psstein

I believe people should know the layout of the field. And, honestly, a lot of undergrads apply to grad school with the intention of becoming a professor. Almost all of them are disappointed at the end of the day.

It's not impossible, but the further away you get from top 10 institutions, the less likely it is.

I don't want to discourage you, but the academic job market is especially tight these days. Outside of a few select programs, very few history PhDs are ever going to be tenured professors.

It was my first time as well. I'm actually from the DC area, but I can't remember the last time it was that cold here. From my conversations with other people, many of the affiliate organizations were rather upset with how the sessions at the Hilton were handled. The Omni/Marriott walk wasn't bad, but I generally chose to attend sessions at those two rather than go to the Hilton.

Yes and no, American history until about the mid-20th century was often pretty closed off from the rest of the world. My grandfather received his PhD in the mid 1960s and his dissertation is about American journalism in the Great Depression. Even American military historians have to focus on different areas today. It is very rare to see a military historian who doesn't at least pay lip service to race or gender.

It depends how it's approached. My undergrad advisor, who was hired about 8 years ago, did Early Modern England with particular attention to the history of printing/print culture. But, he also went to Princeton with Anthony Grafton, which undoubtedly helped. From anecdotal experience in my program, it's more towards transnational approaches. The professors who focus on one or two countries are largely from two or so generations ago.

This is something to be taken up with the AHA directly, but the affiliate organizations really got screwed by having almost all of their sessions at the Hilton.

I think I've asked you before, but who are you interested in working with at UW?

Most of the programs worth going to are joint MA/PhD programs. Many (if not most) PhD programs will allow you to use some of your MA credits towards the PhD, but it's not universal.

I meant to respond to this in my earlier post. As I've said elsewhere, I applied to 9 programs, which was 4 more than I should've. If were reapplying, I have a list of about three I'm actually interested in. Along the lines of things that haven't been applicable, my grandparents (my grandmother has a MA in English History from the early 60s and my grandfather from 1965/66, PhD in American economic history) have told me that I should only bother with a dissertation based on sources in English. I wasn't particularly tolerant of that view and it also beggars belief as to how anyone writes about sources in other languages.

That 1 TT job works at Wisconsin (Pablo Gomez). He's an orthopedic surgeon and his first book, The Experiential Caribbean, is widely acclaimed. He's an outstanding scholar and his experience is far from typical.

To answer your questions: 1. No, a friend/cohort member received his MPhil from Cambridge. He's an Americanist too. 2. It's a MPhil, not a DPhil. Don't concern yourself with it, just do the damn coursework. 3. Not really, so long as you complete the app, I wouldn't think it matters. 4. The UK is way more expensive than you think it is. Forget the tuition/funding, think about living expenses. Funding is always competitive in the UK, so you're going to fight for it one way or another.

At Wisconsin, we offer courses in baseball history.

Living or dead? Living: Mike Shank, John Heilbron, Allan Brandt, Robert Proctor, Anthony Grafton, Lorraine Daston, Ed Grant, etc. Dead: John Murdoch, David Lindberg, Owen Hannaway, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, Richard Westfall, multiple others Heilbron can be an acerbic guy, but he's a great writer. As you can probably tell from my list, I'm an early modernist. In terms of theories in vogue, it depends. Foucault was very popular between 1980 and 2000 or so, but I've seen evidence suggesting his influence has waned.

Congratulations! Penn is a damn good program and the only HSS department I know of. The interviews are more designed to ascertain if you're a good fit for the program and vice versa. The results can be disappointing (I got along really well with my potential advisor at Hopkins, but was rejected). If you meet with grad students, don't be afraid to ask about whether or not the stipend is livable. Don't be afraid to ask about alt-ac resources or placements either. Both sides are supposed to find out about each other in these interviews. Just be yourself and show that you have a passion for the subject. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk some more about this.

Most programs don't interview. The two that I know of who do are Penn HSS and Hopkins HoS.

This is the case with almost every MA program, save one or two. For some odd reason, this seems interesting to me. Would you be so kind as to send me the paper?

You should be excited for graduate school. It's lovely to be paid (even minimally) for working in a field you like. On the other hand, you need to be aware of the realities of the job market and post-PhD life. You may love the field you're interested in, but from what you've said, it doesn't look like a vibrant field in the US. Finding a job will, as a result, be more difficult.

