dsbanis

The other posts here cover the more rudimentary, yet also most fundamental mechanics here, like having specific research interests and potential project ideas, and the importance of discussing these questions in detail with your mentors--I cannot endorse these posts more strongly. My undergraduate mentors were instrumental to me developing my research ideas and formulating them into solid proposal. Since that stuff was covered and is also laid out in similar threads, I'm going in a different direction in my post using personal experience as my vantage point. The following (mostly) assumes you have your ideas of what you would like to research in order. I'll add at the outset that, like a few others I've seen here, I have a perhaps unconventional background and only very recently did I begin to believe I had a chance at getting into the top programs. I almost flunked out of high school, went to community college and then to a low-ranked national university because I was offered a tuition scholarship while working a full-time job, and was, quite frankly, scared shitless the first time I applied to a graduate program. So then, Start as early as possible: My preliminary preparation for this season's applications began way back in the winter break of 2016/2017, as I thought I would be applying to programs that fall. This was my second time applying for graduate programs after being admitted to Syracuse University with the hopes that my experience there would make me competitive for admission into a more elite program by 1) proving that my GPA was a reflection of me and not my less than glamorous undergraduate institutions, and 2) improving my less than adequate research language skills to a level as close to fluency as possible. Be realistic and honest with yourself, but don't count yourself out: Elite programs are very difficult to get into even for people with elite undergrads, perfect language skills, solid research interests, and high GRE scores, but this doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least entertain the idea of applying if you don't quite check all of the boxes. That said, you've gotta be honest with yourself and identify your deficiencies. Once identified, you can work toward improving them. This is a great advantage of going the MA route before making the leap toward your dream program: it gives you time to resolve your deficiencies. In my case, I got lucky and was awarded a Fulbright right before the end of my second semester in grad school. I'll say something on this point I wish I had realized a few years ago: you don't need to apply only to terminal MA programs for this purpose! I'm sure this might be an unpopular idea for some here, but it's ok to transfer out of a PhD program and into another. You shouldn't be duplicitous or deceitful if you're applying to lower-ranked programs with the intent of applying elsewhere after a couple of years--that is exactly what you don't want to do, as you do need letters of recommendation from people from your program. But I do think it's ok to apply to a PhD program you can realistically be admitted to and see how it is. I know some who did this, realized they were quite happy there, and stayed. Applying to PhD programs is after all expensive and there's no guarantee of admittance. At the same time, if you're excelling in the program and have a shot at the elite programs, talk about it with your adviser. Our profs know the job market and they ultimately want for us to succeed. Sometimes that means going elsewhere. Do your research and consolidate/organize your findings: For me this meant looking through the US News rankings, making word document list of all of the programs in geographical locations I would be interested in living in (and maybe some where I wouldn't, but the program itself outweighed my geographical preference), visiting the websites of all of these programs, and recording basic information for each of the programs (faculty with relevant research interests, terms of fellowship, service requirements, stipend amounts, extras like travel allowances, etc.) into the word document list. For me, this first list with basic program information--most importantly noting whether or not there was a faculty member with relevant research interests--was about 40-50 programs. I then consolidated it to a second document which only included programs with relevant profs, and then further to a third which included only programs I would be interested in applying to. For me, this was about 9 programs. The document was initially a page, but ended up totaling thirty from the collection of further research into the programs and from the recording of correspondence with points of contact. Contact your potential adviser with a brief message that addresses your research interests and that asks if they're accepting grad students: The reasoning is simple here. If they happen to not be accepting students to advise in your application season, you're throwing your money away by applying. If they don't think your topic is compatible with your research interests, you're also throwing your money away by applying. You can also ask whether or not they'd be willing to Skype with you, or, if you live near them, if they might be interested in meeting in person. I met with three in person this last summer, one of which a month later reached out to me and advised me not to apply because due to a rule change he was eligible for sabbatical, and Skyped/telephoned with the others. At the very least, doing this footwork shows you're serious about your interests and path in pursuing them. A phone call or Skype might not always be possible, but reaching out sends the message. Before one of these conversations, prepare questions about both research interests and details of the program itself. During these conversations, it's a