Pacifist101

I saw this link to an interesting article in another part of the SoP subforum as well as a few other places with advice for SoP's and thought that this would also be a good place to link it. Its an individual committee members point of view about what they don't like to see in a SoP. Although there are a lot of comments to it that seem to give the impression that she is not the only one who feels this way on committees.

Hope that it helps other people!

http://chronicle.com/article/Leave-Dr-Seuss-Out-of-It/126098/

I didn't email a single professor. I got into 6 of the 9 programs I applied to. It's an ingratiating process that people spend way too much time thinking about.
First, unless the professor is outwardly rude to you, I wouldn't read too much into the tone of your exchanges. Professors can fawn over you now but drop the ball later. Other professors may react a little coolly until they see your application materials. Professors can just be really busy and not reply.
Second, everything is up in the air until application season, when your actual application materials get printed off and passed around, and when the DGS has to put together a cohort. A lot can change at that point. You can have a great conversation with a professor in field X, but if the department's strengths are Y and Z, they might not be taking students in field X if they can't place them in TT jobs. 
Professors do look at the applications of students expecting to work with them, and some of them do expect that you at least touched base with them. Case in point: at my top choice, my POI—and now advisor!—was personal friends with one of my letter-writers, and when he read my application he turned around and asked my letter writer if I was "serious" about the application. He was impressed by my materials, but my radio silence made him wonder. This makes perfect sense given that my advisor is very hands-on and very, very concerned about his graduate students. I didn't know that at the time. I got lucky, because I had a connection through my letter-writer plus a state flagship on my CV (every school I was accepted to was also a state flagship and it is my unsubstantiated belief that like attracts like). At other schools, people obviously didn't care. 
So the value is that: the professor knows who you are, can put a face to an email, etc. If your application gets to their desk, they'll remember who you are, and for some people that's important. But your application itself makes the biggest difference. It has to, has to, has to, stand on its own two feet. A good application—a good writing sample, specifically—counts the most.

What @Sigaba is suggesting is that reading the author's reviews of others' works gives insight on his/her areas of expertise and how s/he read works slightly outside of his/her realm.  Few reviewers ever get to review books directly related to their work because they're already part of the conversations that helped the author shape the book, which, in turn, the author thank them in their acknowledgments. As such, people mentioned in the acknowledgments aren't permitted to review the book in question. Reading the author's reviews of other books gives you a sense of how critically s/he engages with the scholarship and research and his/her capacity to be even-handed. Most scholars are fair but you get the occasional outliers who are extremely critical of others' in a negative sense and their own works will usually reflect their self-righteousness.

Howdy folks! I just graduated with my M.A. over the summer and am now beginning the process of sending out emails to potential advisers for Ph.D. programs for Fall 2020. I forgot how soul-sucking and stressful this process can be. I wrote my thesis on Witchcraft in early modern France and Colonial Southeast Asia. I am looking to study early modern France (open to Global and Atlantic World as well) but more focused on religion, gender/sexuality. I am still very interested in magic and witches but they are not at the top of my must haves in a mentor.   
I speak, write, and read french at an intermediate to advanced level (have studied it since high school). My MA thesis did use early french archival sources and I am confident I can eventually pick up Latin as well. I plan on spending an hour or two a day on it when I am not teaching.
Speaking what I want to focus on - research- I want to be able to research as much as I can as an academic historian. I enjoy teaching, but not as much as I enjoy research. I am very much inspired by historians such as Keith Thomas, Howard Zinn, Margaret Jacobs (all very different from one another). I also am very interested in public history and I've done quite a few PH projects over my M.A. including a historical marker. That being said, It would be plus to find programs that incorporated PH or Digital Humanities. 
I know older members have advised against anything less than a top 20 but I am a trailing spouse...my husband will be finishing his PhD in the sciences this year and is applying to the job market right now as well. Still trying to aim for great schools but not saying no to smaller names as well. 
Very nice to meet you all and good luck to everyone this application season!!
~~~petit-chou

Hello new applicants! 
I used TGC when applying for graduate school back in the day and now I hold a TT position. I'm not serving in committees yet, but I am working "on the other side". I hope you find my insight useful. 
In addition to the sound advice you've already receive, I'd recommend planning your field with a global perspective. Even if you focus on 19th century US, what would your research bring to the discipline as a whole? You don't need to answer this, but the fact that you are asking these questions might entice the AdComm (conformed not only of US historians) to make you an offer. In addition, more and more US history courses are being taught in relation to global issues. 
