psstein

If you want to continue to the PhD, it is in your best interest to do a MA thesis. The fact that the thesis is "dead" at Villanova is, in my view, very strange.

If you want to continue to the PhD, it is in your best interest to do a MA thesis. The fact that the thesis is "dead" at Villanova is, in my view, very strange.

Hello new applicants! 
I used TGC when applying for graduate school back in the day and now I hold a TT position. I'm not serving in committees yet, but I am working "on the other side". I hope you find my insight useful. 
In addition to the sound advice you've already receive, I'd recommend planning your field with a global perspective. Even if you focus on 19th century US, what would your research bring to the discipline as a whole? You don't need to answer this, but the fact that you are asking these questions might entice the AdComm (conformed not only of US historians) to make you an offer. In addition, more and more US history courses are being taught in relation to global issues. 
 
I often sit back and listen to what @telkanuru says in these cases as the semi-official resident medievalist. In addition to the language comment, which is not minor, I'd steer away of lists like this. Admission to history programs goes beyond the numbers you provide, it's about the questions you ask, the insight that you offer, and your potential to develop those questions and those insights professionally. 

I partly agree with you. I think the demise of the SLAC has been greatly exaggerated; the oft-quoted figure of "50% of colleges will close in the next 10 years," based on speaking with SLAC faculty and staff, just doesn't seem true. What will happen, IMO, is that colleges with fewer than 1000 students will encounter significant issues. It's tough enough for those colleges to keep the lights on/pay faculty/pensions/etc. as it currently stands. I don't see SLACs, writ large "ceasing to exist as a concept."
As for the meat of your post, yes. One of the major reasons I left Wisconsin was the vanishing job market. I couldn't justify 7+ years for a degree with dubious value outside of academia. (Yes, yes, I know about alt-ac jobs, but I have a very strong, probably idiosyncratic belief about the whole "alt-ac" push). I do agree that the job market is bad, and I'd add that students at 90% of programs have no chance at TT academic jobs. Even in the top 10% of programs, you probably have a 50% chance at best.
My solution is simple: 75% of all graduate programs should suspend admissions. The remaining 25% should cut intake in half. There's also a more targeted, less brutal way to do this, but it would require having the AHA serve as an accreditation agency.

I can vouch for this. I applied originally as an early modernist, though without Latin. I did, however, have a good background in Greek and an excellent one in French (near fluency). The lack of Latin was still an obstacle, to the extent that somewhere I applied wondered why I wanted to work on early modern science without knowing Latin.
Latin is basically a barrier to entry for medieval and early modern programs. I wouldn't advise going somewhere that didn't require it.

I partly agree with you. I think the demise of the SLAC has been greatly exaggerated; the oft-quoted figure of "50% of colleges will close in the next 10 years," based on speaking with SLAC faculty and staff, just doesn't seem true. What will happen, IMO, is that colleges with fewer than 1000 students will encounter significant issues. It's tough enough for those colleges to keep the lights on/pay faculty/pensions/etc. as it currently stands. I don't see SLACs, writ large "ceasing to exist as a concept."
As for the meat of your post, yes. One of the major reasons I left Wisconsin was the vanishing job market. I couldn't justify 7+ years for a degree with dubious value outside of academia. (Yes, yes, I know about alt-ac jobs, but I have a very strong, probably idiosyncratic belief about the whole "alt-ac" push). I do agree that the job market is bad, and I'd add that students at 90% of programs have no chance at TT academic jobs. Even in the top 10% of programs, you probably have a 50% chance at best.
My solution is simple: 75% of all graduate programs should suspend admissions. The remaining 25% should cut intake in half. There's also a more targeted, less brutal way to do this, but it would require having the AHA serve as an accreditation agency.

