pudewen

It's not necessarily a sign of anything. At Harvard, we get summer funding automatically for the first two years (though after that you need to apply for things). At several of the top schools (especially private ones), all funding packages are identical, so in general there's no reason to worry about whether a school like Harvard or Princeton is giving you a "good offer" - they're just giving you what they give everyone they admit. We actually get 10-month regular stipends (though this probably varies by school), but the basic point is correct. Though if you're planning to go abroad for research/languages over the summer, you end up having to apply for extra funding anyway - at least, I did. For that reason, it's well worth asking current students how easy it is to get funding from the school itself for those sorts of things; it's usually easier (both in terms of chances of getting money and in terms of how much effort applying takes) to get funding when it's commonly available from some program at your university.

Remember to think about cost of living. Judging from your signature, you're choosing between Princeton and Johns Hopkins, with the former (I'm assuming) having a higher stipend. But when you take into account how much cheaper it is to live in Baltimore, you might come to a different conclusion. I did a quick search and the first cost of living calculator I used claims that $20k in Baltimore = nearly $40k in Princeton. Obviously not all your costs are dependent on where you live (books being perhaps the most obvious example), but it can make a big difference.

I think people were assuming that your question applied to your Chinese ability rather than to Japanese, which seems to be the language you meant. I can't speak for all universities, as I'm sure it works differently elsewhere, but in my program, you need to have a reasonable level in all speaking, listening and writing Japanese as well as reading in order to take generals (and thus in order to graduate). My department requires the equivalent of three full years of Japanese instruction - for the final year, there is a special course dedicated to reading Japanese for grad students studying China or Korea, but the only option for the first two years are normal Japanese language classes, and the only way to place into the third year (or to place out of the entire requirement) is the placement exam administered by the Japanese program, which of course tests all 4 skills. It's possible that at other schools you can pass a Japanese requirement via translation exam, but I think it's relatively common for universities not to give exams of that sort in East Asian languages, but rather to rely on regular language placement exams. Also, obviously, whatever Japanese you do learn will only be a bonus toward your admission, you can certainly be admitted at top programs knowing none (I was, as were most students working here on parts of East Asia other than Japan). Finally, just want to caution you (though you may already realize this) that, contrary to what a lot of people who are fluent in Chinese think, you cannot read Japanese simply because you know the characters (at least, the ones that weren't made up by the Japanese) already. Japanese grammar is complex and difficult, and you will really need formal instruction to learn Japanese well enough. Self-teaching can give you a bit of a head start, but it's not close to being sufficient.

Back in the day, the clear choice here would have been UCLA, but with Huang retired that's no longer true. I would add Stanford to the places you're considering: Matthew Sommer's work is absolutely terrific. Otherwise, looks like you're on the right track; I agree with the consensus that law school hiring is based even more on prestige of degree than is hiring by history departments.

I think you're right that the immersion experience is more useful once you already have some background in the language. As for your language learning plan, anything that can get you through two years of Chinese by the time you graduate is a good bet (2 years is a critical level; it not only makes you eligible for Fullbright, but also makes you eligible for FLAS grants, which are one of the best possible ways to fund an MA). Having an instructor working with you from the beginning is crucial; some aspects of Chinese can be studied independently, but you aren't going to learn to speak well without someone correcting you; tones especially are different from anything you will have experienced in any other language. As for funding, it can vary widely, even more for MAs than for PhDs. It's possible to get full funding and a stipend, for instance through a FLAS grant (from the federal government, but only available at certain institutions, you can find the list here, just scroll down to East Asia). Some institutions also offer their own funding, in varying amounts. It's really hard to give you a figure you can expect to pay, it all depends on how successfully your applications go (but apply broadly, and look especially for places that offer funding to MA students). You can definitely get in to an MA program with only 3-4 years of Chinese; programs understand the amount of time needed to pick up the language, and recognize that many people don't have the opportunity to do that as an undergrad; it's part of the reason that MAs are a lot more common for admits to Asian history PhD programs than they are for people doing US History, or even European.

