  Yes, there is a large percentage of the population who would lose quite a bit of weight if they walked more or ate less.  Unfortunately, there are also those who have absolutely no control due to thyroid issues, stress, genetics, etc.  Obesity is a hot topic so there is A LOT of research out there.  It turns out that weight loss and gain isn't just a matter of eat or don't eat.  So if you wanna yell at the 350 lb guy who's driving down the road with no hands on the wheel because they're both stuffed into a KFC bucket of chicken (true story), feel free.  I have!  But making a blanket statement like that shows your ignorance. 

I think your viewpoint here is a little naive. I don't actually know you but I feel like your statements are showing that you don't understand the nature of addiction. A person can be completely aware of their bad choices, and hate themselves for making them, but at the same time, cannot control their compulsion to do so. A lot of poor nutrition choices can also be linked to poor education and bad habits forming during childhood. 
 
You are right that people with these problems can seek help and do something about it. But the way you are saying it is unnecessarily harsh and would not actually help a person with these issues. And it's totally possible to feel bad for someone who is making bad life choices even if it is their "fault". I have relatives who smoke and it's hurting their health. Do I think "Hah! You deserve to get lung cancer and die because you are an idiot!!!!"? No! Even if they have made bad choices, I still care for them as a fellow human being and (in this case) as part of my family. I wouldn't enable their bad choices and I would still encourage them to think about their health in the future and help them quit if they want to. Having the attitude you express in the posts above would not help them get healthier and really would not do any good at all.

Mordekaiser, I'm interpreting this as you saying that since you think most people are fat because of their own actions, it's a) a character flaw, b ) okay to judge them for it and c) it's OK to cast blanket judgments on the whole group, even though some of them have little to no control over their weight even with medical supervision? So therefore it's okay to stigmatize people who are fat through no fault of their own just because other people might be at "fault"?

Just checking, am I understanding you correctly?

What? Why would I feel bad?

Do you feel bad for people who smoke cigarettes and get cancer? Do you feel bad for people who are alcoholics and get liver failure? Do you feel bad for people who have no self control and eat? Do you feel bad for people too lazy to exercise atleast a few hours per week? 
 
Its their fault for getting fat. And don't kid me about healthy food being expensive. People just refuse to eat healthy food since it "tastes bad", not because they can't afford it. Things liked canned beans, chicken breast, large bags of frozen vegetables, etc. are really cheap if you buy in bulk. I am not being harsh - just realistic. If you feel bad for people who are fat because they are too lazy to change, might as well feel bad for people who are smoking and have health problems.

Dude that is like a small percentage of people.
The number of people who are fat because of them selves is much higher. Fat people can't blame anyone else - they need to take responsibility. When they become so big they can't fit in a seat or walk a couple miles, they need to re-evaluate their life. I dont even understand how people get so fat without feeling ashamed or looking at their health.
 
People like your wife makeup a small portion, and I bet her being fat can still be controlled. There is something called Thermodynamics. She won't be randomly becoming fat if she isn't eating anything.

I'll buy you a Dr. Phil shirt to sport with your fancy mangina.

If you can only walk 20-30 paces in between breaks, you need to get your health on track. Picking a grad school shouldn't be your top priority.

Or you could uh... you know, try to lose weight? I don't know your situation at all and don't mean to be judgmental... but if you have to rest after every 20-30 paces you are definitely not getting the exercise you need and should be more concerned about becoming healthier than finding a campus that have seats with no armrests.
 
Edit: oh and to answer your original question...stay away from Colorado I guess. Lots of active health nuts here.