I think obsessed was a bit too strong a word, you're right. Dedicated would be more apt. People who are good candidates for history PhDs often spend time reading and thinking about the subject when they're not involved. I was applying last year and remember that thread all too well. There was one poster who was especially aggressive, especially after she was rejected by several universities. I remember threats to people's funding as well. Several useful contributors ended up deleting their accounts over it, which was very unfortunate. This is definitely true. I interviewed at a very well-known program in HoS and was told that the department doesn't bother to prepare students for non-academic careers. A very well-known professor in my program (actually one of the reasons I chose Wisconsin) told me that he doesn't pay much attention to the job market anymore. His last PhD student has spent two years looking for a job and is on the verge of giving up.

I might be a bit hard on UVA, though I went to undergrad at its academic rival! It's not a bad place, but there are far better. I think the placement record speaks for itself, though. Success in TT placement is usually a good sign for a program.

Welcome to the board! I'm going to say something that's not going to seem gentle, but you need to hear it. If you can see yourself doing anything else, you need to choose a different career path. History PhDs are for the obsessed. I won't speak for others, but I read literature in my field for fun. The academic job market is terrible and realistically speaking, most of us are going to end up in non-academic careers. It's a minimum of five years at minimum wage. You should go in knowing the full picture. Now, as for actual information: you shouldn't bother applying to MA programs unless you have serious gaps in your preparation (languages, undergrad marks, etc.). If you're at all qualified, which it seems like you are, a joint MA/PhD is the best route. Most institutions make you take MA credits even if you matriculate with a MA. Language preparation: ideally, you'll know at least one language going into graduate work. It depends, of course, on your area of interest. Europeanists should know French and German, plus whatever languages they need to access source materials. I'm an early modernist, so I need Latin in addition to French and German. Area of interest: you haven't yet determined your area of interest!?!? No, it's fine. I changed fields with six weeks to go before applications were do, believe it or not. At this juncture, take some of the books and articles you've found interesting and read more by the same authors. Then, read things in the footnotes, bibliography, etc. That'll give you a better understanding of the field's layout. Programs: If you're interested in an academic career, there are 10 universities the majority of academic historians graduate from. Go on your faculty website and see where their PhDs are from. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the majority hired in the recent past (2009 and onward) are Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Chicago/top-tier state schools (Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, etc.). The US News and World Report rankings are almost useless. Do not pay them heed. UVA and Univ. of Washington are not programs that produce PhDs in academic jobs. I know of one professor who went to UVA and he was hired as a diplomatic historian after a career in the State Department. Applications: Nobody cares about your internships/jobs/whatever. Grad school admissions do not operate on being well-rounded. They operate on your potential as a scholar. The critical elements are letters of recommendation (LoR), the statement of purpose (outlining why you want to go to grad school and a rough outline of a research project!), and major GPA, especially in upper-division courses. @khigh, I think you make some good points, but keep in mind that the perspective from inside graduate programs is very different from the one you have outside graduate programs. Also, don't make assumptions about @telkanuru. He's one of the best posters here (as indicated by his reputation numbers!), but he's also been around quite a bit. I know you're taking a gap year, but you sometimes come off as though you've got it all figured out, as do a lot of undergrads. Grad school dispels that notion very quickly.

Gender has been very popular for the last twenty or so years in the US (Europe remains a bit different), though there are inclinations that the "gender trend" is starting to recede. Digital history with GIS and "stuff" (as you put it so well!) is either in retreat or almost in retreat. Global approaches are in vogue; out of a cohort of 11, I'm one of two Europeanists and I'm not a strict Europeanist at that. Colonial history from the perspective of the colonized is becoming important. In terms of what's in decline, economic and diplomatic histories have taken big hits. Intellectual history is not popular in its traditional forms, though new approaches show promise. @VAZ posted a great infographic while I was typing this response.

It depends on what you do. There's no market right now for American diplomatic history or American political history, at least done in the traditional ways. If you jump on one of today's trends, you've a way better chance. It's tough to paint with broad strokes, just because it varies so much by what individuals bring to the table.

In honesty, I might have lifted that from you. I said "I know of," so I think we're referring to the same person. I can think of another example: a very well-known British New Testament scholar, when he first graduated from his PhD, worked at Euro Disneyland because he couldn't find another job. As @telkanuru said, you'll have more options the more you search, but they're not always attractive options.

It is rather upsetting. I would add, though, that China and several E. Bloc countries are looking for English-speaking scholars. In my undergrad, a professor told me to go on H-Net to look at job listings. Some university in Kazakhstan was interested in hiring historians. There are options on the international market, it's just that some of them aren't great. I think there's a listing for a university in Saudi Arabia on H-Net right now, actually.