psstein

No, you'll be fine. Among people in my grad program, it's pretty split. My BA was in history, same as roughly two-thirds of people in the program. History of science is, as a field, much more closely related to history now than at any point in its past. Technical histories of science (for example, Heilbron's The Sun in the Church) are a dying breed. Technical work is very slowly starting to become important again, but I suspect it'll take another decade or so before it becomes close to mainstream again. On another note, what you seem interested in doing could fit very well with a historian of capitalism.

If you want a dedicated history of science job, there aren't too many of those. However, historians who can also teach history of science are valuable. We just hired one here as our new Ottomanist.

Yes, easily. My department has more of an informal approach to languages- one of our now retired faculty examined my friend in his office. He had him read Foucault.

I can't speak for anything outside of history of science, but there are very few guaranteed funding MAs in my own field. Indiana's HPS will often let you work as a TA, and so will Wisconsin's program. I don't know anything about Florida State's, but I can ask a colleague if there's interest.

It strongly varies based on department. For example, Princeton gives no credit for previously completed MAs, nor does Penn (HSS, at least). Yale and Harvard give some credit, so you don't have to write the MA thesis or take some course or whatever.

The subfield rankings are useless. There's a world of difference between medieval European history and modern European, but you can't tell from the USNWR rankings. They rank my department's Latin American program very highly, when the reality is that three major professors have retired/left in the last three or so years.

Yes, many history programs do this. I realize it's annoying, but it's kind of one hoop to jump through. If they see you're applying to work with a professor who's just retired or something, then they can throw it away without a second thought.

I wouldn't bring it up at all, but opinions will vary. In my view, it's better to focus upon physical, rather than financial resources, if that makes sense. If the stock market crashes tomorrow, that summer language funding might disappear. Unless the library burns down, that collection of some 19th century figure's papers isn't going anywhere fast. Discussing financial resources may give the impression that you'll quit if those resources became scare. Just as an aside, my university's FLAS coordinators were, in January/Feb., concerned that FLAS wouldn't continue after this year. I don't know what Washington's current mood on the question is, but I wouldn't depend upon FLAS funding continuing to exist after this year.

Congratulations! I'm going to end up being a wet blanket, I'm afraid. My subfield often has independent departments, some of whom interview (Penn being the best known, of course). I went to X city and interviewed with this department. My interests were early modern at the time. I met with my potential advisor and he and I really hit it off. We're of similar backgrounds and bemoaned how people in this particular part of the country were different from what we were used to. He also expressed a great amount of interest in my project. This sort of thing happened with the other early modernist and the department chair. Two other faculty members were less interested, but they worked on more contemporary history. A very senior faculty member asked me some technical questions about the project, including my mathematical abilities. He seemed interested enough, as well. Over dinner, the department chair discussed funding details with me, then asked me to talk about my other offers. I willingly did so, though it was a bit strange. It was Spring Break, so I went home thinking that I'd have to choose between two excellent options with good placements. A few days later, I received a rejection letter from the department head. The reason, "I wasn't experienced enough in history of science," which is, plain and simple, nonsense. Most undergraduate students have no history of science experience. I suspect the real reason was political: two or three other early modernists came to this program that year. Since this is a very small program, it would've slanted the program significantly towards early modern science. In short, I think you've had a promising experience, but I wouldn't read too much into it. You may set yourself up for a very significant disappointment.

Know which battles to fight and don't piss off the superstars in your department. As cold as it sounds, you may have to choose between a junior faculty member's advice and a very senior faculty member's advice. On the other hand, have enough sense to argue for things you believe, even if they're unpopular (e.g. atheoretical approaches to history).

The latter is the correct approach. As many here (most notably @telkanuru) would say, the objective is not to get into graduate school. The objective is to have a job after graduate school. Without a doubt, there are some talented students enrolled in a history program at Arizona State. Unfortunately, few, if any, will have tenured academic positions.

