[Does a conservative political affiliation hinder admittance chances?]

On 10/20/2017 at 6:07 AM, Haeralis said:

I am currently in the preparation process to send in applications to Political Science PhD programs to specialize in Political Theory. I finished undergraduate with a 3.73 GPA (good, though not stellar), with my best performance being in those classes related to political philosophy and history. During undergrad, I sought to build my experience and credentials by working on internships with political organizations. I worked as an intern and events coordinator at a Super PAC devoted to Ben Carson's election, an intern at the National Right to Work Committee, and most recently at the Leadership Institute. I recently worked on a campaign job for a Republican gubernatorial candidate who is pretty moderate and, in my experience, not very offensive to liberal Democrats. 

The most important non-campaign job that I had was working as a Writing Tutor at my university.

All of this is background to the question that I'd like to ask: would my obviously-conservative political orientation damage my prospects if the admissions committee consists of political liberals? In my statements of purpose, I will target scholars at universities whom are much closer to my orientation and explain why I would like to study with them. I always thought that anti-conservative bias in admissions committees was just a myth, but I met a respected scholar from George Fox University recently who recommended that I leave jobs off of my CV that may indicate to the admissions committee that I would be a more traditionalist conservative than they would prefer. 

Would it improve my chances to remove jobs such as the ones that I mentioned above from my CV? Or, would I be fine if I make sure that I explain why their department would benefit my goals and have scholars that I would love to study under? 

Hi. Curious what you ended up doing. I'm considering a polisci PhD and wonder what impact my public political views will have on any future application (though my background is more varied as I've gone across the spectrum from liberal to, more recently, rather conservative beliefs).

[European Research (PhD/DPhil) Degrees - How do they work?]

I'm having a hard time understanding how doctorate degrees work in Europe. There are "research" and "taught" degrees (these seem most common in the UK) but most seem to emphasize independent study. However, am I understanding correctly that some expect students to actually live there? Are there any that don't? I.e. can I carry on doctoral research independently without actually living at/near the university where I'm registered at any European universities?

[Applications 2019]

9 hours ago, DanaJ said:

"Popular themes," was my biggest concern. I love political history, and that is far from popular. Most people find it dull and boring. I have a piece of advice, and it does not even apply to your acceptance or rejection from multiple programs: You have to pursue what you enjoy and are passionate about. I dropped out of the history field and attempted to go to business school at one point because it was practical. I HATED every second of it, and ended up a C student, barely getting by. One day, on a whim, I decided to go back and finish my history undergrad. I became a model student because I cared about what I was doing. If you have the passion, it can work out for you.

That said, if you aren't working with a "trendy" topic, admission can be hard. I am looking at 1950s political history with my MA, and I struggled to even find potential POIs. You may have to search for POIs. They may not be at the big name schools. I found one who seemed interested in what I am doing and has done similar work, in ONE introductory meeting before I ever applied, he gave my some incredibly useful advice. I'm telling you, it can be done. I have friends in academia who proofread my SOP. I worked for 6 months on a writing sample. Those things are an excellent opportunity to demonstrate what you're passionate about, and if you find a POI who has similar interests, they may get excited about you. DIG DIG DIG through school's faculty pages on their websites, that's what I did. 

It won't hurt you to incorporate more trendy topics. I am working with a specific election cycle and the women's vote does matter, but I never made it a key focus. The Korean War? Not trendy, but it's a key focus. I didn't apply to many TT programs because they are heavily focused on the current popular themes, but keep in mind that those change, and if you find even one person who wants to work with you, it could surprise you. Who knows, maybe 15 years from now you're the person someone is desperately looking for because it seems like no one has an interest in what they are passionate about. Or maybe your topic is the new trendy topic and you were ahead of the curve!

Seems like we've had similar experiences except I didn't spend nearly as much time on my writing sample. The more I think about it, the more I'm worried that that was really hurt me this year. Thanks for the encouragement to keep looking. I think if I apply again, I'll need to reflect a lot more on what it is I want to do, what I need to do, and who can help me get there. 

9 hours ago, OHSP said:

...plenty of people successfully admitted to PhD programs in the past few years are not working on the "popular themes" that you've listed. I'd really get yourself away from thinking that people are getting in over you because their work is "trendy".  

