OHSP

My quantitative scores were terrible, I got into one ivy and four other good schools--at one school visit a younger assistant professor was like "hah your quantitative scores were pretty bad but not as bad as mine", so that's how much they mattered (Telkanuru is right about the funding thing for some state schools though)  

My quantitative scores were terrible, I got into one ivy and four other good schools--at one school visit a younger assistant professor was like "hah your quantitative scores were pretty bad but not as bad as mine", so that's how much they mattered (Telkanuru is right about the funding thing for some state schools though)  

My quantitative scores were terrible, I got into one ivy and four other good schools--at one school visit a younger assistant professor was like "hah your quantitative scores were pretty bad but not as bad as mine", so that's how much they mattered (Telkanuru is right about the funding thing for some state schools though)  

My quantitative scores were terrible, I got into one ivy and four other good schools--at one school visit a younger assistant professor was like "hah your quantitative scores were pretty bad but not as bad as mine", so that's how much they mattered (Telkanuru is right about the funding thing for some state schools though)  

Note that certain programs, particularly state schools, look at GREs for university-level funding packages, which are often significantly better than department funding. There are still reasons to stress over your quant score.

I've been TAing for 3 years in Australia, where maybe 1 or 2 students (out of 45) will consistently do the readings. I know this seems like babying, but I would often copy a pertinent paragraph, have some questions relating to the paragraph, and then get them to split into groups to discuss the questions. Then I'd bring it back for a group discussion. I'd go to every group during the group discussion time to talk to them about their thoughts, what they found difficult/interesting about the paragraph etc etc. I really like teaching and I think the secret is to not think of them as "kids" and also to be a little bit understanding about the fact that they have other stuff going on in their lives/your 50 minute class is a tiny part of their week, so it's a matter of how you can make that 50 minutes worthwhile. I also like splitting them up into small groups, making them come up with questions for the rest of the big group, and then getting them to pose those questions to each other i.e. to direct the class. You'll work out your own style though, everyone's different. 

**Also, what gsc says about the readings is true -- I just taught for a class where one of my tutorial groups (sections) had 6 people and everyone did the readings every week, because I was very much like "with such a small group this is not going to work unless we have something to talk about so we all need to be able to talk about the readings."

1) you've got to get comfortable with silence. at a certain point the students will speak up because they find the silence awkward, even if they don't have very much to say; other students have plenty to say but they need time to formulate their thoughts first. when you pose a question to the students, count backwards from 10/15/30 in your head, depending on how much time you think they need. usually someone will say something before you hit zero. a lot of folks get nervous and just start blabbing to fill the time, or they answer their own discussion questions before the students have a chance to try them out. 
2) you also can't control whether or not students do the reading. if you get to class and discover that no one's done the reading, honestly there's nothing wrong with just giving them 15 minutes to do the reading right then — I'm pretty up front with my students, like, "if you didn't do the reading, tell me so we can do it now, and have a shorter but more valuable discussion," etc. I'd just give them the 15 minutes of reading time over shuffling through some zombie-fied discussion over a text no one read.
but the main reason why students don't do the reading is that they are busy and pressed for time, and if they think they can get away without doing the reading, then they won't. they have a million demands on their time, and they're going to prioritize what has to get done to get by. so while you can't control what the students do in their spare time, what you can do is make doing the reading a worthwhile exercise. I don't like graded pop quizzes because they seem rather punitive, but I do sometimes ask students to jot down their thoughts at the beginning of class, or come to class with a discussion question prepared. you can then have them turn it in for a check/check plus/check minus grade, where the students can feel like their contributions are being noted but they're not being punished, either. again I like to be up front: our discussions will be less painful and more valuable to you if you at least make an attempt at the reading. my personal ninja trick is to very obviously take attendance and take notes during discussion — makes the students feel like I'm noticing their contributions and "counting" their participation, even though I never calculate participation grades by tallying up "well, you spoke up 2 times on Monday and 3 times on Tuesday." 
3) students will hassle you about grades. this is a known fact. where we usually grade starting at 0 and assign points upwards, students look at their grades as starting at 100 and losing points downwards. you give a student an 85 because you think it's a B paper; the student thinks that they lost 15 points and what they will want you to do is account for every single one. they'll do this on dumb assignments, too. I had a student send me 4 paragraphs of vitriol because he got an 8/10 on a reading response paper. don't get pulled into this. do NOT let them put you on the defensive. they'll try to corner you after class; firmly re-direct them to office hours. they'll ask stuff like "but why did I lose 10 points for this"; turn the question around and ask them why they think they could have lost 10 points or what they could have included. if you look at the grade and think that you maybe made a mistake in grading and they deserve more points (it happens) NEVER change the grade on the spot. tell them that you'll consider it and consult with the professor in charge. depending on the professor you may actually want to consult with the professor in charge! the first professor I TA'ed for gave me this advice, and it's exactly right. 

