gnossienne n.3

Use this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10XIYhIw4fCbUend2WkA3iujfftu9TrXwR-YKcgr3JKo/edit#gid=693576939
DO NOT detach or unlink from Drive, as this will result in altering the permissions for the document and revoking public access to the file.

Great idea! Thanks for setting up this thread.
I work on medieval medicine and technology, with an emphasis on material culture. I applied almost exclusively to History programs. This my second application cycle for PhD programs, but my third application cycle total. I applied and was accepted to some fantastic MA programs in the UK and Ireland year after year, and every time made the decision not to go into debt for a terminal degree in the humanities, even though MAs are increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for medievalists. Last year I only applied to four PhD programs, and was waitlisted at my first choice institution. This year I applied more widely, to eight PhD programs and to three MA programs in medieval history and medieval studies (two of which had accepted me in previous application cycles). Of these, only one was a History of Science program (at Princeton). That program is part of their History program, so technically the degree is in History and not History of Science, but the program has an independent application process. I also applied to two Medieval Studies PhD programs.
I chose only to apply to top institutions within my field, broadly defined as medieval history rather than history of science, but I made sure to look for faculty coverage in both fields. Between last year's application cycle and this year I've learned a lot of indefinable things about how to define and articulate fit. My first choice from last year slipped in the rankings, and an institution I didn't even apply to last year became my first choice instead, based on some faculty changes and a little more digging on my part. When trying to identify whether institutions could provide supervision of my present research interests, I would scour department pages and faculty profiles looking for at least two but preferably three or more professors who matched at least three of the following:
subfield (history of science/medicine/experimentation; medieval material culture; food studies) period (high and late medieval, but (very) early modern was acceptable if in HoS. If the HoS person did early modern then I looked for at least one medievalist who worked on the same region with a similar methodology) region (Complicated. I'm interested in the Arabic to Latin translation of medical texts and the dissemination of medical theory in Europe, so there were few people who couldn't conceivably work with me in terms of regional specialization. I gravitated towards medieval Mediterranean PoIs, although my work to date has been on English and French sources.) methodology/"type" of history (social and intellectual history, sort of) Most HoS programs just couldn't cut it in terms of faculty coverage. In 5-7 years, I intend to interview for faculty positions as a medievalist first, and historian of science second. It would make absolutely no sense to sacrifice very necessary, period-specific training in favor of a HoS degree. Hence applying to History and Medieval Studies programs instead, sometimes even at institutions that had standalone HoS programs (such as Harvard). For just about every institution I applied to, I had either email correspondence with multiple PoIs, or email in addition to Skype interviews. I did my best to make it clear during these exchanges why I was reaching out to these professors, explaining how I see their work relating to mine and referencing the above criteria. The conversations were always fruitful and often resulted in recommendations of other professors to reach out to within the institution, who resided in other departments but had affiliations with History and overlapping research interests with my own. This helped give me a better sense of the resources available at a given institution, the relationships between departments, and how many people I might be able to work with should disaster strike and my advisor depart partway through my program. I looked very closely at placement and attrition records where available, and asked if they were not to be found on a public page. "Best" is highly variable, but once you define your personal cutoff for acceptable programs in terms of placement and field specialization, fit becomes the biggest factor.
I've just been accepted to my top PhD program with five years of guaranteed funding (not contingent on teaching!), and a sixth year postdoc with a higher stipend if I complete my dissertation within five years. Pretty damn thrilled!

Use this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10XIYhIw4fCbUend2WkA3iujfftu9TrXwR-YKcgr3JKo/edit#gid=693576939
DO NOT detach or unlink from Drive, as this will result in altering the permissions for the document and revoking public access to the file.

From the original post:
This is not a thread about completing a terminal MA in order to improve a later application to a PhD. OP was specifically asking about misleading their institution by accepting a position at a PhD program with the full knowledge that they plan to leave in a few years in order to maximize job prospects at a "better" school. The potential for this to backfire is immense.
While there may be cases of someone successfully pulling this off, it's not exactly behavior to be emulated.

From the original post:
This is not a thread about completing a terminal MA in order to improve a later application to a PhD. OP was specifically asking about misleading their institution by accepting a position at a PhD program with the full knowledge that they plan to leave in a few years in order to maximize job prospects at a "better" school. The potential for this to backfire is immense.
While there may be cases of someone successfully pulling this off, it's not exactly behavior to be emulated.

