khigh

I'm only applying to the University of Minnesota. I moved up here during my gap year and it's just the right fit.

I said books are lacking, not that they are gone. It's definitely not modern Germany or British history. I have read both of those, but they are typical of the field- economic histories.

I'm 31. My gap was between high school and my BA. I recently moved to Minnesota, so I only applied to one program to test the waters. The U is my dream school, but we will see. My GPA, CV, GRE, and LOR seem good enough. I included my profile below. PROFILE:Type of Undergrad Institution: Regional UniversityMajor(s)/Minor(s): History/ minors in Foreign Languages and Political ScienceUndergrad GPA: 3.55 Upper Level/3.8 MajorType of Grad: N/AGrad GPA: N/AGRE (V/Q/AWA): 161/147/5.0Any Special Courses: Independent study in Dutch language, Dutch historyLetters of Recommendation: 1 from advisor (alumni of the U, expert in field, did research with), 1 from department chair (worked extensively with), 1 from University President (I was SGA Vice President and President my last two years and we worked on committees together)Research Experience: Travel/archives in the Netherlands, museum employee for 2 years (public history, archaeology, preservation, archives), independent research in Dutch history Teaching Experience: N/ASubfield/Research Interests: Dutch political history/early modern Mediterranean/papal state foreign policyOther: Non-traditional 31 year old student; Phi Alpha Theta, Phi Sigma Iota, Pi Sigma Alpha, Who's Who, Top 10 University student award, Department major of the year, Women's leadership in higher education scholar, 15 university committees, Model UN Best Delegate; various fluency in Dutch, German, French, Frisian, Afrikaans, and ItalianRESULTS:Acceptances($$ or no $$):Waitlists:Rejections:Pending: University of MinnesotaGoing to:

It was. It's the only program I've applied for. Who did you put for your advisor choice/choices?

I cannot give you much feedback, but I was wondering how Schama is perceived in your field? He's controversial in a lot of circles and is heavily involved in modern politics and can be seen as offensive by some. In my field, his work is seen more in the light of the History Channel than serious study. I would personally reflect on whether or not to open with a controversial historian.

I will definitely look into them. I've read a lot of articles in English in my field written in recent years, but books are lacking since Tracy's retirement from the U. Dutch history is not the most popular field at this time, though I find it fascinating and would love to promote it more as an important region in early modern history (what's not to like about tulip markets and cannibalizing your political leaders?). I may branch out and see what there is in other related fields. I do need to do more reading on the Mediterranean and the papal states in the early modern period, so I will probably spend some time looking at that for the next few weeks.

It did take a lot to put that out there. I don't let many people read what I write. I'm trying to be as receptive as I can be without sounding like I am arrogant. I've actually been writing down everything y'all have said in a writing journal. I'm now wondering if the "meat" of the paper would have been better to include. It's quite a bit more concise, I think, but I know that I have a hard time judging my own writing. I want to get better and I know I can. "The first article of the Pacification of Ghent begins the larger conversation of the document with a resetting of previous troubles and actions, thus resetting the game. This reconciliation shows that each of the provinces must concede wrongdoings to be able to work together. The troubles of the provinces “will be forgiven, forgotten, and considered as not having occurred”9 and it would be as if the provinces that caused the problems between themselves and the rest of the union had never occurred. The negation of previous wrongdoings that is shown in the first article leads one to conclude that for the treaty to be implemented, each province would need to concede to a portion of the debate; this article would be a concession to Holland and Zeeland."

I usually come off as pretentious even when I don’t mean to be, as in this conversation. I’ve been called pretentious, arrogant, and a raging bitch by a professor, but I am not any of that. I am taking all of the critique and have not been defensive. Do I like how I write? Yes, I do, but that also doesn’t mean that there isn’t room to improve. Call me what you will. I’ve heard it all. I earned every line on my CV so far and I didn’t get there by being the nice quiet girl that sits in the back. Again, may sound pretentious, but tone through text on a forum such as this is difficult.

