psstein

No, you are not a failure for leaving academia or questioning your future in academia. The "non-academic = failure" thought process and belief system needs to be burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted. In today's academic job market, many people with excellent pedigrees and award-winning books have trouble finding non-contingent academic employment. Many of them leave academia. They are not failures. 
I did the exact same thing in full knowledge that a) I didn't want to spend more time in my program, b) the "alt-ac" thing is a total fucking farce, and c) I had grown to hate my particular field, plus the one I had the most interest in is practically dead. I don't consider myself a failure. I think leaving my program after the MA was one of the best things I've ever done.
If you really love teaching, perhaps you should see what your state's (e.g. PA) educational license requirements look like.
 

No, you are not a failure for leaving academia or questioning your future in academia. The "non-academic = failure" thought process and belief system needs to be burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted. In today's academic job market, many people with excellent pedigrees and award-winning books have trouble finding non-contingent academic employment. Many of them leave academia. They are not failures. 
I did the exact same thing in full knowledge that a) I didn't want to spend more time in my program, b) the "alt-ac" thing is a total fucking farce, and c) I had grown to hate my particular field, plus the one I had the most interest in is practically dead. I don't consider myself a failure. I think leaving my program after the MA was one of the best things I've ever done.
If you really love teaching, perhaps you should see what your state's (e.g. PA) educational license requirements look like.
 

No, you are not a failure for leaving academia or questioning your future in academia. The "non-academic = failure" thought process and belief system needs to be burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted. In today's academic job market, many people with excellent pedigrees and award-winning books have trouble finding non-contingent academic employment. Many of them leave academia. They are not failures. 
I did the exact same thing in full knowledge that a) I didn't want to spend more time in my program, b) the "alt-ac" thing is a total fucking farce, and c) I had grown to hate my particular field, plus the one I had the most interest in is practically dead. I don't consider myself a failure. I think leaving my program after the MA was one of the best things I've ever done.
If you really love teaching, perhaps you should see what your state's (e.g. PA) educational license requirements look like.
 

No, you are not a failure for leaving academia or questioning your future in academia. The "non-academic = failure" thought process and belief system needs to be burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted. In today's academic job market, many people with excellent pedigrees and award-winning books have trouble finding non-contingent academic employment. Many of them leave academia. They are not failures. 
I did the exact same thing in full knowledge that a) I didn't want to spend more time in my program, b) the "alt-ac" thing is a total fucking farce, and c) I had grown to hate my particular field, plus the one I had the most interest in is practically dead. I don't consider myself a failure. I think leaving my program after the MA was one of the best things I've ever done.
If you really love teaching, perhaps you should see what your state's (e.g. PA) educational license requirements look like.
 

No, you are not a failure for leaving academia or questioning your future in academia. The "non-academic = failure" thought process and belief system needs to be burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted. In today's academic job market, many people with excellent pedigrees and award-winning books have trouble finding non-contingent academic employment. Many of them leave academia. They are not failures. 
I did the exact same thing in full knowledge that a) I didn't want to spend more time in my program, b) the "alt-ac" thing is a total fucking farce, and c) I had grown to hate my particular field, plus the one I had the most interest in is practically dead. I don't consider myself a failure. I think leaving my program after the MA was one of the best things I've ever done.
If you really love teaching, perhaps you should see what your state's (e.g. PA) educational license requirements look like.
 

Hey, everyone! Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and an early, joyous Kwanzaa! 
I've just completed my first semester of grad school, and have been taking some time to reflect on what I want and where I want to go after graduation. While I originally thought that I want to be an academic, I'm starting to feel like my career interests are more oriented towards public history or librarianship. I have a job in my school's distinctive collections, which I absolutely love, and am looking to build on my previous museum experience through internships. I also have realized how much I love teaching. While I love historical research, I'm not certain that academia is the path for me right now (not to mention the current state of the job market). 
I guess I'm kind of looking for validation, but mostly advice. What should my next steps be? Am I a complete failure for giving up on academia?