You wouldn't need to know Japanese prior to starting a PhD program (unless, of course, you were focusing on Japan). Also, departments won't really be looking for Portuguese out of an applicant in East Asian History, but if that's what you want to work on, you probably should have it down when you apply. As for continuing language study, if you can manage to finish two years worth of Chinese by the time you graduate, you become eligible for a Fullbright (and an accompanying Critical Language Enhancement Award), which is the most obvious option for spending more time studying in China, and having someone else pay for it. You should search for other possibilities too, though; there are a variety of sources of funding for language study in China out there. CET is a solid program; not the absolute best, but it may be the best in China that will take you without prior training. The other obvious option would be the Middlebury Language Program. It's in the US, rather than China, and will cost you at least as much, but it has a quite good reputation. You could also look for intensive first-year Chinese courses offered over the summer by other universities in the US; there may be cheaper options. Harvard, for instance, has a first-year course offered over the summer for around $5,500 (plus living expenses), which should prepare you well enough to take a second year course next academic year. Other places probably have similar things, though you'll want to make sure whatever you do is sufficiently intensive. In the end, you probably will want to do a Masters degree as well, since it sounds like your current institution will make it tough to be adequately prepared for a PhD program, given its relative lack of offerings in Asian history and languages. I think an MA in East Asian studies would be preferable, since its requirements will be in line with the preparation you need. Plus, you're more likely to find funding, and more likely to find a good program; many more of the best universities offer stand-alone MAs in East Asian Studies than in anything tied to Western European History.

You're at no disadvantage; in fact, you're at an advantage relative to applicants with no MA. For those of us who work in areas other than US or Western Europe, it's quite common to have an area studies Masters prior to starting a PhD program, and will not harm your admission prospects in the least, particularly if you had a historical focus within the MA program.

To start with your three questions: 1. It could go either way. If you frame your interests as Portuguese empire, you might be able to apply as a Europeanist. But, particularly if you want to focus on East Asia (China/Japan/Korea), you are likely better off applying as an Asian historian, as that will probably put you on a better track in terms of picking up the right languages (see my answer to your third question for more on this). 2. This isn't even close. If you want a job someday, you're far better off working on Asia, you're far better off doing a transnational topic, and you're far better off staying as far away from Classics as possible. 3. No. At least, not a PhD program. If you were to apply as a Europeanist, you could get in to a PhD program with no East Asian language background (obviously assuming everything else is up to snuff). But, once you're in, you won't have the time to learn Chinese (which it sounds like is what you want to do), at least, not well. It's a major commitment of time, and if you really are interested in pursuing a topic of that sort, you need to start learning it ASAP. At the very least, you'll need 4-5 years of coursework (or equivalent, through intensive summer courses, study in China/Taiwan, etc) in Modern Chinese and 1-2 years of Literary Chinese to work on the topic you're discussing. Frankly, if you want to work on Portugal in East Asia, you should probably learn Japanese (including Classical Japanese/Kanbun) as well (and a lot of programs in East Asian history will require you to learn Modern Japanese, regardless of what you work on). My advice, if you want to go the Asia route: 1. Shift your focus a bit to work on the Jesuits in China, or something of that sort. That way, your Latin can actually be of some use, even working on East Asia. And this obviously doesn't necessarily take you away from the Portugal angle. (This is purely optional advice, if it doesn't interest you, ignore it, but it's good not to have throw away a language that could be useful if you choose the right topic) 2. Start learning Chinese now. Your lack of Chinese is the overriding deficiency in your preparation, which nothing can trump. Don't worry about doing research this summer; get yourself to China and do an intensive Chinese program. If you have time in your schedule, you can take Portuguese too, but if you have to choose, it's more important to work on the Chinese now; Portuguese is easy (especially since you know Latin), Chinese isn't. 3. Keep taking Chinese for the rest of your college career (one more year after this, I assume). When you graduate, try to find a way to spend a year in China or Taiwan doing language study; there's various sorts of funding available for that if you look around. Barring that, apply to Masters programs (look for ones that last two years, rather than one). You may well be able to be admitted to an East Asian studies masters program without much language background; I have a friend in the MA program here working on Japan who entered never having studied Japanese. If you can't, then do a Masters in something else (Early Modern Europe being the obvious choice) and take Chinese while doing it. 4. Once you're done with all that, you can reassess where you are language-wise, and if your Chinese is good enough, apply to PhD programs. But waiting until the PhD to start learning Chinese is not an option if you want to go this way topic wise. If all that sounds like too much, maybe you should stick to Classics; though note that even for that you have a lot of language work ahead of you (Ancient Greek, German, and French, if nothing else). Anyhow, best of luck!