There's always room to improve, and I guess the important thing is I am always wanting to better my writing and I have no problems taking criticism. I did, however, call my undergrad advisor to vent, but he's used to that. I did so many directed readings and independent study projects with him that we were basically working together 5-6 hours a day, five days a week, for three years. I started rereading his dissertation today and it seems like his writing style has highly influenced mine over the past few years. His dissertation is only 698 pages with the bib. I've looked at a few European programs and visited Nijmegen (Radboud), Groningen, and Amsterdam last summer for their open houses. It was something my boyfriend and I talked about extensively, but he's just now coming back to the states after a year of research in Berlin, so it's not a move we want to make right now, especially because he would be unemployed in the Netherlands (he's a German historian). Groningen would be my second choice school if we were both willing to make the move. If I don't get in this year, their applications are not due until June, so there is still a possibility. Italy would be the third choice because I want to focus on Dutch foreign policy with regards to the Papal State in the early modern period, focusing on their interactions in the Mediterranean in the Anglo-Dutch Wars. Italian isn't my first or second language, though, so that may pose an issue. I just started Italian this year (Dutch, German, French, Frisian, Afrikaans, Italian are my languages/dialects in that order of fluency). I can read Latin for the most part, but that doesn't help with seminars. There is also the issue with getting a job in the USA with a European PhD. I know a lot of uni's around here frown on a European degree. We've talked about making a permanent move to Europe, but cannot decide where we would end up. German bureaucracy is not fun to deal with and the boyfriend would have a hard time finding a job in the Netherlands unless he went the public history route.

As much as you probably don't want to, take a break. Get up and dance or listen to music, have a glass of wine or beer, and forget academia. Even for 15 minutes, it should take a load off your mind.

One of the big issues is that the historiography for my subfield basically stops at Geyl, who was writing in the late 1800s in the French school. I'm having coffee this weekend with Tracy, who is among the last great Dutch historians, so I am going to bring up this exact topic. He does write tomes, though. His comprehensive history, of which I have two copies and have poured over many times, is about 1900 pages. I've published, but it was a paper on the inclusion of anarchists in the first Red Scare with emphasis on Emma Goldman and Berkman. It's probably my least favorite paper, but that is because of the subject. I would love reading suggestions, just please, no one recommend Hemingway. I can't get through anything he writes without wanting to dig my eyes out with a hot spoon. I find him among the most frustrating authors I have ever read.

This would be interesting to know. One of my letter writers got his PhD from the place I am applying.

I will definitely be looking more at my writing. Maybe I will write more concisely for academia and write historical fiction for fun. Giving up a writing style is like giving up part of your soul. I don’t think I am ready to sell my entire soul for a journal (though the paper the excerpt was from got good remarks at a conference and I have published), but I am willing to let a piece of my soul die to appease the modern academia gods, if that makes sense.

The program I applied to wanted an unofficial uploaded and then send the original after you are admitted.

Maybe I need to read more anglo literature. Looking at my bookshelf, I don't own anything by an American author. I have Hugo and Chaucer and Tolstoy, Mann and Hesse and Kafka, and writers from around the world, but no Americans. Most of my academic books were published by Leiden/UCL, before the 20th century, or are philosophy. The only truly "American" book I have is Baseball and Philosophy (well, and "How to talk Minnesotan," but I wouldn't hold that up as a good piece of literature). The academic I worked under does write in English, but the historiography of the Dutch Republic is not a field that is typically written in English and has fallen out of favor with non-Dutch speaking audiences. The current Dutch government has some influence in that because they believe that Dutch language and culture are being absorbed by the English and lost. They really push for Dutch history to be done in a strictly Dutch context and either written in Dutch or translated into Dutch and published first under the Dutch title. I really do thank y'all for the criticism and help. I may have to rethink my approach to academia and writing or see if there is a healthy balance between how I write and what academia requires in the current era.

