psstein

Unless the applicant is a violent felon (which does happen), the graduate school approves the department's recommendations.

Starting with the caveat that I'm neither an accountant nor a lawyer: I remember reporting it as "unearned income" and then calculating the monthly state/federal taxes and withholding it that way.

Agreed with all of your comments. The opportunity costs are not only financial, though those are certainly the easiest to quantify. I assume you're referring to me when you say "your friend worried about finances" to @AP. The financial elements are the easiest to point to, but far from the only ones. As for solutions, there've been more than 2 or 3 proposed in the thread. I said that I work as a consultant for a professional services firm. Think about the skills that I use on a daily basis: clear, cogent writing with strong supporting evidence, presenting what we do to clients and other stakeholders, and breaking down multifaceted, complex problems and helping clients understand them in ways that make them easier to address and understand. These are all extremely valuable skills you learn with a history degree. There are 10-15 firms that I know of who love people with these skills (and hire history majors-- yes, I'm happy to discuss in DMs). Besides the corporate route I've outlined, there's non-profit/NGO work, which again, requires people who communicate well and can quickly build up expertise on areas of need. Both of these routes also require strong organizational and project management skills. Finally, there's government work and education. I know the least about this area, so I'll leave it to others to discuss.

The reason, for me at least, is that far too many people see earning a PhD as a continuation of undergrad-- a "next step" if you will. Many of them are bright, capable people who receive poor advice from often well-meaning faculty. As a result, there's an influx of folks every year ( @AP@TMP@dr. telkanuru @Sigaba almost certainly remember a few) who've incomplete understandings of how truly bad things are right now. Many people, including current grad students, have illusions about their futures and prospects. I had one prospective student tell me, at a campus visit, "I could just go to X (a less prestigious institution) and just outwork everyone into a TT job." I had to stop myself from telling her "it doesn't fucking work like that." It's also the case that many people interested in the process see the lack of direct financial cost and fail to take the massive opportunity costs of a PhD into account. You may not pay in dollars and cents, but you will pay in time, the one resource none of us will ever have more of. You'll also pay in deferred earnings and retirement. An example: I left after my MA, for a variety of reasons I won't discuss here. I now work as a mid-level consultant for a major professional services firm. Many of my colleagues in the same role are a year or two younger than me. Many of the people my age are one step up (or about to be one step up). The pay differential between my current role and the step up is about $15,000. I had a $30,000 opportunity cost (potentially even more) when I went to grad school.

And, to put it mildly, some of them had very tough times finding jobs. Mark Goodacre, whom I'd consider an excellent scholar, ended up working in retail before he found a job. Fairly or not (not, given the contours of the current market), some smaller institutions believe that PhDs from top-tier programs are more likely to leave for another offer. As a result, they'll sometimes hire someone with a degree from (e.g.) Claremont or Drew, on the basis that they're less of a "flight risk." Again, given that the vast majority of faculty will never leave where they're hired, it's an outdated thought process...

Wisconsin admits, feel free to PM me.

If you want to do a history PhD, that's fine, but you should be aware of the costs and benefits of making said decision. I wrote a much longer Reddit post a number of years ago that outlined what potential students should take into consideration. If you want a PhD to become a faculty member at a 4-year institution, forget it. I can go on and on about the whole "alt-ac" thing, which I largely consider a comforting fairy tale that university admins and faculty tell themselves to justify accepting graduate students.

All of those programs (or virtually all of them) require you to have an external field in broader history. Virtually everybody with a PhD from any of those programs teaches (e.g.) early modern Europe, with history of science on the side. There are very, very few dedicated history of science jobs.

HoS follows a different timeline if my memory serves.

I'll give my usual advice: 1) Don't go anywhere without full funding and an adequate (read: livable) stipend. Taking on debt for a degree with an uncertain at best outcome is not a good idea. 2) The best way to identify programs is to do the following: look at the books that interested you in gender history. Research the author and find where s/he received his PhD and when. Look at the citations and research the authors of frequently cited works. Once you have this information, try to find placement histories of these scholars' PhD students.

It's been so long since my application process that I can't really outline specific questions or ideas. Something worth asking about is HSS' relationship with the larger history/sociology/social science departments. Generally the way to learn about this is to ask students about their fields for prelims (sometimes called comps).

This is an excellent sign. Basically, they're trying to see how you'd fit with the rest of the department and how your project overlaps with faculty members' areas of interest.

Agreed. If you're a college senior, have fun. Do stupid shit. Make memories that'll last a lifetime. I personally prescribe Johnnie Walker Black, as much as needed, as often as needed.

And, to make this even more complex and challenging, avoid biographies of controversial figures more generally. At one point, I considered writing a dissertation focusing on Thomas Parran (Surgeon General of PHS between 1936-1948, and heavily involved in the Tuskegee Study). My advisor told me that it wasn't a dissertation project, because Parran was too controversial. If I had to offer a blanket statement, which I generally dislike doing, I'd advise against biographies for the book review.

A recent book in your field of interest that received overall positive reviews is a good place to start. I would strongly advise against any controversial books.

It's an option at every program I know. I wouldn't go into a PhD program thinking about it, however. I took the MA and ran because of two major reasons: 1) I was thoroughly and completely done with academia, from the institutional structures to more personal areas. 2) I saw far too many colleagues (working in areas similar to my own) having trouble finding any type of permanent employment. Many of them had fascinating dissertations, several publications, awards, and good teaching records. They couldn't find secure employment. I was the second person in my cohort to leave the program. Two more have followed.

Online applicant tracking systems are a bane of my existence. Yes, I've many banes.

I've seen both in articles. I tend to prefer putting the original text in the footnotes, so that the reader look at it for him/herself and possibly understand nuances that the translation failed to capture.

I'll be even more blunt than @dr. telkanuru. Don't fucking do it. Unfair and cruel as it may be, your future career prospects heavily depend on the program you attend.

I agree. When you're in a relatively small subfield, it's a different story than someone in arguably the largest field in the US.

If you are at all interested in academia after you finish your PhD, don't bother with online programs. They're not worth it.

UCL is phenomenal for history of the physical sciences/history of chemistry. They've staked their reputation as a program on those two elements and, for the most part, done very well. One of the foremost historians of chemistry today, Catherine Jackson, has her PhD from UCL. So if you were in that area at all, I'd say go for UCL. However, their department is very weak outside of those areas and has a bit of a slant towards STS (which isn't what everyone wants). On another note, Manchester seems to have quite a good relationship with the Wellcome Trust, which definitely can't hurt as you look towards PhDs...

What is your long-term goal? UCL has practically zero interest in history of medicine (they've managed to completely exorcise the ghost of the Wellcome Unit) and I think getting competent supervision would be a significant challenge. With that said, I would try to determine the outcomes for each program. If one program is pumping graduates to Oxbridge or other high quality programs, and the other isn't, then the answer is clear.

It's summer, so many faculty are checking email infrequently at best. Don't be too discouraged if you don't get a reply, just try again in the Fall.

Public universities sometimes use it for funding decisions, in terms of who gets a more prestigious package.