I want the summer to end. I'm also absolutely racked with anxiety over discussing my desire to leave Wisconsin and reapply to different programs.

To channel my inner @Sigaba, I'd be very careful about this sort of thing. It can easily lead to questions of academic integrity. SOPs are, I think, fine. Writing samples can open a new can of worms.

My department had two alumni come in and speak on non-academic career options. If anyone's interested, I can try to dig up either the recording or the slides. Just send me a PM. As for private sector jobs, like all of us, I'd like to have a tenured academic job. I hope I do, but I'd live with working in the private sector. Academia's lack of defined hours are both a blessing and a curse. As harsh as it sounds, one sometimes needs to choose between continuing down a non-productive path (i.e. adjuncting or one temporary position after another) and leaving the field entirely. Unfortunately, some very good scholars get stuck making that choice.

This is definitely an important consideration. There's not much more irritating in an application process than paring down a three page SOP to 500 words (thank you, Indiana HPS).

I agree with you. The "don't do it" talk really applies more to people who see graduate school as "the next step" or think that it's a way to avoid the real world. It's not as though there's a swell of unemployed history PhDs wandering the streets, asking for money. Yes, there's a significant underemployed contingent, but saying that it's "academic job or bust" reinforces the idea that any non-academic route is a failure. There are multiple history PhDs in the private sector who have better pay, better benefits, and far less stress than 99% of tenured/TT professors. Did they "fail?" I doubt it.

I completely agree. Of the 9 programs I applied to the first time around, I was a good fit for maybe 3 or 4. Contingent on my getting high quality letters from my current advisor and faculty, I intend on applying to 3 programs this cycle. One of the major factors is cost. It's $27 to send GRE scores, then it ranges between $50-$75 for the application fee. Also, depending upon your field, there may not be 12 programs worth attending, in terms of outcomes/funding/etc. For my own sub-discipline, history of science, there are a few top programs (e.g. Yale) and a lot of "also rans" (Indiana HPS, Oregon State, Minnesota, etc.). It's not that you won't get good training from a second-tier department, but the job outlook is likely bleaker and institutional support far less generous.

From my end, I'm not certain what you'd gain from a MA, but maybe I'm not seeing something. No, don't worry about phone calls. Email is fine. To all lurkers: don't do what I did and apply blindly. It was one of the stupidest things I did in the whole process. I would caution you against applying to too many programs: I applied to 9 programs, which was about 4-5 too many.

One of my undergrad professors advised me to convince my parents to buy an apartment. This line of thought isn't as rare as we'd like to think.

Send me one. I'd be interested in seeing how it's progressed.

It's very tedious. I believe the GRE's verbal section is not only designed to test verbal acuity, but also work ethic.

Just to echo what @telkanuru and @historygeek have said so far, you probably need Latin. You might want to consider a MA first, preferably one with some financial support. I would also add that, given the state of the job market, if you're lucky enough to get a TT position, chances are it's not going to be somewhere particularly livable. Many of the available jobs are at R2/R3 universities in small towns (e.g. Kingsville, TX). You have some control over where you go to graduate school, which can mean not going. You have almost no control over where you end up, all one can do is give him/herself the best chance.

Relative to many other state universities, your package is quite good. My own program does not offer summer funding. It's not bad to have to try to find external fellowships and the like. Depending upon your field, you can look at FLAS (which may no longer exist) or other field-relevant fellowships. TA-ing also allows you to develop classroom skills which, like it or not, will help carry over to other professional elements.

No, they don't. As I said, if they're "good enough," then they're not worth worrying about. Unless you're doing a specialized field like history of mathematics (a subfield of history of science), nobody cares about the quantitative score. Nobody gets in because of his/her GRE score alone. It won't make up for mediocre LoRs, even if you're in the 99th percentile of everything.

The AW score is secondary to your writing sample. A high-quality writing sample will compensate for a mediocre AW score.