Banzailizard

In terms of history? 1. Byzantine history. I cannot help but respect a state that survived the number of near collapses that they did yet still came back. Plus they are something of an aberration in medieval Europe. The fact that they are geographically caught between traditional western and eastern Europe as well as between Europe and the Middle East is also rather interesting. I have little interest though in expending the effort it would take trying learning medieval Greek. Plus it's not really a hot topic right now, would be hard to find a job. 2. I have always had an interest in a public history topic of history in games. (Both video games and table top) Games in historical settings are interesting because, unlike movies or books, the players interact with and to some extent "make" history. Different players also have different tolerances or interests in pursuing verisimilitude. This can also cause inter-player conflict or condlict between players and developers who have different interpretations of historical events. There is also the trade off between strict historical accuracy and gameplay. Some games go a long way towards combining mechanics and history (for example Here I Stand ) others wear history like cheap costume (looking at you Battle Field 1). All make this sacrifice to some extent in the name of simplifying mechanics enough to be playable ( this is also why I never will get anyone to play Campaign for North Africa with me). A well designed game can both be entertaining and warn against being overly deterministic. It can teach that small changes can have large impacts over time by giving the player a choice then letting them see the consequences. Again this is public history on the level of entertainment, not a substitute for proper history. However, because it may be some people's only exposure to history, it's still a worthwhile topic, just not one I think would fly in academia per say. There is also a sub topic of this: fantasy world building. Usually this involves the telescoping of medieval and early modern worlds, with a sprinkling of general anachronism, some explained others not. It's almost a less specific form of counterfactual history. The last one would have some merit in public history, this would get me laughed right out the door though. Finally in terms of non history, a little of everything. I am a bit of an intellectual flake. I get supper excited about a topic for a few weeks or a month, then drop it when I understand it just enough to not be useful to anyone, or when I find a new shiny thing. One of the reasons I picked history as an undergrad was that it was broad enough to study "whatever." Beyond developing an appreciation of history for it's own sake, I also applied for a PhD in history because it's one of the few topics I keep coming back to, and I have also been trying to work on my focus based on the historical topics I keep coming back to. (Had to type this on a phone hopefully not too many typos)

Got officially rejected from Georgetown so I think I am out this cycle for PhD's. I was not even offered admission to the Masters program (unless they chose to follow up later) not that I could do that without major funding anyways. Ohio State and Minnesota still maintain radio silence, but I suspect strongly that is not meant as a positive sign. I did get an e-mail almost simultaneously get acceptance for a Master of Science degree in Environmental Economics and Urban Planning at Tufts. Tufts tends to fund some of their MS degrees. If I got funding then I would need to weight pros and cons, talk to my SO, and make some career choices. Could use the econ masters to go towards an econ PhD. Ultimately I want to be in academia, and the market for econ is better than history. Would even be similar interests in a general way but with a different focus (present day rather than past). Still I think I would be happier with history and that the question I want to answer are a better fit for the field. If no funding I think I will wait and maybe reapply for history PhDs. I also still have the offer for the Rutgers master. I'll have to wait a few weeks before I e-mail my POI. The extent of the reasons for my rejection will also be a big part of any decisions. Good luck to anyone who still has applications outstanding or is on a wait list somewhere.

Like I said I am not without hope, but I am risk adverse so I tend to like to have a solid plan B. I will wait at least until I have an official rejection in hand before doing anything, but inactivity while the odds narrow cuts against my grain. I appreciate the responses. I really was not sure what protocol was on this sort of thing, and if in inquiring at all, as oppose to having the feedback be offered unsolicited, I would be committing a faux pas. I do not know if any of my POI were on the admissions committee, it seemed impolite to ask, so contacting the DGS sounds valuable. If it is just a language problem I would rather audit the courses and self teach. I suppose I could ask them if they require credit and a grade as proof of proficiency. I do like the idea of leading with a specific question though. It seems less prone to misunderstanding that I am looking for something other than critical and specific feedback.