I agree with much of your second comment (and was not offended by what you said about Harvard; I just think it's silly to act like Yale is better for a PhD student who works on Modern China because Harvard "lacks a true 19th and 20th Century specialist." Also, it turns out that Elliott's current book project is more focused on the 20th century than any book written by any of the people you mentioned, not that there was any reason you should know that, nor would he make much sense as an advisor for kdavid, given the sorts of topics that he likes to admit students to work on). Fit is often too narrowly defined, but at the same time, there needs to be some level of fit beyond "works on China." Zelin has had a great deal of success advising theses in 20th Century history in a wide range of topic areas, which is why I didn't critique her inclusion. But (and I say this as someone who likes his work a lot), is it really good advice to tell someone whose main interest is Sino-US relations in the Republican period that he should be looking at Perdue as one of his best options as an advisor? Even at Princeton, my impression is that almost all of Elman's students work on either history of science or intellectual history of a specifically late imperial sort; is Princeton really good advice for this poster? Moreover, while it's not impossible that a Qing specialist could be a good fit, and I do think, for instance, that kdavid probably should apply to Columbia to work with Zelin (though it doesn't hurt that Ko and Lean are there as well), I found it a bit odd to give a listing of faculty without mentioning a single person who clearly focuses on the Republic to a poster who mentioned that as his main temporal interest. Finally, however you want to define modern China (though I think it's rare to see it starting before the late Qing, in the minds of most historians), most, though not all, of the faculty you mentioned describe their own interests as either "Early Modern" or "Late Imperial" rather than Modern. And, in any case, it was kdavid who mentioned the Republic as his period of primary interest, though I admit it's possible I misread him and he's interested in the Sino-US relations part over a broader time period.

I wasn't going to list particular schools, since I think kdavid is better off working through this on his own, rather than being given a list of the "best," but since Mandarin put out a bunch of names, it's worth noting that some of them make little sense in relation to kdavid's interests. Perdue doesn't really work on kdavid's period or his topics of interests (and if Havard is "tricky" due to lack of a 19th/20th century person, when it in fact has a 20th century historian in Kirby as well as Perry in the Gov department, then Yale doesn't come close to qualifying given that it lacks a historian of the Republic entirely). Depending on the importance of intellectual history to the OP, Elman could work at Princeton, though, again, he doesn't really work on the Republic (though a junior faculty member, Chen, is probably more in line with kdavid's interests if he does apply there). Rowe also does much more work on the Late Imperial period, though at least he considers himself a modernist. Pomeranz is a reasonable name to mention, since he has done some 20th century work, though he's more an economic historian than any of the fields that kdavid brought up. And though Mandarin dismissed Berkeley, Yeh does work more in line with kdavid's stated interests than do pretty much any of the people that Mandarin mentioned. Anyway, in general, those names look like a list directed at someone who works on the late imperial period than at someone who works on the Republic. Many of those programs are still worth thinking about, since they have top-notch reputations, and many of the faculty are capable of advising projects on the Republic anyway (especially at places like Columbia and Princeton that also have a specialist in the Republic on their faculty), but that is not a list of the best programs in "Modern" Chinese history, if that is taken to mean (as kdavid seems to mean), the twentieth century, rather than the late imperial period.

