pudewen

Program 1 sounds exactly like the program I turned down last year, in every single detail (private top 10 department, cheap city, only 2 faculty in my field but both very well known, additional fellowship money: it almost makes me think it's the same place). My program 2, though, was somewhat different, because in addition to having more faculty, it was also a top tier program overall and had a faculty member whose work (and the training he could provide) fit more perfectly with my interests - this last point really being the reason I chose it in the end. Anyway, just warning that the similarity between your program 1 and mine will probably lead me to project my situation last year onto yours. Basically, to deal with the factors you say you're thinking about. 1. Since you must be in small field, if a major university only has two faculty in your area, chances are the vast majority of places you apply for jobs will not have that great a sense of quality of departments in your field. So to the extent that department reputation matters to your job prospects, program 1 is better. But I think, in the end, this is a sort of minor factor. 2. I think, honestly, number of professors is less important than which place has the people you most want to work with. Two faculty members who will provide good support for your research are, in the end, more valuable than 5 or 6 who are in your general area. There are other ways to get input from a wider range of faculty. For instance, are there other nearby universities to program 1 who have faculty in your area? If so, your advisors will probably know them and be happy to help put you in touch, in order to use them as resources. Of course, that all said, perhaps program 2 has faculty who are a better fit, in which case, choose program 2. 3. Funding should only matter to the extent that you are getting enough to live on and do the work you need to do. So as long as, at program 1, you can live reasonably comfortably on your stipend without taking out loans, I wouldn't worry about stipend amount. As for research funding, talk to other grad students in your field at program 1. Are they getting enough funding to do the research they want to do? If so, don't worry about it. Now if program 1's stipend is really too small to live on easily (though I don't think this is true at any top-10 private university departments) everything changes, but otherwise, this should be a relatively minor concern. The one thing worth worrying about due to program 1's size is your fellow grad students. I've definitely found one of the advantages of a larger program to be that I have more opportunities to learn from my colleagues and be pointed in useful directions by them. If there are only a couple people working in your area at program 1, that could be isolating and frustrating. Of course, on the other hand, I probably would have more productive relationships with people outside my field if there were fewer people within my field at my program, so there is a trade-off. Anyway, in the end, I think the most important thing is fit for your research interests and your ability to develop as a scholar. Personally, there are still things I regret about passing up by not choosing my equivalent of your program 1. I think I made the right choice, but that is because I chose, in the end, on the basis of my ability ot get the training I needed, not simpler metrics like program size.

Strangelight usually gives spot-on advice, but I think this is not at all universally true. My program routinely - I would even say preferentially - admits students from the MA program that is closely connected to it, and I know people who've been admitted from MA programs to the PhD at other schools as well. It's possible this phenomenon is specific to my subfield (East Asian history), but going to an MA at your dream school may well be helpful at getting in to the PhD there. It all depends on the program's attitude.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Obviously professors don't want to be called by whatever they sign their e-mails with, but how they sign their e-mails often contains a fairly strong signal about what they want to be called; full name or initials (generally) means stick to title/last name, first name means use that. Anyway, I in theory do what Strangelight does (and consider it correct), though I'll admit to sometimes being a bit more cautious in practice.