Well nothing from Georgetown and I see a few responses already up there on the results. I am still nursing a little hope, just as with Minnesota and Ohio State, but realistically I think I am shut out this season. What are the norms around contacting POI for feedback on an application? I do not want to come off as whiny ("why didn't I get in"), but I do want information that I can act on. There is a big difference after all between a structural problem (my language background is insufficient, my lack of archival work is too detrimental, my writing sample is so poor as to be unusable) correctable problem (my SOP is still to broad/vague/work workable with my background, I need to find better fits) or if it was just the luck of the draw/ internal politics/ what have you. Each of these would require a very different response on my part as preparation for next year, or further out if it is a serious issue. I am sure some of it depends on my relation to my POI but I stopped e-mailing all of them by October (I am rather bad about keeping up conversations both in-person and online). I was admitted to Rutgers for a MA, its cheep enough in state that I could self fund, though it would use all of my funds so I am rather hesitant. I have also debated auditing courses in the summer, if offered, so that I can have a little structure to my academic learning again. Reading some of the qualification of people on this forum I suspect my problems are structural. I pessimistically feel like my dual major gave me two half degrees rather than two full degrees. I lack the serious mathematical training for an econ PhD (my original attempt from which I would move towards econ history). Simultaneously my history degree was very unfocused, not spending any serious time with primary sources, taking classes with no coherent geographic or temporal (other than premodern) focus, and taking a language (German) because I did in high school rather than as a focus towards anything I was interested in (and which now has little to do with my academic interest). That being said, I am not sure how seriously my academic profile deviates from those admitted to PhD programs, and I am not sure how to find out that sort of information short of asking POI.

Was that your posting on the results or did you just hear something through the grapevine? This is nerve-wracking since I think this is my last chance this year.

Got my first official rejection today from Michigan, which is OK I guess. Of the four PhD programs I applied to it was probably the worst fit. Still stings a bit though.

I would like to do a mashup of economic and environmental history for the early modern world. Personally I am interested in global and transatlantic but my language (German) limits me somewhat. I liked Minnesota because it has some economic historians (in history departments I mean) and some people working on historical demographics, though outside of the area I am interested in ( Steven Ruggles , J. David Hacker, Stuart McLean ) Since I have an econ background with statistics, I and demographics fall sort of under both economic and environmental history, I figured it might be a good match. What were you trying to focus on?

Not sure what to think about my current status with Minnesota. According to the results they sent out acceptance letters. Also clearly they have sent out some rejection letters as was reported in this thread. My status still says awaiting decision. I see two possibilities. 1. I am a possible candidate but not a first pick thus putting me on an informal waiting list. 2. I am so far down the list of possible candidates they are not bothering with sending me a rejection until March. Not sure if anyone has insight into the process. I saw the graphs a few pages back so I am guessing the second. Still have Georgetown left (looks like those should be out in a week or two) but thinking I should just start the research process again now. Probably could have done a better job selecting programs, 3 months doesn't seem to have been enough time.

Saw this checked my status with Minnesota but no change for me. Still says "awaiting program decision." Wonder what that means for me. I am assuming it's a rejection on my part. Hope that means you are getting in though since it was your top (and only) pick.

Twiddling my thumbs waiting in the same boat as most people. No news from Minnesota and Michigan. Ohio State should be sending out soon, or they have already sent. Seems people hear from POI often, but I did not have a sustained conversation with mine. Georgetown looks like its mid to late February based on the results page. I threw three 3 MA's out there 2 econ (my other undergrad major, Tufts and U Oregon mostly because they offer funding and I would probably be somewhat happy in public policy) 1 in history (Rutgers, its in-state so tuition is not killer, I think I could manage it with my savings and part time work, but really would rather not spend all of my net-worth on a degree without much ROI). I half think I did the MA apps for something to do, but I like having plans B and C. Already mentally constructing and reconstructing a flowchart of outcomes and my course of action from there, looking at calendars to plot timelines, analyzing my process this time, trying to cull wasted time. This sort of over-planing is probably not useful, but I think it gives me a false sense of control I need to reduce stress. It is weird having such a binary set of outcomes; either I know exactly what I am doing for the next 5 years, or I have no idea what I am doing for the next five years.