That's a relatively reasonable list for overall quality; at least, all 10 listed programs are extremely good (though I don't know that I would put them in that order or say that they are a definitive top 10) in Asian History, taken as a whole. But the question you're actually interested is which program is best for you, not what has the best "Asian History" program. For that, the first question you should be asking is the one everyone who comes on here gets told to ask: which historians' work have your found particularly valuable? Who has done projects you find interesting and relevant to your interests? Then look where they are, and apply to those places. That said, any school that has faculty who work on Republican China could work for you; in general, since our field is smaller, you get to be less picky about your advisor's interests, which may not be a terrible thing. One thing I did while applying was to simply go through the faculty listings on department websites to see who they had working on China, look at what those people worked on, and then read something they'd written to get a sense of whether I liked their intellectual approach. In my opinion, the two most important things are that your advisor works on your time-period (because the sort of training and advice you'll need in terms of finding and using sources differs a lot depending on when you work; the stuff historians of the Republic use is quite different from that which Late Imperial Historians use) and that you respect that person's work. One more note; I don't know how important the Sino-American relations stuff is to you, but if it is very important, you may want to look at Poli Sci/Government departments as well. Even people working on historical topics related to foreign policy sometimes end up there rather than in History departments. Also, make sure to look at departments of East Asian Studies (or of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, or whatever a particular school calls it). Though sometimes they only have lit people, many of them sometimes have historians, and at some places (my institution is a particular offender in this regard) those historians do not have joint appointments in history and do not so much as appear on the history department webpage. This is less likely to be true for people working on 20th Century China, but it's still worth looking out for when you're trying to figure out what historians are where.

While it's true that a Chinese MA won't prove anything about the quality of your scholarship, what the people on these boards who don't work on East Asia may not realize is that language abilities are a far bigger part of admissions for a Chinese history PhD than for one in European History (not that a European History program would let someone in without appropriate language abilities, but the demands of work in a European language are just so much less onerous that it isn't as major a worry for admission in that field), let alone US History. Your ability to complete an MA in China says very good things about your Chinese language abilities, which is the first thing any program will look for when considering you for a PhD. That said, languages are still not enough on their own, and you'll of course still need to show that you can do good work as a historian to get in to a PhD program. That you weren't a history major in college doesn't make this impossible; if you have historians (from your undergrad, not from the Chinese MA) who can write strong letters on your behalf, have a very strong research paper that you can use as a writing sample and write a good personal statement demonstrating that you have a sufficient command of the field to describe an interesting and plausible research agenda, you will be in good position to be admitted to the best programs. But it's really hard to evaluate whether you meet those conditions from the perspective of those of us commenting. If you think that you can put together an application with the components I described, you should apply to top PhD programs directly. Even if you don't get in, it isn't uncommon at a lot of places that have East Asian Studies MA programs for them to accept promising applicants to a PhD that they don't think are quite ready yet to the MA instead; Harvard certainly does this regularly (and even manages to find funding for a lot of MA applicants). To answer one of your initial questions, it's far more likely that a school to which you apply for a PhD will reject you, but admit you to their MA than it is that a school to which you apply for an MA will admit you directly to the PhD instead. So if you are looking at schools that offer both, I'd recommend applying for the PhD. If you don't think you're quite at that level yet, then look for MAs to apply to that have a good chance of being able to fund you; that is far, far more important than the name of the program. There are people in my department with MAs from Columbia, sure, but there are also people with MAs from places like UMass (or heck, even from universities in China). Anyway, best of luck!

It's actually, bad though it is, substantially easier for historians focusing on Asia (at least East Asia) to get jobs than it is for most other historians (Jewish history is probably the only field that's clearly better). Universities are generally increasing the size of their faculty in East Asian history at the expense of European historians (probably the worst field for getting a job). As for South Asia, though there are still very few jobs in it in the US (the UK is much better), I wouldn't be surprised if as India becomes more important in international politics and economics, South Asia starts doing relatively well, as those are the same reasons that produced a boom in China jobs in the last decade.

2. Do you actually know this person? I'm not accusing you of making it up, but if this is just hearsay, things get distorted. I can't imagine anyone getting in to a PhD program that would give you any sort of academic job prospects with a below 3.0 gpa. Most schools will throw out an application at that level without looking at it. It's theoretically possible in the sciences, where admission and funding is frequently determined almost entirely by whether a given professor wants you in her/his lab or not, but to find a professor willing to do that is pretty unlikely. In the humanities, it's simply inconceivable. Your writing sample won't make up for it, because professors are unlikely to even read the writing sample of someone with a gpa below the minimum cut-off of even relatively weak Master's programs. 3. What tmp said is basically right in terms of amounts, though the top end actually goes somewhat higher than $23k; Harvard for instance gives $24.5k (plus guaranteed summer support in the first two years, which basically means an extra two months of stipend at the same rate). Remember, though, that at many programs, not all admitted students receive stipends; some even have to pay tuition. Also, the requirements for receiving the stipend vary wildly; some people don't have to teach at all, others have to teach every term, some are in between. 4. If you do extremely good research in a Master's program, you could be admitted to a good PhD program regardless of where you do the Master's. 5. If you want to work on Wall Street, find something else to do other than a PhD in history. History PhDs are sometimes hired by consulting firms and the like, but a history PhD is not really a sensible path for someone whose goal is to work in that industry. 6. With your gpa, it's unlikely that anything you do outside of a formal educational program will get you admitted. It's conceivable, I guess, but you'd have to be publishing in top journals, and I think you'll find it's actually kind of hard to do work of that quality (a lot harder than getting As in undergrad classes). 7. Sure. Publish a book with a major academic press: something that takes most people the better part of a decade, despite having much better access to libraries, archives, and support from academic mentors than you're likely to have, and then get back to us.