To be sure, I'm not saying this to elicit pity or because I'm trying to put others down, it's just what I've observed. Sure, there are people who study less popular themes but is anybody really going to argue that it's easier getting into a top program (after which you will have an easier time getting a good teaching position at a top university) studying gender issues in China versus, say, Yugoslav nationalism?

9 hours ago, OHSP said:

Do the questions sound urgent, relevant, feasible, worth pursuing etc, and do they show that you're thinking about how to intervene in historiographical debates, methods etc etc. Instead of blaming the "trends" you're identifying, think about how you can re-frame your project (beyond the transnational thing) by explaining where it fits and who you're speaking to.

"Do the questions sound urgent, relevant..." sounds like another way of saying popular. I didn't mean to offend you by mentioning the trends but any read of this forum as well as the AHA's and other statistical data will leave no doubt that these trends are an important component when applying to schools. Yes, these others issues you mention are absolutely important but only in the context of what you're proposing to study which, in turn, must, it seems to me, conform to the trends. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just trying to get a proper and realistic understanding of how this process works.  

9 hours ago, OHSP said:

So the SoP is where you frame your project and "stand out" from the hundreds of other applicants. I used to think the advice on this forum was harshly phrased--it's kind of necessarily so. Without tough advice you won't make the serious changes required to get into a program, so my advice is to find a professor (assistant profs are often closer to the process/remember their own SoP) who can give you that brutal advice in real life--it was the most helpful thing I did when applying. 

If I try to apply again, I will surely take this advice to heart. Thank you. 

4 hours ago, Balleu said:

This is useful feedback. It's crucial feedback. Your SOP needs to demonstrate that you understand the kinds of questions your field is asking, and that you are prepared to join that conversation. Similarly, you need to understand the direction of the discipline as a whole. You joke about "popular themes" and trying to make your project transnational. But do you understand why so many historians are taking comparative and transnational approaches? Are you prepared to engage with those approaches in conferences, journal themes, the eventual job market, etc.? Even if you decide that approach is not what you want to do with your own work, you still need to show that you're aware of it, you've considered it, and you've decided to take XYZ approach because of ABC reasons. 

The information you've given us about your proposal (nationalist history, your prior research language reflects an "outdated" approach) makes me wonder: were you proposing to study an anti-colonial nationalist movement with only the language of the colonizers? Proposing to study Algeria while only speaking French, for example? 

No. Actually, my goal was to study the nationalistic movement of an imperial subject people while comparing it to the nationalistic movement of the subjugating people and studying the similarities and differences - it was going to be a comparative study. I shifted it to doing a comparison of the transnational nature of two subject peoples within the empire and, in reality, this fit better with my interests than my original SOP. I am fluent in one of the languages without any background in the other and studying the empire's main language.  

2 hours ago, TMP said:

If you had applied just as you were starting your MA last fall, your application then didn't change much and it was too soon to re-apply to PhD programs.  You need to finish your one-year MA with a completed thesis (or at least a strong chapter for writing sample) and a set of in-depth letters.  Your professors in your MA program likely wrote surface-level letters because they didn't really get to know your work as well as they could have.  People in MA programs wait until their second (or third) year for best shot into PhD programs.

So it wouldn't matter if I changed my SOP and had a different and stronger writing sample? Also had the same suspicion about the letters and I think you're right about that. 

[Applications 2019]

3 hours ago, Balleu said:

I see you saying here and in your other thread that you've struggled to get useful feedback. What kind of feedback have you sought or received from your professors in your current MA program? When you do get feedback ("language I was previously using in my SOPs was outdated and made it apparent I wasn't current on scholarship trends"), how and where do you incorporate it? 

My focus has been on my SOP because that's what seemed like was giving me the most trouble. In fact, one professor not in my program but whom I'd reached out to in a previous admissions cycle as a potential POI gave me, relative to the others, the most useful advice and that was primarily about the language I'd used in previous years. Therefore, the advice and guidance I got, I incorporated primarily into my SOP although I tried to apply the advice to my (new) writing sample which was an excerpt from the thesis I just started writing for the MA I'm currently in but since I've gotten very little feedback on my writing sample/thesis, I can't say if it's up to par and whether that was my Achilles heel this year. 

