psstein

I'm already attending, but broadly speaking, my interests are in late medieval/early modern astronomy/chymistry (yet to see where the latter is going!). Last year, I applied to Indiana HPS, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Wisconsin, Yale, Minnesota, Hopkins, and Chicago. I shouldn't have applied to Yale, Princeton, Harvard, or Chicago given my interests at the time (much more focused on Jesuit science and the like). I was accepted to Minnesota and Wisconsin for the full MA/PhD, Chicago gave me the MAPPS, and Indiana an unfunded MA. In terms of the best programs, it depends specifically what you want to do. Hopkins HoS and HoM are phenomenal for early modern and late medieval. Principe and Portuondo are really great people. Harvard is strong in later periods, but is rebuilding its early modern, as they've had to replace Katie Park and Mario Biagioli. Princeton is obviously very strong, though Tony Grafton has stopped taking grad students. With regard to Wisconsin, I'm of two minds about this program. Obviously I go there, so I have my own biases. I think that if you want to do something closer to STS, you ought to go somewhere like Cornell or Penn. Nicole Nelson is excellent, but she's the only formal STS scholar. The Medical History dept. here is very focused on 19th/20th century, so it's tough to do anything earlier. Lynn Nyhart remains one of the best historians of biology, and Pablo Gomez is great if you want to do Atlantic history of medicine/science. If you want to talk about Wisconsin further, PM me. Indiana's HPS is a good program, but has bad internal issues. Bill Newman and Domenico Meli are top scholars on the history side, but philosophy runs the department. Minnesota has funding issues because it's somewhat placeless. I can't say anything substantive about Pitt, Berkeley, ND, UCLA, Stanford, or Oklahoma. @Neist knows way more about OU than I would.

All UW-Madison acceptees, PM me if you want to talk about the program.

If you're at all interested in American intellectual history, Jon Roberts is outstanding.

Madison is more lively, but the weather gets equally tiresome. I'm told that there's this thing called grass, but I haven't seen it in weeks.

My experience was with HPS, which is not as well-funded/relies upon a cash cow MA.

You may be out of the running for a fellowship, but you may still get in. IU has some really awful funding problems.

As @narple said, you're not going to hear until either the end of this month or even midway through next. I think I heard from MAPSS in mid-March, but my PhD app was shifted over.

This is especially timely for people interested in FLAS. It seems as though nobody knows if the government is going to fund it past this summer. On some level, I can understand why that is: FLAS seems like a Cold War remnant.

Depends on your area: CUNY is a good, not great grad program in a very expensive place to live. A funded MA is almost unheard of in history.

As I said several pages back, I received a similar remark from Hopkins HoS last year. It was also from their department chair. It may be as simple as a program balance issue. Had I been accepted to Hopkins HoS, they'd have had 60 percent of the incoming cohort be early modernists.

I don't think you have to name names, but more discuss broader trends. For example "students generally don't engage with this historiographical approach" or something like it. For example, HoS dissertations rarely engage technical aspects of chemistry/physics/biology/astronomy anymore. There are still some people doing technical work, but it's less common with each passing year.

Two things here: 1. Not all Ivy league programs are created equal. Michigan/Berkeley/Wisconsin do better in placement than Penn/Cornell/Brown. It's not that the programs provide excellent training, though some of them do. The programs have access to resources that most of us could only dream of. Harvard/Princeton are wealthier than God. That means that they can afford to bring in visiting scholars on a weekly or biweekly basis (we do it about once a month here in Wisconsin). That means less teaching, which often leads to faster dissertation completion. It means access to rare books on campus, rather than going to research libraries like the Newberry. It means money for expenses that other universities wouldn't dream of covering. Hopkins HoS told me that they'd give me a yearly sum just for books and conference travel; I had to use it all in one year, because it didn't roll over to the next. 2. Yes, to some degree. People with a Harvard PhD are allowed to screw up a lot more than people with a UVA PhD. One scholar with a Berkeley PhD was notoriously difficult to get along with and arrogant. He produced a technically sloppy work that was well received for its analysis of a famous scientist's social networks, then engaged in a vicious debate with a reviewer. He received tenure at Harvard, but by the end of his time there (he now teaches on the W. Coast), he had managed to alienate a significant proportion of the field.

Just to support the point that they're nonsense, we're currently rebuilding our Latin America program in Wisconsin. US News and World Report ranks us second overall. Yes, it is totally worthless. The response rate is around 20 percent and requires department chairs to make assumptions that aren't in a position to know about. UCLA is not a top 10 program. It's not a bad program, but not top 10. William and Mary is, by placement, not a top 30 program in history. The only metric that matters is jobs.

I would advise not putting too much stock in media rankings. The US News and World Report survey has a notoriously low response rate. The only metric that matters is placement.

Ah, great. Judy Houck is coming off leave and hasn't had a grad student in quite some time. I can't say I know her especially well (I work with someone else). Haynes was just tenured, too. I have to confess that anything official with HoS/Medical History can be a bit like herding cats. Our merger has been anything but seamless. The admins have done an admirable job, as well. I suspect you'll hear next week; I was told a year ago today.

I have no idea. Anecdotally, people tend to learn about rejections by the end of the month. Who are your POIs?

One is a spousal hire. The reality is that where you get your PhD matters, up to a point. After that point, productivity and reputation take over. Sue Lederer got her PhD here, at Wisconsin (with Ron Numbers), went to Penn State, then ended up at Yale for the better part of a decade. She was lured back to be the medical history department's chair. @khigh, I've little doubt you mean well, but sometimes you should think about whether or not what you're saying is as broadly true as you make it out to be.

They're unofficial, pending grad school approval. The grad school isn't going to turn you down provided you're not a felon or whatever. The official offer should come about a week after you receive the unofficial one.

No, don't worry about it. Also, for those interested: Wisconsin's admissions have started to trickle out. The meeting was held on Monday the 5th.

This is probably the most entertaining post I've read on here.

No, they don't. Most top programs don't have the manpower to do it. As I've said a few times, Penn's History and Sociology of Science (HSS) does, just as Hopkins' History of Science (not history of medicine, a separate department) does.

Chicago's program admits with the history department. They're not separate entities. What are your research interests? Princeton HoS will probably tell you in the next 2 weeks or so. I remember getting my decision in mid-February.

Mine was a not very prestigious journal. Since there's about one issue a year, I'd rather not name the journal.

Bingo. You can be accepted or rejected from a grad program for no good reason whatsoever. It can be as simple as your PoI doesn't feel like taking a grad student, or as complex as questions of program balance/politics/funding. I was rejected from Hopkins on the ostensible grounds that I wasn't experienced enough in HoS (which is nonsense, the vast majority of undergrads have no HoS exposure). The reality was that they didn't want to have early modernists as 80% of their entering cohort. Also, at the time, I wanted to do something with history of medicine, with whom they don't have a good relationship.

Think so, but they may come out earlier. It depends on how fast the process moves. Don't bother checking the portal, it's often not updated even when you are accepted. Colleen Dunlavy (the DGS) will send you an email if you're accepted.