NotAlice

This is a good moment to inquire about the hidden curriculum of your program. For example, you can ask about the typical time of completion, the expectations in each year (including service/TAing/RAing expectations), any new developments that the program is thinking about (maybe they will start offering a certificate or maybe the grad studies committee is changing comps format). You can also ask about library resources, digital scholarship, conferences that faculty usually attend (and might bring you with), research funds available in and outside the department, etc. 
For example, in my program, students working under a prof were more or less expected to get a major research grant. For US Americanists it was a given that they will do another language even if it wasn't required. In another program that I know, grad students often worked at the rare books library or the museum. And so on. 
There are many things that faculty won't know (and it's not their job). Eg: health insurance, visa stuff, student fees, etc. 
Congratulations!

FWIW, if you are anxious about the job market, it is worth having a conversation with the current graduate students and departments. How were people getting TT jobs? What did their CVs look like? Most graduate students start off wanting to be a professor but that number declines toward the end as graduate students begin to learn the ropes of academia and university-level teaching and/or have unexpected changes in their personal lives that make going into academia untenable. Out of 19 people in my cohort, I can say that less than half of us are still in academia.  Everyone else either jumped ship during the PhD or decided to leave after getting the PhD (one became a professional indexer, one went into working for a non-profit public history education organization, etc.). Those of us who were lucky enough to stay in academia have vastly different CVs.  There is no surefire way to "game" the system. You put your best foot forward and hope for the best while keeping your eyes wide open. So many things, such as diversity considerations and internal departmental politics, are beyond your control, just like PhD admissions right now.
 
That' s all I can offer in the way of "solution" to concerns about the realities of the job market.

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.

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!

The poster there is a bit of an idiot and not the best historian I've come across. They (and other "experts") posted enough wrong information that I got frustrated and then banned from that sub for calling them out on it... almost a decade ago now? There's a lot of hyperbole, and they don't consider that, if you apply to the right program, you can spend 5-7 years doing what you love with comp'd trips to Europe, as I did, which isn't a bad thing. 
But there is a kernel of truth there: there are no academic jobs, there will not be academic jobs, you will not get an academic job, and you are not special. The quality of your dissertation, number of publications, or prestige of your institution will not change that. 

Hi everyone,
First message here but I thought sharing my experience here might be helpful to some of you.
I applied to five programs. So far, I got a rejection from Brown (official update in the portal and notification by email). I am on the waitlist for JHU (email, the portal is not updated). I've been admitted to Princeton (email from the graduate program administrator on Feb, 2 and I received the official update in the portal a few hours ago) and Yale (Medieval Studies program. I got an email and the portal updated a day after). I am still waiting for Stanford.
My sub-field is medieval history.
I hope this helps. Good luck to all and don't hesitate if you have any questions.

@TexasTiger The nerves are real. This is my second season and I remember barely being able to concentrate on virtual classes, etc. once I heard back from the first school (Loyola sent out their notifications super early last year because their cohort was so small) until I heard from the last.
The waiting isn’t easy—it’s still not easy.  If it doesn’t go your way this season, it is entirely possible that it will feel like the end of the world.  I can guarantee that it’s not, but it’ll feel that way.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I cried after most of my rejections and it’s 100% okay to do that.
The one thing to keep in mind (and this will sound incredibly trite) is that it really isn’t personal, especially in this era of COVID admissions and a ton of uncertainty in academics at large. There just aren’t enough spots every year for everyone who applies, no matter how qualified.  After the season, after you’ve processed outcomes, you breathe. If you had a bad season (last year I did), then you take some time to sit and decide whether or not you’re going to try again or if you go a different route with your life.
Part of why we’re here is to support each other through this process. I wish everyone the very best of luck, regardless.

Most of the non tenure-track jobs out there will be part-time adjunct positions. These usually come with no benefits and are paid quite poorly, even if you manage to cobble together enough contracts to reach a full course load. I agree that full-time lecturer positions with benefits aren’t so bad, but those are not especially numerous in US academia. 

I agree. Wait and drink heavily.

Everything is a tradeoff in the capitalist hellscape we're in. There's some good advice in this thread.

Although I'm absolutely in the "she's a skeeze" camp, both the video and Ramus' posts speak to conditions that seem accurate to me, and echo what I've heard from other late stage grad students or post-academics. It is very worth taking to heart. I know universities are pushing to do alt-ac better, but they're not good enough to be truly helpful yet.