[Applications 2019]

14 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

This is a fairly concise one sentence summary of what needs to change before you apply again.

I've really been trying to get answer by talking to POIs and even professors in history departments who wouldn't advise me but who could possibly offer insight. It's been very difficult getting useful feedback. Best thing I got this year was that the language I was previously using in my SOPs was outdated and made it apparent I wasn't current on scholarship trends and I updated that considerably. Also the SOP itself changed considerably to shift from a national to transnational study (still within the scope of my interests, though). But after being in my current MA program, I get the feeling my topic, however refined and well composed, doesn't stand a chance if it doesn't incorporate popular themes like East or South Asia, gender issues, etc. Nothing wrong with those but is my candidacy hopeless if I don't include these things?

[How many times to apply?]

19 minutes ago, ashiepoo72 said:

I have no way of knowing if this applies to you, but if I was planning to reapply I would also take a close look at my research interests and the schools to which I've applied. You want to be sure the fit is right, because even exceptional applicants will be rejected if it's not. I'd spend the next year deeply researching programs, and their faculty, areas of expertise, resources etc. I'd also reevaluate my SOP, especially my proposed research, and ensure I've thought enough about the topic, methodology and historiography in which I want to intervene. IMO, you should make a spreadsheet and begin a column with each university's POIs, read their works, check out their current research interests etc, and if you find they aren't as good of a fit as initially believed, remove them from the list. Then move on to the department as a whole--are there professors outside your area doing interesting things methodologically or comparatively that you could note in an SOP as potential committee members? Then move to the university, does it have any notable resources (archives nearby, collections in the university library, etc). I personally deleted any program from the list if it didn't have at least 2 POIs with whom I could see myself working, but you need to figure out where the line is--I think as you're preparing an SOP, you should have a nascent dissertation committee in the POIs you highlight. And the key to fit is how you fit with the department: what does your project bring to the department? Where does your project fit with their areas of expertise? How does your project complement the interests of your POIs? So essentially, all that research is to figure out if a department can nurture your research, and the SOP describes how and where your project fits with that department, if that makes sense.

Best of luck! I'm looking forward to seeing at which PhD program you end up next season 

Thanks for your advice and support, @ashiepoo72! I've become progressively more methodical over the years. This past year I was definitely as methodical as I've ever been although, to be sure, there were a few programs I applied to that were more aspirational than a good fit and I recognize that. However, a few programs were strong fits in the sense that there were POIs who'd said that they would be ready to work with me although even here, there were some missing parts and I worry that in trying to cast a wider net, I may be shooting myself in the foot (i.e. I was led to believe that my field of interest is too narrow and outdated because it focused on one nation's experience with nationalism so I broadened it by turning it into a comparative, transnational study). It's hard for me to tell if this was the right move because finding people to give me cold, hard feedback has been rare.

Nevertheless, thank you for your advice!

[How many times to apply?]

[deleted]

[Applications 2019]

Just wanted to thank you all for the advice provided in this thread. I took the MA plunge last year after a couple unsuccessful application cycles. I am trying to complete my MA in one year and I applied again this year and, thus far, all of my applications have been unsuccessful again. Wondering what the problem is. From what I've gathered, it could be me, my proposal, that my thesis is incomplete, that I haven't published anything, or that my LORs aren't strong enough (even though I was hoping this year, with fresh professors writing them, they'd be better). Fact is, I don't know and I'm at a loss and even though I'm considering applying again, I'm having a hard time justifying doing so without knowing exactly what I need to improve or change at this point. 

[How many times to apply?]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:30 AM, kaufdichglücklich said:

I think that in your specific circumstance you should give it another try. It sounds like you are in the final year of your MA, so waiting to re-apply when you have completed the thesis will be an asset to your application. You will have more perspective on your research goals and agenda, a better writing sample, and your letter writers will be able to write substantively about your thesis. I know that many people apply to top programs as undergrads or during the 2nd year of their MA, but when I was applying I was strongly advised to wait until my MA was completed. I resented the advice and didn't want to take it, but I'm positive I would not have been as successful of an applicant if I had not waited. 