Look, I understand why you all are uncomfortable with this, but I think you're making a mistake. Safferz, your undergraduate professors may well be signalling that they are comfortable with you using their first name. I had a few professors in undergrad who wanted their students to use their first names, but more to the point, you're no longer an undergrad. When I was applying to grad school, I noticed my undergrad adviser starting to sign his e-mails to me with his first name, and began using it when talking to/writing to him - your relationship to your undergrad professors has changed, you are becoming a colleague, rather than just a student. Moreover, there are many professors who, though they might prefer that you use their first name, aren't ever going to explicitly ask you to do it because conversations like that are inherently awkward. How one signs one's name in e-mails or letters is a clear vehicle for signalling what one wants to be called. Signing with their first name once could be a slip-up; doing it consistently is a message. And crater, yes, it does extend to before you've met them - they're in part signalling the sort of relationship you'll have with them, one that is probably more collegial than with a professor who wants to be called by his/her title. Plus, if you're really nervous about misinterpreting, addressing an e-mail with their first name will create a much less awkward situation if you're wrong than would doing it in person, as they can (and probably would) correct you by signing their reply more formally rather than by directly telling you not to. Irvin, yes, these are professional relationships, but that doesn't mean you use titles and last names all the time. The relationships professors have with each other are also professional, but I doubt you'll ever see two professors who know each other even slightly use titles/last names when talking to each other. In workplaces other than the academy it's also quite common for people to refer even to their immediate superiors by first name. It's an important part of creating a collegial environment in any workplace; the academy is no different. Obviously, if a faculty member wants to be called "Professor Last Name" (as, for instance, my adviser does), then you should do so, just as you would if a boss wanted the same. But faculty who clearly signal that they want to be addressed by first name may well find it off-putting if you don't. Anyway, you'll probably all figure this out once you actually start your program (and see what your fellow grad students are doing) so it's not a big deal right now, and you should do whatever you're comfortable with, but be aware that you almost certainly will be calling most of your professors (and most professors period) by first name from now through the remainder of your career.

If they're signing all of their e-mails with their first names, that's what they want you to call them - if it was just because they were in a rush, they would have other short ways of signing e-mails (initials are the most common). In general, most faculty want their PhD students to call them by first name, so you should get used to it - though I say this as someone whose adviser is an exception (and he has clearly been very careful never to sign an e-mail to me with only his first name).

It probably depends on where you live. If you're in an expensive city like Boston or New York, then yes, you'll almost certainly live with roommates if you want to live somewhere affordable. But if you're in somewhere cheaper, it may be more common for people to live on their own. I certainly noticed when visiting schools as an admitted student that Johns Hopkins students, for instance, were more likely to have their own places than Harvard students (I don't think any of my unmarried colleages who aren't in the residence halls don't have roommates). I actually am in one of the GSAS halls, for the same reasons you suggest you might do it (it was simply the easiest thing logistically). I wasn't aware that other schools did what you say Columbia does (none of my friends there have arrangements like that, so I'd never heard about it), which does sound preferable. But Sparky's right about finding roommates - if you'd strongly prefer to be in an apartment, there are perfectly reasonable ways to arrange it prior to arriving on campus. As for my opinion of the GSAS halls, I think you have basically a correct impression. It's nice to meet people who don't do exactly the same things I do - and I actually have made quite a few friends from other departments through them. They're also quite convenient (located close to classes, libraries, etc). But there are annoyances - sharing a kitchen with a large number of people, for instance - and I really feel like I'm at a point in my life where I want to live more like an actual adult, which means not being in a dorm. In the end, I think I'm happy that I did it for a year, but I'll be glad to move out next year.

Harvard also owns large numbers of apartments, which are in large part rented by grad students. Also, there's no reason to feel compelled to live in university housing - in fact, it's almost certainly cheaper not to.

I think even at my "intellectually conservative" anti-postmodern institution, it's basically undisputed that the cultural turn was necessary (particularly as a reaction to a social history that was far too willing to accept social scientific data as objective fact and failed to interrogate the processes by which the raw data of social history was originally produced) and that postmodernism forms a powerful critique of objectivity that we all have to deal with. And I think (contrary to what crater says) that we've all internalized a lot of the necessary lessons of postmodernism as Strangelight described them. The reason that I (and a lot of historians both here and elsewhere) see ourselves as opposed to postmodern history is that at this point most historians who present their work in explicit relation to postmodern theory go far beyond those valuable lessons. In particular, I think of people writing in the tradition of the linguistic turn have denied not merely the historian's ability to be objective but the very notion that there is a physical reality that is important. When I read people like Lydia Liu (a practitioner of this particular sort of work in my field) claiming that the violence of "indexicality" is more terrifying than actual physical violence, I find it hard to take their work very seriously. It seems in the end like a means to take all of the moral force out of history; slavery becomes nothing more than the language used to construct and support it, rather than the violence and abuse that was necessary to maintain it, imperialism becomes discourse, rather than actual military occupation, etc. Obviously, historians' increasing ability to recognize the power of language and discourse is important, but it can't be our only focus. And this is a real problem in the work of theorists who historians take very seriously; Foucault, for instance, in Discipline and Punish basically ignores that the modern prison only functions through the threat of real, physical violence against inmates who don't comply. Anyway, the basic point is that postmodernism changed the profession for the good, but many of those still trying to push history further in that direction have taken it too far.

