OHSP

I agree with what others have said but also would advise you to get rid of the notion of reach and safety schools—NYU is not a “back up” if you don’t get into the others (said as someone who chose a “lower ranked” school over UPenn). If you’re assuming that NYU and BU (not in the same category) will be easier to get into because they’re not ivies then you don’t have the best sense of how graduate programs operate.

It's also quite likely to be the case that faculty members don't really know or care about this language funding (sad realities of grad school). It's better to focus on academic fit--why are the questions you're asking a good match for x professor etc.

History of architecture type work often takes place in art history departments. Really I can't stress how different history and art history departments are--it would be better to ask these questions of people who know about the art history field. It would also help to do some basic research into schools rather than asking people to identify "top schools" for you--unlike in undergrad the "top school" for your own research is very dependent on your subfield and approach.

Someone else posted about this recently and the collective advice was that, other than the word "history", art history and history PhD programs have very little in common--said as someone in a history phd program whose partner has an art history phd and is an art history lecturer.

You don't need anyone to tell you that this is a positive response--the kind that's likely to freak out any lurkers on this forum [dear lurkers, my current advisors didn't respond to my pre-application emails at all--I applied anyway and they are both really supportive and great]. I had basically this same response from two professors at ivy leagues--I got into one of the schools and was not admitted at the other but am still in touch with the POI. The POI at the latter sent me a long email after the decision explaining that it was a numbers thing, which I appreciated--but know that this can happen to you too.

@TMP I almost didn't apply because I didn't want to live in NYC, and when I got in I wrote it off entirely--the visit weekend totally changed my mind but until then I was like NOPE. And living in the city can be hard, so, I wasn't totally wrong to be wary.

I can only speak for nyu but it’s definitely the case that the admissions committee (and esp. the current dgs) is more concerned w quality of ideas and questions than with details about the archives you might go to etc etc. I wouldn’t waste a single moment explaining why it’ll be great for your research to be in nyc, that’s really a pretty minor detail about the department. If you’re interdisciplinary, stress it. Same goes for working across regions or diasporas. I know all adcoms deal with a bunch of applications some of which are immediately recognizable as a poor fit for the school, but just know and keep in mind that schools like CUNY, Columbia, and NYU receive quite a few applications from people who “would just find it interesting to live in nyc” [this is a complaint I have heard from a professor]. Show that you know the school and it’s strengths. **note that this is obviously not directed at TMP but following on from their suggestion

What Columbia charges students for accomodation versus what grad students in the city tend to pay for rent, especially after their first year = not the same thing. Trust me also that the topic of money, stipends, rent etc etc is pretty relevant to question of whether a phd is worth it. It's a matter of how you're going to live for the next 5-7 years.

When I was accepted to upenn someone mentioned this program and suggested it's more about working for a year in another university's lab (so not that relevant to history). I've found that I don't need any official exchange program to work with faculty at other schools. The consortium (https://gsas.nyu.edu/content/nyu-as/gsas/academics/inter-university-doctoral-consortium.html) is useful but I've also had students from non-consortium schools in my classes and I'm taking a class at a non-consortium school because IRL if you have a decent relationship with a professor at your school who's friends with a professor you want to know elsewhere, they can help you to make that connection. Short story: I wouldn't spend much energy thinking about this.

Is true--but I don't know of any friends paying more than $800 or $900 rent as grad students (because how to eat?). I share a studio with my partner so am lucky. Anyone paying $2000 for a room in nyc and going to grad school has either done a very impressive job of saving $$ pre-grad school and is now willing to spend it or.... the alternative.

Amazing. I've discovered that some fellow students live in apartments that are $2000 a month just for their room (I pay $700 a month), and had people become very confused about the fact that I can't afford to go home (to the other side of the globe) more than once every 2 years or so/that my parents (a farmworker and a hospital orderly) can't just buy me tickets. Coming from a country where college is far more accessible, at least financially, I've found the US culture pretty astounding. But there are benefits to having to work over the summer etc.

I second this. After my first year a bunch of the cohort seemed to be able to finance round-the-world trips and then I realized that they'd just spent 9 months living rent free courtesy of Family Cash. I make up for it by applying for fellowships while I scroll through their "beach life" instagram accounts (only kind of joking). I would also add that one thing I've seen get to people is the culture of academia--you can ❤️ research and teaching etc but that's only part of this place, and at my school the "I Love History!" folk don't really cope that well. If you're reading these boards I'd be very attentive to the advice you get from anyone attending the schools you're applying to--if someone says "I'm not sure that person really takes students" or "this school isn't strong in your area" then pay attention. It doesn't matter that you received a friendly email from a faculty member, they don't always know what's up in the department as a whole--current grad students are the most reliable source of accurate information.

This seems like an almost random list of schools to me--can you speak to your interests beyond time period?

Cool, the thing that you really need to do then is talk to professors, start to get your head around what history means in academic terms—this means deep diving into historiography, and perhaps start looking into MA programs.