Exceptions to this rule of thumb will include books that are described as "works that one ignores at one's peril." Or "essential reading." Or works that generate significant scholarly debate. Sometimes "the standard work on..."
Pay attention to how your professors roll through reading lists/bibliographies. Make eye contact. Pay attention to the body language. More often than not, non verbal cues are being given as to the level of effort one should give to reading it. (The most helpful verbal cue is any mention of a book being used as a "reference." That descriptor means that one is only expected to read every word of it if it's directly in one's historiographical wheel house. And even then, lots of skimming will be in order._
Notice how they can summarize 800+ page books in two sentences, if not one. Did they read every word and every footnote? Even if they did or didn't, the challenge you face is learning how to get what you need from a work with the least amount of effort and then move on to the next work.
(Four additional tactics. First, find articles by a historian that were published before a major work. Often--but not always--articles serve as blueprints for ongoing projects. Second, read book reviews written by the historian whose work you're reading. This can sometimes help you kill two birds with one stone. Third, start making a habit of reading all relevant short book reviews in the top journals in your field. Fourth, if you come across a book that really moves you, give yourself permission to read it at a more leisurely pace -- even if doing so sets you back a bit with your other reading and/or leads to some longer nights.)
A caveat. The tactics presented in this thread (and others in this forum) entail risk. Eventually, you will get something wrong and/or someone will want to pull your card and play stump the band. Under such circumstances, know what to say and how to say it. Phrases like I think I missed that point or I will have to circle back to that argument will work well enough. Under no circumstances should you fib. If you get feed back like "sometimes [insert name] seems under prepared" then it is probably time to switch up your reading tactics and to work much harder.

I don't think this is unfortunate, I think this is quite wise! I know that, coming straight from undergraduate, there is an sense of immediacy with respect to every part of your life. As someone who started his MA at 27 before continuing to the PhD, please believe me when I say this is not the case with grad school. This is even more true if you look at the current horrible no good very bad state of the academic job market. 
Something that's not precisely on topic, but which I should state at some point: were I considering doing a PhD now, I would under no circumstances do it, regardless of the quality of the  program that accepted me or my enthusiasm and interests. And I am not burned out on graduate school. I love graduate school; it is the best experience of my life. There is just no hope on the job market. It is worse than it was in 2009-2011. In a decade, SLCs, which formed the overwhelming majority of job listings, will almost certainly cease to exist as a concept. R1s will persist, but academia is going to be unrecognizable. That's not a thing to dive into.

All of the approaches put forward are useful, but as I've recommended to @historygeek, I'd strongly encourage a heuristic tool known as IPSO. It's great for teaching undergrads, but you also will see benefit to applying it to your own reading. 
Issue: What is the issue at hand? Why is the author writing? 
Position: What is the thesis statement? Who is the author in dialogue with? 
Support: How is the author using evidence, what sorts of evidence, how does s/he engage with objections, etc.? 
Outcome: So what? If this argument is correct, what are some possible avenues for further research. 

To add onto this, just reading an article or two in any given area may completely destroy whatever interest you have. I ever so briefly had an interest in history of chemistry. Two articles cured me of that interest. 

If you're interested in the actual Middle Ages (c. 600-1500) - and not the Middle Ages as in "everything before 1789" -  I find it hard to believe that a top program will admit a student without a decent knowledge of Latin. It's basically impossible to start doing research without it. French could maybe get you through the sixteenth. seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries,  not before that.

To add onto this, just reading an article or two in any given area may completely destroy whatever interest you have. I ever so briefly had an interest in history of chemistry. Two articles cured me of that interest. 

To add onto this, just reading an article or two in any given area may completely destroy whatever interest you have. I ever so briefly had an interest in history of chemistry. Two articles cured me of that interest. 

To add onto this, just reading an article or two in any given area may completely destroy whatever interest you have. I ever so briefly had an interest in history of chemistry. Two articles cured me of that interest. 

Most likely, you have to learn to process written information faster. Reading for argument is a skill, and no book should really take you more than 2-3 hours.

