psstein

If you can see yourself doing anything else (I mean anything else, whether it's the Navy or law school or whatever), do it. Don't do a history PhD. As to your questions: 1. Yes, though your chances fall dramatically outside the top 10-15 programs. The studies that exist don't take R2/R3 programs into account and operate via a somewhat strange ranking system, but they demonstrate that the vast majority of tenured academic historians at R1 universities graduate from 10 or so programs. Probably 90% of tenured/TT history professors at R1s come from the top programs, especially those hired after the 2008 financial collapse. Also, keep things like advisor and program reputation in mind. Do not use the US News and World Report rankings to determine departmental rankings. 2. Your overall GPA is a bit of a side concern. Your major GPA matters far more. Concern yourself with the things within your control, like writing sample and statement of purpose. If you can do those two well, as well as have excellent letters, your GPA becomes a secondary concern. 3. Yes. There's a reason it's called adjunct hell. Adjuncts often are not able to do research/publish/etc., which are the things that help one win the academic lottery. 4. I don't know. From what little I've heard, public history positions are competitive. 5. I'll leave this to other people.

This is the correct answer. Do not take out loans for a PhD. It is NOT "school." It is an apprenticeship.

From the history of science/medicine side: 1) Ed Grant (96 years old!) 2) Bill Newman 3) Katherine Park 4) Noel Swerdlow 5) Mike Shank Those are about all I can think of from HoS right now, though medieval science is a pretty unpopular field and has been for the last two decades.

I'm told the writing sample can compensate for the AW section. According to some department websites (e.g. Chicago's), a low AW score can be "cause for concern." The GRE is probably the least important element of any application. So long as you score in the 90th percentile on verbal, it's a "set it and forget it" kind of exam.

Not really, that's not how it works. I had a 3.44 when applying. My DGS told me that my recommendations/SoP made me a really strong candidate, not my GRE score. The 90th percentile verbal score and 5-5.5 AW score are simply barriers. If you don't get over them, the application goes straight into the circular file. If you do, it just means your application survives the first barrier, where the majority are weeded out. I'm not totally sure if this is true, but I know Harvard gets 500+ apps a year. I imagine that 300 or so immediately go into the garbage for GRE scores/GPA.

What about expanding your MA thesis to a statewide level, or selecting a few major cities (e.g. Durham, Raleigh, Wilmington, etc.)?

Exactly this point. There are elements of the application that are far more important than others (you're not getting into Harvard with lousy LoRs, no matter how much you want to). It is imperative you focus as much as you can on the elements that you exert some degree of control over. By the time you apply to programs, your UG GPA is pretty much set. It might vary 0.05 points or something, but it's not going to change significantly. Your GRE score is a benchmark. If you don't get above the 90th percentile on Verbal/AW, that's a pretty significant obstacle.

Just to bang on a little bit more, here are two placement records (mid tier vs. top tier). Boston College's placement record: https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/mcas/departments/history/graduate/phd-program/placement/recent-history-phd-graduates.html Princeton's: https://history.princeton.edu/academics/graduate/alumni/placement-upon-graduation Not even close to comparable, especially in a tough job market.

Don't think of PhD apps like undergrad apps. There aren't "reach," "match," and "safety" schools. They simply don't exist: grad admissions are much more arbitrary and based upon factors far beyond your control. If you're going to apply to mid-tier programs, save yourself the time and apply to funded MAs. I'm persuaded you're a strong candidate for a top program. If you write well, you've got a good chance. I'm not being overly dramatic when I say the difference between Columbia and Boston College could be the difference between a tenured job and adjunct hell. If you want an academic career, you're better off confining yourself to the best programs in the field.

I appreciate your remembering so much about my project! I came in as an early modernist, intending to do Jesuit science in colonial contexts, which basically makes me a Europeanist at the outset. For pronouns' sake, it's "he." I ended up taking a course about public health in the United States and became interested in American history of medicine. My current advisor and I get along quite well, I like her a lot, etc., but she's focused on 20th century American medicine. The best faculty member to supervise my project is currently a) retired and b) 72 years old. My intent, as it currently stands, is to apply to 2 or 3 programs with specialists in 19th century American medicine, and if that doesn't work out, I'll either find a different career path or move into 20th century work, neither of which I'd like to do. At any rate, I didn't enter my program with any intention of leaving. That's at least the research element of my leaving. The other part has to do with personal concerns (e.g. mental health). I think @ExponentialDecay is right about how rotten the system is. In many regards, the humanities system, let alone the PhD system, is based upon continuing to train intelligent people to fill jobs that don't exist. Rather than hire more tenured faculty, departments rely upon contingent faculty and graduate students. What has happened, in some programs, is that they've eliminated the PhD element of their program and started only offering a fully-funded (or at least well-funded) MA. The problem is that not enough programs are doing this.

I don't think it's inherently reprehensible, but it is dishonest. To be completely honest, when I was an undergrad, one of my advisors proposed I do something similar. The problem is that even the good, not great programs have migrated towards a joint MA/PhD model, where there's no way to get an independent MA. This wasn't the case even 20 years ago, as most programs have become fully-funded. For what little it's worth, I'm considering reapplying next year. It's not because my program is bad, as it isn't. It's due to personal reasons, dissatisfaction with the university, and a very broad shift in research focus which puts me a bit beyond the pale of faculty research.

