WhaleshipEssex

There's a 45 wig/whig joke in there if someone can get the funding to find it

And if the analogy holds, we'll get neither.

Waitlist movement is entirely dependent on how the institutions you applied to structure their waitlists. Some go by field, some don't.

This doubly applies to programs that did take students last year. From what I've heard, my department (heavily focusec on early America) is reducing its acceptances from 6 to 4.

You can look at the results page for previous years.

Judging by what you have listed as your program, you most likely had your application sent to HSHM, which has its own application process and may have a different approach to interviews than the history department.

Many of those programs list their application review schedule, which only just started. With regards to interview tips, write down and rehearse a few sentences describing a) your previous work/experience and b) your research interests. The ability to clearly and coherently talk about yourself as a scholar will be noticed by the interviewer.

Seconding Sewell here, Logics of History is a fantastic read.

Foucault has greater influence within STS studies, if that distinction is really of any use at this point.

I've heard similar things about the difficulties both in securing funding and job prospects due the emphasis on research, the worries are certainly there. The big draw for me is Richard Whatmore as he's done quite important work (for my purposes) with regards to incorporating Geneva into broader conversations about the 18th century.

Currently in the process of apply to Ph.D programs for both history and HoS (depending on the department), my focus being the relationship of watchmaking and politics in 18th century Europe. Looking at Northwestern, Yale HSHM, Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, and, on the recommendation of one of my advisors, St. Andrews.

I strongly co-sign CamScanner. Apart from the ability to group images into one pdf file, I find the increase contrast feature extremely helpful when it comes to readability.

@historygeek Coming out of my undergrad, I was in a somewhat similar boat to you. I knew I wanted to study history at the graduate level but struggled to really understand what it was that I wanted to research. I talked about this with one of my professors about this and the advise I got was to take something outside of history that I was passionate about (in my case it was watches), combine that with my interest in history, and see what came out the other end. I had no idea that there was anything to the history of watches and timekeeping, but as I dove into the existing literature I was able to find the answers to the questions that all of us have been asking about why you have the specific interests that you do. I know this approach doesn't work for everyone, and you may find that in following this advice you'll discover that your interests have no relation to your passions outside of history, but as someone who was in the same spot you were at one time, I think it's worth a shot.

I'm not sure I agree on this divide between flexibility and focus. If you're pursuing an MA with the goal of then reapplying to Ph.D programs you need some of both, realistically. For instance, I chose my MA program because I knew what, when, and where my interests were, but was still working out how I wanted to approach things. But I had also taken a year off between finishing my BA and applying to MA programs to answer those questions and it was only to my benefit, since it was quite different from the work I had done as an undergrad. I chose the program that I did because it has scholars who provide more focused direction on what my interests already were, but also would allow me to explore how I wanted to study these things. Focus and flexibility was what I needed in the program, but you also need time to really think about what you want to put your effort towards. I think it's ok to go into your MA with some uncertainty about what you want to do specifically, but you'll have to work that out fairly quickly since realistically you only have about a year of MA work before Ph.D applications are due (assuming you want to go right from one to the next). My advise would be to spend your first semester figuring those questions out while doing as much reading as you can, and then spend the spring and summer producing a real quality piece of research that you can use for applications that shows you're committed to what you say you are.

I'll echo the sentiments about doing a two year MA to nail down your languages. The type of language training required is a bit more specific than what you're typically exposed to in undergraduate language courses (at least in my experience). You'll need to show that you can read and engage with both the academic literature in those languages and the primary sources. Early modern French, like English, had different forms of spelling compared to the modern language and a part of your training should be nailing down those translations. This isn't to discourage, just to put a finer point on what is meant by 'language training'. Also note that when answering your 'why early modern France' question, understand that programs are really asking 'why specifically the early modern period and why specifically France?' Saying that you've always been interested in France, while it may be true, isn't going to cut it. I can sympathize with you if this comes across as daunting, but take it from someone currently going the MA route to their strengthen languages and with plans to work on early modern France, it's only going to make your application more appealing.