Sumner224

I emailed two people and both got back to me really quickly! I only reached out if it was on the website that they had the advisor I was interested in and/or were doing a similar history to what I want to do. I just asked a couple questions about how they like it, what the faculty were like and kept it as short as I could. The best thing I got out of it was enthusiasm--I emailed one or two weeks before app deadlines, insanely stressed and tired, but hearing about their positive experiences gave me the final push to finish my SOPs. I wasn't really expecting an answer, but they were both really happy to have a chat with me, which was super nice!

The issue is that commitment is something that waxes and wanes with time, so they want to see sustained commitment. It's easy to lose weight, but harder to keep it off.
It took me four years of sustained commitment before they finally took a chance on me, and even then, I'm sure many programs still had their doubts. Also, age discrimination is a real thing.
Lastly, I would say that I myself would not have accepted myself a few years ago, nor would I want to admit you as a PhD applicant at this point in time. Being a PhD student means you have a certain level of expertise in a field, not brand new to it. I understand your background in finance but I still think that this is different than the history of finance. But, I might be wrong on this, as I am in the study of religion, not history or finance!
The flip side of this is that you can get accepted to a shiny Ivy League masters program and then use that as a stepping stone to an even better PhD program than what you might get into it now. Just a thought.

What weight does the WS have in comparison to the SOP? 

I've been cold-emailed by a number of prospective applicants, and I've been happy to email or talk with them.
Advice for cold-emailing:
Email one grad student in the department whose work seems most like yours.  Customize the message and say something about their work so that they can tell you looked them up specifically. Don't just spam a bunch of grad students. Keep your initial request short and to-the-point. (For instance, you can say that you are trying to figure out whether your interests would be a good fit with the department, and you'd love to get their perspective.)  Avoid asking a million questions up front. Offer to communicate however they want, on their schedule.  Some people might prefer a quick chat over Skype, while others want to write emails. Make it convenient for them. Be respectful of their time. During the conversation:
If they feel well-disposed toward you, they might give you advice for how to strengthen your application. You might glean departmental intel beyond what is available on the web site. Like maybe the professor you want to work with is about to retire. Or maybe there's a major new initiative which would be a perfect fit for your work.  You never know. You can also get a sense of their enthusiasm level (or lack thereof) for their experience with the department overall. Of the people I've chatted with in this way, one or two were a bit too pushy.  One person wanted to meet with professors, then have lunch with me and sit in on a class I was teaching.  I went along with it, but that level of request is really too demanding for an applicant who hasn't even been accepted yet. During our conversation, I got the sense that the person wasn't really what our department would be looking for, but that they were trying to get an "in" through these meetings. From my perspective it backfired, and sure enough, they were later rejected. 
I have had some positive experiences. Like one applicant was a great and friendly person in my field, so I'm glad we met even though they ended up getting rejected. Another applicant was a perfect fit for our department, and I gave some application advice. The person is now a student here!

I have gotten cold emails, emails through here on gradcafe, and emails from people interested in working with my advisor. In theory, I don't mind them. Like most people, I wrote to a lot of grad students myself, including ones here on this forum, so I'm happy to repay the favor. But I would offer a few caveats/ pet peeves/ things I wish people would keep in mind:
1) It takes time to write back to applicants and admitted students. Speaking for myself, I'm happy to answer as many questions as you think I can help you answer— again, I remember what it was like, and these programs are often very opaque when viewed from the outside— but I have written many emails, answering four or five questions at a time, to students who never write back again. I'm not looking for effusive gratitude, that's not why I want to help, but some acknowledgement that you at least got the email is nice.
 2) This is more of an issue at the campus visit stage, but I have spoken to many a prospective student for whom my program is their "safety school," and they're not shy about saying so. Or they'll voice their concerns about the program in a way that essentially... shits on it, for lack of a better word. "I heard that your school is really bad for X, what do you think?" or "Well, I think Y just has such better funding but I'm deigning to pay your school a visit," type of comments. My school is also located in a pretty working-class town, and I've had people ask me things like like, "does Amazon deliver to this area?" (we are located smack in the middle of a major commuter line in one of the most densely populated states in the country, so yes, Amazon delivers here) and "I'm not sure the quality of life here is very good, what do you think?" (wellllll, I mean, I think my life is pretty okay) and so on. It's fine to ask questions and to voice concerns because that's what visit days are for. It's also fine to have schools you're more excited about than others. But leading or obviously negative questions like this are pretty difficult to respond to. 

I’d say go for it—if I was cold emailed I’d be happy to respond (especially if the prospective applicant worked in my sub field). There’s definitely a difference, as others have said, between an applicant and an admitted student. The responses you’ll get from grad students will be a bit different. And, echoing everyone else—you’ll get the most helpful insights on the campus visit, where grad students can be more frank about their experiences.