Re: POIs, I would not try to push to much of a relationship with POIs, especially at top programs. These people barely have anytime for their own students and might be turned off if they think a perspective student is going to take up too much of their time. 

Thanks for the support. I do feel that my application will be stronger if I apply again but I'll have to muster the energy to go through another cycle. 

Re: the POIs, I've always been wary of how to deal with them. They seem like such a fickle bunch, leading us to apply to programs where we may have no hope of being admitted while offering little feedback on potential or past applications. 

On 2/14/2019 at 12:06 PM, Sigaba said:

Based upon the information in your posts on this BB, it's hard to assess how invested you are in history. IME, the ability to communicate commitment to the craft goes a long way.

Keep in mind that no decision you make in the near term is etched in stone one. If you decide to focus on other pursuits for a spell, you can always apply to a graduate program down the line.

I think you may be referring to a post I made on another board and that was for a person close to me, not for me in particular. In any case, I myself am very committed to studying history although I'm not sure how I would prove that to you. 

 

On 2/14/2019 at 12:32 PM, archi said:

There are a lot of factors out of your control that can lead to well- qualified applicants facing a year of rejections: faculty go on leave, the previous cohort took all the field slots for your area of interest, institutional fights, etc. There’s also a steep learning curve to the application process. For some people, the process of applying for the first time is an important learning experience about their own interests, how to best frame them, and how academia works in general. In both of these cases, applying a second time makes sense and has the potential to lead to better results. This was my own experience, and the experience of several others around this board.  

If you get rejected two years in a row (especially after getting an MA), it seems less likely it’s only bad luck. I think then there are generally two explanations. First, your application is missing something critical or has some major red flag. This might be a solvable issue, but to solve it you’re going to have to ask a lot of people for critical feedback, take it to heart, and make some substantial changes before you try again (as @Tigla excellently describes above.) If you think you’ve already done that that it seems possible your interests, goals, and/or background are just not fitting with academic history. Maybe their home is in another discipline, or maybe the things you’re most excited about are better pursued outside the academy. If this is the case, it might be time to look critically at what you want to do after getting a PhD and start investigating about other paths there. This is not a failure! It’s a way to put your energy and skills into something productive instead of banging your head against the same wall over and over. 

More than three cycles with similar materials is a lot of your time and money, and a lot of time for the people reading your application to solidify their opinion of you (if you’re applying to the same places.) 
 

Thanks for the advice. The learning curve is real! I have learned SO much since that first couple years when I was WAY in over my head. Each year my applications have gotten better but this year I thought I had a real shot given the significant change in my profile (the new MA from an Ivy, language study) but alas, it seems it wasn't meant to be. At this point I'm definitely considering options outside the academy but I have been so devoted to the idea of pursuing a PhD that I want to realize it. I'm also wondering whether I should be considering programs outside history, possibly comparative literature, where I could also make my proposal work. But then I wonder whether switching at this point would essentially be starting over somewhere else. 

On 2/14/2019 at 2:26 PM, urbanhistorynerd said:

Personally, my plan would have been - if I was rejected to all my programs - get some sort of low-paid admin job in Hyde Park Chicago, move there with my partner, and keep applying til I get in or until I lose interest. It all depends on you, but I would apply to those programs who showed interest again next year. Although applications are time consuming, it is definitely doable if you are working full time. Maybe try getting a gig at a museum or even substitute teaching, or really anywhere! You have the BA and an MA, so keep reading to stay abreast of your field and keep in close contact w/faculty - maybe take a class a semester with them.

So we're of the same mind! Thinking heavily in this direction. Thank you for the advice and the encouragement. 

[How many times to apply?]

12 hours ago, Tigla said:

Unfortunately, no one can answer your question for you. You need to think long and hard about what you want to do with a PhD and if it is necessary. Also, you need to ask yourself if you're ready to give up on a PhD and move on. It sucks to think about moving on, but it's something you need to face with an honest face and plenty of support. I don't mean to discourage you by saying these things, but rather these things are the questions that I needed to mull over after my two years of rejections and wait lists. In the end, I decided that one more year was worth the work and possible heartbreak. Luckily, it paid off and I was accepted this cycle.

