psstein

I very strongly agree with you. It's to your detriment, if you want to get into any of the programs worth attending (in terms of academic job placement) to portray yourself in the strongest possible light. And, in some cases, that means omitting the "struggles" that far too many people think give an application depth.

I said this a few pages back, but I suspect that programs that don't "have" to take a new graduate cohort will try to avoid doing taking one.

That's very similar to what I've heard as well. Many of those smaller colleges already have enough of a problem keeping the lights on and paying out faculty/staff salaries and benefits. I see some universities further reducing their humanities graduate programs and, in some cases, eliminating or consolidating them.

I would echo this call, but add that one should also approach this with an understanding of the existing academic job market in mind. It's been over a year since I looked at it closely, but the opportunities for a historian of capitalism are dramatically better than those of a historian of education. Of the last 4-5 openings at my former program, 3 went to scholars who had a significant focus on the history of capitalism.

I would also suggest that some faculty aren't always keenly attuned to the administrative parts of any department. While I was still in graduate school, both of my supervisors were very much of that mold. TT or tenured faculty have many important things on their plates at any given time. Bureaucracy usually is not among the more important elements.

No, they won't. Certain advisors have different approaches to language proficiency. My colleague's first advisor (who took medical retirement, otherwise I would've worked with him too) required his students to translate Foucault from the original French, in front of him. Others require their students to take the university-offered courses.

Even earlier, I'd argue. George Gliddon, an American Egyptologist who was very influential in the development of scientific racism, gave a series of very popular lectures on Ancient Egypt in the 1840s and 50s. And that's just off the top of my head.

I suspect the schools that can "afford," for lack of a better word, to not have an incoming cohort will not have one. I'm not sure what Wisconsin plans on doing, either. Certainly it's going to be very competitive getting into graduate school this Fall.

@gsc you've made excellent points. I agree, the structure of programs and the academy more generally is such that it disincentivizes preparing for a non-academic career. It's frankly the biggest struggle I've had when it comes to going back. @Sigaba, I hadn't thought about the finance angle of things. I'll have to see if I could fit that in, should I choose to return.

I would go in with a very clear understanding that you're going to need to look at non-academic careers. I'm personally on leave from my program right now, but if I go back, I do not intend to seek an academic career. I would tailor my experience and work so that I'd track explicitly towards a non-academic career. About SoPs: there's a lot to mention, but there are two important questions: what do you want to do and why can only you do it?

All those programs are fine and I think there's another poster here who works on similar questions, but the name currently eludes me. Your GRE score and GPA are fine. Some programs are dumping the GRE and I suspect to see that trend increase over time. I'd suggest worrying about the things you can control, like your writing sample and statement of purpose. BTW, not to discourage anyone, but I suspect the economic fallout from COVID-19 will result in more grad school applicants, but also smaller intakes than usual. Expect this cycle to be very, very competitive.

I don't know anything about UCSF or McGill, but I know that Hopkins has a very good, though very small program.

I would concern yourself less with things you can't change much (i.e. GPA) and more with your own research interests and questions. If you have a good grasp of you what you want to study, it's much easier to identify programs. For example, if you wanted to do post-WW2 physics, I'd tell you to look into MIT/Princeton/Berkeley.

I strongly doubt it. I'll echo @TMP's comments that it may hurt more than help. If you've outspoken views in one direction or the other, you may arouse the ire of someone whose opinion matters.

Yep, this is exactly the type of thing I'd hope for. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion around here (I seem to have a lot of them), but KPIs should be a part of tenure reform. Historical research is inherently different from scientific research, but the current structure serves as a disincentive to produce research. There are many scholars who never produce second monographs, or many articles after tenure. Once you're in, it's bloody difficult to be forced out. To your last point, about making academic history relevant, I see many issues in contemporary politics that academic history could shed light on. Historians of science, for example, could explain why public trust in science has decreased so much since the end of the Cold War, or explicate the issues with the current structure of grant proposals and research funding. I don't see a world in which the system doesn't begin to break over the next 10 years, though. I agree, if you're on the outside, it's a lot less fear-inducing than being on the inside. It's part of the reason why i left, after all. I tend to believe, though, that people in secure positions will be able to protect themselves (barring university closings), but everyone not already in a secure position is screwed. If it doesn't, though, what happens? Do admins use this crisis to further justify contingent faculty/graduate student teaching? I'm concerned that yes, they will. Why bother replacing a tenure line when you can just hire someone contingently? After all, it's cheaper and allows you to free up money to pay for yet another admin.

It's not necessarily a bad thing for the existing system to burn down. But, knowing what we do about college administrators and the neoliberal university, I doubt they'll rebuild academia in any sort of positive way.

I wouldn't call that mercenary so much as I would call it understanding the challenges and issues of the existing system. The COVID-19 crisis is going to further squeeze academia, which will likely lead to a small number of programs producing an ever more disproportionate number of TT faculty. Getting ahead of that curve is not a bad idea. @DenverSun16, I would aim to do as well as you possibly can on the GRE. Score above the 90th-95th percentile for verbal, 90th-95th on the analytical writing, and do your best on the quant section. Some programs do use it to make funding decisions, but, for your peace of mind, you don't want to worry about your GRE score potentially holding you back. (This doesn't apply to most applicants: GRE quant matters for HoS students interested in a math heavy field, like history of the physical sciences, or students in economic history)

The Anglosphere literature on history of medicine very heavily focuses on the US and UK, though there are some very welcome exceptions about medicine in Africa. I think your project is quite promising, especially if you contextualize it well.

Immediately.

One of the several reasons I got out is that I saw the writing on the wall. It's not a popular opinion, but working 7-9+ years (longer, if you include post-docs) to take a job in an undesirable location for relatively low pay wasn't for me. Yes, yes, I know "nobody does it for the money," but at the end of the day, most of us want to eat and have some modest standard of living. I've a strong feeling that administrators will use this crisis to push remote instruction, just like they used 2008 to push part-time/adjunct faculty. As I've said before, NOT GOING is a choice. It's arguably the wisest one.

This happens more often than you'd suppose. One of my colleague's French language proficiency exam was "translate this passage from Foucault in front of me."

NYU's MA programs are cash cows that fund their PhD programs. You're not likely to get the kind of support you need to successfully continue onto a PhD.

More a general rule than an absolute, but I agree, if you want to work in a history department, you're more likely to get there doing a history PhD than an American Studies PhD.

Look at what your advisor's former students are doing. If one advisor is pumping out TT faculty members, and the other is producing people with non-academic careers, it's clear, in view of your goals, who to choose.

Columbia's MA programs fund their PhD programs. I wouldn't expect to get the sort of attention and advising you need to successfully transition into a PhD.