Riotbeard

Second that.

Reading for the discussion section I teach: Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. Foner's Reconstruction Sappol, A Traffic of Dead Bodies: Anatomy and Embodied Social Identity in Nineteenth-Century America Just Finished E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class TAing plus theory class has gifted me a crazy workload so no fun reading, but I have been watching the Australian Open every night...

I think every professional or apprenticing historian can agree that intentional manipulating of facts is bad history, but that is a different issue from objectivity vs. subjectivity. Objectivity implies being able to shut off one's ideology which is pretty much impossible, because subconscious narrative formation and arrangments of "fact" will inevitably intrude. Likewise, showing "both" sides of the argument implies as does mainstream american political discourse, that political ideologies can be simplistically reduced to left and right, republican and democrat, the list goes on. Moreover true "objectivity" is impossible due to the various constraints on historians based on choices outside of their control. What sources are still extant, to what degree was a society literate, who read the sources that do exist, which sources do I consult or are the sources compelling? The sheer amount of voices lost due illiteracy, destruction of sources by either natural or human agents, means that every historians start with a reletively random array of facts or a group of facts that derive from one specific group. Therefore, narrative creation is an essential part of history, and historical narratives are inevitably inventions of historians, even if we attempt to be unbiased. My view is that the best way is to attempt to state one's own ideoligical concerns and methodoligical influences from the outset and then right the story. As far as Occupy Wall st. is concerned, I will paraphrase E. P. Thompson in the Making of the English Working Class, they have confused democracy as an end instead of a means. Sorry for any typos, missing words, etc. but I don't have time to proofread

You can also work at archives, museums, historical societies, historical sites, etc., although for an archive you probably need an MLS.

I don't know what your GRE scores mean to be honest as I took when it was scored differently, but everything else seems to be in good shape. It really is a crap shoot and based on departmental politics as much as your application, but you seem to be a competitive applicant. Focus on your personal statement and writing sample, and apply to a decent range of schools, and you definitely have a good shot.

I have been on course to do about 1 a year. I have heard they are more good experience than important to having a strong c/v. Great for networking and all that but I don't think it matters too much.

Great essay, if you are a leftist skeptical of OWS. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-j-adams/occupy-wall-street-movement_b_1008978.html

It could help, but it depends on where you transfering to. I think at the end of the day if you have great letters, a great personal statement, and a great writing sample, these are the most important things. If you have already built up a good relationship with an adviser, this could be more advantageous to transferring to a super department with a PhD program where you will probably not get the personal attention you would at a liberal arts type college. Then again, if you don't have strong connections where you are, it might as well be the better program that you build those relationships. As for doing well (gpa wise) in a more competitive school, if you wanna do well in a graduate program you will have to raise your game considerably, so if you can't hack at a top tier undergrad you will not succeed in a top tier Phd program. I don't mean this to put you off either course, but If a top tier PhD program is your goal, you should assume you can suceed in a top undergrad. Like I said though at the beginning, the quality of your overall application packet is much more important than a name at the top of your resume, but if all the rest is equal, it would be a lie to tell you it wouldn't hurt to come from a bigger more reputable program (although, those schools are super expensive and good scholarships for undergrads are rare...). There are people in my program who went to Ivy league schools and people who went to non-descript state schools.

I know people who got MA at FSU, FIU, and South Florida, and they all seemed to like their program. Ray Arsenault (the author of The Freedom Riders) is at South Florida, so if you are interested in doing 20th century stuff, he would be great to work with, and has a lot of connections especially amongst Southern and Civil Rights historians. Beyond that, he is very nice, and from what I hear a very good mentor. They also have (i am sure limited) options to get a funded MA in Florida Studies. FSU also offers funding for MAs, and I have heard good things about their faculty from people who have been there. I also got to meet a prof at UF recently who seemed really nice and interesting to take classes from. The person I know who went to FIU seemed to like it, but I don't know whether her MA was funded... All of the people who got masters the programs are at funded PhD programs, so you can move to the next level from these schools. I don't know why I know so many people who got masters in the state of florida. Best of luck

As I have to do my taxes this week, thank you.

You will be fine. A year is not that long, and plenty of people take much longer breaks between undergrad and grad. You will learn a lot in Grad school that you did not know as an undergrad. It is unlikely that you won't learn knew terms, etc. for the rest of your career.

I would say it doesn't really matter where you get your MA. Although I didn't get one... There are amazing scholars at schools across the country, and a lot of cutting edge work is coming from schools outside of the top 10 or even top 50 (I would argue most cutting edge work is not coming from these top programs, since they have more cultural restraints that come with these old and entrenched programs). Just think about Eugene Genovese who was blackballed for most of his career by any top program and teaching at New York polytechnic. However, 50 years after he started writing he is considered maybe the most important Southern historian of his generation. You can do great work at any school, and there are good advisers whose names aren't eric foner...

