sayf

Folks, Notre Dame sent out acceptances yet?

That sucks. Sorry about Vandy. I am training myself to not be affected by the callousness of these grad committees. Some are brilliant, some are just..well..you know.

Haha, they're not playing. Stanford's was a 3-4 line email. Least you can do is write a proper email after raking in that sweet application fee. Alas.

Thank you, Canaryyy. Really hope next week brings good news for everyone waiting. Found out by a direct email from the Department.

Sorry to hear about UTS as well. And, thank you. Hoping for the same! Would be great to catch a break. sigh.

First official rejection. Stanford. Hoping for better news next week.

Any Brown admits here?! Saw some acceptances on the results page.

Hey folks, when do we hear from Cornell?

You know it. I suppose it gets easier with every milestone. As they say, the anxiety is part of this game.

seems like it re: white knuckling; I wish I could forget that I even applied.

Saw a brown acceptance! Are results out? Haven't heard anything yet.

Hi, a question to the veterans. When citing foreign languages, is it possible to have segments of the original text in the footnotes or should it be in the body or not mentioned at all (only translation?)? I wanted to display my language prowess but I am not sure what to do with the original text. Thank you in advance.

UChicago comes to mind.

Okay then, here we go. May be a tad early but thought I would get this started for people applying this fall to start in 2022. This will be my second cycle. Hoping to apply to a mixture of religion/history departments. Looking forward to getting some conversations started on here.

Fair enough. The length can be a concern. I would not be averse to attending, let's say, Oxford, if they give me enough money.

I do not have a strong opinion on this as I believe certain UK institutes to be very fine places to do history, but, apart from funding, there is also some concern whether a UK PhD provides one with as "rigorous" a training as an equivalent US institute notwithstanding issues about what job market one is competing on.

Yikes—UK and its funding. Didn't apply to Oxford for this reason alone.

I am also settling on around 8 maximum and ranking them in order of fit, so I know which ones to cut out.

Hi, so it was not that they found it "unhistorical" but that I could do a better job of explaining why a history program in particular and not a religion program. The concern was that I was not showing a very strong bent towards the historical craft. Thanks for your reply. That's helpful for me. I do see that I can do a better job of focusing more on how my work intersects with historical conditions of society and so on and so forth. Without being too specific about region etc, I work on religious intellectual thought in the modern period and how it relates to questions of authority and sovereignty. In particular, focusing on the relationship between religious scholars and their relationship to members of their communities on these questions. I don't argue only for a textualist approach. I think there was some concern about my religious studies MA but I don't think it was a major problem. I don't think this is keeping me out, but I do need to show more sensitivity to the historiography of my area.

Fit is key. But I would say that sometimes we overestimate and underestimate the quality of our fit, so it may be helpful to not apply too narrowly.

Hi, any tips on "thinking like a historian" as far as the sop is concerned? I have an MA in a history-adjacent field, where most of my work was historical in method. This will be my 2nd cycle and some places that rejected me said that I can improve my application by emphasizing the historical bend in my scholarship. I reckon I have to prove the "why history" question to the broader faculty at places. I tried my best to do so, but I still think that my method is affected by other approaches such as being overly textual/religionist in approach.

Sorry to hear about this. Take care of your health. This is hard enough craft already. Hope things work out. It is okay to take time away to recharge. There are no guarantees in this game, but if it's meant to be, it's meant to be.

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA, do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best.

Hi, just want to chime in here. These are good questions. HDS is in no way more prestigious than Chicago within rlst circles. Chicago would be more academically rigorous, no question. Quarter system means you will have to be on top of your game. Money: south side chicago is much much more viable than Cambridge/Boston. If you're gunning for top phd programs in your field, both will serve you equally well. Would also try to pinpoint whose faculty you're most interested in. Don't worry about hyper-competition, a lot of these things are self-imposed but you can't slack either. Stay calm and you'll be fine. Harvard gets hyped up due to prestige chasing behavior (sorry, but it's true.) Be strategic with what professors you want to work with (either harvard or chicago) because professors at both schools can fall into two camps: they'll either give you attention or you'll just be a number as an MA. Being proactive is the best way to enhance your phd acceptance chances later on. Just make sure you don't fall thru the cracks as both institutes are big. Be open to working with professors whom you didn't think would be part of your academic journey (they might turn out to be your biggest supporters rather than the big name in your field). Overall, it is my estimation that Chicago might even have a slight edge for PhD apps (but this is subjective and may not apply to everyone). If money is of concern, Chicago hands down. That stipend means someone thought you were excellent. Also, it's okay to be non-confrontational, but it would be an asset to be assertive some of the times, esp if you're heading into a phd later. colleagues and professors respect someone with an independence of voice. trust me on this if you can. Hope that's helpful in someway. Best of luck.

Hi, thanks for this. Are you going to commit to BU?