There's a difference between going somewhere with the knowledge you're leaving and going somewhere with the full intention of remaining there for the PhD, but then changing your mind due to personal reasons/research fit/etc. The former is universally frowned upon. The latter is probably far less so.

This is a great point and a big part of what's drawn me towards my advisor/current area of work. Had I stayed in early modern, I would've ended up doing something heavily situated within material culture/the literary turn, which does not interest me nearly as much.

You should email your potential advisors at each institution and determine whether or not they're accepting graduate students in this coming cycle. One of mine (Grafton) was retiring, and the other (Marcus) had just been hired and wasn't able to take grad students. Keep in mind that nothing anyone says is gospel.

I don't want to discourage you, but I'd strongly recommend looking at each of these program's placement statistics and making your choices accordingly. Some of these programs I'd wholeheartedly endorse (Columbia, Harvard, UCLA, Michigan). Others I would only do so with significant reservation (Indiana, UCL). Still others I would not recommend at all (Loyola). Unless you already have a very clear idea of what you want to do, UK PhDs are not a great bet. The funding tends to be spotty for foreigners and they don't offer much (if any) experience outside of strict research. When American universities hire, they like their candidates to have some teaching experience. Keep in mind, also, that your interests will likely change a bit in grad school. I came in as an early modernist and now I'm doing 19th/20th century American medicine. You're going about this the right way in thinking ahead to assembling a committee, something I, and I'd wager most grad students, didn't do.

You've already heard my opinion, but I've been at the airport the last 3 hours and am bored out of my mind. With your background/interests, you ought to consider programs who have a good relationship with gender/women's studies or which are well-known for women's history. You seem to have a pretty strong background. You do not need a MA, especially in view of the fact there are very few funded history MAs. I had the exact same anxieties as you did, which is why I applied to 9 programs. Consider the fact GRE scores are $27 a pop outside of the 4 programs you elect to send them to. Add application fees, often $70 or more. Applications can get very expensive. One idea which may prove useful to you is thinking about where you want to go and why. Also, consider graduate outcomes. Many programs do not list placement, but once you have names (often via a list of recent graduates), you can often find out via LinkedIn or Google. Anything with a title like "Adjunct" or "Adjunct Assistant Professor" is not a good sign. I bang on about this a lot, but roughly 70% of tenured history professors come from 10 programs. Just looking at your undergrad program's faculty, most of the people with post 2008/2009 PhDs are from elite programs (e.g. Berkeley).

It depends. My undergrad advisor (admittedly at a R2) told me "we won't accept you if you apply; there's nobody else (faculty) who'd be able to serve on your committee." His advice focused very much upon building a committee and positioning oneself for the future, which is part of why I came to UW, although my interests changed quite a bit. He knew my undergrad didn't have the resources I needed and would need. I saw him at AHA actually. In a place that does have the resources, it's a polite "f off."

Don't do this. Take it from someone who applied to 9, which was way too many. You, your sanity, and your bank account will be far better off with 4-6 really well written, explicitly tailored applications vs. 10-12 applications.Applications are very time consuming. Identifying and applying to grad programs is about equivalent to the time commitment of a 3 credit course. Do 4-6 outstanding applications, rather than 10-12 good, but not great ones. It's your senior year of college. Do the apps, go out, do stupid things with your friends, and make memories that last you the rest of your life. I can't count the number of nights I was up until 3 am doing grad apps, which, after awhile, really wears you down. On a really serious note, your PhD institution will determine what doors open and which ones close. If you want an academic career, there may not be 10-12 programs worth attending. As I've said before, a PhD from Harvard is allowed to make mistakes that would kill a FSU PhD's career. Also, given your interests, you may benefit from a program with a close relationship to a Gender/Women's Studies department.

I think it's about 50-50. My PoI at Hopkins (Principe) asked me to resubmit my writing sample, as some Greek I'd discussed was illegible. At the time, I was discussing textual and source criticism of one passage in the New Testament.

The writing sample is often not evaluated upon the accuracy of the information within the writing sample. Instead, it's designed to illustrate how well you write, whether you can string a coherent argument together, etc.

Yes, you'll be fine. I got into my program with a 3.44, though my undergrad is very well-known for grade deflation. Not to be harsh, but most programs couldn't care less about extracurriculars and student panels. Unless the publication is in a decent (read, not an undergrad) journal, then it may not mean a lot. I think you've got as good a chance as most people applying.

They do in ANE as well, but that's also related to how few ANE programs exist across the US. Chicago, Hopkins, Yale, Harvard, Penn, Brown, and maybe Indiana are the only programs.

Top programs like known quantities, as harsh as that sounds.

Think about how you can position your English MA in a way that makes you a good history candidate. For example, if you wrote on Milton, discuss how your knowledge of Milton offers deeper insight into Commonwealth England's political economy.

No, it isn't. Most of a successful PhD application involves positioning your prior knowledge and experiences in such a way to convince a committee you're a good candidate. There's also no such thing as a "professorship track candidate." None of us are. The job market is bad and going to stay bad for some time. All you can do is give yourself the best shot you can, via going to a top program, getting publications in top journals, writing a good dissertation, etc.