Riotbeard

From what I understand: One of the absolute best programs for Colonial America maybe through the constitution, but not known for much else.

H-Net: Sci-Tech-Med. Not sure about any forums.

In general yes! And I am not trying to shoot you down or discourage you from pursuing history generally, but as someone else who is politically minded, it is worth considering the fact that traditional political histories are out of fashion and very difficult to produce with success by young scholars unless it is temporally very recent stuff. The Faust book definitely brings home the death toll! I do think Civil War is still a vibrant topic broadly thinking, but you might have to come at it from a different angle than high politics.

I would also suggest reading Drew Gilpin Faust This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. It is an astounding book, and will push you to think about the Civil War in new ways. Also just in case you havent read anything by James McPherson or Gary Gilmore, these are the leaders of the field and essential reading. These might be too obvious, but you never know... I think in terms of transitioning from the interdisciplinary undergrad degree to history: it shouldn't be problem. I will say presidential history (and arguably, it is not even really a discipline) is probably the most difficult field to enter with any hope of success. It is incredibly overcrowded, so finding new things to say can be very difficult. I think Civil War history has many interesting angles for cultural and social history but the high political angle might be better left to people with huge cache like Eric Foner. In general, high politics (which seem to be your interests, correct me if I am wrong) are very hard to study and produce novel ideas on with success, especially in a very saturated field like the Civil War.

http://www.chromeindustries.com/

I have two chrome bags and I can't recommend them enough in terms of reliability ( I bike a lot too). I also have a leather messenger for when I teach. I am only a few years older than my students so I get the wanting to look more professional. Chrome bags are water proof. I have the basic metro (aka messenger) which I have had for 7 years, and it is still in great condition. I also have a chrome backpack/lap top bag that I recently got, just wanted something new and a little bigger, which so far I love also. Chrome bags are a little pricey (80-250$, although both of the one i have were about 100$ from sales,etc.) but they will last you a long time, so it depends on what you want. They are the best bags/backpacks I have ever had. Very durable construction. Sorry if I sound like a preacher for a backpack.

Lafayette: I agree, and while I won't reproduce it here, I only did a personal story as an expression of an ideological approach to history, not a I love history because... type of story. Also congrats on heading to Princeton, best of luck. It also connected to who I want to be as a scholar, in the sense that I want to teach in prisons in my spare time (something I have been lazy about)

Beyond the advice given about reading the prompt, I don't know to what degree a simple "formula" works. I started with a anecdote about a case I worked on at a lawfirm(as a paralegal) where our client was an attacked prisoner, who was saved by other prisoners, and used this as segway to why I study the historical subjects I do and what type of projects I would be interested in, then (and this really should be apart of your sop) what/who you want to use at the University you are applying to. This was changed based on specific programs demands. Your SOP should not be a list of attributes/accomplishments) that is what your C/V and transcripts are for (literally), it should make you stand out as an individual and give a sense of who you are. Ultimately people are trying to decide if they would like to work with you for 5-10 years, and the SOP is where you get a chance to give people a sense of why they might want to bring you into their department.

Here are some interesting tangent sources, I think others could better recommend more focused works, but as a leftist nerd/ historian, I obviously geek out on protest movements of the last century. Here are some things, I really liked in my more cursory interest: Suran, Justin David. “Coming Out Against the War: Antimilitarism and the Politicization of Homosexuality in the Era of Vietnam.” American Quarterly. 51 (2001): 452-488. Documentaries (All of these are on Netflix instant): The War at Home (1979), Berkeley in the Sixties (1990), and The Weather Underground (2002). The War at Home is my favorite personally, and is mostly about Madison, Wi.

I think if you had time, it would be a good experience for you, but I don't think it would effect your chances of getting into grad school in the slightest. In my case, I did not even use my thesis as a writing it sample. In most cases, the thesis is too long for a writing sample and cutting it up can be unwieldy unless you have an obvious chapter that stands alone well. As an alternative project (on your time or in a seminar), you should work on improving the research of a 15-20 page research paper that is actually the appropriate length for applications. This would be equally if not more valuable to your grad school applications.

My one bit of advice is don't focus so much on photocopying that you don't take in info from the archives. If you just photocopy and leave, you may lose connections that you make on the spot and then find more (possibly even more interesting things than you came for!). Also make friends with archivists, most of the time they know more than you about their collections(although not always true...), and can point you to collections you didn't know existed.

