OHSP

...plenty of people successfully admitted to PhD programs in the past few years are not working on the "popular themes" that you've listed. I'd really get yourself away from thinking that people are getting in over you because their work is "trendy". Often it's less a matter of "topic" (I don't know of anyone who talks about the topic they're working on, really), and more a matter of research questions -- how are you presenting the questions that are guiding your research? Do the questions sound urgent, relevant, feasible, worth pursuing etc, and do they show that you're thinking about how to intervene in historiographical debates, methods etc etc. Instead of blaming the "trends" you're identifying, think about how you can re-frame your project (beyond the transnational thing) by explaining where it fits and who you're speaking to.
On the same note, the SoP is very, very important--more important than having publications or a completed thesis or some random fellowship that your POI's never heard of etc. I'd go so far as to say that without a strong SoP you can't guarantee that admissions committees are going to do more than skim the rest of your application (at two schools I was admitted to it was obvious that my POIs had not read my writing sample, beyond maybe the first page--this is just a practical reality. They have very little time, they're not actually reading every 25 page paper closely). So the SoP is where you frame your project and "stand out" from the hundreds of other applicants. I used to think the advice on this forum was harshly phrased--it's kind of necessarily so. Without tough advice you won't make the serious changes required to get into a program, so my advice is to find a professor (assistant profs are often closer to the process/remember their own SoP) who can give you that brutal advice in real life--it was the most helpful thing I did when applying. 

A lot can be said for the collegiality of the dept. Last year, I was choosing between two top 10 programs, but one was slightly higher ranked. On the visit day for the better program, I saw that students hated each other, the professors, and the administration. 3 students said that they were transferring out to other programs because of the lack of support from their advisors. That was a HUGE red flag to me. 6th and 7th year funding also seemed to be incredibly contentious and competitive. I couldn't see myself being happy there for next 5-8 years. 
When I visited the program that I am now attending (the slightly lower ranked one) the students and faculty both stressed how much collegiality there was in the department. Now that I'm here, I can absolutely attest to that. Obviously, more went into my decision than just whether people were happy, but at the end of the day, with all other things being relatively equal, it's ok to choose the place where you'd be happy and where others seem happy.
There is something to be said about choosing a program where you would be happy, especially because this is a process which will consume your life for the next 5-8+ years. The job market is terrible for all of us, so in some instances, choose the place where you would be the happiest and most supported because that is the place where you are going to get the best work done. If you're going to be miserable at X school, you'll be more likely to drop out and your work will likely suffer. 

Great news! I just got the notification that I received a full tuition scholarship from Villanova! 

Sorry--wasn't meant as a personal dig. Every time I apply for anything I spend months on the verge of sending a stream of emails all to the effect of, "ACTUALLY DON'T WORRY GUYS I'LL TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR". 

The two most important questions are:
1) What options are available to fund research travel? 
2) What sorts of funding are available for my sixth and seventh years? 
ANY hesitation on the part of faculty in response to these questions - if they don't know, if they say such monies aren't necessary, if they defer you to grad students - is to be taken not so much as a red flag but rather a full on May Day parade.
 
Much harder to negotiate are the questions you can't just ask but still need answered: How supported do the graduate students feel in both academics and teaching? Do faculty treat them like members of the department or as if they were their paterfamilias? Are departmental politics collegial or a knife fight? Do graduate students get dragged into them? 

Sorry--wasn't meant as a personal dig. Every time I apply for anything I spend months on the verge of sending a stream of emails all to the effect of, "ACTUALLY DON'T WORRY GUYS I'LL TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR". 

Sorry--wasn't meant as a personal dig. Every time I apply for anything I spend months on the verge of sending a stream of emails all to the effect of, "ACTUALLY DON'T WORRY GUYS I'LL TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR". 

For the record, I was not being arrogant. Since I have already accepted an offer from another program and many universities have a literal "withdraw application" button on their portals, one might understand the well-intentioned nature of inquiring about taking my name out of the hat. 