I would say it is fine to mention that a school is your top choice if that is true, but I would not suggest you would commit if admitted. The former might be held in your favor if debating between two equally qualified candidates. There is even a post about it in the stickied retrospective thread at the top of this subforum. However committing to attending would be less advisable because it gives you less room when negotiating funding. Yes its not a legally binding contract, like say, early admission in undergraduate, but saying you would commit is a promise and breaking it (or suggesting you will break it to negotiate) is just a good way to burn bridges early in an academic career. I would wait for a second opinion because I am not sure how valuable my advice is. All my apps were due December 1st. Good luck to everyone who has them due today. Take a short break before you hit submit and come back to review the materials with a fresh mind.

Just as an alternative suggestion then but what about auditing courses? I am not sure of the feasibility, both for your own personal situation and for what Chicago allows, but it could be a good way to explore, meet professors, etc. From what I understand MAPSS is designed to be pretty focused. Then again maybe that is what you need. Not trying to say never do this, but just think about your options carefully. Either way I would reach out the MAPSS program directly and see if they can put you in touch with current students.

But what do you mean by "studying history" here. Archival work? Reading contemporary historians? Just generally figuring out what you like? From what I have heard MAPSS is a good program, but like all masters its expensive. If you are going to drop tens of thousands of dollars you should be clear, if not with us then with yourself, as to why. It's like saying you want to buy a car, and when asked why, answering "to drive." Anyways if the car sits in the garage because you walk everywhere, you wasted money. If you are just trying to get a feel for the field or your interests it is cheaper to buy books on your own. If you need direction, most professors post class reading lists on their website, look at ones who work in areas you are interested in. Most people go to masters to 'fix' an issue with their application. For example they came from a different degree, their research qualifications are not great, they have poor grades and want to show they are serious now, etc. From what you shared you do not show any obvious problems to address. Either there are none, in which case yes maybe you should apply to a PhD if you have a goal in mind, or you need to explain what the problem is you need the MAPSS to address.

In response to this question: Have you received information that is at odds with the recommendations provided here? I will share one piece of advice from one of my professors. I agonized about fit a lot. Economic History is already a somewhat small discipline these days in the US. There are plenty of good economic historians but many are older and focus on post industrial revolution (I am looking for early modern). The fact that I want to also intersect it with environmental history made a perfect fit even harder to find. My professor just advised "Just get in somewhere." In other words, find several quality programs that are really good fits, and put your effort into apply to them. Your interests might change and can transfer between programs, now as a known entity, if you made a really wrong choice. Maybe not useful advice for everyone, but I suffer badly from analysis paralysis so it was what I needed.

So how is everyone else doing? I hit a stumbling block earlier but, thanks in large part to this thread, I am more or less back on track. I very specifically started this season with some deadlines which I have mostly met. August was for background reading and looking at bibliographies to see where to search. By September 30th wanted my schools identified (in retrospect I wonder if there is an optimal stopping method for this). By October 31st I wanted all my SOP done: bit behind here, took an extra week, but now they are semi-finalized. Content is set, now just small tweaks. I sent them out again for reviews. Took a break on a day that I was out of it to do the mindless work of filling in the applications. All done there, other than the stuff that counts. LOR requests are out, 7/12 are submitted. November is for my WS revision. To catch back up I temporarily suspended working on foreign languages. So overall, starting to feel the stress of the irrevocable deadline, but keeping it together because the arbitrary (i.e. unweighted with the actual effort or importance of any given task) progress bar I made looks pretty full.

I would agree with the general consensus in this thread to wait. I wasted time and money last year trying to cram Economic PhD applications in around 50+ hours at my job in October and November. All I got for my effort was stress and worry. Ask yourself what you will honestly loose in taking the extra year to prepare. Realistically nothing if you remain focused. Then ask yourself what you will gain. Time to research schools and POI, time to study for and retake the GRE without extra stress, time to perfect your SOP, and, if needed, trim your WS. In fact you are probably better served by focusing on your classes to improving your GPA. Your grades will also be part of your application and you can only improve them now, whereas the GRE can be taken whenever. You look like you have good credentials. Don't stumble into this, take your time and stride to the deadline with confidence. If you choose to wait, talk to your LoR writers sooner rather than later and let them know you will need them next year. If you are going for a PhD, you may need three LoR as well.