I'm in a different humanities field but I did cold e-mail a number of students and got several helpful responses in return. However,  I only did so after I was accepted. Grad students are generally willing to provide advice to applicants, but we are very busy, so that could diminish the likelihood or thoroughness of responses. I agree with @AfricanusCrowther that any more delicate topics should wait until an a campus visits.
At the application stage, I would say that your questions should probably be focused on two points: Is it worth spending the time and money to apply to this program? And, what can I do to maximize my chances of acceptance? I'm not sure graduate students will be too helpful on the latter point, although it's possible they could have some insight to the process at their program. They could however be useful on the first question is you have some make or break qualifications for programs (such as, is it possible to live reasonable comfortably on the stipend without taking out loans? Or, it seems like you're only person working on X, does the department provide adequate resources for doing that sort of research?). If you've already determined you'll apply to the program though, I'd probably wait until you're accepted to contact grad students.

Email them!!! It never hurts, Some may not email you back right away but most students want to share their experience with others. Also you could ask them once you get accepted what an acceptable work load is. That is one thing I wish I would have done was reach out to graduate students before I enrolled in classes to ask what is doable in a semester

I think this is acceptable, and actually good practice for graduate school, where you sometimes have to email academics you don’t know (potential outside committee members, big names you want to meet at a conference, journal editors). You want to be polite (perhaps even acknowledging the awkwardness of the situation), but treat them like a future colleague. I would also make sure to email a graduate student in your sub-field, who will generally be able to give the most helpful answers to any question, and explain why you reached out to them in particular. If I were on the receiving end of this, I would be happy to answer.
 I think you can ask about anything germane to the program, but I would not voice any concerns about it (especially not about individuals you might want to work with). Not only is this premature, but also better saved for conversations on a campus visit. I would also try to make sure your question is relatively straightforward and best answered by a graduate student.

I'm so excited, everyone! Over fall break, I'm traveling up to Chicago for a grad school visit! I'll be meeting with not only current students, but also with professors that I'm interested in working under.

@urbanhistorynerd, I empathize. Getting a strong grasp of the historiography and major debates of one's field is an intimidating process. I'm in the midst of it and always feel like there's something else I should be reading, or some crucial piece of the puzzle I should already have. And yet, of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. However well we do our homework during the application process, we're in for a constant process of challenging and refining that knowledge once the actual graduate work begins. There will always be hundreds of articles, but we needn't start from scratch when it comes to how to synthesize them. 
I've found the following threads from the History section to be extremely helpful. They're full of the wisdom of established grad students, including @Sigaba answering some of the questions you posed above: 
Reading tips for graduate students in history programs On Reading Effectively In Graduate School How do you organize? (For when you need a system to organize all the notes you're taking) I agree with the suggestion to start with AHR, not only because of the quality of the scholarship but because they're publishing to the widest audience of historians. Thus, the author can't assume the reader is going to be intimately familiar with the major debates in the field of African public health/gender in the British Caribbean/medieval Iberian convivencia/etc. etc. AHR is a great place to practice close reading for "state of the field" summaries, and the bibliographical goldmines that accompany them.

I've had several POIs generously offer to chat via phone/Skype in the fall as I prepare my application. I've seen some older threads with  great advice on preparing for interviews. However, a phone call in the fall seems to me more designed for me to ask questions of them, rather than vice versa. Has anyone gone through similar pre-application phone calls? Do you have any advice for those calls in addition to the advice I've found on interviews?

I had some lengthy conversations with faculty and current grad students at WUSTL and left with a great impression. After consulting my mother and grandfather, both professors, they recommended WUSTL hands-down as the best choice. I have officially submitted my decision. I will be in St. Louis this fall!

In that case, every reject deserves sainthood and should immediately be admitted into Harvard's divinity school.  

Aaaaah!! Got accepted to University of Michigan! Six years funding! Perfect fit!

I would never have dreamt of this, and just needed to share with people who understand the trials and tribulations of grad school applications.


...Oh, and also just got rejected from Berkeley...

Well, I inquired with the University of Arizona as to how I might improve my application as I was curious why I got rejected for their Master's program. They responded: " The Departmental Graduate Committee found that you lacked the foundational preparation needed for this highly competitive program. You might consider enrolling in graduate level classes in this field as a non-degree seeking student, so as to develop a stronger track record and foundation in Early Modern European History."
Still surprising, to say the least! An entire Bachelor's degree in European History, a senior thesis that involved translating/transcribing/cataloging every church record in an entire German town (from 1650-1900), and 7 years experience as a professional genealogist writing over 50 reports for clients with European ancestry qualifies as lacking a "track record and foundation in Early Modern European History"?
Compare that with the University of Alabama DGS quote: "Our Graduate Committee was certainly impressed by your ability to work with early modern German sources in their original language."
Or compare with the Washington University in St. Louis (WashU) DGS quote: "We feel you are fully qualified for admission."
So Arizona's comments sting a bit, but I've already got 2 acceptances to equally good Master's programs and have been wait-listed for WUSTL's PhD program. I'm not going to fret about Arizona at this point.