Eh, that's not really true. I'm in a relatively high cost of living area (not Manhattan level, but a lot more than, say, Columbus, Ohio) and feel like I have plenty of money to live on. You're not going to get rich off a grad school stipend, but the top programs give you plenty.

People have tried to explain this to you, but you seem to refuse to get it. I'll give it one more go, but it looks hopeless. Anyway, taking your questions one at a time: 1. NO LEGITIMATE PHD PROGRAM WILL ACCEPT YOU WITH A 2.8 GPA. It does not matter if you "do some independent studies in the field," as people with good GPAs who want to go to PhD programs have also done independent research; it's required, not an extra perk. 2. NO LEGITIMATE PHD PROGRAM IN ANY FIELD WILL ACCEPT YOU WITH A 2.8 GPA. It's possibile that you can find a PhD program in some field that will accept you, but it will probably be unaccredited, an online degree program, or both. And in that case, it's not worth your time. 3. IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE NO TOP UNIVERSITY WILL EVEN CONSIDER ADMITTING YOU. Why would any university want to spend over $100,000 on stipend money (never mind the free tuition) on someone who couldn't even manage a B average as an undergrad? Takeaway message: it's vaguely conceivable that if you really want to do a PhD, and are committed to entirely revamping the approach to your studies that you've taken so far, that it could be worthwhile for you to try to get in to a Master's program (to even do that, you'll need to do seriously good work for the rest of this year, and impress your recommenders enough that they will be willing to stand up for you despite your poor academic record). If you do very well there, you could then be admitted to a PhD program. But as everyone has been telling you, at the moment, given your current record, you have absolutely no chance at admission to a legitimate, respectable, PhD program, even a lower-tier one.

I'd say that you should (or at least that it isn't as bad as others say). Both my parents are professors (one a historian) and both told me to attach a CV to my e-mails (it also didn't seem to do my applications any harm, though I'm guessing it probably didn't help too much). Anyway, the idea is that it provides them with more info about you if they want it, but without being as intrusive as putting that info into the body of the e-mail (they don't have to open the CV if they don't want to). But who knows, maybe some are put off by it.