I understand the tone. I've had to defend my writing between the Americanists and Europeanists. I can write concisely and had to for the Americanists, but then I would need to go "muse" with my advisor or my German history prof about the nuances of the application of the definition of humanity in the Nazi regime. Writing style is interesting.

That seems to be the difference between the American and French schools. The French style manual was written in the 1600s and that is what is still used there.

Funny enough, most of what you edited out was put in through edits by my advisor. He got his PhD from the U (where I'm applying) and his advisor taught him how to write (who I'm applying to work with). He is also a Fulbright and Rhodes scholar.

Thank you!

I came up from Oklahoma. I actually moved to Minnesota for my gap year because I love winter and snow and because I wanted to show a commitment to the state of Minnesota, which seems to be a big deal in the U now. They want people to stay here after graduate school and during one of my meetings with my potential advisor, she asked if that was my plan, even if it meant moving to some place like International Falls or Bemidji. Of course that's my plan.

I'm going to look more into writing styles. I did a brief overview, but I'm going to head to the library. It seems that many Dutch academics are trained in the French school, which may make a difference. Then there is the "argumentative" style of the Americans versus the "musing" style of the French/British schools. My major influencers thus far have been trained in the French school, which may make all the differences. The following article peaked my curiosity. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/meta/2006-v51-n1-meta1129/012998ar/

Translating is not a problem for me- especially from Dutch to English, with capturing the meaning of the work. My minor was in foreign languages and I have various fluency in Dutch, German, French, Italian, Frisian, and Afrikaans. I did a few independent studies and directed readings in translating and interpreting primary documents. Model UN helped me with being concise by putting 3 topics on one page and requiring you to accurately describe the position of the government you are "working for". I'll work on it more. The interesting difference in my department was between the Americanists and the Europeanists and how they taught writing- the Americanists believed in concise writing with no fluff (one is a military historian) and the Europeanists taught the art of writing. We did more tactics and training type books with the Americanists and more philosophy and tomes with the Europeanists. For German history, we read Mann and Judt and Nietzsche. Braudel and was our influence for Mediterranean History. Sartre and Robespierre was read for French Revolution. In American military history, we read, well, I couldn't tell you because I got rid of those books. I'd have to dig out my syllabus.

Thank you. I'm going to look into this some more, as it seems that the dissertations coming out of the Netherlands are closer to the 500 page range. I have the relative few coming out of the USA in the last ten years and most of them seem to hit the 500 page mark and that is what I have always been told to aim for. I may email Dr. Israel to see what's coming out of England in terms of length. I do feel, however, that a lot of the work coming out of the USA reads more like a military tactics manual than a piece of academic art. "He did this...he did that...people thought..." The seminal works in my field are long (Geyl's concise history is 1500 pages, Israel's Rise and Fall is 1243 pages, Catterall's Community is 580). I can write concisely, but I find it to be among the most boring to read. I have no problems with writing book reviews and grants, but why does the art of writing need to be removed from the US academic field, especially in the dissertation?

Thank you for your help. Funny enough, the prof I put in my application to work with was one of his advisers at the U. I do use idiomatic English for a lot of my translations, but for some, the only thing that will work is a direct translation (one of my more substantial works was the evolution of the word privilege to right in contractual documents in New Netherland). It's going to take some work to be more concise. I honestly hate reading concise works- either articles or fiction; I always chose the longest books at the library growing up and based what I read off page count. I tend towards Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mann, and Hugo for my fun reading and would rather dig my eyes out than ever have to read Hemingway again. Give me 50 pages describing the red of a rose any day. Orwell was brilliant, but 1984 could have been a few hundred pages longer. Maybe I need a time machine.

I guess that was a little insensitive. I haven't been keeping up with the news on the wildfires. I'm trying to distract myself waiting for my application to process by translating Het Leven en Bedryf van Admiraal de Ruiter and that sucks up all of my time and brain cells. 600 pages of early modern Dutch, but gap year means keep studying.