 

First, I looked through all my old applications and sent a mock application to two professors that I admire, but more importantly, trust to give me honest and critical feedback. I'm not saying a select few professors give critical and positive feedback. Rather, I know these professors and have a collaborative and friendly relationship with them, which fosters more of a close working relationship. After they gave me feedback, I began preparing my new set of materials and sent them back to the professors for a final read over before submitting the final applications. Second, I talked with several of my closest friends about why I wanted to do a PhD. I wanted to think through whether I needed a PhD to do the work I wanted. They had some brutal comments, but those comments pushed me to reevaluate and reframe my application. Lastly, I kept in contact with several POIs and tried to develop an early working relationship with them throughout the application cycle. In fact, one of my POIs at my accepted university reached out to me after I received the decision letter and thanked me for taking his advice to heart and keeping in contact. He felt that I showed not only an in-depth knowledge of my topic, but also a willingness to work with him and develop a relationship.

I'm not sure if one thing changed my application or if it was all of them. I do know that I took a hard look at myself and decided that it was time to go all out one last time. Maybe it was the extra oomph created by giving myself only one more cycle that helped me get into a school. Or maybe it was dumb luck that I was accepted. In short, do not beat yourself down and give up right away. Take a couple months to decompress and think about whether you want to do a PhD. If you decide that it is, then come back and go at it once again.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate you taking the time to share your story. 

Honestly, the reason I've put myself through this cycle after cycle is because I've done a lot of painstaking reflection and I have repeatedly concluded that a PhD is the right path for me given what I want to do. This year, somewhat unlike past years, I developed relationships with two professors who helped me immensely with my SOP in updating the language so that it was in line with expectations. In the past, I received advice from some professors but it was more haphazard and (and I hate to say this) outdated. My concern is that it's been several years that I've been doing this but I'm also thinking that this is only the first year I had a really strong application and whether I would be making a mistake pulling the plug now only because I have the baggage of the very weak applications the first few years, especially as my profile has changed significantly (second Master's, new thesis, new SOP). I'm worried if I pulled the plug I'd be wasting an opportunity having only submitted one strong application (knowing that many admitted PhDs submit applications over several cycles) but on the flipside I am exhausted after so many cycles of rejections and keep asking myself if I actually have a chance or if I'm just fooling myself into thinking that I do.

On the point about POIs: I was wondering, actually, if I have to more actively maintain a relationship with my POI(s) so that my name is constantly in their minds. 

[How many times to apply?]

As another admissions season comes and slowly fades away, bringing with it many rejections, I wanted to get an idea of how many times people in this forum applied until they were accepted. I'm also curious to know what you did, if anything, to improve your applications that you believe (or know) got you admitted. 

A bit of background: currently getting a second Master's, this time at an Ivy, to improve my application to my top programs. Fluent in one language and studying a second currently. Fourth year applying but the first three years were just hoping against hope because application was ill-suited to the top programs (too many years out of school, first Master's thesis nothing to do with proposed topic, weak language skills). Thought this year chances were much better but was evidently mistaken, even though a few programs expressed sincere interest. Not sure where to go from here since this was first year with viable application. 

[MBA or EMBA for mid-30s career changer?]

1 hour ago, Boolakanaka said:

@pilisopaFormely taught here, it was sounds like you might be a good fit....https://som.yale.edu/programs/emba

Thank you. It seems on their FAQ that they are more interested in candidates who are looking to advance their careers in their field rather than change careers, like me. 

[MBA or EMBA for mid-30s career changer?]

I'm in my mid-30s and looking to change my career. I have two degrees, my undergrad from a top 20 school and my graduate degree from a top 5 (Ivy), both in political science/international relations. Although I worked at a large oil & gas firm after undergrad in a mostly quantitative role (~1 yr.), I worked in politics directly before and after grad school, on a presidential campaign and as the director of a small advocacy nonprofit, respectively (~2 yrs.). I then started my own PR firm and consulted nonprofits and philanthropists on several projects (~4 yrs.) before moving into a full-time communications role at a university at the director level in a developing country (~1.5 yrs.).