The objective of this thread is to serve as a catch all for aspiring historians seeking graduate degrees.
IME/IMO, these annual threads work better when interested parties pose their questions in a single catch all thread rather than starting individual threads across multiple fora for each question, concern, complaint, and gripe.  YMMV.
For this year's thread, I am going to recommend two changes of pace. First, when you write your introductory post, focus on your areas of interest/fields of study, and language skills rather than your numbers.If you've written a senior thesis and/or honors thesis, share your findings either generally or specifically. Articulate what you want to do as a professional academic historian beyond where you want to work. That is, spend time writing about what kind of historian you want to be. (A way to accomplish this task is to write about the work or historians who have greatly influenced you.) If you've already identified historiographical trajectories you want to alter slightly, redirect, or shatter, let us know. 
The second recommendation is for those members of the BB who attend top schools and typically lurk throughout the season until after receiving notification of getting into all of one's programs of choice. Please consider the value of sharing the information you're receiving in person during office hours from professors and graduate students at your current institution. Do not violate any confidences. However, if you get a nugget on how to tackle a SOP or writing sample, you can do others a solid by passing that information along. (And you can be highly confident that sharing such tips isn't going to diminish your chances of going seven for seven.)

We have the same problem, but only because so many of us got external fellowships *flex*.

A year of history PhD programs not accepting applicants would be a good thing for the job market and the profession as a whole. Wisconsin welcomed 20+ graduate students this Fall. In view of the job prospects, that's damn near malpractice.

What subfield(s) are you interested in?

You always give great advice and are a valuable presence on the forums. Thanks!

This article is yet another disturbing example of blunted and unhelpful reporting in the CHI on the collapse of the profession. Kramnick and Cassuto frequently appear in the pages of the CHI and they both have asinine and clueless perspectives on the state of the profession. Kramnick looks out from the protection of his New Haven Tudor castle to offer commentary on the state of the job market that is about as informative as groundhog day. And Cassuto keeps deluding himself that misinformed ideas about work outside of academia have any currency or relevance to the various industries and institutions that he feels confident to pontificate about. It's all nonsense, and it's all an example of the lazy ease with which privileged academics assuage their guilt and culpability when they watch the young starve. Here's the situation as it currently stands: there are virtually no tenure-track jobs in English that a young scholar can obtain. Even the adjunct positions in literary studies are drying up. You wouldn't know it from the foolish nonsense posted on this web forum by uninformed people who are struggling to gain entry into these deluded places. But it's clear that people who have suffered these realities can admonish prospective students until they're blue in the face, and it will just make them feel that an opportunity--that doesn't exist anymore--is being denied to them. If Columbia was serious about addressing the fact that most of its prized PhDs will no longer find gainful employment in the academy, it would have to dramatically curtail the resources it puts into graduate education. And that's something that will continue to be met with deep resistance by the likes of Kramnick and Cassuto and their colleagues who will do anything to convince themselves that their genius can only be realized (and worshipped) in the graduate seminar full or eager disciples furiously studying for their under(or un)employment. 

Like others have mentioned, having an undergraduate publication might be more about the experience than the line in the CV. It is a nod to your professional aspirations, but that's it. I second @Sigaba's advice of moving away from metrics as the structural force in your application. What @TMP and @psstein have mentioned also relates to articulating your application around your goals as a scholars, not location or fixation on certain programs. 
Furthermore, in doctoral programs the prestige that you see in rankings is often blurred by other factors, especially the specifics of departments. There are many programs ranked in the top 20 that were useless for me since there was virtually no Latinamericanist when I applied. Your geographical, chronological, and thematic interests underpin a strong application. Focus more on the questions that you bring in than scores, GPAs, and undergraduate publications. 

You can publish in a graduate or undergraduate journal if you like, but I don't think it counts for anything in the admissions process. Publications in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals -- that's impressive. Undergraduate journals, not so much. Additionally, you may be giving away scholarship that you could develop into an article for a major academic journal later while in graduate school (undergraduates also, on very rare occasions, publish important articles in "real" journals). I would concentrate on improving the writing sample.

I would go beyond this: most of the existing jobs are at R2/3s, SLACs, and PUIs, dominantly in the Midwest and South. It's equally worth noting that these jobs do not pay particularly well, especially given the time invested.
If you're particularly tied to any location, I would strongly advise against pursuing a PhD. You have some choice as to where you go to graduate school. You have little ability to control where you go afterward.

I would go beyond this: most of the existing jobs are at R2/3s, SLACs, and PUIs, dominantly in the Midwest and South. It's equally worth noting that these jobs do not pay particularly well, especially given the time invested.
If you're particularly tied to any location, I would strongly advise against pursuing a PhD. You have some choice as to where you go to graduate school. You have little ability to control where you go afterward.