There is no answer to this that we can give you. Sorry, you could definitely get a conference paper out of that much research, but if you don't have "luck" it could be relatively unproductive. It also depends on how much auxillary resources you have access to in grad school (newspapers and public sources available in the states). Sorry. It is very possible to get a conference paper (honestly a pretty low pressure affair), but you won't know until you come back.

To be fair, I did not say everybody gets jobs, and Tulane 2007-2009 hardly had a PhD program because of post-Katrina problems, so I would say it would be to better analyze their results before the storm... I am not bringing this up for a pity part, it is just simple facts. From my perspective 50% is not bad though, even if those were peak years for the program. It's roughly on par then with the humanities academic job market, and implies yes you can do it. It is harder (nobody is denying that). I would also suggest reading the article posted by Simple Twist of Fate, that shows you are putting far too much faith in the methodology of the list. The problem with nuanced statements such as you point out “To the extent institutional rank maps onto institutional resources and support,” is you don't actually know the extent that it does, but much like the AHA article points out the list maps out perception of a relatively small sample of people who admit that they often honestly don't know. I also said that i don't dispute your larger point, but much more so, the way you expressed it. Is there an overproduction of PhDs? Yes. Does that mean Tulane should not exist? No. At 6 roughly 6 admits a years in catogories where tulane has notable specialties, this hardly seems to be some impersonal factory of PhDs. As far as a labor based argument for PhD programs, there are a number of place outside of the top 10 or 20 that do not exist primarily to exploit graduate labor, and there are some elite schools that do rely much more heavily on graduate labor than simple ranking based dichotomies would imply. It's also worth noting that the conversation you entered into was not about macro-problems in higher education, but about realistic prospects of people in lower ranked PhD programs getting a job, so if you are comments were taken within this context, you should not be surprised. You are also reducing real people to numbers, something I think we can all agree is problematic, and stating cut and dry outcomes, that the numbers you tout by no means completely support.

Haha, thanks.

Interesting, and somewhat hopeful while being realistic. Certainly doesn't re-enforce the ultra fatalistic perception of lower ranked programs that some people have.

While you are not wrong in terms of big picture, you are speaking in generalizations that do not always hold up. Tulane for the five years of funding only requires "service" for years 2 and 3, which ammounts to T.A.ing twice (in my case this did not include tedious work grading but was done purely for pedagogical purposes) and teaching two course as the instructor of record. Year 1 is pure fellowship, as are the two years after you become ABD. As a rich private school, Tulane also has a lot of travel funding. We also bring in a decent amount of big name speakers. I can name at least one top 20 (Just barely out of the top 10) public school where the students are stuck ta-ing for most of their graduate career. You do say to disregard the rankings' face value then proceed to immediately re-enforce the discourse the rankings create. Moreover, as someone (and plenty before this person) else said, correlation is not the same as causation. Most of the people at Tulane do most of their research outside of the bounds of the region (although not everyone as regional history is a strong suit). I can't speak for every programs' "actual quality" but neither can you, and you are generalizing beyond your knowledge base based on a highly problematic list that ultimately re-enforces your own position and claims to superior education. So much of the rankings is based on poles of people's perceptions, that the idea that they ultimately speak to what type of funding you get or some sort of objective quality is outrageous. I would say there probably is often a disconnect in resources to those at well-endowed private schools compared to many state schools. This is something I can speak to, having talked to a number of people at both types of universities and the types of funding packages I received from state institutions. What is obnoxious and worth pointing out in both your and N. E. Nat's comments (and Nat I understand where you are coming from, and as far as a distant internet persona, I genuinely like you), is the way you generalize other programs based on limited source base, then act as if you are coming down on high to tell the commoners to face the facts. I know you don't mean it that way, but that is certainly how I read it and it can be read. Most people are where they are because it's the best place they go into with funding or had a better opportunity for some reason at a lower ranked program. I took my name off a higher ranked waitlist, because Tulane put together just such a package as you refer to as being unique to a top 10 school. Also, you are telling this to people who are living with the "adversity" that you speak of. I assure you everybody is aware of what you are saying, but the truth is some of us started off much further down and while not impossible, it is very difficult to get into a top program from a very unknown state school in a state not known for quality public education. Therefore, those of us in such situations have to take the certainly riskier route through lower ranked PhD programs, to try and claw for jobs at very poorly regarded branch schools or at a liberal arts college (which is my dream job, btw). The result is that you come off sounding like an imperialist trying to tell the Africans how to build a railroad, without supplying any of the means to actually build said metaphorical railroad. While some of your argument is right in a pure dollars and cents way, your ultimate point is that someone like me should probably have just not attended grad school, which is not only unpopular, but it's an argument made completely out of context of an individual's work and worth. It also lumps every PhD program from some arbitrary range of the list into some sort of identical mold. You can also make your points in such a way that come off better. The "let me tell you the hard truth of your position" approach comes off as highly paternalistic.