I will also say that what Sigada says about the private sector is true. In this, I can put on my own wearied veteran hat, and add:
The work is typically mind-numbingly mundane. The corporate world is, largely, a very stupid and vacuous place. Prepare yourself for things like content mill writer jobs that prioritize mediocrity, vacuity and speed over quality, having to speak corporate-ese, working for horrible impersonal corporations that try to mask their cutthroat capitalism with nauseating veneers of humanity, and being subjected to backhanded gossip, token diversity statements, and all the social toxicities people complain about with academia - except with even less genuine effort at ethical behavior. Have you ever spoken to a really terrible business major? It's like that at least 40 hours a week.  You may or may not have the time and means for vacation and hobbies; if you do have the time and means, it may or may not be scarce. I have friends who have, largely, pretty engaging and well-paying jobs who regularly have to work 60+ hours for deadlines, have 10 vacation days a year, and the like. And again: the work tends to be mildly offputting at best.  The tradeoff is generally more job security, but you still don't necessarily have a whole lot of that. I have learned to never treat a job as secure. What I can be secure about, I guess, is that I can typically find another job if the present one doesn't work out.  Ramus, I hope your tech job continues to work out for you, but I have to warn you that after a couple more years you may feel as I did: as though your brain is melting out of your ears. I had a reasonable job that I was good at, too - flexible schedule, a modicum of creativity to keep things a bit interesting sometimes. Still absolutely mind-numbing at the end of the day. I would gently suggest that lionizing the middle-class white collar life based on your experience at a single job is a bit tone deaf. A lot of people, even among the middle class - who are so much luckier than those in the lower-class or gig economies - are struggling mightily.
There are jobs with more meaningful work to be found in the nonprofit, publishing, high school teaching, or public sectors. They can be great, and they can also be unbelievably overworked and underpaid. It's up to the individual to decide if you think going for that is a good idea, or if you think you can get one of the better positions. 
For my part, I am ecstatic to have 5-6 years out from the workforce, and if I don't get a TT job I will go back to what I was doing. I know that even if retirement takes a bit longer as a result, I will be happy I made this choice. 
Regardless, the best piece of advice here is that you need to be proactive. Start working on your alt-ac contingency plan now, and the most important thing is to get job experience. Do internships, basically. My university has an internship program especially for humanities PhDs that funds internships that would otherwise be unfunded. Take advantage of things like this - or, just take advantage of your summer stipends to get internships. Entry-level jobs require experience and you need to get it before you graduate. Discuss with career counselors and just look at job descriptions on Indeed or what have you. Take a look at the requirements and the skills section. Decide on what you think you can tolerate, and work at gaining those requirements and skills. Don't rely on your professors and don't postpone this. Basically, dedicate a couple of summers to internships, and cultivate skills and your network throughout.
I'll add one final thing: this entire discussion dodges the systemic and political dimension to all of this. Academia needs reform: the tuition problem, working conditions, societal devaluation of the humanities and obscene "professionalization" and corporatization of everything are all huge problems that need our activism, whether or not we get TT jobs. The answer to academia's problems, in this broader scheme, is not "encourage the people who want to get PhDs to join the white collar workforce," even if that makes sense to some degree from the personal angle.  
However we hack it, the key is to try to wrangle a livable working life out of an economic system that is not designed in our favor. Best of luck to all of us with that.

Can you provide additional information about what this "summer research institute" will entail?
You have your work cut out for you. Most people will think that the ship has sailed. IMHO, the most important thing you can do right now is figure out what sorts of questions historians answer, what kinds of claims they make, and how they use evidence to support their claims. Being an academic means contributing to the production of historical knowledge and pushing debates within the field. Read academic history journals (I'd start with the American Historical Review, the Hispanic American Historical Review, and maybe other journals related to your interests in economics and film). Read The Craft of Research. Read an introduction to contemporary historical thought, like Sara Maza's Thinking About History. Then try to write research papers that replicate what you see in a smaller scale. If none of your classes assigns a research paper, ask one of your professors if you can write one as an optional assignment.
Part of this work will be learning that history is a massive field that comprises an overwhelming number of methodologies and theoretical approaches. If you wish to pursue history on the graduate level, you will need to identify which methods and theories inspire you the most and are most helpful for answering your burning questions about history and historiography.
Only when you really understand what academic history is about -- the language that it speaks, the knowledge that it creates, its terms of argumentation -- should you consider master's programs. And you should look for a program where tuition is free. Don't take on debt.
The problem with academic history as a profession is not the "pay," but the scarce supply of good jobs.