 
I often sit back and listen to what @telkanuru says in these cases as the semi-official resident medievalist. In addition to the language comment, which is not minor, I'd steer away of lists like this. Admission to history programs goes beyond the numbers you provide, it's about the questions you ask, the insight that you offer, and your potential to develop those questions and those insights professionally. 

Also I don't really know anyone who didn't find the first semester difficult (for so many reasons). Take the advice above re reading, talk to other people in your program, trust that you'll get the hang of it. I did too much of the reading in my first semester, not realizing that a) skimming is expected and normal and b) pretending you've read the whole book even though you skimmed most of it is also normal. 

The objective of this thread is to serve as a catch all for aspiring historians seeking graduate degrees.
IME/IMO, these annual threads work better when interested parties pose their questions in a single catch all thread rather than starting individual threads across multiple fora for each question, concern, complaint, and gripe.  YMMV.
For this year's thread, I am going to recommend two changes of pace. First, when you write your introductory post, focus on your areas of interest/fields of study, and language skills rather than your numbers.If you've written a senior thesis and/or honors thesis, share your findings either generally or specifically. Articulate what you want to do as a professional academic historian beyond where you want to work. That is, spend time writing about what kind of historian you want to be. (A way to accomplish this task is to write about the work or historians who have greatly influenced you.) If you've already identified historiographical trajectories you want to alter slightly, redirect, or shatter, let us know. 
The second recommendation is for those members of the BB who attend top schools and typically lurk throughout the season until after receiving notification of getting into all of one's programs of choice. Please consider the value of sharing the information you're receiving in person during office hours from professors and graduate students at your current institution. Do not violate any confidences. However, if you get a nugget on how to tackle a SOP or writing sample, you can do others a solid by passing that information along. (And you can be highly confident that sharing such tips isn't going to diminish your chances of going seven for seven.)

First, I would make sure to ask yourself if this is really what you want to devote the next 7-9 years to. A history degree is hardly more marketable than computer science. I would also think hard about why you want to study history, what specific historical questions interest you, and whether contemporary academic scholarship matches your intellectual and artistic vision.
There is a list of funded history master’s programs that frequently gets mentioned and linked to. I would start there; I think a PhD would be a tall order at this point. A history master’s would give you the opportunity to focus your interests, but I wouldn’t take out debt for it. 
Hope someone can answer the CS question.

Use this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10XIYhIw4fCbUend2WkA3iujfftu9TrXwR-YKcgr3JKo/edit#gid=693576939
DO NOT detach or unlink from Drive, as this will result in altering the permissions for the document and revoking public access to the file.

Hmm, let's try this:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10XIYhIw4fCbUend2WkA3iujfftu9TrXwR-YKcgr3JKo/edit?usp=sharing
Did that work?  I use Google docs a fair amount but pretty minimally in terms of sharing so I hope that does it.

I have good news and bad news.  Good news is that I happened to have downloaded it, but the bad news is that I did so back in feb of 2016 so it's 2 years old.  In any case, here it is if people wanna share/add/see/whatever.  That's an open edit link but I still have a separate copy as well so if something happens again it's not a big deal.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W69Cz4WzllK2r5tf2_qKaf8pfqMp8Ggy/view?usp=sharing
Lemme know if that works.

OP, check out Miami University. They have a funded MA history program and a couple of people working on Early Modern stuff.
Also, there is a post with a list of funded MA programs somewhere on this forum. You may want to go through the list and see if any of the programs have your areas of interest. 

Sounds like #2....   the keys are: 
For SOP: Demonstrate your awareness of the historiography in your areas of interest in Italy and science/technology
For Writing Sample: Demonstrate that you can skillfully engage both primary and secondary sources (the latter being historians' points and arguments).

I want to add that while many schools don't offer good (or any) funding packages for master's students, there are some that do.
I'm doing my master's now, and it's fully funded with a livable stipend and some funding for research. So if you're not sure about doing a PhD but may want to do a master's first, you could look around and find schools that would offer you funding. I had several offers from master's programs all of which were fully funded. Don't look for these offers at top-20 schools, because they generally only offer funding to PhD students, but check out schools that are lower ranked but support their MA students. 