Went to check results and saw this. Thought you all would get a kick out of it. 

I hear you. I haven't met a ton of people out in the profession who are UK grads but Edward Blum does really good work so that's a testament to the program.
If you're interested in the Civil War era, you may want to consider Northwestern, NYU, and UC Davis. Princeton could also be interesting. Matt Karp is doing really good work and is likely to get tenure. Also, there's probably not a better person on 19th century black life than Tera Hunter right now. 10 years ago I would have told you to seriously consider Maryland but all their folks who work on emancipation and the Civil War are on the verge of retirement.
Another program with a southern history focus that is on the rise is Rice. Their program has an explicit southern history focus, good funding, and connections to the Journal of Southern History.

Thanks for the heads-up

Or maybe you take your pages of venting that are derailing the thread to another thread rather than suggesting that people who are using this thread for its intended purpose create a new thread?
Look, this is going to sound kind of rude no matter how I say it (and that's really not what I'm going for) but you're done with this application cycle so if you wanna discuss things unrelated to new acceptance and rejection info, create a new thread.  I'm glad this forum gives you a place to vent and discuss things with people who understand you, but that's just as easily done in another thread.

It may make more sense to think about your potential research along the lines of subject instead of region. Are you interested in antebellum political culture? The Civil War and Reconstruction? Slavery and Emancipation? Populism and the New South? Gender and Jim Crow?
Either way, the top programs for southern history are going to be Yale and UNC. Yale is the house C. Vann Woodward built and has Glenda Gilmore and David Blight. UNC is basically the epicenter of all things southern studies related and has top tier folks in every subfield.
The next tier is going to be the University of Georgia and the University of South Carolina. UGA students do pretty well with regard to competing for the C. Vann Woodward Dissertation Prize. 
UVA would be ok if you were more interested in the 20 century South. Since Ed Ayers left I wouldn't suggest choosing them for 19th century topics unless you are a Civil War person.
Honestly, I would suggest choosing the University of Mississippi before Kentucky or UT. Even if you have a burning desire to work on a topic related to one of those two states, the best move would be to go to a grad program with more resources and higher profile scholars and then conduct your archival research in one of those states.

Hi all, it seems this thread is beginning to come unraveled so I'd like to first put in a few words regarding its purpose.  I had hoped this thread could serve as a one-stop-shop for everything related to history admissions this year - be it results, reactions, concerns, questions, general commentary, etc.  I understand that some of y'all prefer to see posts strictly pertaining to history results and that's totally fine.  If starting a new thread where anything even remotely off topic is removed helps to avoid the vitriolic nature of last year's applicants thread, then such offshoots are a win for everyone.  Going forward, however, I'd like to make clear that this thread is for anything generally related to the subject of Fall 2018 Applications.  Applying to graduate school is an extremely stressful process and as @khigh said, many of us rely on these forums because we have no one else to turn to for subject guidance and support.  If it weren't for the history forum, I'd certainly be ignorant to a lot of topics that I honestly take for granted now.  Let's continue to support one another through the remainder of this application season and keep this thread a welcoming place. 

And then there are those of us that get frustrated with this line of talk. People here UNDERSTAND all sides of it- the anxiety and planning and admissions and rejections and alternate plans. You may come from a family of people who have gone through the process or have friends that have, so they understand. Some of us have no one outside this forum that actually gets it. This thread saved me from many breakdowns the past few days. 
So, I would honestly suggest starting another impersonal thread where you just talk numbers and stats or maybe, just maybe, appreciate that there are real people on the other side of the keyboard. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are seeing in the above posts that's irrelevant to the topic of "fall 2018 applicants"--? As people continue to receive admissions/rejections/waitlist notifications you're going to see a lot more "do I even want to commit to this" style posts, and that seems entirely appropriate. 

Got a phone call this morning from the prof I've been talking to about my app. It wasn't bad. it was one of those "it's not you, it's us" calls. They just don't have a Dutch person right now and they wouldn't want me to switch my focus. I told them about wanting to look at the Dutch in the Mediterranean, which it seems will be a much better approach for next cycle. I am going to the consortium meeting on the 21st to listen to a talk on poetry in the EM Med. I am going to take a break from looking at anything to do with apps and then spend part of the summer redoing all of it.
I was told that they were impressed with the original translations in the writing sample and asked if I had more translations or if i had only done them for that paper. I'm 250 pages into translating a 750 page travel memoir. Soooo, was told to use a spot in the extra materials section to put about 10 pages of translation next time- there is no one there that does Dutch language, so showing I can do that on my own helps. Oh, and add a translation of EM Italian because no one there does Italian. They are VERY heavy on the French side for EM except for one and they do Central Europe.
I feel a lot better today and thought some of you may find that translation information to be helpful in the future.