3 seminars. 300-400$ If i bought books at the school book store, it could be 6-700$ Order off biblio.com and compare to amazon. school book stores are a Huge rip off. I have bought books for 2$ that were 20 or 30 in the book store.

What about a master's in an area studies. These tend to give a lot more freedom if you want to do sports history, or histories in general that are less "conventional". One of the Latin American studies grad students here just got into a great PhD program and she does sports history.

Get excited you are moving to the greatest region in the U.S. Very little pretense and people are nice. Most of the truly original American culture is rooted in the South. Not to say the South isn't messed up, but as a native, I would call it a beautiful catastrophy.

Agreed. Do not e-mail in the Spring, because they will be snowed under reading peoples applications, helping their current grad student apply for grants, applying for their own grants, and doing all the other works involved. They might respond, but it is likely they will be very busy. It is not a bad idea to e-mail current students with similar interests (most departments have a current grad students page with contact info). I know I would respond, etc.

It was difficult at first (I seriously considered two funded offers and one waitlist), but my decision was much easier upon visiting the programs. I don't think any potential advisers were "upset", they know this is a possibility. And if so, they did not voice this. In the case of the only other school I seriously considered and met and go to know my PA really well, I wrote him a slightly longer e-mail when turning down the offer, explaining to some degree my choice but how much I had enjoyed meeting him, etc. In taking my name off the waitlist, I don't think I upset anybody...

I don't think contacting professors in advance will impact whether you are admitted at all. They are going to accept the preferred applicants whether they contact or not. If it gives you piece of mind or provides you with info about a potential adviser go for it. It can let you know whether it is worth applying. One person I contacted during my first application try told me they weren't accepting students in my field that year. I only got one unfunded offer that go around. In my experience it doesn't matter. Last year, I applied to a bunch of schools and got offer from about half and did not contact any potential advisers.

I am just talking about the history program. I have no idea where other departments are in the process. sorry...

I think a lot of his characterization of grad school is accurate but maybe a little overblowen, except the interaction between profs and your fellow cohort which is merely generalizing his specific experience. I love grad school, but you will find yourself regularly doing things purely in the name of professionalization, et al. The work load at times is pretty insane, especially like right now when I have a bunch of grant proposals due and am traveling 3 out of 4 weekends this month with three seminar papers looming at the end of April, and then beginning my thesis research this Summer. I rarely read books all the way through. I am constantly having to gut books just so I can get my course reading done in time to go to the archive or work on actual research reading. Its much more about pulling arguments out of works as quickly as possible in order to get onto the next one. All this comes down to is that Grad School IS A JOB. Sometimes it sucks, but if it works for you (like it does for me), most of the time it is amazing. Also, you do have more opportunity for experimentation as an undergrad. While you can change your focus as a grad student, it comes with a lot of extra pain, like learning a new historiography, having to build up a whole new source base.

I am going to mostly disagree with this. While at time seminars can be a pain (and I definitely feel that right now as I work on grant proposals and thesis exploratory research etc.), you get exposed to a lot of things that give you a much better rounded context for your own research. Plus, I think seminars (amongst other things) are a really important time to build report with your cohort (and faculty for that matter), and form really helpful relationship (like when you want another pair of eyes on your grant proposals). While I definitely sometimes feel like I am wasting my time in my seminars instead of independent studies, I think am mostly more prepared so far because of it.

Good luck everybody. If I remember correctly from last year letters get sent out pretty late in March since the app. deadline is pretty late. We haven't had anybody visit campus or anything, so I would guess they haven't contact people yet. Plus we were just on Mardi Gras break.

I would guess that to whatever degree this happens it is between friends and very informal not a academic conspiracy. I have never heard of it, other than on these forums to be honest, from any prof I have ever worked with.

Book+ a week for most of the semester (I have had teachers who lighten the reading load for the last week or two but not much) plus a 20-25 page research paper. I have had one take home midterm essay, some profs will make you do a book review or two, and brief weekly reading responses. Your grade hangs on contributing in class and very much on your seminar paper. You may not see a grade the whole semester until it is posted.

To the OP: Go where you wanna go. You will learn tricks to make sure you get through books faster. The first lesson I learned in grad school is that I don't get to read each book as thoroughly as I would like and really less thoroughly than as an undergrad. I am better at reading though now and retain much more while doing less. You will have too much research for your seminars and for your independent stuff to read like you used to. I don't know anybody who reads every line of every book assigned closely. If you got in, you can probably do it.