archi

I completely agree with all above that the less teaching you have to do the better, because it is time intensive, draining, and keeps you tethered to campus and unable to visit archives, go to conferences, etc. However, since almost all funding offers involve some amount of teaching, it may also be helpful to get some more information about what "teaching" involves at different schools when you compare offers. Some potential questions: How many quarters/semesters counts as a year of teaching? How much flexibility do you have for picking when you teach? How many students do TA's usually have, and what is the maximum? What are the normal responsibilities for TAs (grading, section leading, office hours)? Are there resources in the department or through the university to help TAs with the nitty-gritty of teaching? In terms of evaluating funding opportunities, I think some other things to ask about is the range of funding options i.e. are people mostly going to the same few sources or are there many options, and how grad students feel funding has or hasn't effected their own work i.e. have they had to adjust projects because they can't find money? Does money tend to turn up under pressure? Are there often promises of resources that don't appear? This discussion usually leans towards funding options for years 5-7 when it feels especially pressing, but these are really valid questions for years 1-4 too especially for languages and pre-dissertation research.

I don’t think there is a single answer to this that applies to everyone, so this is not specifically addressed to your situation, but based on people's experiences here and my conversations with other students and faculty members, I do think the general answer is twice is totally fine (and not unusual), and potentially a third if your circumstances have changed substantially from the previous two times. There are a lot of factors out of your control that can lead to well- qualified applicants facing a year of rejections: faculty go on leave, the previous cohort took all the field slots for your area of interest, institutional fights, etc. There’s also a steep learning curve to the application process. For some people, the process of applying for the first time is an important learning experience about their own interests, how to best frame them, and how academia works in general. In both of these cases, applying a second time makes sense and has the potential to lead to better results. This was my own experience, and the experience of several others around this board. If you get rejected two years in a row (especially after getting an MA), it seems less likely it’s only bad luck. I think then there are generally two explanations. First, your application is missing something critical or has some major red flag. This might be a solvable issue, but to solve it you’re going to have to ask a lot of people for critical feedback, take it to heart, and make some substantial changes before you try again (as @Tigla excellently describes above.) If you think you’ve already done that that it seems possible your interests, goals, and/or background are just not fitting with academic history. Maybe their home is in another discipline, or maybe the things you’re most excited about are better pursued outside the academy. If this is the case, it might be time to look critically at what you want to do after getting a PhD and start investigating about other paths there. This is not a failure! It’s a way to put your energy and skills into something productive instead of banging your head against the same wall over and over. More than three cycles with similar materials is a lot of your time and money, and a lot of time for the people reading your application to solidify their opinion of you (if you’re applying to the same places.)

I think this is really key advice. Like many historians (basically all historians? faculty do this too) my geographic and temporal interests have wandered around a bit, but the more work I've done the more I've realized they coalesce around particular questions, approaches, and sources I find most compelling. That is to say, I think most people's gut intuition of what they like is generally accurate, but once you have a sense of what you like it's worth looking over those interests critically to find what connects them. Admittedly, when most people apply to graduate school they don't have a large body of their own work to do this with, but you can think about in terms of other people's work you've liked as well. Also just to reiterate what has been said above, you have no need to feel locked into your undergrad thesis topic, your SOP proposal, and definitely not coursework. As @AnUglyBoringNerd experiences' show, trying to shoehorn your interests into a field they don't fit is not setting you up for success or long-term satisfaction with your work. Thinking about the questions and approaches that motivate you, however, is a great way to frame changing fields as an introspective and productive shift, rather than a whim i.e. "In my previous work in x field I've always been drawn to questions of y, but I've recently come to believe these would actually be better approached through field z." On the other hand, thinking more about why you're interested in shifting fields could also lead to the realization that what you actually are drawn to is an approach, or writing style, or question that's entirely compatible with your own.

This might not be relevant depending on what you mean by "all professors," but if you were only thinking about history professors you could also consider asking someone you took a non-history class with. Humanities or something writing based probably makes the most sense, but depending on your interests you might be able to swing another subject. When one of my intended letter-writers passed away and I had to scramble a bit I ended up getting a letter from a language professor (they were full faculty, not an instructor) and it seems to have worked out fine.