You are impressive, haha! I just get tired of hearing this type of stuff three years deep into my PhD program. Number tell a story, but each career can be "unique". I do think everybody in grad school (especially from lower ranked schools) should be mentally prepared to have to consider career plan b (public history) and career plan c (teaching high school). No offense to people for which those are your first choice careers they just aren't mine.

I think some people are putting a bit more of a rosy tint on things than you, but I don't think anybody really disagrees either. I think your right generally, but at the end of the day people from my school who finish (which is the only one I really speak for) are generally getting jobs, not prestigious ones usually but tenure track jobs. I met a couple of them at the AHA. Don't get me wrong, few of them are dream jobs, but they are tenure track at four-year institutions. Also Nat, do you really think we don't know the realities of the job market? I have been hearing it from my professors since day one. People do make it though from second/third tier institutions and it's not one in a million. You're not being unpopular, you are just stating the obvious. I know a chicago PhD with a book contract from a really good press, who is languishing compared to people from lesser schools. It really isn't as cut and dry as you depict it (which doesn't mean your wrong in general though). I hope this doesn't come off as a rant or anger at you Nat, I generally appreciate your input, but if you think you are blowing minds here, I would say for the most part, you are wasting your time. We all know the numbers, and we are not idiots.

As someone from school number 64, I think rankings matter. I would be lying if I said I wasn't jealous of some of the name cache a lot of other programs have. It also depends on adviser and subfield. Old South/Atlantic at Tulane is pretty good, and it is reflected in our placement record. Latin Americanists do very well from Tulane, but other fields at Tulane don't fare as well. I think if you are that Second (?) tier of schools (say 35-70), your best chances are at a liberal arts/state branch for your first job, and then you try to work your way up from there, if you are good. Another example is being a southernist at South Carolina, they do a pretty good job at placing people in relation to their ranking, but I would be skeptical of trying to get a job as a europeanist from S.C.

Honestly if you are an Americanist or Europeanist, sci-tech-med is a good route, because sets you apart from a lot of other applicants and makes you applicable to another subset of jobs. Responding to TMP: I think Enivronmental history of the U.S. is pretty hot right now, as is a variety of "transnational" approaches to U.S. including borderlands and Atlantic, although both are primarily old histories dressed up in new clothes (as is a lot of transnational stuff). I would also say cultural history is still a pretty big thing still. But yes, race, gender, etc. are always going to be big, as they are important to the development of American society and culture. On the ranking/prestige issue: Getting a good job derives from a whole matrix of factors. Does having a PhD from Harvard help your chances? Of course, but at the end of the day, it will still come down to good work and networking that's gets your foot in the door, followed by good personal skills that actually get you hired. If you do bad work at a prestigious school or are an asshole, you will find it as difficult to get a job as anybody else.

Edward Said, Orientalism. If you haven't read it, it is essential. I will say I think transnationalism is bankrupt but whatever...

Shouldn't be a problem. I know people at the PhD level who did the opposite switch.

Agreed on the fact that you should have a goal that getting an MA in history will service. That being said, I think the transition from poli sci to history should be an easy one especially at the MA level. It would probably be tougher to get into a PhD program, but terminal MA are often used for the purpose of making non-history majors applicable to PhD programs. One of my best grad school friends did the same thing. As far the dropping out of a previous MA program, I wouldn't think that you have to submit transcripts or anything for it, so I don't know why it would be necessary to mention it. I don't know why someone disliked your original post, but people are weird, especially when on anonomous message boards... Good luck to you. If you really want to do it, I would think you have a good shot. Even people like myself who had history ba's when starting grad school only have a leg up for about the first semester. Grad school is an equalizer.

Re-reading for teaching: Drew Faust, This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man Jim Downs, Sick from Freedom: African American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

I am turning my students into foucauldians day by day.