The first conference at which I presented was in the 3rd year of my PhD. Don't worry about it! @TMP, who helped guide me through my application season way back in the day, has the right idea as usual--your writing sample and statement of purpose should be your focus. Good luck!

not important at all.  Focus on your research and producing a compelling, strong writing sample  

While I'm sure top school --> top grad school is likely the norm, there are outliers--myself included. I attended an unranked state school in the middle of nowhere and am attending a Top 15 program. The culture of a top private university is my biggest adjustment, which is probably why top school --> top grad school is more likely--it's pretty self-selective since these students have support built into their undergrad experience (e.g. Mellon Mays, Summer Research, access to funding, leading scholars, etc) to nurture them towards attending grad school.
During a low point in the academic year, I asked my adviser why I was accepted. At our following meeting, they pulled up my application with the admissions committee's comments, and apparently, they were excited to accept a student with my unique background. 
All of this is to say that the stats don't tell the whole story.

I live in a reasonably priced mid-sized major metropolitan area. I have no kids.  I have lived with my fiancé the last four years.
My experience is that we manage to live almost as nicely as we'd like, we aren't starving, we eat well, we can run our heater at a modest rate in the winter.  We also are unable to put aside any money for savings. If one of our cars broke down we wouldn't be able to fix it probably (losing a shoe for want of a nail, comes to mind). To buy a new dress shirt is a major luxury. I've been able to buy one new suit (a relatively cheap one) in five years of grad school, and while you might think of this as trivial, I'd ask you, what do you intend to wear to your job interviews/conferences? Things like new shoes become major investments. You learn to take care of what you have, and to fix things yourself.
Let us say nothing of what happens when your computer inevitably dies.
So to sum up my experience. Day-to-day we live like fine, reasonable adults, but you have little room for error or extras (or savings), which definitely creates a nagging subliminal stress on our day-to-day fine living.
 
 

I'm on $42,500 in Australia, which is large (most PhD students here are on $27,500). I find it very comfortable and am able to save more than half of my stipend. I would say I spend about $10,000 a year on accommodation and utilities (one bedroom in a good area that I share with my partner), and I cook most of my meals at home, though do go out with friends for lunch and also buy tea once or twice a week. Public transport is also $1,500 a year. I live in a major city where the cost of living is extremely high compared to the US.  
Even though I save most of my stipend, before that we also manage to be able to go away every now and then (we're staying in a cheap airbnb in the countryside soon), and I think since I accepted my PhD offer we've become more in tune with free and low cost leisure activities. I choose not to go to the gym because the cost is so high though. I also have large medical bills despite socialised healthcare here, which sucks but I still feel I can afford it. 
My partner does earn a solid salary, but we split our bills 50/50 (though sometimes he takes me out to dinner) and I haven't felt it dig into my salary. We are both very careful with money on the whole, though, and never buy more than we can afford. This means that we earn some interest on our savings accounts. 
Based on my experience and the numbers above, I think I would also be able to live comfortably on the standard $27,500 stipend with enough money left over to save or to go on an overseas trip once a year. None of the stipends here force you to TA, but I do that on the side and it pays well on top of my stipend. 
I think things would be much tougher if we had kids or a mortgage. We have neither though, which does help. We don't get help from our parents (I feel like we're too old for that) but they've said they can lend us a lifeline if things get dire. 

So during my Master's my take home was pretty minimal (~$10,000 a year) but I did make it work okay. My school though is located in a smaller city in the South so cost of living was pretty low and I lucked out in getting rent that was only $545 a month (for a fairly spacious apartment). Also I did have additional financial help from my parents. My car insurance and phone bill was paid by my parents and I was and still am on my parent's health insurance. I had no car payments on my car since I paid in full for it before I started my Master's. But outside of those things I paid for everything else: car maintenance (though mine was minimal since I have a relatively new car with few miles), food, rent, utilities, streaming services, etc. I also did split a lot of these costs with my partner. He was also on a similar stipend as me. We lived in the city our master's institution was in so we had to cover our costs year round.
Overall, money was very tight and we didn't have a ton of expendable income, but we were always able to pay our big expenses. We did eat out quite a bit because we were terrible about making time for cooking, but we rarely ate out anywhere very expensive (those types of restaurants were treats/splurges to us). We have two cats and have been able to cover any costs they need, though we were lucky that we only had to pay a one time deposit on them and no monthly rent. But we paid for that deposit and vet check ups/shots yearly, and of course food. They are even on pricey food now since one of them is allergic to fillers found in pet food. We were also able to buy ourselves new clothes when we desperately needed them and also keep our book/comic reading going too (though these were purchases that didn't occur frequently). Other people in my program who lived alone or didn't manage their money super well had to sign up for food stamps though to get by on the small stipends we got. But my partner and I always tried to manage our money relatively well and we were able to get by, though having help from our parents for the costs I mention above definitely helped tremendously.