I think a lot of people find themselves feeling this way during or after grad school, myself included. For what it's worth, I'm a recent graduate of a master's program that I attended primarily because I wanted to become a more competitive applicant for PhD programs, and by the end of it, I was having a lot of conversations with professors and with myself about my conflicted feelings on moving forward within academia. I'm not currently applying to PhD programs, and am unsure if I will do so in the future. Some of the advice that was given to me:
- There are a lot of really valid reasons not to go into academia. Financial concerns are a valid reason. Wanting to choose where you live and work is a a valid reason. Wanting a job that doesn't so easily consume your entire life is a valid reason. Giving up on academia makes a lot of sense for a lot of people, and if you're having doubts about continuing on the path that once felt right for you, listen to those feelings, take them seriously, and be kind to yourself. Choosing to leave academia does not make you less of an intellectual, or less impressive, or anything of the sort. 
- As you rightly point out, there are lots of careers that are a good fit for people with backgrounds in history, and that do not require a PhD. Think about the skills that being in grad school is helping you to strengthen or cultivate--how are they transferable to other kinds of work? If you haven't read it already, I'd recommend checking out this book, which is geared more toward people coming out of PhD programs, but has lots of great suggestions that are relevant to people with MAs, too. 
Finally, since you are still fairly early on in your grad school experience, and you specify a number of different career options/interests, I would recommend continuing to think about ways that you can use the remainder of your time in school to take advantage of opportunities that will provide you with further insight on what it might be like to pursue any of those paths. Keep in mind that opening up new doors for yourself does not mean you have to close the door to academia completely if you're not ready to. But if you do feel like there are other career paths that may be a better fit for you, know that needn't feel guilty for considering or pursuing them.

Even then, pedigree matters a lot. You can be the best student in a generation at University of the Western Ozarks or Hollywood Upstairs University, but you're still going to have an incredibly uphill battle. The market is so godawful that Ivy PhDs are lucky to get jobs at R3s and PUIs in undesirable parts of the country.

Even then, pedigree matters a lot. You can be the best student in a generation at University of the Western Ozarks or Hollywood Upstairs University, but you're still going to have an incredibly uphill battle. The market is so godawful that Ivy PhDs are lucky to get jobs at R3s and PUIs in undesirable parts of the country.

Even then, pedigree matters a lot. You can be the best student in a generation at University of the Western Ozarks or Hollywood Upstairs University, but you're still going to have an incredibly uphill battle. The market is so godawful that Ivy PhDs are lucky to get jobs at R3s and PUIs in undesirable parts of the country.

If you're looking for the PhD and to go into academia, I'd apply to higher ranking programs if you can find suitable faculty to work with.  Pedigree does matter unless you're doing truly amazing work with exceptional strong letters supporting it. In the meantime, get all the funding you can for your MA.

Truthfully. most people will pass through with a satisfactory report.  Professors have other ways to share their displeasure with your performance that will make the situation look like it's your fault for leaving the program, not theirs, to avoid being punished by the Graduate School (which controls the number of funding lines it will offer each year).  You are better off asking how many people leave each year and why.  Ask what ABDs are doing to extend their funding--TAships in other departments? GAship in a Writing Center? External or internal fellowships? Most graduate students will be honest enough to share.  Ask how supportive the department is about students finding external sources of funding. Remember, most funding packages include TAing and you DON'T want to be TAing all the time. A done dissertation is a good dissertation and to get a done dissertation, you need to do less teaching and more writing.

A factor to keep in mind. Even if you already have a master's degree in hand, upon starting a doctoral program, a department is likely to require you to do the work to qualify for a master's degree. This can happen even if your master's degree is in history and even if it was earned at a higher ranked program.
In my experience, this sensibility may mean that you have to start from scratch in terms of fulfilling departmental requirements for numbers and types of courses you take. And, depending upon the rigor of one's new department and the vigilance of the faculty and staff, opportunities to re purpose/recycle  what you learned and did before may approach zero.  In terms of one's personal development and professional training, starting from (almost) scratch can be beneficial. But any such benefit is going to come at the expense of time.
(The possibility/likelihood of having to start over is a key reason why I never have recommended to aspiring doctoral students the path of getting a terminal masters first for seasoning and experience.) 
 

Not that common at most institutions. Sometimes at public colleges.