On top of what others have said, I hope I had asked more about the institutional support for professional training and development (as opposed to the intellectual training), and you can probably also gauge people's interests in/open-mindedness about those matters through the conversation. 
For instance, what if I want to learn how to do digital humanities (e.g. historical GIS, Python, or statistical analysis)? What if I want to get systematically trained in pedagogy (as in going through a program to get a certificate and create a portfolio that involves multi-year commitment and effort)? What are the opportunities and (funding and other) support if I want to propose and organize a workshop? Are there professional duties/services expected of me, e.g. chairing a graduate studies groups for a year or more, or serving on some committees?
I personally find the experience of performing professional duties/community services, such as organizing events/workshops with invited speakers, very practical and helpful, especially in terms of learning how to navigate the logistics, e.g. "oh gosh all the nitty-gritty that can possibly go wrong! (and the tax exempt forms!)" 
 
 
I heard drastically different descriptions of my advisor's mentoring style before starting my program, and ended up asking mine about it directly. It turns out my advisor is more than happy to adjust their advising style to students' different needs and styles. (I am the type of students who wants to have at least weekly discussions with their advisor; but I know my case isn't necessarily common.) So, if there are no red flags, stay a bit of open-minded until you know your advisor(s) more might not be too bad an idea!

Hey folks, I have gotten a bunch of messages since posting my one acceptance, asking about my application process, etc. and I am happy to provide any feedback and answer questions whenever I can (as long as people know that this is not like a magic potion. I'm very lucky to have gotten in, but I don't pretend to know the secret to applying that nobody else knows). I have long felt that the nice thing about this community is that it's a group of wishful scholars supporting each other and providing a little clarification where possible to the more mysterious parts of this grad application process. 
That being said, I got an message this morning asking me if I was admitted to a particular program because it was the only program the writer had applied for and they stated that they hoped to "influence the outcome any way I can." This is so unbelievably inappropriate. It makes me sad to think that members of this community are going around trying to talk others out of attending programs that they were admitted to in the hopes of clearing their own way. Deciding on a program is a hard and intimate decision, and nobody should be trying to influence each other in any direction, let alone out of a good placement. 
I am going to step back here, and won't be reading any new messages. Please everyone try to be good to each other, and supportive rather than covetous when it comes to others' admissions. I know we are all desperate for good news in a hard year, but just be kind.

Yes, it's the debate many of us are having in our departments. I stand by what I said: you and 200 other people are passionate about history. This is not what gets you in. 
If you are trying to word it in the SOP, I think you could phrase it as your commitment to doing something with that passion, like answering questions about inequality, advancing the field in terms of accessibility, organizing events for the dissemination of scholarship on campus, etc. These are concrete ways in which your passion is visible. 

I would say it's a mixed bag. I've spoken to people at a few universities this year who are hopeful that cohort sizes will rebound next year. On the other hand, I've spoken to a number of people who think that next year will remain a bottleneck year as well, and that universities may use the current cuts as justification for permanently reduced cohort sizes moving forward. And you have to consider that cohorts are going to get smaller because of market pressures as well. It's a real blemish on the reputation of top programs when they are minting too many degrees and a considerable number of their students are stuck adjuncting. So I'd say remain hopeful that next year will be better, but try to temper expectations about the long-term trends within humanities departments. 
All this is going to create some pretty intense win-lose dynamics, I think. Some people may be shut out of PhD programs moving forward partially based on this austerity logic of making cuts now for the long-term viability of the program and the field in general. For those that get in, it may then mean more resources (internal funding, external grants, etc.) but the expense is obviously a pared down group of admits, and probably outweighs the poorly distributed benefits. 
Don't want to dissuade anybody from applying or paint too grim a picture here. This is just the sense that I get from the people that I've been talking to. 

