psstein

This is a very good point. In March, my (now-former) advisor recommended that I attend a Newberry symposium that art historians organized in collaboration with a well-known historian of science and a lesser-known intellectual historian. It was a poor choice. Art historians are interested in very different sorts of questions from historians of science, historians of the book, etc. I sat there for the better part of three days wondering "why the hell am I here?"

The GRE varies in importance depending upon program. Some programs care a lot, others can't be bothered. So long as you get above the 90th percentile on the verbal section and similarly on the analytical writing section, it's fine. The quantitative section only comes into account in very particular areas (e.g. history of mathematics).

I'll give what's assuredly a boilerplate, unsatisfying, though nonetheless useful answer: Graduate school admissions, especially for history, are much less data-based than you assume. Your application will be made or broken on three fundamental items: SoP (statement of purpose), writing sample, and letters of recommendation. Next to these three items, things like non-major GPA are nearly valueless. You have two languages and presumably a decent degree of proficiency. Have you written a senior thesis or other 15-20 page research paper using original sources? If so, you have a writing sample. Do not think of graduate school admissions as "reach, match, and safety." I myself was rejected from a PhD at Indiana HPS, a solid, but by no means spectacular program. I was among the final five candidates interviewed at Hopkins and was accepted into Wisconsin, both of which are much better history of science programs (i.e.: Indiana is probably low first-tier, high second, Wisconsin and Hopkins are both high first). If you do well on the SoP and writing sample and have excellent letters, you're going to have a chance pretty much anywhere. It then comes down to elements as disparate as "how many graduate students has Prof. X had in the last year?" to "when should I next go on leave?"

Just to tack onto this, look where most of the "big names" in your respective field have taught. With a few notable exceptions, most of them have worked at more than one institution.

Please PM me a link.

I don't know much about them outside their placements, and in a few cases, departmental culture. I would suspect that French historians do very well at Minnesota (Shank is outstanding). Scandanavian historians likely do okay, as well. I would not go there for history of science. Their faculty are good, but the program is a total wreck, scattered across 3-4 departments with little funding. In many of these places, I know more about the problems vs. the good things. It's just the nature of the field. People are more likely to complain (esp. over drinks) than they are to bring the good up. Your comment "I can't draw conclusions on some other areas" is one of the large flaws of the major extant study. It only focuses on American history. Honestly, the best way to find out about programs is to try to hunt down recent graduates' dissertations. It's a bit time-consuming, but it can be worth it.

Hey, someone else has to sound the alarm! If it's just you, people shut their ears. I haven't heard much in my history of science/medicine enclave. On my end, Michigan State is really building up their program, whereas others (e.g. Indiana HPS) have slipped from the top echelons. It's also a bit of a commentary on the field's direction. Indiana was a long-time enclave for medieval science (Grant and Newman most notably), which almost nobody in the US works on (Shank, Swerdlow, Kremer, Newman, etc., most of whom are now retired, with Bill's exception).

I hate to sound like a broken record, but please do yourself the favor of examining each program's placement record before you apply. The goal is not to get into grad school, it's to have a job after grad school. Rutgers and Minnesota are good, not elite programs. I would be very surprised if many recent graduates from Albany or Delaware had TT jobs.

It varies among professor, department, etc. My department is very small and I've met with two emeriti more than once to discuss future research projects. One of them is actually my current advisor's PhD supervisor (or Doktorvater, to use the precise German term). They've been great resources for discussing ideas, recommending books, and thinking about a dissertation. They have not been great resources in terms of discussing the job market, the changing contours of my own field, etc. Emeriti can be great colleagues and friends, so much as that's possible as a grad student. They're not equipped to help a grad student entering today's market or facing the challenges of today vs. 25 years ago. I'm happy to have their guidance, but I wouldn't want either one as my advisor. You also need to keep reality in mind: these people aren't going to live forever. Your advisor's recommendations will play large roles in any career path. A 50 year old advisor is going to be able to help you a lot longer than a 75 year old advisor. Keep in mind, I say all of this from a position close to your own. The person who best fits my interests in my current program is a 76 year old emeritus professor. If he were 10 years younger, I'd beg him to supervise me.

This is a great idea. If a POI doesn't respond to repeated inquiries, it's not a good sign.

That book, according to a very well-known emeritus, is going to make a big impact on history of medicine. I've read it as well (most of the HoS students in Wisconsin have) and found it just as thought-provoking as you have. I'm currently reading Bruce's The Launching of Modern American Science.

To add onto your comment, most state universities have a stipend floor, but some departments will supplement it.

With 95% certainty, I can say I'm reapplying this coming year for history of 19th c. American medicine, which Wisconsin doesn't have a specialist in. Programs: Yale HoS (Warner) Harvard HoS (Brandt, Hammonds) Penn HSS (Barnes, Aronowitz is 20th c. but works in similar area) Princeton? (Wailoo)

Do yourself a favor and knock SC and Missouri off the list immediately. The objective, as many have stated, is not to get into grad school. It is to get a job after grad school. You might want to consider Berkeley and Hopkins, as both have very strong Early America programs. If William and Mary's placement were better, it would be a fine choice, but alas...

It's not unimportant, but I'd suggest mentioning the PoI's work in your email and how it relates to your own.

I would suggest discussing this with your advisor. S/he'll likely be far better equipped to answer about art history than most of us.

Sweet took a student last year and I believe Whiting is about to go on leave, just so @Balleu knows.

Anyone interested in Univ. of Wisconsin, feel free to PM me. I may be reapplying in this coming application cycle (research/personal reasons), but the decision hasn't been finalized.

Please use footnotes. There are places to bludgeon the reader and places to be subtle. Historiography is not where you want to bludgeon the reader.

Agreed, the USNWR rankings are badly outdated. In WI, we're rebuilding our Latin American program. It's not a top program right now, though historically it has been. Similarly, the fields are simply too broad. "European history" is a massive category: a department very strong in E. Mod. Europe can be miserable in modern Europe, and vice versa.

Do you think they're too high or too low? Just looking at the rankings, my gut reaction is that Cornell, Hopkins, and maybe UNC/UCLA are rated too high in view of placement, and that Penn is somewhat underrated. I know that Hopkins HoS, which has some very good faculty, does not have particularly good placement.

Absolutely, the US News and World Report rankings are adequate for a very general overview of which universities have well-regarded departments in certain fields. However, they have major flaws which make them unsuitable for anything beyond a 10,000 foot view.

When I say "top 10 or 15," I mean by concrete metrics like placement/faculty/etc. The US News and World Report rankings are totally useless.

There are likely some books that have inspired your interest in whatever area of US history you're interested in. Look at the authors. Who are they? Who were their PhD advisors? From that point, you read literature each of them have written. Then, write an email discussing your interests, that scholar's work, and briefly discuss what you're interested in doing for your project. Now, in terms of "good prospective advisors," rather paradoxically, one of the signs of a good advisor is his/her students' placement record. Better advisors (at the best programs, at least) tend to place their students pretty well. One of the best signs of a good advisor is supervising multiple dissertations. That's not to say that everyone who supervises multiple dissertations is competent, but beware of faculty who've been in a position for decades and supervised very few students.

It can be, but your GPA is not so low that it is. You may have to do a MA and you may not. If you had a 3.2 in history, you'd have more cause for concern.