I have been looking into environmental history. Granted this has only been over the last few months, and I have focused on the early modern world, so take whatever I say with a healthy dose of salt. Environmental history is a decidedly wide umbrella. It includes other history topics like agricultural history, urban history (cities are built environments), historical demographics, and can cross over with any form of material history. It also can touch on less tangible history like intellectual (particularly scientific and medical) or religious when discussing human thoughts about, and understanding of, the environment. Climate history is also housed under the same term. It also draws on other disciplines, naturally the earth sciences, but also anthropology. It flourishes most where written souses are the fewest and any additional evidence is valued. One thing that the field has had trouble with is the charge of determinism; that is to say that environment is destiny. I think that that debate is fairly stale though, and most scholars I have read are careful to couch arguments to avoid this claim. There is this list of programs if you are interested. Alfred Crosby's Colombian Exchange is sort of a foundational text, though for my money, I prefer his Ecological Imperialism. A Companion to Global Environmental History edited by J.R. McNeill and Erin Stewart Mauldin is a collection of essays on different temporal and geographic subjects by different authors. Its a mile wide and an inch deep, but as an introduction to the field that is perfect. Otherwise here is a short bibliography of the books I liked most so far that are solidly in the topic. There are a number of scholarly journals dedicated to the topic too. It would be great if others could add to a list. Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough Journey John L Brooke Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century by Geoffrey Parker Pan's Travail J. Donald Hughes Plagues and Peoples William McNeil The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 and The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations (n.b. that is about the medieval era) both by Brian Fagan The Unending Frontier: an Environmental History of the Early Modern World By John F Richards

Actually the need to revise down the paper to meet page limits was one reason I looked more carefully at my writing sample. The sample was a senior thesis I should add. I was trying to select the themes or topics that met qualifications that I have read about as being desirable. The qualifications I was looking for were 1. primary source use 2. connection to my overall application and SoP 3. had the strongest or at least most interesting conclusions. I could then rewrite and make sure the spelling, grammar, and cations were impeccable. The mix was bad though, I had maybe 5 primary souses out of around 35 total. I looked into sigaba's suggestion and have found a handful of primary souses that were not online when I wrote the paper 4 years ago. I am going to use those, narrow the time period and the focus of discussion down significantly. Hopefully that will get me to the page limit I need. I appreciate your thoughts though. I wish you the best of luck with your applications as well.

I appreciate the detailed suggestion. I will have to tweak it a bit. The main focus of the paper I am using were related to a process rather than an event, specifically the social changes over the whole of the 19th century. Key themes being the growth and change in priorities of a cosmopolitan Europhile elite (from a limited copying European military methods for defense, to copying economic and social forms), the growth of a disgruntled nativist middle class, changes in the urban structures of Ciro and Alexandra (infrastructure, size, street lay out, building shape), the effects of globalization, and the realignment of social divisions on economic rather than religious, or other traditional lines. The last three are the things I want to draw connections to in my SOP, as those are among the themes I want to focus on in early modern Europe. However, those are also the areas with the fewest primary souses. I do have English and American primary sources (diaries and travel logs) and I even draw on official state portraits of the rulers of the Muhammad Ali dynasty to talk about a change in how they portrayed themselves. I use secondary works to talk about Orientalism, Focult with training discipline in the army, the use of history to support nationalism in the post colonial period. It was an important part of the historiography section to discuss where my paper written by a westerner about Egyptian history fit in to all the other papers written by westerners about Egyptian history. I might do a rough draft mock-up of both papers roughly using your outline and see how each comes out. Even just writing about it here though, the second sounds more complete. I had not thought to talk to my professors writing my LOR about their LOR. I guess I assumed it was taboo, and that I should be not seen as influencing them so that they could provide a slightly more objective analysis.

