psstein

You've said that you're in a very narrow field. What field is it?

This was my experience as well. Actually, I spoke to my POI at Minnesota recently. He said "My colleague and I really liked your application, that's why we accepted you. But, you weren't a funding priority because other faculty didn't understand why you wanted to come here." I would very strongly advise not paying attention to those rankings. Michigan State has an exceptional African History program and cannot be reasonably compared with George Mason. I bang on about this quite a bit (as does @telkanuru), but the only ranking that matters at all is placement. What are graduates doing? Are they in adjunct hell? If so, don't bother going there. Are they competitive on the job market? What do their publication records look like when they graduate? These are all important questions that you need answers to before you accept any offer at all. Also, this is not something you should think of as "reach, match, and safety." Undergrad admissions approaches do not apply to graduate admissions; graduate admissions are far less data-based and far more subjective. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who didn't get into lower-ranked programs but was accepted into higher-ranked programs.

This is not to be rude, but "top 40" in history is not a good program. 10 universities train 65% of TT faculty. The top 20 likely train 90%+. By the time you're around 35-40, as my undergrad was, you might get one academic placement every 3-4 years.

I don't know how strong the program in general is, but Jon Roberts (Boston University) is an outstanding scholar of American intellectual history.

I've come to believe sunshine is the result of mass delusion.

Your advisor's reputation follows you after his/her death, so it matters quite a fair bit.

I mean for history or most humanities. Cost is a big part of why it's not worth it. Going into debt for a MA or PhD in any humanities field is not a good idea, especially in view of the job prospects. There are funded MAs and some relatively inexpensive MAs. Neither of those are bad decisions, especially in view of the fact that the MA institution isn't all that important in the long run.

Some research libraries (Newberry, for example) offer paleography courses. You can learn it through coursework, but you master it like any other skill, by repetition.

That's true to an extent. Some top programs care far less. To use my program as an example, I know a person with a Indiana HPS MA, another with a Central European Univ. MA, and a third with a Florida State MA. BA is a bit of a different case.

There's no set formula beyond high quality written work, excellent recommendations, high marks, and good fit.

The "internal aid" is probably like Chicago's MAPSS program, one-third tuition and no stipend, which means you're paying $60,000 out of pocket for a MA.

The Ivy MA programs are cash cows and largely not worth it.

If you think that Michigan is a better fit, than by all means go to Michigan. It also looks like they offer a very generous stipend (6 years!). Keep in mind that Princeton has a bit of a reputation for forcing you through in five years, come hell or high water. It comes down to what's best for you, not what some random guy on the internet says!

Perhaps this is an unsatisfying response, but one of the best ways is exposing yourself to good quality writing. John Heilbron, although a controversial figure, is a very good writer.

There's scholarly literature on this topic. Rather than stirring the pot here, which is inappropriate, use your library.

Congratulations on the acceptances. As hackneyed as this is going to sound, Princeton is probably far and away the best option. They're richer than God Himself and can offer you non-financial support that goes a long way. Emory is great if you want to be in suburban Atlanta (I considered Candler, then ended up in a different field). Also, examine each department's placement record. Yes, it's acceptable to negotiate offers. Keep in mind, though that UVA or Michigan may be less able to match than you'd like. You should talk to the DGS.

This is a legitimate concern and one that you should strongly consider. Adjunct hell is called hell for a reason. If you're a poor fit, plus you've other concerns, I'd recommend reapplying. Keep in mind that another year may lead you to find new interests and develop a better sense of what it is you want to do. It may not be history, after all. I'd also say that grad admissions are so arbitrary that you may experience far greater success next year for reasons beyond your control. What, specifically, is your area of interest?

I'd strongly consider a terminal MA. If you can find a funded one (they do exist, though few and far between), then you'll be in a great position.

It's fine to withdraw your application. You don't need to provide much of a reason, honestly.

Just so everyone knows, it is very rare for HoS grad students to be hired as historians of science. More often than not, you're hired for another reason (teaching British history or whatever) and you do HoS stuff on the side. There aren't more than 20 or so HoS departments in the entire country, so HoS jobs are fairly rare.

That's a decision you have to make for yourself. I'll say that most HoS programs today require you to interact with the history department more generally. The differences really come in the kinds of theory and approaches you're exposed to. For example, most history departments aren't going to have you read Kuhn/Latour/Woolgar/Hacking, whereas most HoS departments will. Harvard HoS is an excellent program. It really depends on what you want to focus on. If you want to focus on history of Mexican medicine, then Harvard is the choice. If you want to focus on history of Mexico with an eye on medicine/healing, then you're better off in history. I hope that makes sense. My department has an Africanist who writes about medicine/healing, but he's fundamentally an Africanist, not a historian of medicine. Also, keep in mind that the two will often have different thematic approaches.

What would you like to know about HoS? Most HoS today isn't all that different from regular history, with a few exceptions (some historians of astronomy do very technical work).

You shouldn't worry about whether or not the faculty do exactly what you do. Faculty advise dissertations out of their direct areas all the time. It's dependent on what you want to do afterward. My inclination is that NYU is the best option based on both prestige and access to resources (i.e. NYU is unbelievably wealthy and has the ability to offer you things like summer funding). I would strongly suggest looking at placement and then making a decision.

That's a bit misleading. The academic job market, while tight before the 2008-2009 crash, was significantly better than it is today. The question is really what students who graduated 3-5 years ago do. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/the-troubled-academic-job-market-for-history Now, the AHA job listings have problems, but I think the overarching point stands.

This is an excellent post. Also, congratulations on your acceptance. I'm assuming ND, in which case, I'm sure we'll meet soon enough!