I'm just going to reiterate here: if OP wants to switch, they will need recommendations from the program they intend to leave, and I doubt many professors at that program will write glowing recommendations. A lackluster or critical rec will torpedo an application--as @TMP said, academia is extremely small, professors know each other and will more than likely listen to their colleague's warnings and criticisms. If OP DOESN'T get recs from the program, it will be extremely suspicious to adcomms. 
Going into a PhD program that does not have a terminal MA with the intention of using it as a terminal MA is most definitely dishonest--unless OP is up front with their adviser, ensuring they're supportive, which is one way to guarantee there are no terrible recs dragging down a future application. It's hard for me to imagine an adviser being happy in this situation, but stranger things have happened.
Side note: it's not just professors who view as dishonest those using a program as a launch pad to another program--during my application year, a person was accepted into one of the same places as me. This person was switching programs, which made a lot of the prospective and graduate students suspicious off the bat. Then we found out this person was attending a prospie weekend even though they already chose another program--this exacerbated the negative feelings, because we viewed this person as callously taking advantage of program funds while deliberately being a dishonest actor. The moral of the story is: profs and students, rightly or wrongly, do not like when department funds are used in what they view as a cavalier manner because these resources are precious few and could go to honest actors. It's one thing to enter a program, have your project radically transform to the point the program cannot support you, and applying to somewhere that can--this happens and is totally legitimate. It's another thing entirely to know from the start that you plan to apply elsewhere and you just want access to resources you do not have (that could go to someone who genuinely wants to be there). That's why you need to be as honest as possible about your intentions.

Controversial opinion: I'm not sure that what OP is proposing is so reprehensible. Realistically, people need to attend the top programs in order to have a chance at a job, but even becoming competitive for admissions to top programs is logistically difficult and costly for anyone who's changing fields, who comes from a low-ranked undergrad, or who is simply ill-acquainted with how academia works. So what should those people do? Take out student loans for a useless MA in the humanities? Give up and get an office job? One is a stupid financial decision (and one consistently recommended against on this board) and the other is contributing to making academe a club for the wealthy. 
On the other hand, you have low-ranked programs that graduate their PhDs into no chance of a job, and know that this is the reality, where professors will outright tell you that, if you're getting a PhD here, you shouldn't be getting a PhD. Yeah, agreeing to attend a program for 5 years and quitting once you've found something better can be construed as a breach of trust - but taking 5+ years of people's lives (and exploiting their vastly underpaid TA labor so you don't have to create tenure lines to support your undergraduates) and then pushing them out to a world where they have a better chance of winning at slots than getting TT? When the contract is so broken on the one side, I don't know that people on the other side should be held to pristine standards.
I understand that people feel very emotional about the kind of plan OP proposes, because academia is more than just a job, but it's much easier to reflexively shit on the little person than to recognize that they are operating within the confines of a broken system.

From the original post:
This is not a thread about completing a terminal MA in order to improve a later application to a PhD. OP was specifically asking about misleading their institution by accepting a position at a PhD program with the full knowledge that they plan to leave in a few years in order to maximize job prospects at a "better" school. The potential for this to backfire is immense.
While there may be cases of someone successfully pulling this off, it's not exactly behavior to be emulated.

While I'm sure top school --> top grad school is likely the norm, there are outliers--myself included. I attended an unranked state school in the middle of nowhere and am attending a Top 15 program. The culture of a top private university is my biggest adjustment, which is probably why top school --> top grad school is more likely--it's pretty self-selective since these students have support built into their undergrad experience (e.g. Mellon Mays, Summer Research, access to funding, leading scholars, etc) to nurture them towards attending grad school.
During a low point in the academic year, I asked my adviser why I was accepted. At our following meeting, they pulled up my application with the admissions committee's comments, and apparently, they were excited to accept a student with my unique background. 
All of this is to say that the stats don't tell the whole story.

