WhaleshipEssex

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. 

Unless you're using an alt account, it seems that you've been here a short while. I think that if you were to take a deep dive into @AP's post, you'd quickly find that this individual is the exact opposite of the person you're describing.
To me, the issue you are having has something to do with you. I think that you're sending a clear message that if you don't get what you want when you want it and how you want it, you're going to go into attack mode. 
FWIW, here's something I learned. History professors (like @AP) give very subtle guidance. Why? I don't know. Maybe they don't want to blowback that can follow if the recipient doesn't like the message. I do know that sometime students mistake coaching for criticism. I also know that it sometimes takes a while (or in my case, years) to figure out the wisdom, care, and respect that goes into such guidance.

There's a certain irony to people saying "We're all adults here" and then attempting to dictate what others should not discuss in this thread so they can get their own emotional needs fulfilled.
Change of topic. The "opportunity costs" of graduate school are not just about the money you don't make from having a full time salaried gig with health benefits and PTO. It's about the compound interest you don't earn on retirement accounts and other investments. It's about having fewer opportunities for owning a home. It's about still being in school while your friends and classmates are going onwards and upwards in their careers and personal lives. It's about understanding the declining marketability of your skillset in a society that undervalues a historian's skillset and sensibilities. (If I knew then what I know now, would I have taken that left turn to North Gate and into a computer science class rather than strolling on to Dwinelle for a class on Jacksonian America? I have no idea.) 
Congratulations to those who have received offers of admission. Believe it or not, in a year or two you'll be longing for the relatively certainty and stress free days of your application season.

To those of you who are hitting "refresh" thirty times a second and/or are frantically reading the tea leaves of others' "I got in" posts to figure out your chances, hang in there. Please consider other (less self destructive) ways of passing the time. You could contribute to the "Lessons learned" thread. You could do your best on focusing on your current academic projects. You could assume that you're going to be in a graduate program this fall or next and start preparing for your next set of challenges.
To those who have had an unsuccessful application season, consider the benefits of getting some rest before deciding your next step.

I'm not sure at what point the discussion broke out. But no, under no circumstances will I ever stop honoring prospective students with the truth about the reality of our profession.
Let me clear on something. No one, absolutely no one is saying do not get a PhD in History (well, actually that other thread discusses that). Here, I believe the discussion is please know what you are getting yourself into. 
I understand that many people want to get a PhD to do research and teach, not to go into tech or law or alt-ac. That's OK. Nobody is saying that your goals are misplaced or unrealistic. In fact, they are realistic because yes, you need a PhD to do research and teach at the college level. 
In this thread people like to theorize on things they have absolutely no clue ("this email probably means you are in!" "It means you are still on the run!" "They decide based on fit") to which I do not respond because yeah, that's partly of the purpose of this thread, theorizing together and not harming anyone. More than once I have been tempted to interject but did not because, honestly, those wonderments mean nothing and help ease anxiety about admissions. So I stay in my lane.
But I will never stop warning anyone who wants to pursue a PhD in History of the situation in the profession and the job market. It is my professional responsibility as a participant of this forum. I agree with @psstein @TMP @dr. telkanuru that you should think it through. If you have received this advice before, great. If you are tired of hearing it, well, it tells you how serious the situation is. If you haven't heard this advice before and are upset, I am really sorry, but this advice is not out of lack of support or gatekeeping; quite the opposite. Unfortunately, this is not a "make me happy" forum. Don't want the advice? Don't take it. You can decide to dismiss or ignore me, which is fine of course (this is why I didn't quote any of the comments that protested that the thread weren't cuddling enough). 
But let me tell you that if you land good advisors (as many of you are on track to do, congratulations admits!), just bear in mind you will receive advice that you will not like, as sometimes happens with good advice. The fact that you don't like it does not mean (as someone implied) that your decision is wrong. It means, as someone else said, that you are being honest with yourself about the risks and the benefits, and that you are ready for this. 
Good luck!

You have suggested several times now that your reasons to get a PhD mean that the advice given here does not apply to you.
Again, if you could specify what you are referring to?
Of course. But that does not limit me to discussing only my own experiences. Again, I don't know you, so take what advice you find useful. 
Classic.

The solution to what? Having a BA in history? 
 
I don't know you. No one here knows you, no should they. Since that's the case, at best, what you get here is advice based on probabilities, not tailored to your individual experience and ability. And some people are actually special, and go immediately to a TT job after a 5 year PhD. One of my cohort-mates did last year. I'm certainly at least very lucky. But for anyone on a forum to suggest that you might be special, to give you hope, is quite simply academic malpractice. 

I'm honestly not sure what post you're talking about, but GC is the opposite of a good old boys' club. The good old boys aren't here. They don't need to go on the internet for advice on how to do a PhD, they already know. Most people on this forum are first generation (PhD, if not college), and/or have taken unusual paths to get where they are. 

If you're a longtime lurker, you have been around long enough to hear three or four PhD-seekers state that they know what they're in for, push on through the advice they get, and then slowly become bitter, regretful, and burnt out. It's hard not to see a repeating pattern of people doing the second meme and thinking they're special.

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.

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.

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.

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 think "Foucault" is sort of a stand-in for a broader set of concepts and intellectual movements of which he formed the critical and most important part -- i.e., the cultural turn. The influence of a diverse range of thinkers before and after him, including Bourdieu, Althusser, Gramsci, E.P. Thompson, and Joan Scott, get sort of collapsed into Foucauldianism. I also think few scholars in the wake of Foucault really buy the theoretical implications of this work whole-sale. There's a great article that analyzes this sort of weak Foucauldianism in contemporary historiography but I can't find it. William Sewell has also written about it.

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

Foucalt has had a pretty large impact on both the humanities and social sciences. Every professor trained after ca. 1980 fits this description.

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.

If you're going to apply to St. Andrews, you ought to know that, while getting in will be easier than most top programs, getting a funded position will be damn near impossible as a non-UK/EU citizen, and is about equivalent to an Ivy. I also can't imagine that the outcomes from St. Andrews are all that great.
I'd normally recommend you apply to Cambridge instead, but my understanding is that Schaffer is ailing and preparing to retire.

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.

@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.