American History R_Escobar (20th century, American Indian), crazedandinfused (antebellum, intellectual), hopin'-n-prayin' (southern, religious), stevemcn (transnational), Simple Twist of Fate (early American), zb642 (20th century, labor/working-class culture), BCEmory08 (19th-20th century Catholicism, labor), irvinchiva10 (20th century, immigration/immigration reform) natsteel (early American political culture and intellectual history) unforth (19th century US political and military history, US Civil War) hbeels (colonial, early national, 19th century, transappalachain west, historical memory of these eras/areas) thedig13 (20th century U.S., culture and protest, African-American) Weepsie (North American Mapping, Exploration and Trade, Anti-Communism/Socialism in Interwar period, bit of a mixed bag) lafayette (19th c. [with a dash of 20th], urban, intellectual) European HistoryKelkel (Modern Germany, political), goldielocks (Britain), SapperDaddy (Eastern and Central Europe), kotov (Modern Romania, Holocaust, labor), RevolutionBlues (Modern Western Europe/France labor and leftist politics), theregalrenegade (18th/19th cent British Empire/environment), jrah822 (19th century Britain; emphasis on colonial relationship to India), grlu0701 (Intellectual & cultural history,fin de siecle Germany and Italy), naturalog (modern European [mostly German] intellectual and cultural/sexuality and gender/political radicalism), runaway (Eastern/Central, memorialization & visual culture), Sequi001 (Modern France, gender and sexuality, colonialism/imperialism) Abetheh (19th/early 20th century Germany and France, religious politics vs secularization) NeutralKate (Modern Russia, modern European economic history) Crackerjacktiming (Modern Germany, gender and sexuality) African HistoryOseirus (precolonial/early colonial West Africa), Singwaya18 (20th century East Africa), Safferz (20th century Horn/Northeast Africa), The People's Scholar (Spanish colonialim in Africa- i.e. middle/West Africa) Jogatoronto (Psychiatry in early colonial West Africa) ronwill06(Social and political radical movements) Latin American HistoryCageFree (20th century, Southern Cone), BH-history, The People's Scholar (18th-19th century Colombia) StrangeLight (20th century Central America) East Asian Historyalleykat (Modern China) kyjin (Pre-Modern Japan) aec09g (Modern Japan) pudewen (Late Imperial China) Near/Middle Eastern Historyuhohlemonster, (modern Israel, Iran, Palestine) oswic (modern Egypt, gender) Atlantic Worldsandyvanb crazedandinfused Global/World History cooperstreet (Cold War) melissarose8585 Jewish History [*]uhohlemonster, (modern Israel) [*]hopin'-n-'prayin, [*]kotov (Holocaust), [*]naturalog (sometimes modern European/Holocaust), [*]runaway (memorialization & visual culture), [*]ticklemepink (20th c. Germany/U.S) Science/Technology/Environment [*]shaxmaty1848 (Cold War) [*]StrangeLight (environmental history, ecological distribution conflicts) Social [*]annieca (Cold War and Post-Cold War East and Central Europe) Classical and Medieval [*]Hogs of War (Monastic Studies and Conflicts in Authority) Cultural [*]StrangeLight (gender, race, ethnicity, and religion) [*]hbeels (race/ethnicity, religious, masculinity/feminimity, print/literature) [*]crazedandinfused (race, nationalism, performance, rhetoric) [*]alleykat (religion, race/ethnicity, cultural relativism) Canadian History [*]truthfinder (New France, religious)

ukstudent: One thing worth remembering is that American universities are primarily training students for the American job market, where British history is very much on the decline, possibly even more than European history as a whole. While in the UK itself, there are presumably still a plethora of positions for British historians, it seems to me that in the US, it is increasingly valuable for British historians to be willing to take more transnational approaches, which may mean looking at Britain as part of Europe (and thus make knowledge of languages like French or German quite important) or may mean approaching Britain in the context of its empire, which could make a plethora of languages valuable, depending on one's particular focus, anything from Hindi to Swahili to Arabic could be worthwhile. Assuming you want to stick to domestic British history, you can probably find programs, even good ones, that won't expect any foreign language proficiency to admit you. But there are reasons that programs require foreign language skills (even Americanists increasingly find them valuable, whether to study immigrant communities in the US or transnational or comparative histories), and it's worth considering whether you might be able to improve your research by acquiring some. If you don't know yet whether you want to work on Britain or America, you're presumably not ready to apply this Fall in any case, so there isn't really any harm, if you can manage it, in spending at least some time over the next year working on a language that could be valuable to you later, whether in admissions, research, or on the job market.

In general, you will need to be proficient in your primary research language prior to entering a PhD program (though one can enter a standalone MA without languages yet being at level necessary for a PhDl). You need to be capable of conducting research in your field from day one; in fact, you ideally will have already done substantial research using your primary research language at the time of application. In certain fields, generally those with extremely demanding language requirements, you may need to be proficient in multiple languages to be admitted (medieval history is probably the most obvious example). Otherwise, languages other than your primary research language can be learned during the initial years of your PhD program, through a combination of academic year coursework and intensive summer programs. If you are an Americanist (and possibly if you work on Britain, depending on the extent to which a given program lumps you in with other Europeanists), it is possible to be admitted with no foreign language proficiency, though you're still better off with some language background, and you can meet your language requirements entirely during the coursework portion of the degree. If you're still confused, I (and others) can likely give more personalized advice if you let us know your general area of research (part of the world/time period and the like).