I felt like I was building momentum on these PhD applications. My quantitative metrics (GPA, GRE) are solid, I have LOR lined up that I am confident in, I have been working on foreign language skills (both refreshing German and learning Spanish) for at least an hour a day every day, my SOP is coalescing, and I have reached out to POI. Then I hit a brick wall momentum wise. I am trying to determine how much of a detriment some of the structural flaws of my writing sample are going to be, and if they are application killing or not. The biggest issue is that, while I do use some primary sources, they are not the bulk of the paper. I certainty did not translate any of the primary sources that I did use. It was about Egypt in the 19th century, and I have zero knowledge of Arabic, Turkish, or other useful languages for that area. It also does not focus on the time period or geographic area I am interested in. On the other hand, it is the only paper I have with a substantive historiographic review or any serious use of primary sources. I also have no papers focusing on my time period of interest anyways so I feel I am a bit stuck with it. Rereading it I do think the paper is otherwise a solid synthesis of second works, it also focuses on themes I want to highlight in my SOP, but the other flaws seem glaring when I read about what makes a WS good. It seems to me I have four unpalatable choices 1. abandon the applications, cut my losses, regroup (would need to awkwardly explain this to my boss who has given me reduced hours to work on applications, and the professors writing my LOR ) 2. trim the paper only to use what few primary sources I do have (I would be lucky to cull 10 pages from my current 40) 3. do less radical revisions and hope the rest of my application carries the day (seems a potential waste of money and time, ignoring sunk costs). 4. Do something really desperate and write a new paper from scratch (time seems an issue). I am not a student any more, so I really have curtailed access to academic souses. I also work a little under 40 hours a week, so that is an added constraint. I am aware I could also focus on a MA. However, even funded MA's seem at best to be only partially funded, and I do not want to pay or take debt.

I e-mailed a POI and he got back to me and CC'ed his colleges in the same field. One of them also replied then while still CC'ing all of the previous people. I would like to respond to both. Is it best to do this in one e-mail or in two CC'ing everyone each time? I am leaning towards the second but some of my questions are general and I do not want to clutter up inboxes.

I am debating switching to focus on applying to MA programs or maybe putting out a mix of PhD and MA applications to hedge my bets. Funding would be an issue (I have the thread here bookmarked) but the goal would be to better establish my research background and focus my interests. Is the process for MA applications significantly different from that for a PhD? Should I continue to identify POI or is it more about the program at the MA level? Are writing sample, LOR, and SOP just as important? I am sure these things might be a bit idiosyncratic, but I am asking for an "on average" sort of answer.

Mid October might be a bit safer if you think you will need to retake (though hopefully if you are using that intervening time well, you will not need to.) You can retake the GRE every 21 days, but it sometimes takes up to 2 weeks to get scores back for the writing portion. If any of your application deadlines are due December 1 that is cutting it awfully close. That being said, it should not be a serious problem waiting a bit longer to take it. I am curious as to why you mention improving your math score specifically. From reading a number of other threads around here it matters much less for history, except occasionally for funding at some schools. You might be better served focusing on the rest of your application (writing sample, SOP) unless you expect to completely fail.

Actually no I had not considered environmental history. I have not had much exposure to the field other then Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (not exactly environmental history but thematically close), which is one of my favorite books, and a book on the medieval warm period. I ordered a bunch of the general histories on Constantin Fasol's list and pulled off my shelf another environmental history book, Pan's Travail, that I bought but have never gotten around to reading. The interdisciplinary methods actually sound really neat, and I think this is going to be a fruitful line of research so thank you for the suggestion! Somehow I figured that this would be the case, but I was not sure. Pulling from my experience researching econ applications, that is a very hierarchical discipline. While nothing is guaranteed in these application processes, apparently there the quality of your professor writing the letter, such as if they are a known researcher, can count for or against you. As such I have seen advice to take LOR from more prestigious professors who do not know you as well, and to take letters from outside the field as a last resort. I think now I just need to settle in, read, and consider what I really want to study.