I treated my grad school time as having a job/career. Whenever people outside of academia asked what I do, I said that I am a scientist / researcher / planetary scientist / astronomer at [University], depending on who I am talking to. I generally avoided saying "student" because then people think I'm still in college or something. Usually my status did not come up in the conversation, but if it's a longer discussion (sometimes those seat partners on flights really like to talk!) then I would tell them that I'm working towards my PhD and explain how grad school worked if they didn't know. If the other person is familiar with academia, they might ask if I am a professor or something and then I would thank them for the promotion and explain that I am still working towards my PhD. When it comes to things like banks or whatever and they need to know my job / income source for credit applications and such, I would just say "Researcher" and my employer was my school and my salary is X dollars per year. 
So, in the above official sense, yes, 100% treated my grad school like a job. But maybe you weren't really asking about that, and maybe you mean more like how I viewed my "job". My answer would be like fuzzy's. I chose to work pretty regular hours, mostly because halfway through, my partner got a job on campus and they had regular hours so I matched my hours to theirs. However, I often worked extra hours and took extra time off because I might as well take advantage of the fact that I have a flexible job. So, I always scheduled my doctors appointments etc. during working hours because it's way easier to get those appointments (instead of having to wait weeks) and then made up those hours on a weekend or in an evening. In general, I considered certain events on campus as mandatory professional requirements (seminars, group meetings etc.) and made those my "core work hours" and everything else was flexible. So I wouldn't skip my department seminar to go see my dentist, but that 8am to 11am block that's always empty on Wednesday mornings is fair game. Ultimately, as you progress along in academia, this is how the faculty also schedule their work, although the more senior you get, the less empty blocks of time exists! So enjoy it while you can
If you are also asking about whether I felt mature/independent/etc. with my job. This is a mixed bag. It's certainly harder to feel like a mature working professional in the first year(s) when you spend most of your time in classes. But later on, after reaching candidacy, I definitely felt different. I gained much more experience to feel confident in myself. It's subtle change, but suddenly you become the foremost expert in your topic in your department. You know more about it than even your advisor and other faculty ask you questions to learn more about your field. You get requests to peer review journal articles from others in your field. You might get conference invitations and seminar/colloquia invites. You might guest lecture in a classroom. You take the lead in your research projects. You start mentoring undergrads and junior graduate students etc. At least in my field and in my experience, the last 1 to 2 years of grad school is a major transition to an independent researcher. You become experienced enough to do your own research and take charge of your own projects on the day-to-day basis, but your advisor is still there to help you set long term goals, or help you figure out things when you get stuck, or help you make tough decisions since you're reasonably experienced but there's still lots more to learn / lots of things you haven't seen yet. For example, while I was fairly comfortable leading the analysis in my work, I still sought my advisor's advice when I had to review a paper for the first time, when I submitted my first job application, when I prepared my first lecture etc.
Beyond the academic side, I am afraid that the personal side of things doesn't feel very "adulty" as a grad student though. Most grad schools offer very little pay compared to professionals in your field (perhaps fair, since we're trainees) and almost no benefits. With some very low cost of living areas, grad students aren't really saving up for their first home or saving for retirement etc. So in that sense, I really did feel in limbo while in grad school---as if I had to put the non-academic parts of my life on hold while I complete this retraining and rejoin the "real" world. Especially near the end, when I was about ready to graduate, I really felt a strong urge to finish grad school and move on with my life. This was a great motivator near the end of the marathon that is grad school though! The worst limbo was the final year when I knew I was ready to move on, but you still have to find a job and you spend months applying, not hearing back, interviewing and not knowing what part of the world you'll even live in later that year (a bit like the limbo of applying to grad schools!) 
Now that I am past grad school and in an independent postdoc position, it's easier for me to look back with rose-tinted glasses and pick out the good things about grad school. There are certainly some good things, such as:
- Not having to worry about how you are going to fund your research: your advisor/dept/school takes care of that for you
- Knowing that you have your advisor as a "safety net" to shoot down your bad ideas / help you refine good ideas (note: you still get some mentorship beyond grad school but not at the same level and there's an expectation that you are supposed to figure these things out yourself
- Stability of being in the same location for 5+ years. My postdoc is a 2 year contract (with a 1-year extension option) so while I got last fall off from applying, I'm back on the job market this fall. I feel like I've just moved and finally settled in! 
- Things like health insurance and such can be cheaper through your school since the premiums are based on the typical student, which are generally young, healthy people. So if you're not young or not healthy, you can get a much better rate through your school than privately on your own.
So there are some good things that you should certainly take advantage of while you're in grad school. But to be clear, it's not like I wish I was still a student or anything! I'm so happy to be finally finished and "moved on"  In my ideal world, grad students really should be promoted after achieving candidacy because they are almost-independent researchers at that point. The promotion should be an end to tuition and some kind of junior staff/internship/apprenticeship employment status, representing a decent pay raise and some benefits. In my field, you often double your salary from PhD student to postdoc, so I would be thinking that the first few years of grad school is the same, and you get a 50% raise after candidacy. I think this model better reflects the value the student researchers provide to the school and will help make it feel more like a real job/career that is worth investing into.
 