All of the above! Here are some concrete/specific examples without school names.
Before visiting, I was really excited for School A. I really thought this would be tied with my pre-visit top choice school and that the decision would be very difficult to make. I was a little unsure about the location, but I knew many people who lived there and loved it and so I was pretty open to it. When I visited, I found many things that showed me the school wouldn't be a good fit for me, which did help make the decision a little bit easier. From the research perspective, I learned that while the department and professors said one thing on their website and through their emails, actual interactions with them showed me that their current/main interests were in another direction. The department had recently sold its access to some important astronomical facilities that I was originally hoping to use, instead investing for the future (well beyond my time there as a grad student). The students there were fine and great, however, the layout of the department didn't work for me. The department was in one tall building where the students and faculty were spread out over many floors. Students were grouped by their advisors (i.e. all of Prof X's students would work in one or two offices). I personally didn't like this layout because it felt very segregated/separated. It also meant that it would be more difficult to interact with students from other research groups. In my ideal department plan (and what I actually chose), all of the grad student offices and faculty offices were together on the same floor and our shared offices were all mixed up so that your officemates aren't necessarily in the same group as you. Finally, the location was a lot more remote than I had thought. The nearest airport was several hours away and the town itself wasn't for me. It's a very charming little college town, but that was not what I wanted. 
To be clear, the program itself is actually very good and the city is lovely. There are no absolute negative problems with School A and its town. It was just not a good fit for me and what I wanted. 
I also wanted to talk about School B. Before visiting, it was my third choice and I wasn't sure about it. However, I really enjoyed all of my interactions with the people there. The work environment was amazing. The professors I wanted to work with ended up having different interests in person than on paper too, so the research fit wouldn't be as good but still better than School A. The city itself is a location I never thought I would live in but it turned out a lot better than I expected. One really important thing that I learned while visiting though was that School B's international office won't actually sponsor me for the specific student visa status I wanted. 

Personally, the visit made a huge impact. For a few schools, my opinion changed drastically after the visit. It did work out that for my PhD school, if I had to pick without visiting, I would have picked the same school anyways, however, that was partly luck and knowing all the positives of that school and all the negatives of the other schools made me much more sure/confident in my decision. I think knowing this was also very helpful during my graduate program, especially during tough times where I doubted all of my life decisions. 
However, while I did visit for my Masters programs, I don't think it matters as much. It's only 1-2 years. A PhD is a much longer commitment. Also, in my case, my PhD program was in another country, so I really wanted to visit to really get a feel of what it's like to live and work there.

I don't see why not. As far as I know, it's not uncommon. How much the school is willing to pay really depends on how much money the department has. USC never gave me an upper limit as to how much they were willing to pay, UCLA was willing to pay anything under $500, and my friend told me Northwestern could only cover $350. It doesn't hurt to send an e-mail and ask.

This has been a thread I'd like to contribute to for a while, and I am so very glad that I finally am in a position to do so! Please pardon my typos and the bad grammar. 
Current status (2017-2018): 
Applied (7): Columbia (History - East Asia), Michigan —Ann Arbor (History and Women's Studies joint program), UChicago (History), UCSB (History), Wisconsin - Madison (History) , U of Toronto (History), Princeton (East Asian Studies)
Accepted (declined) : UChicago, UCSB, U of Toronto, Columbia
Rejected: Princeton, Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan
Past status (2016-2017):
Applied (6): Columbia (PolSci), Berkeley (PolSci), GWU (PolSci), UVA (PolSci), Harvard (History), UPenn (History)
Accepted: N/A
Rejected: All of them (UPenn post-interview)
Executive Summary:
1. Choose programs that are the best fit (in my case, this begins with choosing the right discipline...)
2. Contact not just one but multiple POIs (not just to gauge fit, but for advice)
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP (make sure some of the reviewers are advanced PhD students)
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
4. (if applicable) Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experiences/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
Background Info:
I'm an international student with no degree in History but two Master's degrees from non-U.S. schools. I would like a career in the academia not bc this is the only option I have, but the one I desire most. So, to some extent, I am aware of the trade-off, the opportunity cost, and the risk, which means applying to PhD programs itself is an informed decision. And, in my humble opinion, the lessons I've learned are--
1. Choose programs that are the best fit
I know this is a bit cliche, but in my case this was a fundamental and challenging task to complete. To begin with, I needed to know who I am as an academic in order to choose the discipline that is the best fit given my intellectual identity. On paper, I am a significantly better applicant for PhD programs in PolSci than I am for programs in History.  And I wasn't sure if I wanted to become a historian or a political scientist during my first cycle of application. For instance, I didn't know if I want to approach international politics as a historian or become a political scientist with a historical perspective. When I was preparing for my applications to History programs in 2016, I felt like I was "defecting" from one field to another. That identity crisis did real damage to my first cycle, and completely turned my existent academic training against me. Multiple POIs  even (explicitly or implicitly) asked  me why I wanted to be trained into a historian. 
So, the lesson is, if I cannot even identify my intellectual self, then the committees and POIs cannot either.
I spent the past year painstakingly coming to terms with the fact that I want to be a historian (with my research interests encompassing field A, B, C...). And this has not only made the "searching for programs that are the best fit" process in 2017 a lot easier, but also helped me to concentrate all my energy on accumulating more research experiences in field A, B, C. And I am a lot happier. 
From the results you can see that I applied to Columbia twice, once to the PhD program in PolSci (rejected) and this time to the PhD program called History - East Asia (accepted). I think the results speak for themselves. (And I am openly glad that I only need to send TOEFL and GRE scores once!)
2. Contact POIs
For the first cycle, I only contacted one POI for each of the program I applied to, and the contacting itself was of a very superficial nature- I simply asked if a given POI was interested in my research plans/academic background and if they were taking students. That was helpful but not productive. For the second cycle, I made sure to at least contact 2-3 POI for every program I was considering to apply to, and also asked all of my POIs if they have any advice on how to further develop my research interests and prepare my application. Most of them replied and most of those who replied gave advice in great detail. Two POIs literally pointed out that some of my research topics were not as original as the others, and have been already well studied. As you can imagine, I avoided writing about those research topics in my SOP. Some POIs shared their idea about what a good writing sample was, e.g. based on solid and original work, creative narrating, etc. And others suggested that I elaborated on a few research topics I originally considered not so important, bc they thought these topics could potentially lead to important research.
In short, by contacting POIs via dozens of emails, I became a better applicant already, even before I made a decision on which programs I should apply to. In retrospect, contacting POIs was a significantly helpful experience where I had a perfect excuse to ask renowned historians to take time to mentor me on how the mind of a professional historian should work. 
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP
Many people have offered excellent advice on how to revise one's SOP, so my focus here is rather on asking reviewers to help with the revision. For the first cycle, I asked three PhD students to review my SOP, but none of them are actually doing PhDs in History (oops!). For this cycle, six PhD students selflessly offered insight. Three of them were my own senpai, who are doing PhDs in top History PhD programs and would like to go the extra mile to get me in a top program too. Three others were people I know from this very forum - I didn't ask for their permission, so please allow me to refrain from revealing their identities - with two of them being advanced PhD students/candidates. I did lots of heavy revisions to my SOPs according to their advice, e.g. I abandoned all the language about "passion", "hope", "enthusiasm" bc they show nothing about my expertise or my professionalism. 
What prevented me from asking more people to review my SOP during the first cycle was that I was shy, and unconsciously afraid of hearing people say "this wouldn't work, you need to rewrite everything". Yes, showing my SOP - a piece of my mind and my intellectual self - to other people, especially strangers made me feel exposed and vulnerable, but this was nevertheless a must do. It's way much better to consciously feel vulnerable rewriting a SOP for the 17th time than to unknowingly submit a vulnerable SOP to the committee and get it slaughtered. I am so very grateful that so many people took their time (while being crazy busy with their own work) to selflessly rescue my SOP again and again. And in my humble opinion, it is significant that one always humbly asks for permission to send a SOP to a potential reviewer in advance, with great respect and gratitude, before sending out the SOP.