Hi, bitter grad student here to implore you to ask about sixth-year funding on your visiting weekends. Don’t accept vague reassurances along the lines of “well, sixth-year students often find their way to getting funding somehow.” Get a clear answer. Talk to advanced grad students and read the student newspaper/union newsletter if you have to. And treat periods of “austerity” at universities with the utmost seriousness.

For some reason, this was really funny, especially the second sentence.
 

Nope. Said as someone who turned down a “highly ranked” offer for one of these “15-20” schools. How important is it for you to be at a top 1-5 school (just going to call them “prestige schools” from here on in, because that’s what they are), and why is that so important? Like yes something about the job market but the job market is truly terrible for everyone, HYP type schools don’t place all of their students. You have to choose the best program for your work, not the most prestigious school for your resume, because chances are wherever you go it’s going to be tough to get a job, and you’ll have a better chance of ending up with good options later on if you choose the program that’s best for you specifically and not notionally best for producing historians in general. The PhD program that’s admitted you obviously thinks you’re a good fit for them so talk to them. You might find your POI there can tell you more about your prospects than any of us. 
 
**also: do not take on debt for a masters degree (or a PhD). 

...plenty of people successfully admitted to PhD programs in the past few years are not working on the "popular themes" that you've listed. I'd really get yourself away from thinking that people are getting in over you because their work is "trendy". Often it's less a matter of "topic" (I don't know of anyone who talks about the topic they're working on, really), and more a matter of research questions -- how are you presenting the questions that are guiding your research? Do the questions sound urgent, relevant, feasible, worth pursuing etc, and do they show that you're thinking about how to intervene in historiographical debates, methods etc etc. Instead of blaming the "trends" you're identifying, think about how you can re-frame your project (beyond the transnational thing) by explaining where it fits and who you're speaking to.
On the same note, the SoP is very, very important--more important than having publications or a completed thesis or some random fellowship that your POI's never heard of etc. I'd go so far as to say that without a strong SoP you can't guarantee that admissions committees are going to do more than skim the rest of your application (at two schools I was admitted to it was obvious that my POIs had not read my writing sample, beyond maybe the first page--this is just a practical reality. They have very little time, they're not actually reading every 25 page paper closely). So the SoP is where you frame your project and "stand out" from the hundreds of other applicants. I used to think the advice on this forum was harshly phrased--it's kind of necessarily so. Without tough advice you won't make the serious changes required to get into a program, so my advice is to find a professor (assistant profs are often closer to the process/remember their own SoP) who can give you that brutal advice in real life--it was the most helpful thing I did when applying. 

This advice only applies once you've been admitted. At this stage in the month I wouldn't be pre-emptively declining offers from schools that you haven't heard from at all. 

I would just leave it. I'm pretty sure they've made decisions/finished meeting, so you're not reducing the decision-making workload. Possibly a few people are yet to be notified (though I doubt it at this point), and if you're amongst them it's probably just going to irritate your POI if you pre-emptively turn down the offer after they've spent time making decisions. If you receive an offer, turn it down then. Otherwise you're just sending unnecessary emails (a big academic sin). 

Nope. Said as someone who turned down a “highly ranked” offer for one of these “15-20” schools. How important is it for you to be at a top 1-5 school (just going to call them “prestige schools” from here on in, because that’s what they are), and why is that so important? Like yes something about the job market but the job market is truly terrible for everyone, HYP type schools don’t place all of their students. You have to choose the best program for your work, not the most prestigious school for your resume, because chances are wherever you go it’s going to be tough to get a job, and you’ll have a better chance of ending up with good options later on if you choose the program that’s best for you specifically and not notionally best for producing historians in general. The PhD program that’s admitted you obviously thinks you’re a good fit for them so talk to them. You might find your POI there can tell you more about your prospects than any of us. 
 
**also: do not take on debt for a masters degree (or a PhD). 

I meant to post this earlier, but I got the notification while on my way to see Hamilton.... I got my second acceptance! I was accepted into the MA to PhD program in American history at SLU. I emailed the program director to see if a switch into the early modern history program was possible and will probably ask my current faculty mentor (who does some very interesting work) about possibly working with me for a masters. 
I honestly didn't expect to have to weigh two options, but I'm so glad I have to! 

