OHSP

People do change PhD programs, and I don't think your ability to get into a history program would be hampered by the fact that you'd previously started an art history PhD--it would just require explanation (e.g. once I started coursework I realised that to do the work I want to do I need history training [if anything that's flattering to an admissions committee]) BUT also, for now, I would see how you find the art history program that you've already accepted. Pre-grad school June/July regrets and what-ifs are really, really normal and I personally don't think there's much harm in just starting your program and feeling it out--it might be that you're actually allowed to work in a really interdisciplinary way and that you and some other cohort members become a group who are more history/art history than just "art history", if that makes sense. Then once you're in and you've settled, if you're still wondering about changing then it's time to talk to your advisor seriously about whether it's the right program.

NYU-wise Mary Nolan has just retired--if you're interested in global development broadly construed you should think about Sara Pursley and Monica Kim, also Stef Geroulanos.

I'd also add that a lot of people who come in as "US" students work equally in Latin America or African diaspora (or more often "Atlantic worlds")--i.e. fields at NYU are pretty flexible.

Definitely--and, sorry, I didn't mean that to be picky re your advice, I just noticed this 10-15 thing pop up in @DistantMirror's comments and wanted to warn that without having thought specifically about field etc it's pretty much impossible to know what your own personal top 10-15 options should be.

The problem with fixating on "top 10-15" schools is that the supposed ranking of those schools tells you nothing about whether there'll be an appropriate advisor, whether you'll be able to work across disciplines, whether you'll be able to become part of whatever kinds of networks you want to be a part of etc etc etc etc. I got into "top 10-15 schools" but I didn't choose to go to any of them--the school I'm at has had success placing people in the past year but even that is less relevant to me than the fact that I'm actually able to do the kind of not at all traditional, extremely interdisciplinary work that I want to do and that will prepare me to apply for jobs in interdisciplinary departments. Think less about rankings and prestige and more about the kinds of placements grad students at the schools you apply to are getting + about what you're actually interested in in terms of field and approach.

Hey I'm a current phd student at NYU, if you're around the city this summer let me know if you want to get a coffee.

That's good but it's also worth taking seriously the advice of people already at the specific school in your field, especially if you're specifically seeking it out on boards like these. Definitely feel free to get in touch and I can share my experience of being a grad student at NYU in fields somewhat similar to yours.

I’m at NYU and happy to talk—I chose to go there over supposedly better schools and it was the right decision for me. Re women’s/gender history though you’re slightly off re faculty. Nolan and Gordon are both retiring (Nolan this semester and Gordon very soon), and Diner is really not quite working in the areas you’re describing. Perhaps beyond region and topic etc think about the kind of work you want to produce, whether you’re a traditional historian or not etc etc. I’m very much not and that’s why it was a better school for me—

I'm at NYU (but there were some pretty specific reasons that I did not apply to Columbia and I'm happy to talk about those/whether they might be relevant to you--Columbia's department is great but much better in some fields than others).

How strict is your department re the kind of dissertation you can write? I'm in history and have thought seriously this semester about switching to anthro, but after conversations with advisors have realised that I can definitely write the kind of dissertation that I want to write if I stay in the history department--I'll likely have non-historians or very anthro-minded historians on my committee. This is kind of one of the benefits of history though (...although there are some pretty historiany comp lit people right? Marianne Hirsch for one?). What are your advisors saying when you bring this up?

No. When you apply for PhDs it's going to be about your stated interests and your writing sample--no one's going to sit and interrogate the emphasis of Delaware's MA program.

Congrats! But I'd still go Delaware over SMU, thinking long term.

I second the above advice--reach out to potential advisors and see what they say (though note that this is an extremely busy time of the academic year for a lot of profs). I'd be careful about saying you're only interested in UCLA (as in, I wouldn't mention it at this stage--regardless of your circumstances it will make people think you're not genuinely committed to doing "whatever it takes" to try and succeed in academia). But it is definitely worth being upfront about what you've been doing since your MA and why you want to do a PhD in history--what is your MA in? Plenty of people (not the majority but plenty, even so) come to a history PhD from another field, but pretty much all of those people have a good sense of the historical field that they're entering. The language is a huge advantage but do you also know your way around the historiography? I am guessing that you probably do, but it would be something to make pretty obvious straight away, because it's common for people to come to history thinking that it's about "uncovering the past" etc etc, when it's really about engaging in/complicating/messing up whatever contemporary conversations are happening, and it's good to be able to position yourself somewhere inside a conversation, even if tentatively. Good luck!

Congrats! A funded MA in the US is rare and valuable, and a UF PhD--while the cohort and professors might be great, etc--is very likely to make life extremely, extremely difficult on the job market (rather than just extremely difficult). I'd 100% go with Delaware.

To me it sounds like you want to do the MA, and (with a big proviso) I basically think you should go with your gut. But: is the MA funded? Or are you going to have to go into significant amounts of debt to complete the degree? I think the MA is very, very valuable but only provided that it doesn't cost you enormous amounts of money.

It depends on the school and who you are. Business casual would make you look out of place at NYU, so perhaps try to get a sense of what students wear. The ladies comment is strange. The main thing re clothes is to dress in a manner that's usual for you--don't go and buy khakis if you would never wear khakis.

Just dress as you would to go to a grad school class. Jeans are fine, etc--I mean make sure your clothes are clean but don't wear a suit.

Yes. Last year at NYU at least 3 people were admitted on/around 14 April and they had not heard anything from the school until then. Chances are slim, but I'm not just making it up--some schools have internal waiting lists that they don't announce. **Also, now that it's mid-March I think it's completely appropriate to email schools and ask when you might hear back.

It does depend a little though, like if you suddenly get into a much better school because you were on a secret waiting list... people understand. That’s why it’s a good reason to hold off on committing until you’ve heard back from all schools.

Congrats! I'm not a medievalist but have medievalist friends at very good schools and most of them did their MAs/MPhils in Europe--that doesn't mean it's better to study in Europe but in your field in particular, I doubt it would be a disadvantage. I personally think it's really useful to understand how academia works outside of the US and Trinity College is a good school (plenty of people--me, for instance--have been accepted into good US programs with MAs from totally unknown universities. Also why not just take the year or two abroad if you can afford it--to be able to do Celtic studies in Ireland seems enormously useful.

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

I’m at NYU, though don’t know of anyone else in the history department on a Fulbright so don’t know how useful I can be there, but feel free to PM.

It's nice to look at data etc but where you got your MA is far less important than the quality of your writing sample. You don't need to be at a prestigious, well-known school to write a great thesis. If people are wondering where to get their MA, they should be focused on finding schools that 1) will offer at least some funding and 2) will leave you with high quality, preferably publishable writing.

At the moment this really just means maybe (depending on the school) giving you four rather than 3 years to complete your dissertation, it doesn't mean years of coursework devoted to establishing expertise in fields, which is the main difference between the two systems.

The reality is that, everything else aside, US programs do a much better job of preparing you for the US job market. If you’re planning on applying for US TT jobs in 6 or 7 years, Princeton and UPenn are going to leave you better-placed. In the UK you’ll be starting your dissertation pretty much as soon as you enter and that wasn’t appealing to me—there’s something to be said for coursework and exams. The two to three years I have to get my head around various fields and to take classes outside of my field is invaluable.