I don't think many academic historians would be excited to discover that Alexander the Great was "really x"--that's not what we do. History's not so much about "discovering facts" or even coming up with theories that explain the past. The paragraph you wrote is quite non-specific, so that's something to work on. What do you mean by "more specialized areas of history"? In any history department 99% of people are very specialized. Also the "...or just my take on the subject" part is worrying to me--history is largely about working very closely with primary sources, and thinking about how changing the contexts in which we read evidence might complicate prevailing historical narratives. We're not just writing down our various takes on various topics. But really you also need to have a sense of which historical narratives you take issue with and why--I'd strongly recommend talking to some historians who work in academia.

Hi! I am in a history PhD program and also went to law school, so I have a bit of insight--though I also did my BA in history. My first piece of advice would be to talk to historians and current history grad students about your interests--sometimes people who are passionate about history find that academic history is different/not at all what they imagined it would be. What attracts you to this discipline exactly, and could you do the kind of work you want to do by going down an academic legal path? Legal articles are good but they're very, very different to history journal articles and the latter will weigh far more when you're applying to history programs. I don't want to say that articles are "better" than teaching but they speak to your ability to do academic research/to go through the process of peer-review etc, and that can be more relevant than teaching experience to the question of whether you're going to be a successful doctoral candidate. Admissions committees do care about this stuff--given that you don't have an academic history background, they'll need to see evidence that you know what it means to be an academic historian and that you've taken some steps towards working towards that career, even if that just means doing some independent research. In your position I'd strongly recommend an MA program, especially if you can find one that's funded. Aside from giving you the opportunity to create a solid writing sample, publish journal articles, and get to know your field, an MA will give you a sense of whether academic history is actually for you.

This is a good start but I'm not sure I come away with any sense of what you're really, really interested in, in terms of questions. Don't worry about claiming to have any answers yet, instead show readers that you can formulate a historical question.

I understand wanting to run things by people, but (speaking as someone whose partner is a practicing artist and a senior lecturer in art history, and as someone who has worked with a lot of art historians outside of my own PhD) art history and history have very little in common as disciplinary fields and I don't know how useful anyone here can really be. Your work sounds interesting and it sounds like you have a sense of who you might like to work with, so I would start emailing those people and getting a sense of whether you might be a good fit for their programs.

At my school—no service required/teaching is paid separately on top of stipend—people with fellowships to do research abroad usually put a portion of their stipend in reserve to be used later (to fund a 6th or 7th year or supplement summer funding etc). It’s different at every school though—service isn’t required here, across GSAS (at NYU) because of some difficult to explain NYU-specific history.

By "hook" all I mean is: an interesting academic question. Not a quote, an inspirational moment, or anything like that (I'm not American so I'm not familiar with college essays). This "hook" thing is literally just something to demonstrate that you can formulate interesting (and specific!) academic questions that go a few steps beyond "I want to explore the intersections of x and y", so that you're somewhere more like "[field] historians have been so focused on x that they haven't paid enough attention to y, I want to focus in on y because it opens up these 2 new questions" etc. You'll stand out if you can ask questions that stick with your reader.

Try for a research-focused hook, as you'll do when you write applications for grant money, etc.

Also @historygeek I think I mentioned a while ago that Nolan has retired, so I'd take her name out of the NYU one (trust me, she is not taking on new students, she has cleared out her office, I have some of her old books, etc). Gordon is not taking new students and is about to retire at any minute. Sugrue doesn't make that much sense to me, but Michele Mitchell does. It might be worth getting a better sense of the faculty. First paragraph-wise try to avoid very broad statements like, "I want to reframe immigrant narratives from a cultural perspective while juxtaposing it within a broader social context." That's very non-specific. See if you can use the first paragraph to show the adcom that you have a burning (very specific, interesting) question (because that shows them that you know how to formulate a question).

I would add NYU. The 19th c faculty is strong

I should have combined my responses to your questions but oh well... my main advisor is an assistant prof, she's great and her approach to scholarship is very much like mine/I'm super, super glad that she's around. She's also extremely busy and going up for tenure soon, which requires me to be pretty understanding when she can't meet/I don't always have the same access to her as friends have to their tenured full professor advisors. BUT, while all of that was initially kind of scary it's forced me to develop a close relationship with other professors early on, and to fill my committee with people whose work I really respect and who, because they're tenured, have more time and experience. Ie I don't think it's a problem to have an assistant prof as your main advisor so long as you can also imagine working with faculty who are tenured--and being willing to work with assistant profs can be necessary/important in emerging fields.

I had positive responses from most POIs but one was particularly positive--she sent me a long email explaining why she thought that she would be a great advisor even though she had officially stopped taking students etc, and I did get into that school (UPenn), but when I visited I couldn't really see a place for myself in the context of the program as a whole, even though I am certain she would have made a good advisor. Which is all to say... super-positive feedback from a POI isn't a bad sign and I strongly encourage reaching out before you apply, but even if you manage to get into a school partly because of your relationship with a POI, that might not make the school the best fit for you.