 

Through all this, I realized that my real strength and passion is strategy but also that I want to return to the private sector. It seems to me that the best way of transitioning into a fulfilling career in strategic management, preferably at a top consulting firm, is an MBA (I have been trying to apply to jobs in private sector management but it's been a tough sell given my background). So, I'm considering an MBA/EMBA and am seeking advice on what you think the best path forward would be for someone with my background.

 

There seem to be benefits to both but I have my concerns.

 

MBA

1. Age: I'm almost ten years older than the average age of an MBA student, at least in top programs. I don't care about this so much within the program but it is a concern as it pertains to my getting a job upon graduation where I hear there is a bias toward younger hires.
2. Opportunity cost: though I'm concerned about taking two years off to study, I'm willing to bite the bullet if it means a larger payoff in the end. However, given issue #1, I'm concerned I will not be employable and will have wasted two years.

 

EMBA

1. My experience: although I have several years of experience and would probably qualify for an EMBA, I wonder if I would be overshooting by going into a program with senior management coming from Fortune 100 companies.
2. Transition: my research indicates that an EMBA is mostly for people looking to advance their careers but I'm trying to take on a new path and in a new sector of the economy (private) and I'm concerned about the EMBA's ability to help me in this regard.

 

So, I'm hoping people with similar experiences or those who can offer valuable insight will offer their thoughts about which option, MBA or EMBA, is better or if they think there is yet another, better option. In this vein I'm also curious to know about your thoughts on doing a PT/evening or online MBA.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Humanities PhD: what are non-academia options?]

I don't yet have a PhD but that is the goal in a few years. However, my plan is to live outside the United States upon graduating and in a country where academia exists but isn't on the same level as what you find in the western world. However, I would like to continue doing research and publishing. Is this at all possible? What are some non-traditional pathways for PhD grads who want to continue research and writing but can't/don't want to teach or do a post-doc?

[Chicago MAPH, Round 2 Responses]

Does anyone know when Chicago sends out responses for second round applicants to the MAPH? Is it all at once or are admissions rolling?

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

10 hours ago, psstein said:

You've said that you're in a very narrow field. What field is it?

Late Ottoman intellectual history. 

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

On 3/3/2018 at 5:09 AM, psstein said:

This is not to be rude, but "top 40" in history is not a good program. 10 universities train 65% of TT faculty. The top 20 likely train 90%+. By the time you're around 35-40, as my undergrad was, you might get one academic placement every 3-4 years.

It's not rude. I appreciate your frankness. It's what my worry is. And regarding it being top 40, I meant the university as a whole, not the program itself, although the program itself is not even top 40 in history. 

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

On 2/28/2018 at 1:00 PM, TMP said:

I got your PM but I'll put my questions out here so others can help.

1) Why made you decide to apply to that "good school" in the first place?

2) Have you asked for feedback in the prior cycle?  If not, you should ask for feedback ASAP from the programs that rejected you.

3) My guess is that your languages must be up to par.  Do you have sufficient language training for the area of research you want to do including at least French or German for reading?

4) What do you want to do with the PhD after you finish? Besides academia.

5) Would you be open to doing it in Europe or the UK instead of the US?

Sorry about delay in responding. To answer your questions:

1) It has a historian who has a good (though not great) reputation in my field.

2) I have asked for feedback in past cycles and I have tried to incorporate the advice but to no avail. I was placed on the wait list at a top program last year and came close in another top program according to my POI but was ultimately rejected from both. 

3) I have fluency in one of two languages I would be doing primary research in. No French or German language skills, though. 

4) Academia is one option but I'm not beholden to it. I am also considering think tanks and foundations where I can do research in my field without necessarily being in academia. 

5) I'm open to Europe/UK and have applied to Oxford in the past. 

I'm just getting the feeling that there is so little space in history to begin with that for me to try to get into a top history program with my very narrow field is hoping against hope and that I might potentially increase my chances if I orient myself toward Near Eastern instead, where competition for my particular field will be lower and I can still do what I want. 

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

14 hours ago, Eigen said:

Personally, I wouldn't advise you to take an offer that's not a great fit to begin with. A PhD is a long process, and especially in the humanities, the school you go to matters quite a bit in future prospects. 