The best way to learn is certainly through study abroad, but unless you're willing to take a year off from your program, I'd say your optimal strategy is to start taking Italian in your first year, do a study abroad program your first summer (which should give you the equivalent of a second year), and then take another course your second year. After that, see where you stand (depending on your needs, three years of Italian may well be plenty; my impression is that it's not an especially hard language for native English speakers to learn). That's the strategy I'm taking with Japanese; though it will probably take me a bit longer to learn it than it will take you with Italian (and I started the summer prior to my first year, letting me take a second year class this academic year).

German annieca, kotov, Kelkel, Ganymede18, grlu0701 Spanish annieca, crazedandinfused, Ganymede18, grlu0701 (kind of), CageFree, StrangeLight, pudewen (very rusty and basically useless to my work) French theregalrenegade, Ganymede18, CageFree (reading, can speak a bit), StrangeLight, Safferz (Franglais) Hebrew uhohlemonster, crazedandinfused (ktzat) Italian Latin Kelkel, Ganymede18 Greek Ganymede18 (New Testament) Russian Polish runaway Romanian kotov Japanese kyjin, pudewen (sort of, it's in process) Portuguese CageFree (reading), StrangeLight (reading, swearing) Hungarian StrangeLight (swearing only) Somali Safferz Arabic Safferz (reading) Chinese pudewen (modern and classical) I'm also planning to learn Manchu starting next year! And I may decide to try to acquire a reading knowledge of French or German at some point.

This is absolutely the case; every historian should read it, no matter what they work on. I'm not going to offer field-specific recommendations, since I don't think there are very many people working on China around (if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll be happy to add). But a couple of obvious omissions for the general list so far are Joan Scott's Gender and the Politics of History and James Scott's (unrelated) Seeing Like a State. Joan Scott gives the framework for many of the problems of the study of gender in history, which is something that every historian should be thinking about and trying to understand, no matter their topic. James Scott, though not a historian has become one of the most influential social scientists among academic historians; he's not as essential as Foucault, but he's definitely someone whose influence you will encounter (and who is well deserving of that influence). I'm a first year PhD student, for what it's worth.

I'll defend the Los Angeles areas, since it's usually the part of the West Coast that gets the most scorn from East Coasters (and is where I'm from), though I'm also ready to defend the Bay Area or the Pacific Northwest as places that are also generally superior to the East Coast. LA has a level of diversity unmatched by any East Coast city save New York. Among other things, this means that is has a better and more diverse set of cheap, delicious restaurants than basically anywhere in America (I think here, I even include New York). For instance, as someone who studies China, while I have a tough time getting a decent Chinese meal of any sort in Boston, LA actually gives access to much of the diversity within Chinese cooking in a way that I've only experienced in China; it doesn't just have Hong Kong style seafood palaces (though it has excellent ones) and Americanized crap; there are Shanghai restaurants, Hunan restaurants, Sichuan restaurants, even a terrific Uyghur restaurant (a cuisine that's very hard to find outside of China). And the same is true for food from the rest of the world. California is a majority-minority state; it shows, and shows in very good ways. Southern California, though totally suburbanized, has far better access to beautiful natural places than does the East Coast. A lot of this is just geographical luck, but still, within a couple hours' drive of my house I can climb 13,000 foot high mountains or camp in the desert to watch a meteor shower; go skiing or go to the beach. There's nowhere on the East Coast that can match that. And, of course, there's the weather. Snow is a lot of fun, but it becomes disgusting in city streets within a couple days, and living in a place that has snow is pretty well correlated with living in a place that often has very cold degree rain, which is basically the worst weather that exists, period. I have a good friend from Minnesota who claims to think freezing winters are the best thing ever; after I took her hiking in the hills near the coast in Southern California in December, even she had to admit that California's weather is pretty awesome. And I'll stop there, before I write myself into a depression about the fact that I no longer live in California. Boston's a great city in a lot of ways, but if I could choose to move my program to the West Coast, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

As another Irvinite, let me just say that you're all a bunch of traitors (I write from my desk in Massachusetts). Seriously, though, have you lived on the East Coast for a substantial length of time; having been out here all of college and grad school so far, the West Coast (yes, even Southern California) is better in basically every way. Public transit is probably the only exception, though that is somewhat important for us grad students.