good idea to take notes, which can then be used to supplement information not available online and to include in your SOP. Try to be yourself and be comfortable. It turned out that one of my potential advisers played guitar and we ended up spending half the conversation talking and joking around about that. While I would not recommend mentioning career interests outside of academia in your SOP, mentioning it to your potential adviser might not be a bad idea. I did so during my interview at Georgetown, and it turned out my potential adviser was also heavily involved with the School of Foreign Service and she told me about the University's dual MA in German and European Studies at the School of Foreign Service and PhD in History, in which the PhD fellowship covers tuition fees for the MA. Oh, and I've noticed in other threads here that this is controversial, but if you're meeting a professor in person to discuss prospects of applying and research interests, dress nice. While not all, or even most profs will think it's necessary to do so, some will, and those who don't think it's necessary aren't going to think less of you for dressing up. Email program directors and professors with relevant interests: For program directors, give a brief message about yourself and then ask some questions that might not be answered on the website. You can also ask for advice on the SOP. This is a good idea because different programs sometimes like to see different things emphasized. Sometimes they'll tell you they don't give advice on that--that's ok. Give a polite reply and say you're excited about replying. For professors with relevant interests, tell them who you're hoping to work with, what you're interested in, and what you find interesting about their research. Maybe ask some other things, like what they think about an aspect of your research interests that is relevant to there. You might not get a reply. Again, that's ok. The important part is that your name is being put out there to people who might be on the graduate committees who will play a role in making a decision about your admission. For this reason, avoid sending out a bunch of stock emails. Personalize them. Add any correspondence you have to your word document list of programs, as it saves you from having to retrieve it from your email when working on your SOPs. It can be a little disorienting, so make sure if you do this, you keep a list of everyone you've reached out to and whether or not you've received responses. I'll admit that this is rather time-consuming and perhaps a little overkill, but it's not a bad idea if you have the time. Tailor your SOPs: Your SOP should address your research interests, your academic background as it relates to your research interests, why you're applying specifically to that school, who you want to work with and why. Some programs give you four to five pages for it. Others only one and a half. Some parts of all of them will be very similar/the same, others should be totally different. This is where I'll go back to one of the first things I mentioned: the document where you have all the details of every program you're applying to, the research interests of relevant professors there, and any correspondence you've shared with them. The key word here is efficiency. It will take you much longer to tailor your SOPs for each program if you're continually needing to go back the program's website, to the professors profile, to email correspondence, to the notes you wrote down during your conversation with them, etc. This contradicts a previous post, but Don't apply to too few schools: @historygeek mentioned five would be a good idea. That depends a few factors, including how many elite schools you're applying to, how strong of a candidate you are, how capable you are (time and comfort in your field are the big factors here) at being able to tailor your applications for each university, and how compatible you are with the program. As I mentioned above, even "perfect" candidates get rejected from the elite programs, so there's a big game of chance when you apply to them. For this reason, if you're trying to get into the most competitive programs, you need to make sure 1) every one you apply to fits, and 2) apply to more than just a couple because you could get turned down even if you're a perfect match. I applied to six, five of which had at least one professor with direct corresponding research interests, plus two programs I considered safe. This is a bit more than I intended to write when I first started, but here's to Sundays. Everybody's experience with graduate applications are different, so I don't expect for everybody to subscribe to what I have written here. And, to be honest, I didn't do anything on this list the first time I applied to graduate school and was still able to get into most of the programs I applied to, but then I also didn't apply to any PhD programs that round because I did what I recommended not to do here and counted myself out. Hope this is helpful.

@Gotya64 Congrats! Vanderbilt is in the toss-up for my number one pick because of its powerhouse of Germanists, so I'm a little disappointed/surprised that I wasn't in the first wave of letters. I just got into Columbia though despite my concerns the committee wouldn't think I quite fit in. It's funny how these things work out.

First post. ETA Germany! l just want to post to say thanks for the stress outlet (and sometimes feedback loop) you guys have provided. To anyone who made it to the semi-finalist round, but didn't make the final cut, don't be disheartened. If you made it to the semi-finalist round, you too were good enough to win the grant. If possible, apply again! This was my second attempt after being a semi-finalist last year. Small tweeks to your application and some more accomplishments on your CV go a long way.