I think if it's such a bad fit that you'd consider MA programs over a funded PhD, you should not accept the PhD offer regardless.

 

13 hours ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

Agreed. If you got a funded PhD offer, I don't think you'll have any problems getting acceptances to other MA programs (unless the PhD school is really, really lowly rated, and the MA schools are all very top tier). Decline the PhD offer and open the door for some waitlisted applicant who really wants to get into that doctoral program and doesn't care how highly ranked the school is.

This is my third cycle and my proposed field is tiny. This year, perhaps a bit late, I realized that if my goal is to get into any top-tier programs, applying to history may not be the best bet as I might have a better chance applying to Near Eastern programs. The school that I got a PhD offer from in history is a good school (top 40 overall) and from what I understand, it's making a big push upwards. My potential advisors are also pretty good. However, the school is not well-known in history or for my field which is making me worry about post-PhD prospects. So, I was thinking of applying to MAs in Near Eastern that would buttress a future application to top-tier Near Eastern PhD programs but I'm worried about the chance of not getting into those for whatever reason and losing out on the PhD, as well. 

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

It's an issue of receiving a full-time funded PhD offer in the US and waiting for MA program responses from UK and US that will likely come after the PhD offer's response deadline. So trying to see if it's OK to accept the PhD offer and potentially renege if the MA programs pan out. 

Also, I recognize this sounds like an odd predicament but part of my issue here is that the PhD university is good but not great for my field and I realized later on that I might be able to increase my chances of getting into a better PhD program down the line with an MA that fills in the gaps in my application. That's why I'm in this position. 

[Accepting an offer and not going. Thoughts?]

If you have a funded offer that has a deadline before you expect to hear from other schools, what's the best course of action? Wouldn't it be to accept the offer and wait to see what the other schools say? What are the consequences - financial and otherwise - of accepting an offer and then reneging on your decision? Input would be greatly appreciated. 

[Fall 2018 Applicants]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:00 AM, psstein said:

The Ivy MA programs are cash cows and largely not worth it.

Do you mean for history or just across the board?

On 2/23/2018 at 4:07 AM, ltr317 said:

Amen to that!

 

On 2/23/2018 at 4:25 AM, Account6567 said:

Yeah I thought about emailing just to do my due diligence and ask what their internal aid could possibly entail, but $50,000+ to attend an unnecessary MA is ridiculous.

Is the cost the only reason you guys are saying it's not worth it? The reason I'm curious is because I've realized that there are missing components in my application and I feel like I could benefit if I did an MA to close gaps for a future PhD application. What about quality of the programs? Potential to buttress a future PhD application?

[Fall 2018 Applicants]

1 hour ago, astroid88 said:

Feeling a bit this way about Minnesota. It's an awesome fit, but I am worried about job prospects. They are very open about their employment prospects--64% of graduates since 2004 have found jobs as professors after the program. I don't know if that's good or bad. 

There's also the question of where. I believe if you're 100% flexible about where you are and you keep trying, you will find a teaching job somewhere but is that what you want? It seems like if you're aiming to teach at  top university, the likelihood is low that you'll be able to unless you've graduated from a top university. While the conventional wisdom seems to be to pay more attention to advisor and program, this apparent fact offers some food for thought. 

[Fall 2018 Applicants]

16 minutes ago, OHSP said:

I guess TMP's point is that placement will tell you about the school's actual reputation as relevant to the job market. Try to stay away from essentially worthless rankings (i.e. US news). Also when you're asking whether/where people at BU get jobs etc make sure that it's relevant to people in your field--I'd get in touch with some 5th+ year students in your field.

I think I'm tying myself into knots with the rankings. Every time I look up them up - whether US News, THE, QS, or NRC - BU's history dep't. doesn't figure prominently in them but for my very specific focus within European intellectual history, it's got some good folks. I guess part of my concern is that it's going to be hard to assess what the post-PhD prospects are with graduates since so few people study what I do so I'm looking for some indication that I'm going to get some value out of going there. 

[Fall 2018 Applicants]

2 hours ago, TMP said:

That's the question you should be asking BU people-- both graduate students and professors.  Where are they getting jobs?  Do you want those jobs?

Thank you. That's a good point; doing that. Any thoughts on reputation?