That is not an easy question, and it is one I have been wrestling with. I am not sure I have as strong of an answer as I would like, but I will give what answer I can. Well it would disingenuous to say I would not want a PhD in econ, but it would also be fair to say I would prefer one in history. Like I said I selected econ because I figured I could study the same historical subject matter, but have a financially sound fall back if I could not find secure work in academia. I am somewhat risk adverse and always like to have a plan B. If I cannot have the intellectual freedom an academic career allows, I would rather have a job that pays well enough that I can take the free time to indulge myself outside of work. In having spoken with professors, and done additional research, modern economics is just not as interested in many historical questions from before industrialization. That is not so say there are none, just that they are niche. The other reason I originally approached econ was as I said, I am more familiar with my economics staff. I am extremely asocial, so unless someone goes out of their way to contact me, I probably will not contact them. The econ department was more active in getting students and professors engaged by hosting events, and other forms of extracurricular activities. I am better able to keep in touch with the econ staff since there are multiple alumni events each year so I can usually attend one. This all made getting letters of recommendation and having a close advisor easier. That really does not answer why history however. I am going to be more explicit about some of the sort of questions that interest me in response to VAZ below. I will say up here that it is a mixture of inclination and skill set. I did take time in May to think about which courses I spent more time effort and energy on due to enjoyment. Pretty much all of them were in history rather than econ. I also have eclectic interests which, while consistent over the long term, tend to be less so in the short term. In short, I am a flake. I tend to become obsessively interested in a topic, then put it aside to pick up a new unrelated one. I do come back to old projects routinely just not immediately. History is generally a broad enough field that I think I can comfortably have 3-4 projects at once and never feel stuck. In terms of skill set, I also routinely did better in my history classes in history vs econ. I got the 169 on the GRE without studying whereas I studied extensively for the 162 in quantitative. Admittedly these are not perfect measures by any means. Grades could be accounted to differences in grading styles, and the GRE as a fluke that resulted in above average performance for me that day. Neither has much to do with the work of professional historians. However when taken in conjuncture with the above, and the fact that modern economics (outside of behavioral fields) can often resemble little more then applied math, history is probably the better fit. No he was definitely in history. Russian Medieval Economic History to be specific. I went though his CV just now, and counted 21 Articles, 2 encyclopedia entries, 2 book reviews, and 5 journal article reviews from before he received his PhD. Some where published in Russian only in Russian journals. A little more then half (12) the journal articles were co-published with his advisor. Your point on quality vs quantity is noted. This probably not the name for the course, and any laziness in the accuracy of the naming is my own. The actual name is on the transcript from the exchange school, which is buried somewhere. It covered from the Přemyslid dynasty to the present, mostly focusing on political and architectural history. It was not a terribly rigorous course. I certainly was not suggesting quantification for its own sake, and not at the expense of primary sources. My goal is to approach history with as many tools as possible and see what sticks . As such I do want to borrow theoretical approaches from sociology and economics however. I am especially interested in networks, both social and economic and how they change over time. I am also interested in cross cultural studies to see what sort of structures are common as a whole to humanity rather then specific to time and place. I am a fan of the idea of big history, and of abstracting history to some extent. I am also aware of the charges of intellectual imperialism that might bring. I am going to list general sort of questions I am interested in exploring. Its not meant to be exhaustive only illustrative. Most of these might have been covered by historians already, and all I am sure are too broad and basic. I do not mind asking questions from ignorance, and this is part of the reason I asked for the reading list. For example, as previously semi-autonomous areas became more interconnected due to European exploration, how much did different characteristics of these networks (the emergent norms, ethics, and practices) mesh? Which characteristics subsumed which? How were new trade goods (especially from the Columbia exchange) defused through existing commercial networks. Did trade flows change and how significantly? Is there a pastern to the distribution of urban centers in a given time and place, for example fractal or logarithmic similar to Zipf's law (1 city of size x, 2 cities of size 0.5x, 4 cities of size 0.25x, etc). If there is a pastern, how big of a network of cities does it hold true for? What determines the size of that network? Are these pasterns primary for physical and path dependent reasons (geography, consistency and size of food surplus, climatological) or cultural/political reasons. Can those be disentangled? I heard a theory (I have not looked into it in more detail) suggesting as Western Europe become more specialized in manufacturing, parts of Eastern Europe began to specialize in agricultural output for export to support the growing non-agricultural class. If that is true how did changes in agricultural practices for more intensive farming affect existing economic networks? For example if more intensive cultivation allows you to effectively use marginal land, did Western European nations (or rather the actors in their agricultural markets) then "on-shore" agricultural production due to transportation costs, or let the already agriculturally specialized areas intensify production further? How and why do revolutionary changes (political, economic, militarily, or otherwise) happen? Are there consistent patterns such as cascades? Do the growth of specialized and manufacturing industries happen gradually or all at once? Do they happen the same way or is each instance different? In all instances can we graph, map, model, and diagram to learn anything from looking at historical events that way? I am also going to start looking into the work of all of the people you listed because all of those sound interesting topics. (Probably in descending order of interest Roberto Lopez, Anne McCants, John Munro, Jan de Vries).