I absolutely agree with this. I just passed my quals, but three people in my cohort are dropping out (two decided in the last two months not to take the exam, while the third took it but already wanted to leave before he took it). The one thing that these three people have in common is a strong disconnect with other members of the grad student community. They never attended colloquia or stuck around for wine and cheese afterwards, didn't attend meetings of the History Grad Association, and didn't talk to other students about the pitfalls of choosing your orals committee, taking classes in x outside department with x professor (who other grad students know). Two of them had very strong social lives outside of grad school, and the third isolated himself and really developed no connections in the city at all. 
As a result, all three of these folks missed out on very useful information, or struggled needlessly to plan or prepare things that would have been much easier if they had been in the loop. Although your major professor knows many things, other grad students are often very valuable sources of information when it comes to navigating university bureaucracy, meeting deadlines for things like funding applications and teaching certifications, and telling you about how to navigate setting up committees or informing you where to go for more information. If you don't take the initiative to get to know people in the first year, you could find yourself shut out of a valuable network (especially involving graduate students in years above you who know the system and are often happy to give new hands advice). I have no doubt that in the case of these three who departed, feelings of confusion and isolation contributed directly to their dissatisfaction and fear about taking their qualifying exams, ultimately persuading them that the Ph.D. was not a happy place for them. I'm not saying the result was inevitable, but their lack of support and connections with other graduate students definitely contributed. Just as professors collaborate and dialogue with each other on a regular basis to make their work easier, Ph.D. students have a better time of it when they network with each other and collectively support each other professionally and academically. 

As a 26 year old married to a 37 year old, I'd probably say you could be a bit more open-minded. Not all 20 somethings are straight out of college. You might find it difficult to connect to someone whose life thus far has included going to high school and then straight into the US college system (which, to an Australian who spent a semester at a US college in 2010, seems very much like a continuation of high school). But that's not going to be every single person in your cohort. I guess these are the types of things you can't really know until you're there.

I really resent the implication by a lot of posters in this thread that "younger" grad students are some how less serious about their coursework and research, obsessed with "bar hopping" or clueless as to how the real world works. My department has a cohort of 10-15 each year, and I would say there is usually 1 recent grad, 2 thirty-somethings, while the rest are between 25-30. 25-27 is also really not that young, and it's a bit patronizing to act like people this age have little life experience and are obsessed with drinking. Lots of us in this age cohort are putting our lives on hold to get our PhDs, which is huge sacrifice and makes us highly motivated to get in, and out and move on with our lives. Just because I'm 27 and like to hang out with my cohort at a bar on Friday nights, doesn't mean I don't work my a** off seven days a week. 
That being said, in my department the social aspect is hugely important, and (with a few exceptions) people in coursework years who don't socialize within the department seem to really struggle. It's important to have people that you can vent to about professors and coursework, share bibliography, get advice on fellowships and generals, introductions to scholars, advice on ins and outs of certain archives, etc...... I guess my point is, if you don't cultivate some type of a support system *within* the department, the next 6+ years are going to be an uphill battle.

Not sure about NYU but I'm also an international student and I would recommend that you opt for the express delivery service. My university told me that it has partnered with certain express services to provide me with reduced rates and I could avail those if I liked. I did and I got my i20 in 3 days. With normal post, my original offer letter (that I thankfully didn't need a hard copy of!) took more than 8 weeks to arrive. 

As a 26 year old married to a 37 year old, I'd probably say you could be a bit more open-minded. Not all 20 somethings are straight out of college. You might find it difficult to connect to someone whose life thus far has included going to high school and then straight into the US college system (which, to an Australian who spent a semester at a US college in 2010, seems very much like a continuation of high school). But that's not going to be every single person in your cohort. I guess these are the types of things you can't really know until you're there.

Oh Lord. Not again...
Are you mods/veterans this combative in other subforums? Or does the history field attract posturing and d*ck measuring? I've gotten a number of PMs from people in other fields who are appalled by the 0-100 aggressiveness in this year's threads.

You're assuming you'll be the only one who isn't the traditional age, or that doesn't fit in easily to the culture. 
Graduate school is largely a bunch of people with really divergent backgrounds and interests and experiences that can make for some really great friendships, or at least acquaintances. Not always the case, and there's definitely a slice of grad students that are "traditional" heavy partiers just out of undergrad... But I can guarantee that anywhere you end up that will not account for all of your cohort. So find the people that are unusual or interesting, and make friendships there. 
My officemate was ~10 years older than the average grad student, and married with kids. We had one guy in our cohort that had been a professor in Russia for quite some time and was swapping fields, and another that was in his late 50s.