You do the research, ask around, and make your own ranking. 

I would say (and this is quite a simplification) that you shouldn't worry about an HoS degree from Harvard bogging you down further down the line. The fact that it's Harvard will outweigh any reservations search committees might have about hiring a historian with a degree in HoS instead of a historian with a degree in plain ol' history. Most HoS doctorates find employment in history departments anyway, since history of science departments are so rare.
The questions I would ask are whether you will be able to study your chosen period and region with enough specificity within the structure of the program and whether there are enough faculty with enough clout to supervise your dissertation and support you in the job search when the time comes. The other schools you have to choose between are excellent options. Visit each if you can, weigh your financial offers, negotiate for more funding if you feel you need to, and make decisions from there!

Hi, Medievalists. Got offers from Cornell and Toronto (both medieval studies), and I am waiting to hear back from Cambridge on funding. I haven't decided yet. 

Received an acceptance from Cambridge this morning! Very excited! 

It's a metaphor both for the "dark ages" themselves, and the experience of studying them....

well...

well...

I'm personally trying not to dread moving there any more than I am already.

That is absolutely enough to live on. Cost of living in New York is high, but that stipend is scaled appropriately. You'll have to be careful with your finances, and you may want to sit down with an accountant to be sure you have a handle on what your taxes will be in your first year, but if you manage to keep your rent and utilities below $1000 a month you will be fine. If you're willing to live with at least one other person, it's easier to do that than you think, even if you choose to leave Columbia's subsidized apartments.
If Columbia offers commuter benefits, then you can sign up for a monthly unlimited ride Metrocard for $117 which will be deducted from your stipend/salary on a monthly basis, pre-taxes. If they don't offer commuter benefits (which they might not, depending on how the stipend is disbursed), then a monthly unlimited Metrocard is $121. This kind of Metrocard can be used for public buses as well as the subway, but not the PATH, AirTrain, or express buses. I wouldn't count on commuter benefits from Columbia given how resistant they've been to treating their grad students as employees. In my opinion, however, the unlimited Metrocard is worth it just for the freedom of movement it grants you--if you plan on making on average at least two rides a day in a given 30 day period, that would amount to $165 if paying per ride, versus the unlimited Metrocard sticker price of $121. It's a great deal, and I highly recommend signing up for it even if Columbia doesn't offer commuter benefits. You can also check out the other Metrocard options here.
I agree with @TMP about groceries. I try to keep my grocery bills as low as possible, and do the vast majority of my cooking myself, but my grocery budget is closer to $250/month. That said, I could eat much cheaper than that if I were willing to subsist without as many fresh veggies/fruit and gave up the very occasional meal out completely. But I don't recommend it!
If you have specific questions about living in New York, feel free to ask here or PM me! It's a great city--and I say that as someone who never wanted to live here.

That is absolutely enough to live on. Cost of living in New York is high, but that stipend is scaled appropriately. You'll have to be careful with your finances, and you may want to sit down with an accountant to be sure you have a handle on what your taxes will be in your first year, but if you manage to keep your rent and utilities below $1000 a month you will be fine. If you're willing to live with at least one other person, it's easier to do that than you think, even if you choose to leave Columbia's subsidized apartments.
If Columbia offers commuter benefits, then you can sign up for a monthly unlimited ride Metrocard for $117 which will be deducted from your stipend/salary on a monthly basis, pre-taxes. If they don't offer commuter benefits (which they might not, depending on how the stipend is disbursed), then a monthly unlimited Metrocard is $121. This kind of Metrocard can be used for public buses as well as the subway, but not the PATH, AirTrain, or express buses. I wouldn't count on commuter benefits from Columbia given how resistant they've been to treating their grad students as employees. In my opinion, however, the unlimited Metrocard is worth it just for the freedom of movement it grants you--if you plan on making on average at least two rides a day in a given 30 day period, that would amount to $165 if paying per ride, versus the unlimited Metrocard sticker price of $121. It's a great deal, and I highly recommend signing up for it even if Columbia doesn't offer commuter benefits. You can also check out the other Metrocard options here.
I agree with @TMP about groceries. I try to keep my grocery bills as low as possible, and do the vast majority of my cooking myself, but my grocery budget is closer to $250/month. That said, I could eat much cheaper than that if I were willing to subsist without as many fresh veggies/fruit and gave up the very occasional meal out completely. But I don't recommend it!
If you have specific questions about living in New York, feel free to ask here or PM me! It's a great city--and I say that as someone who never wanted to live here.