FWIW, the following is from the program's webpage.
"In the third term, you will write a 10,000- to 15,000-word thesis. This is typically a desk-based study, since there is little time to undertake individual fieldwork within the nine months of the course. Although you may attend other options courses, you will only be examined on the core courses, your two chosen option courses and the thesis."
If the thesis you produce is too far afield of the generally accepted practices for academic historians (e.g. references), a MSc in that discipline may not serve you as well as a master's in history (with a thesis/report option).
A way to square potentially the circle, write two version of your MSc thesis. One for your committee and a version that will resonate among historians. This option sees you writing for historians and then editing it to the standards of the discipline.
A second challenge you may face will center around perceptions (assumptions) of  (about) the MSc program and its participants. You may need to demonstrate that your commitment to scholarship is orders of magnitude higher than your dedication to the global problem of forced migration.

you don't?????!!!!! I'm the wrong forum then. ?

I promise that, despite our gruff and straightforward approach to advice giving, @Sigaba, @telkanuru, and I don't bite! Can't say the same for anyone else though! ?

ALCON--
If you're not finding the answers you need, make sure you ask your questions!
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

Again, this is going to vary by institution. Some have pretty strict cut-offs mandated by the university. For state schools, it may not affect your admissions, but in may cases whether or not you get awarded university vs. departmental funding (usually a $10,000+ difference) is purely dependent on your quantifiable metrics.

In short: summer before for programs, mid-fall for professors.  And kindly use the search functions to see a variety of answers to your question.

It is probably in your best interest to be around 1000 words, though slightly over is okay. It's really designed to prevent them from having to read 10 page SoPs with multiple footnotes, long historiographical discourses, etc.

It is probably in your best interest to be around 1000 words, though slightly over is okay. It's really designed to prevent them from having to read 10 page SoPs with multiple footnotes, long historiographical discourses, etc.

I have successfully transferred, and am very happy with my own results. I also made the blunder of having an incredibly general/aimless statement of purpose. In my second round of applications I made certain to tailor my SOP to particular institutions well beyond the paragraph swap I think most people do. I also sent different writing samples to different institutions depending on what I thought they would enjoy. This last move is dubious, most would say to polish one and only one sample, but I had two papers out of my graduate courses that I was very proud of, and for each paper, I was applying to a school that had a professor I was responding directly to.
I spoke to several trusted professors about my transfer attempt, and when recounting successful transfer attempts, the common thread seemed to be the transfer was successful because the student had particular people they wanted to work with in the receiving department, and the application made very clear that they were targeting the department in particular for those people.
I do think transferring in general is harder. My evidence is that every school that waitlisted me in the first round rejected me outright in the second, even with, in my evaluation, better samples, letters, and SOPs. I think that the targeting strategy works, because my successful transfer was in a department well out of my expected range (an extreme reach) that had a professor that I supported directly in my writing sample and made clear in my SOP that I wanted to work with.
 
I am willing to share my SOP's and samples if they would help anyone here.

Since it seems part of your desire to transfer stems from concerns about the job market, it probably worth noting that the job market for medievalists is probably worse than for philosophy generally. And since, you make it sound like you'd like an R1 position, it's probably also worth mentioning (beyond the fact that it's extremely hard for anyone to get an R1 position) that the one place where medievalists actually get hired (semi-)regularly is at Catholic colleges and universities (which, with a few notable exceptions, means smaller teaching colleges). None of this is to deter you. It may still make sense to transfer, but these are good things to think about going in. It would also probably behoove you for the job market to demonstrate a competency in related field (if you work on medieval metaphysics, make sure you can teach a class on contemporary metaphysics, or gain the skills to teach an into ancient or early modern class). That means picking  a programs that can facilitate your development in the related field as well as medieval philosophy. 
Probably not worth your time
Not quite sure what you mean by two letter from one prof. I think it's fine to have one letter from undergrad, the other two should probably come from your current program.
Double check the retirement status of the medievalists at this program. Eleonore Stump, for example, could plausibly retire at any time.
Don't alienate professors or other grad students at you current program. It's always possible that your transfer attempt fails, which means you will need to be working with these people for another 4+ years.

It is probably in your best interest to be around 1000 words, though slightly over is okay. It's really designed to prevent them from having to read 10 page SoPs with multiple footnotes, long historiographical discourses, etc.