Interesting! I'd be interested in also knowing the space between when the degree was earned and application year as well (since the BA institution might be more influential if you've graduated within 1-2 years and less if its been 4 or 5) but that seems harder to scrape from department web pages. I was told when I was applying that the majority of new PhDs are coming in with a MA already, and this certainly confirms that. This of course, was always followed by the faculty member saying "I can't in good conscious recommend you pay for a MA though..." :-/

I'd reiterate this from my own experience. While it's possible to make a History MA work as an alternative qualification in some of these fields, the professional degree is usually preferred. Once people are established, they may add on a History MA as @ashiepoo72 said above, since it can make you more competitive or give you a raise. If you're concerned about cost it's worth noting as well that future employers may help you pay for a MA-- I know several people working in university libraries who took advantage of this. Another aspect that people have been circling around is that a big advantage to any MA is the networks you build, whether that's getting better letters for PhD applications in a history MA or by getting contacts and internship experience at a MLIS or Public History program. So if you're intending to earn a MA through a program designed for PhD students you really won't get any advantages there because you won't get relevant work experience and you won't get a useful professional network. However, I think this discussion might be moving towards debating the merits of various MA programs in general, which is not really the original question. It seems like the consensus there is no, it's not a great idea.

Yes, definitely, so much reading. It's helpful to talk to other people in your program about their reading strategies until you find something that works well for you which is important because another adjustment from undergrad is that coursework is only part of what you're supposed to be focusing on. Attending lectures, participating in colloquia or workshops, getting to know faculty/potential committee members, and working on whatever first year research project you do are also very important. Graduate work in general seems a lot more flexible and individual, so its hard for departments to write one size fits all requirements, which means most "requirements" are only a vague framework. I think there's sometimes a temptation to go heads down into coursework because we understand how to do it and because the evaluation is clear but it's important to align how much effort your putting into things with whats going to most benefit your research interests and your professional development. This can be hard to figure out first year for sure, which is also why regularly talking to your adviser, older students, or other mentor-like people is key. Don't be afraid to ask for things. (While its certainly possible to be over-precocious and one should figure out the etiquette/norms of their department, I think most first years err on the side of not demanding enough especially if you're from an under-represented group or a non-traditional background.) While it can feel overwhelming at first, the flexibility is also something I really like. I don't get to always do exactly what I want, but I get to twist a lot of things back around to my own interests. I've also had some great intellectual experiences, many of which happened outside the classroom. You're surrounded by a really great group of people with lots of really interesting thoughts, which is a such a wonderful experience even when you're not talking about history specifically. So I guess the last thing is that making time to just hang out with people is equally important and you should try to avoid building a wall of reading around yourself.

I also did this and got good (and consistent) responses two years ago. I agree with the above that POIs will give you the best feedback, and framing it as "how to improve" is best. As hard as it is, I might also suggest waiting until later to ask-- winter is an especially busy time for most people, and before April 15 people seem either focused on admitted students or done thinking about admissions. At least for me, I was also in a better place to take advice then...I got some pleasant but straightforward feedback that would have felt maybe more personal if it was right after rejections. Some other framing devices I used: What does a successful candidate for [field] usually look like? I'm planning on doing x and y to improve, what else can I do to refine my interests? I get the impression that [qualification] is very common in this field, do I need that? I've been working on x, y, z over the summer, do you think it's worth re-applying to this program?

Hi, I'm a current NU student and I'm pretty sure the faculty discussed admissions by field yesterday (Tuesday) so they're already meeting, decisions next week sounds entirely possible. Interviews are not the norm. Also, do with this what you will but the current 1st year cohort is a little Americanist heavy (6 American, 3 Africa, 2 Europe, 2 medieval, 1 middle east) so interviewing may have to do with balancing things out for next year. (I've been told they aim for a third, third, third split between America, Africa, and "everywhere else") But also, who knows?

My stats were 170 V, 162 Q, 6.0 W with a 3.79 GPA and I ended up getting into 1 "top 20" program and 2 "top 50s" all PhD. I didn't do a MA, but I did work in a somewhat related field for 3 years after graduating (archives.) I don't think most faculty cared about that though, since when talking to faculty after being admitted most could remember details from my writing sample/personal statement but not where I worked (or in the case of one, that I wasn't still in college.) I'd emphatically agree with everyone above about stats mattering less than writing sample and especially personal statement. Anecdotal evidence, but I ended up doing two rounds of applications using the same stats, the same letter writers (which I assume means similar letters), and only lightly editing my writing sample. The first round I got one MA offer (which I passed on) and the second three PhD offers and basically only thing that changed in my application materials was my personal statement, so I think it's pretty central.