I just want to jump in here to advocate for the importance of words like "intersectionality," especially in the case of "intersectionality." In fact, without intersectionality, concepts like feminism are not inclusive and actually isolate women of color, the LGBTQ+ community, etc. By making the move from just plain "feminism" to "intersectional feminism," these "certain types of people" are actually included in the conversation and welcomed into academic space rather than kept out. So, in some cases, what some might consider jargon is absolutely important and shouldn't be shrugged off as meaningless. 

Great idea! Thanks for setting up this thread.
I work on medieval medicine and technology, with an emphasis on material culture. I applied almost exclusively to History programs. This my second application cycle for PhD programs, but my third application cycle total. I applied and was accepted to some fantastic MA programs in the UK and Ireland year after year, and every time made the decision not to go into debt for a terminal degree in the humanities, even though MAs are increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for medievalists. Last year I only applied to four PhD programs, and was waitlisted at my first choice institution. This year I applied more widely, to eight PhD programs and to three MA programs in medieval history and medieval studies (two of which had accepted me in previous application cycles). Of these, only one was a History of Science program (at Princeton). That program is part of their History program, so technically the degree is in History and not History of Science, but the program has an independent application process. I also applied to two Medieval Studies PhD programs.
I chose only to apply to top institutions within my field, broadly defined as medieval history rather than history of science, but I made sure to look for faculty coverage in both fields. Between last year's application cycle and this year I've learned a lot of indefinable things about how to define and articulate fit. My first choice from last year slipped in the rankings, and an institution I didn't even apply to last year became my first choice instead, based on some faculty changes and a little more digging on my part. When trying to identify whether institutions could provide supervision of my present research interests, I would scour department pages and faculty profiles looking for at least two but preferably three or more professors who matched at least three of the following:
subfield (history of science/medicine/experimentation; medieval material culture; food studies) period (high and late medieval, but (very) early modern was acceptable if in HoS. If the HoS person did early modern then I looked for at least one medievalist who worked on the same region with a similar methodology) region (Complicated. I'm interested in the Arabic to Latin translation of medical texts and the dissemination of medical theory in Europe, so there were few people who couldn't conceivably work with me in terms of regional specialization. I gravitated towards medieval Mediterranean PoIs, although my work to date has been on English and French sources.) methodology/"type" of history (social and intellectual history, sort of) Most HoS programs just couldn't cut it in terms of faculty coverage. In 5-7 years, I intend to interview for faculty positions as a medievalist first, and historian of science second. It would make absolutely no sense to sacrifice very necessary, period-specific training in favor of a HoS degree. Hence applying to History and Medieval Studies programs instead, sometimes even at institutions that had standalone HoS programs (such as Harvard). For just about every institution I applied to, I had either email correspondence with multiple PoIs, or email in addition to Skype interviews. I did my best to make it clear during these exchanges why I was reaching out to these professors, explaining how I see their work relating to mine and referencing the above criteria. The conversations were always fruitful and often resulted in recommendations of other professors to reach out to within the institution, who resided in other departments but had affiliations with History and overlapping research interests with my own. This helped give me a better sense of the resources available at a given institution, the relationships between departments, and how many people I might be able to work with should disaster strike and my advisor depart partway through my program. I looked very closely at placement and attrition records where available, and asked if they were not to be found on a public page. "Best" is highly variable, but once you define your personal cutoff for acceptable programs in terms of placement and field specialization, fit becomes the biggest factor.
I've just been accepted to my top PhD program with five years of guaranteed funding (not contingent on teaching!), and a sixth year postdoc with a higher stipend if I complete my dissertation within five years. Pretty damn thrilled!

May I suggest that you elaborate in one of the other threads? Just so that this one remains easy to use for the intended purpose.

Hmm, let's try this:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10XIYhIw4fCbUend2WkA3iujfftu9TrXwR-YKcgr3JKo/edit?usp=sharing
Did that work?  I use Google docs a fair amount but pretty minimally in terms of sharing so I hope that does it.

Been suspecting Harvard was seeing some other people else. Last week, I saw some posts about Harvard proposing to someone already! How dare you, Harvard! Today, I got the classic "its me, not you" letter from H, which confirmed my greatest fear. What a way to break up on Valentine's Day. Thanks, Harvard.