I know it really, really sucks to not be getting anywhere on your second try with a MA in hand.  I applied 3x in a row shortly after the Great Recession began when it seemed like everyone was applying to PhD programs to find some security for several years (and I was applying because I truly loved what I do and long wanted to get a PhD). i was exhausted after my second cycle (and one year after I got my MA). I wanted to take a year off but my (new) work colleagues encouraged me to try again one more time. With their help and bit of luck, I got in on the third try.  Yes, I was wiped, depressed, and broken after I got the acceptances and made a decision. The recovery to feeling like myself was very long. I encourage you to seek help if you can.
I don't disagree with @Sigaba's assessment of why PhD programs may be favoring US historians in this climate We don't know whether this result poster is a troll or what their work is actually on. As I mentioned a few pages back, PhD programs are being more self-conscious about who and what projects they're accepting as a result of BLM protests last summer. But what we do know is that the PhD programs are following the lead of the current academic job market, which is, frankly, strongly favoring folks doing race and ethnicity in US history, especially African Americans. Frankly, I am astounded by HOW MANY schools still do not have African American history specialists and this particular absence had to be pointed out by students and some faculty.
Hang in there. I know it's all very hard to take if you're not an Americanist or waited so long to get into a PhD program. THis pandemic definitely sucks but I've learned that there are always silver linings. Sometimes these silver liinings don't show up right away.

FWIW, the sensibility has been addressed by @TMP a couple of times in this thread.

The ongoing COVID-19 crisis theoretically makes completing the requirements for a doctorate more difficult to complete within the accelerated timelines departments may be using because of the financial uncertainties.
If you're an Americanist, you need one or two languages, one of which may be swapped for a skill. If you're  not an Americanist, one has to know the languages one needs to know. If you're an Americanist, you likely find enough archival sources nearby or even on line to do a great deal of research. If you're not an Americanist, the ebb and flow of the pandemic may make necessary travel impossible. If you're an Americanist, you can work as a teaching assistant in courses that may be more popular among undergraduates without needing to sacrifice time to get up to speed on a subject. If you're not an Americanist, and a department trims back on offering courses not centered around the United States, you are going to be behind the eight ball of a learning curve. A comment. I understand that this is a period of extraordinary uncertainty for applicants and that there may be a strong sense of frustration, even disappointment, because events are not unfolding as one would like. This being said, I urge all to understand that posts at the Gradcafe don't go away, and that there are faculty and staff among this BB's members.
Now is as good as a time as any to work on one's personal professional comportment. It's not what one says or what one asks that can lead to issues down the line, it's how one says something or how one asks a question that can prove to be an issue. FWIW, I have learned the hard way that professional academic historians pay very careful attention to tone and temperament. Or, as one professor with whom I subsequently became close asked himself "Who is this asshole?" The question came after I said something that was meant to be an ironic / humorous statement of respect.

Transnational Europeanist here.  There were VERY few jobs for Europeanists this year:
1) At a regional campus in a major city (222 applicants)
2) In a Christian college in PNW
3) In a teaching college in middle of nowhere in the Plains
4) In a semi-rural area of Kentucky
 
That's it. 4 tenure-track jobs alone.  Plus 2 on "France and the World" in liberal arts colleges.  Meanwhile, there are over 35 tenure-track jobs in.... you guess it, African American history or US history emphasizing race and ethnicity. PhD programs are certainly responding to the demands of BLM too.

Actually, our budget has already been decided. Nothing in the departments is "messy" or "chaotic." What is uncertain is our current doctoral students, their funding, their prospective job market, their research opportunities. They are our priority right now. A commitment to a new cohort would take into account these uncertainties. As the reality in our country and abroad changes rapidly, we sensitive to those realities. 
From where I stand, the situation is more complex. There are no jobs for Europeanists and too many of you. Also, departments are trying to diversify their cohorts by admitting more research on the rest of the world, as well as Americanists. That said, they are also grappling with the challenges posed by the pandemic as mentioned above. No one is in a hurry of creating a cohort of students who won't be able to do research or find jobs. 

This was my experience with Berkeley too, and decided not to apply (I'm a medievalist, not a modern europeanist). Early on in the apps process, many schools I was interested in either explicitly or implicitly expressed a preference for Americanist scholars, especially those interested in studying race/ethnicity in America (probably as a direct result of the horrific events of this past summer). I'm also told that time to degree for Americanists can be faster than for medievalists or european scholars because they have fewer language prereqs and don't need to go overseas to reach their archives, and it's probably in a school's best interest to fund a student for 5-6 years as opposed to 6-7 years. 
Good luck to you both! This cycle has been brutal. 