I’m not talking about topic, I’m talking about phrasing. You can make anything sound urgent and relevant. If everyone getting in were studying these “popular” topics our work would all be very similar—that has not been my experience in grad school. “Nationalistic movement of an imperial subject people” is strange phrasing, so I’m betting it’s probably more about how you’re framing your project than it is about your topic (especially because this actually sounds like a “trendy” topic). Good luck with future applications, application cycles are brutal and rejections are frustrating, but there’s a lot of good advice going around on this forum.

Could you provide the link that @telkanuru has referenced?

It literally could just be that you haven't been notified. Not trying to false hope anyone but it's really not over until it's officially over. 

It literally could just be that you haven't been notified. Not trying to false hope anyone but it's really not over until it's officially over. 

...plenty of people successfully admitted to PhD programs in the past few years are not working on the "popular themes" that you've listed. I'd really get yourself away from thinking that people are getting in over you because their work is "trendy". Often it's less a matter of "topic" (I don't know of anyone who talks about the topic they're working on, really), and more a matter of research questions -- how are you presenting the questions that are guiding your research? Do the questions sound urgent, relevant, feasible, worth pursuing etc, and do they show that you're thinking about how to intervene in historiographical debates, methods etc etc. Instead of blaming the "trends" you're identifying, think about how you can re-frame your project (beyond the transnational thing) by explaining where it fits and who you're speaking to.
On the same note, the SoP is very, very important--more important than having publications or a completed thesis or some random fellowship that your POI's never heard of etc. I'd go so far as to say that without a strong SoP you can't guarantee that admissions committees are going to do more than skim the rest of your application (at two schools I was admitted to it was obvious that my POIs had not read my writing sample, beyond maybe the first page--this is just a practical reality. They have very little time, they're not actually reading every 25 page paper closely). So the SoP is where you frame your project and "stand out" from the hundreds of other applicants. I used to think the advice on this forum was harshly phrased--it's kind of necessarily so. Without tough advice you won't make the serious changes required to get into a program, so my advice is to find a professor (assistant profs are often closer to the process/remember their own SoP) who can give you that brutal advice in real life--it was the most helpful thing I did when applying. 

It literally could just be that you haven't been notified. Not trying to false hope anyone but it's really not over until it's officially over. 

It literally could just be that you haven't been notified. Not trying to false hope anyone but it's really not over until it's officially over. 

It literally could just be that you haven't been notified. Not trying to false hope anyone but it's really not over until it's officially over. 

...plenty of people successfully admitted to PhD programs in the past few years are not working on the "popular themes" that you've listed. I'd really get yourself away from thinking that people are getting in over you because their work is "trendy". Often it's less a matter of "topic" (I don't know of anyone who talks about the topic they're working on, really), and more a matter of research questions -- how are you presenting the questions that are guiding your research? Do the questions sound urgent, relevant, feasible, worth pursuing etc, and do they show that you're thinking about how to intervene in historiographical debates, methods etc etc. Instead of blaming the "trends" you're identifying, think about how you can re-frame your project (beyond the transnational thing) by explaining where it fits and who you're speaking to.
On the same note, the SoP is very, very important--more important than having publications or a completed thesis or some random fellowship that your POI's never heard of etc. I'd go so far as to say that without a strong SoP you can't guarantee that admissions committees are going to do more than skim the rest of your application (at two schools I was admitted to it was obvious that my POIs had not read my writing sample, beyond maybe the first page--this is just a practical reality. They have very little time, they're not actually reading every 25 page paper closely). So the SoP is where you frame your project and "stand out" from the hundreds of other applicants. I used to think the advice on this forum was harshly phrased--it's kind of necessarily so. Without tough advice you won't make the serious changes required to get into a program, so my advice is to find a professor (assistant profs are often closer to the process/remember their own SoP) who can give you that brutal advice in real life--it was the most helpful thing I did when applying.