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
My writing samples for both of the two cycles are actually about the same research topic. And no, my English skill/narrating style didn't improve that much in the past year. What changed is that I wrote my master's thesis based on the 2016 version of the writing sample, adding to it a lot more original research, then wrote the 2017 version of the writing sample based on the thesis. In other words, the research itself was stronger, more sophisticated, and significantly more mature. I thought revising the writing of a writing sample took a lot less time than enriching the original research the writing sample was based on, so in 2016 i focused solely on the "writing" part of the writing sample. But this was a tactical decision instead of a strategic one. A stellar research may end up producing a good (but not extraordinary) writing sample, but i feel it is unlikely that an immature and weak research can produce an original and solid writing sample. After all, the people who make decisions are established historians themselves, they can see.
4. Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experience/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
I don't have any degree in History, so this is more like my own "demon" to deal with. Please ignore the following if you don't have the awkward disadvantage of never having majored or even minored in History. 
This is easier to say than to do, but is doable. I have been spending my gap year working as a researcher for an NGO and was hired bc of my expertise in politics instead of history.(ironic~)  Bc of the nature of my work, I got to travel a lot (domestically and internationally) and communicate with academics from non-History disciplines, activists, and other professionals on a regular basis. At first, I was afraid that this kind of non-History experience was bound to further add to my disadvantage of not having a degree in History, but i was wrong. Many of the ideas - especially the good ones- in my SOP were a result of my learning from these people's perspectives. Hypothetically speaking, if one's interested in the historical transformation of gender norms, it doesn't hurt to work with those who endeavor to shape gender norms in our era. No, they are not the historians who study what I study and what happened one century ago, but they (are trying to) make or shape the history someone's gonna write about 100 years later.
So how did this play out? During my first interview with Columbia, the professor asked nothing about my research in History but a lot of my "work", and was very interested in knowing how i make connections between my work and my research. I later learned that another applicant who was also interviewed was asked similar questions - not about their research in History, but their non-History experiences. So, when it comes to the final decision and the quality of everything else  is the same/highly similar, the committee may also look at applicants' non-History experiences.
So, if you are also in a similar situation where you have a significant amount of non-History training and (work) experiences for whatever reasons, which can potentially lead the committee to assume that you are not committed to/experienced in History,  don't think about defending or justifying yourself (like i desperately tried doing in 2016 but in vain). Instead, think about how you can offer the program something special which they don't usually find in other applicants. 
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
And don't just confine it to family and friends. For instance and in my case, I would say a very important part of my support system is my colleagues from work. After I failed my first cycle, my supervisor made an effort to send me to attend more conferences and do more business trips. I think part of this was bc I was obliviously very upset and needed distraction, and part of this was bc (my supervisor from work confirmed) my supervisor believed that this kind of experience would help me mature more as a researcher (regardless of the discipline), which, in turn, could help with my second cycle of application.
Meanwhile, a colleague from work who's a native English speaker checked the language of all my SOPs and writing sample for me, that was A LOT of time-consuming work. 
In addition, I would also say that all the POIs I contacted were also part of this support system. First, they were all very kind and encouraging. (and this is pretty much a guaranteed response from them) More importantly, many of them would offer advice on how to better prepare one's application if one asks nicely and skillfully, and this kind of support is what, in my humble opinion, an applicant might need more - even more than the emotional support (not saying emotional support is not important, though) from family and friends.
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
In my humble opinion, one won't be offered admissions to top programs bc one is passionate about one's research. I believe I was only offered admissions bc, first of all, the committees and POIs saw me as a professional historian in the making. In retrospect, during the first cycle i acted like a passionate soldier marching towards my targets like (no offense) a lot of people did or would do, but during the second cycle I somehow managed to behave, to some extent, like a sniper -  I was a lot more precise, I made calculations,  and I shot at my target professionally with the intention of getting the job done. 
My final two cents: there are many many soldiers and significantly fewer snipers in this world. Many soldiers can be replaced by other soldiers, but each good sniper has their professional signature and style (and even self-made bullets!) which eventually make them stand out and get "caught" by the "good people". (yes, I've watched too much crime drama...)
 
Best wishes to everyone!

The reading strategy I use--taught to be my both my undergrad advisor and my current Masters advisor--is to read the intro, the conclusion, and then the intro and conclusion for each chapter.  If you'd like, you can add reading one chapter in full to this list, so that you have more details re: one specific section of the text that you're particularly interested in.  At Boston College, I have one book per week per course, and I usually have to submit a book review for each as well.  This is the best method I've found.  I'm so glad I was taught it as early as undergrad, it let me refine my application.