hi @coffeehum! I think you're asking some very good questions re: state of the academy and are right to point out the differences in institutional support in public vs. private and even among individual private institutions themselves. It is easy to generalize "public" vs "private", but I think that the question ultimately boils down to "which institutions have the best ability to support me in all aspects of my career as a scholar"".
I think that the best way to weigh your options when the time comes is to compare funding packages and have conversations with faculty and graduate students in the department to figure out what institutional support there is to support both your research expenses/experiences (guaranteed summer funding, language learning funding, internal fellowships, connections to certain research institutions, etc.) while you attend as well as looking at recent career outcomes for graduates of that program. Are they post-docs? Are they in a lecture contract at their PhD-granting institutions? Do they pivot out of the academy entirely? 
I'd also suggest not to let "fully-funded" trick you into believing that it must be living wage at the school you'd like to attend. The same stipend will go much further in Michigan than it would in California. I'm sure if you look back in the forum there's a lot of wisdom on how to discern financially -- and I'd also point you toward the pinned thread of funding packages on the forum. 
 

Please, please, please refrain from getting in touch with POIs before hearing from other schools if you applied to more than one.  All it really matters is ONEFUNDED acceptance, everything will be moot.  I know it really hurts to be rejected and confused why, but you really need to heed @AP's and others' insights in what's happening in PhD programs this year given the pandemic's impact on the economy and undergraduate enrollment as well as foundations and non-profit institutions that provide external grants and fellowships for dissertation research. 
Departments are seriously making very, very difficult decisions in building a cohort that will enable seminars to run.  Many schools have a minimum limit on enrollments in graduate seminars (In my program, it's 5 people!). So there is a lot of calculation at play in figuring out what kinds of seminars will be viable in the next 2 years. In addition, departments have to take into consideration the long-term prospects of who and whose research questions will be a commodity on the academic job market and elsewhere.  This is a reason why Penn State has been so bold in being explicit what fields will be accepted for that particular year. 
95% of the time, the rejection is not about you. It's about them and their needs to keep their PhD program viable and productive when the Powers to Be are looking for excuses to slash their ability to admit more students (though the Powers to Be will hypocritically allow PhD programs to survive at bare minimum because of the need for TAs).
So, if you *need* to reach out to find out how to improve your applications, please wait until you have heard from all schools. Then you legitimately write, "Hello, I am writing to learn more about the ways I can improve my applications.  This cycle did not work out for me and I'd like to try again next year." Also, maybe, in two months' time, you might feel differently about the whole process.
Exercise patience as hard it is.  It will serve you very well on the long run.

It depends. Based on the information you are providing, it seems you did not "click" with the discipline, not with the work. If the recommender makes this distinction, I'm sure it won't hurt. 
Let me also add this: it hurts more not to have a LOR from your last school than a non-stellar one. 
Faculty here, this is not necessarily true. You don't show consistency by emailing people just because you emailed them before. Unless you have a specific question, there is no need to email anyone.
Before you email a POI looking for answers, remember that:
Nobody owes you an explanation, no matter how bad the rejection stings. I've said this many times in this forum, so apologies for those re-reading this but: applying to grad school is already part of your graduate training. You will get rejections in the future from grants, fellowships, and jobs. No one, except maybe one of the big grants, will offer feedback. There are reasons that are bigger than you, your program, or your professor. Sometimes it has to do with long-term funding. Sometimes with TA/RA appointments availability. Often, faculty at not at liberty to discuss these with you (and some other times, they don't even know). This one is the one I use on me a lot: A rejection of your application is not a rejection of you as a person. We sacrifice a lot to apply and go to grad school, so it is very easy to take things personally. However, this rejection does not speak to you as person, and not even as an academic. Trust that.  If you do email them, be strategic. Instead of asking "Why was I rejected?" (which makes you sound bitter), ask "Is there any advice you could share so that I can improve my application?" Remember that you might not have gotten into Northwestern, but that doesn't mean you won't cross paths again. In a couple years, you can organize a panel for a national conference and invite this POI to comment. You might collaborate with one of their students. This is not the end. 
It's always, always fundamental to contact POIs before applying!
When I was at that stage, I almost didn't contact one POI who was the POI. When I did, he said he school was not prepared to fund international applicants (me). Then I almost didn't contact another POI because they did something different from me. In the end I did and, well, they became my advisor. 
Good luck everyone.

For what its worth I know a lot of people who started their PhDs later in life! I have a good friend who is 50 and working on their PhD right now.

I've received excellent feedback in this particular sub-forum because I was open-minded and eager to hear from folks who've experienced the admissions process and are well into or have completed their PhD. Your comments are overly defensive, yet you say here that people should be "free to make their appraisal" of your writing. That's exactly what these people have done -- in an attempt to help you nonetheless!