Glad to help! If you end up moving in there, you'll also be pretty close to the 61st St Farmers Market, which imo is one of the better ones in the city. I second the Hyde Park Produce love above too- I miss being able to buy fresh herbs by weight instead of prepackaged. Also, it is definitely easier to find apartments when you can look in person- in my experience, a lot of the online listings you can easily find are big management companies kind of spamming craigslist, apartments.com, etc. whereas smaller management companies/family owned buildings/condo rentals will only post on their own website or even only put a sign out in front. If you have time to wander around neighborhoods you're interested in looking for rent signs and see places in person, you can find some good deals- even in more expensive areas.

Hi! I live in Chicago now and lived in Hyde Park for a while (now I'm on the north side) and wanted to put a 2017 era update to the eternal "south of the midway" question on the record here, since it seems to come up a lot when discussing Hyde Park. My understanding is "don't go south of the midway" was a commonly given guideline for many years, but it hasn't really been accurate since around 2010 when a large undergrad dorm opened at Ellis and 61st. Now, most of the 60th/61st area is university buildings, including housing, the law school, and the arts center and campus security patrols down to 64th. If you wanted to draw a new line now, it's probably 63rd, conservatively. For your other questions: A lot of people in Hyde Park have cars, and street parking is manageable. (Free) parking elsewhere in the city varies from neighborhood to neighborhood and is predictably harder in the loop and other dense areas. Hyde Park is unfortunately a bit removed from convenient public transit, you're mainly reliant on buses and metra. You can get into the loop in about 20-30 minutes, but over to UIC would be at least an hour and a lot of transfers- you'd probably want a car. Hyde Park in general is a nice neighborhood, but if you're not UChicago affiliated or going directly into the loop it can be hard. For a short term summer sublet you'll probably do fine but quickly realize it's easier to be somewhere else. People with questions about travel times in general- google maps is really accurate now for transit and traffic. Put in your commute at the hours you'd be doing it to see what it would look like (and on the CTA add 10 minutes for delays). Chicago is big! I commute 45 minutes each way and that's not exceptional. If people have other questions about apartment hunting ask away. (Also, to politely disagree with the above re: travel times Hyde Park- Lakeview, I live in Lakeview and have a good friend in Hyde Park, it takes me 1 hr 15 minutes on the CTA to get to her, and it takes her 25-35 minutes to drive to me including parking)

All of the above is good advice, but I wanted to underline up the length thing. My applications had a range of a 500 word limit to a 4 page limit so I aimed for the middle of that range for my starter draft, but I did end up having to do some substantial revisions for the shortest and longest. Since you just can't fit as much into 500 words as you can into 1000 (if you can, your 1000 words probably could be tightened) the shortest ended up more tailored throughout because I had to ruthlessly cut anything that wasn't specifically relevant to that school. Similarly, for the longest I didn't just stretch out my standard statement, I wrote a new "section" specific to that school about the links between my professional background, their resources, and my goals. Also, I think the earlier you can start tailoring the SOP to programs the better. I spent a lot of time polishing that core middle section upfront and ended up writing the "fit" pieces much closer to deadlines- at which point I realized I had some questions about specific programs I had run out of time to ask.

fyi I turned down an offer from UCSB, it was suggested this opened up funds for someone else. Hope that helps someone!

Piling on to add I was worried about this as well but was told by my adviser that faculty don't usually look down on repeat applications if you've revised/improved your materials and show you've refined your interests, gotten a better understanding of the field, etc. It seems like you have a good, specific sense of how to make your application stronger, so I agree it's worth a second try if you do think it's a good fit. FWIW I think I was in a similar position where I had been told something I stressed in my SOP worked against me. After improving that area I did have a better outcome with 1 (of 2) reapplications. Since I was nervous about reapplying I actually reached out to POI's I had talked to the year before to say I was trying a second cycle, that I had been reading, refining interests and still thought the department was a good fit, and asked if it would be worthwhile to apply again/if they were taking students. I generally got positive responses, which gave me some peace of mind that they weren't going to see my application and be like "ugh, really??"