As a 26 year old married to a 37 year old, I'd probably say you could be a bit more open-minded. Not all 20 somethings are straight out of college. You might find it difficult to connect to someone whose life thus far has included going to high school and then straight into the US college system (which, to an Australian who spent a semester at a US college in 2010, seems very much like a continuation of high school). But that's not going to be every single person in your cohort. I guess these are the types of things you can't really know until you're there.

As a 26 year old married to a 37 year old, I'd probably say you could be a bit more open-minded. Not all 20 somethings are straight out of college. You might find it difficult to connect to someone whose life thus far has included going to high school and then straight into the US college system (which, to an Australian who spent a semester at a US college in 2010, seems very much like a continuation of high school). But that's not going to be every single person in your cohort. I guess these are the types of things you can't really know until you're there.

I am currently a junior majoring in history and political science. I initially wanted to do PhD on post-WWII American foreign policy. However, all the professors I have talked with discouraged me from doing so. The jobs report exactly proves what they have said. 

A) I'm super glad that you've come out of this with a place, and are able to ask these questions, B) I am spending way too much time wondering if I made the right decisions, C) I only just finished my MA thesis and sometime soon I'm sure I'll chill out but for now I am using the weird energy to create long, unrealistic fantasy reading lists. I love a good annotated bibliography  

I strongly disagree--the MA isn't necessarily "just a stepping stone". If you're coming straight from undergrad then (a) you are young and have time and (b) the MA is going to give you an opportunity to spend two years properly locating yourself within your field, attending conferences, perhaps even publishing. I chose to do the MA not because I wasn't a "strong enough applicant" (I got into PhD programs as well) but because I wanted to spend two focused years producing a more succinct body of work and making sure that I definitely wanted to pursue history. I am so happy that I did my MA and I'm now entering a PhD program with strong contacts, an even clearer sense of my interests, teaching experience, good publications and conference presentations etc. You don't need an MA but I have absolutely no regrets about getting one. 

I took it right down to the final day with NYU and UPenn, but I'm going to NYU. 

I took it right down to the final day with NYU and UPenn, but I'm going to NYU. 

Ugh. I mean, they are actually somewhat correct to the extent that you will encounter people who think gender and sexuality has no place in "real" historical studies, but basically that's just something to get used to (and to get used to arguing against). Job market-wise it can help to have a foot outside of traditional history, just because it means that you might be able to apply for jobs in WGSS departments etc etc.

Thanks for the advice everyone! I was worried because I've gotten some dismissive responses from people in my department who made it sound like I wouldn't be perceived as a "pure" historian when I mention I'm interested in the WGSS side of things so your perspective really helps a lot! 

Will do, thank you!
Ahhhh this is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Thank you!!
Super helpful, thank you! I used the term area studies bc that's what the professor who was advising against it called it and I didn't really know how else to put it. I super super appreciate your response, thank you. I was mostly concerned I wouldn't be perceived as being as "serious" a student of history by doing the WGSS route.
Thank you for the advice! NYU does seem like a great fit, but I'm still trying to figure out how people make unfunded MAs work. Ahhh!!!! My perception came from a kind of grumpy professor that I probably should've ignored honestly, but I was caught up in admission anxiety and took it to heart. Thank you!
 
I was initially really worried about funding and getting into places, but you're definitely right. I wouldn't be happy or comfortable at a place that wasn't excited about those topics!

If you can afford to do an MA (NYU's is unfunded), then I'd recommend it, and if you're certain that you're interested in gender and LGBT history then the women and gender history MA at NYU is likely to set you up really well (Linda Gordon's still around, Michele Mitchell is there, and the faculty is full of amazing women and feminists). But you don't need a specifically gender-focused MA to set yourself up for LGBT and gender history PhDs. I'm not entirely sure why you think women's history and gender/sexuality studies would be perceived as "area studies"... ? Women and LGBT people are historical actors; it's not beyond the realm of historical studies to focus on LGBT experiences... 

If you can afford to do an MA (NYU's is unfunded), then I'd recommend it, and if you're certain that you're interested in gender and LGBT history then the women and gender history MA at NYU is likely to set you up really well (Linda Gordon's still around, Michele Mitchell is there, and the faculty is full of amazing women and feminists). But you don't need a specifically gender-focused MA to set yourself up for LGBT and gender history PhDs. I'm not entirely sure why you think women's history and gender/sexuality studies would be perceived as "area studies"... ? Women and LGBT people are historical actors; it's not beyond the realm of historical studies to focus on LGBT experiences...