And it's the first book on the syllabus every year for Harvard's History 3900. I think a lot of history departments require their students to read it.

As a current Harvard PhD student, let me congratulate you. For everyone else, as I recall (and as the results survey seems to confirm), all acceptances to the PhD came out at once last year, so if you didn't hear yet, you probably didn't get in. I know that sucks to hear, but I'm sure you all have great applications that will get you other acceptances (I certainly didn't get in everywhere I replied)

But you get to "interview" your potential adviser after you're admitted - so adding an interview prior to the decision being made doesn't provide applicants with any particular advantage. Personally, I don't think its especially objectionable to have an interview (I do think it adds to the stress for applicants, though, which is a mild negative consequence) but I also don't see any evidence that it has any relation to differentials in degree time between science and humanities students or whatever it is that Yale thinks its addressing. If departments don't want to do interviews, without any compelling evidence that its beneficial (you could, say, compare humanities departments nationwide on the basis of whether they interview or not and see if there is any difference in result in outcomes. Don't scientists believe in having data?), I don't see why they should be forced to by the graduate school.

To further add to what remensis said, I really do think a Master's may be a good bet for you. Even aside from whether you can get in to a good PhD program, there is the question of whether you really know that you want to do a PhD. One of the reason that grad schools are reluctant to admit candidates with no research experience to PhD programs is that those students have no way of knowing whether they actually like doing research and want to do the things one must do for 5 or 6 or 7+ years as a PhD student (not to mention your career following it). How do you know that you will like doing historical research if you've never done it? A Master's is a good way to try out being a grad student and while funding is tough, there are ways to find it.

I'd do the section that isn't just reading paleography. Have one of your letter writers (your adviser, presumably) talk about how good/innovative you are with it in a letter and focus your writing sample on something that develops an argument.

While I agree with Sigaba that replacing paragraphs in the way you suggest is probably not your best bet, depending on how your essay is organized, I think it would be reasonable to cut out an entire section and replace it with a short summary. I submitted my senior thesis as my writing sample when I applied to grad school, and as it was far too much longer than the limit to simply cut down, I decided to submit my introduction, conclusion, and one chapter of the body, with one paragraph summaries of the other sections. It seemed to work out ok, and I don't think it's a bad idea if you want to give a sense of your entire paper while still staying within the page limit.

Do you speak and read Dzongkha? If not, your biggest issue is finding somewhere where you can learn it. If you were working on Bhutanese history, my recommendation would be to look for scholars working on Tibet, since historically Bhutan has been heavily influenced by Tibet, and the language is more closely related to Tibetan than any other language that very many people study (and historically, Bhutanese wrote a language fairly similar to classical Tibetan). But if you want to work on modern Bhutan, I think you'll have trouble finding any academics who can be of particular help: your best bet would be to find some way to learn Dzongkha (if you haven't already), and then go anywhere with a relatively good South Asian Studies program. You'll probably have to be even more self-directed in your research than most grad students, but if you're up for that, best of luck!

Not presenting at conferences won't hurt you. At the orientation for my PhD program last week, one of the faculty even told us that he actively thinks we shouldn't be presenting yet, because giving a presentation that isn't absolutely stellar at a conference will just mean that people won't show up to your later ones (you know, the ones at which you're presenting research from your dissertation which you're hoping will help build your reputation and get you a job).

Pro tip: used books save you mad amounts of money if you do want to buy stuff. And for anything that's commonly read in academic settings, it should be no problem to find used books sans previous people's highlighting/underlining (if you object to that) for not too much money. I just bought all the books for one of my book a week classes for more like $160, which is still a lot, but way, way better than $354.

That list is way out of date though. A quick look at just a couple of programs turned up lots of faculty listed at different schools from where they are now.

I think you would likely be competitive for a PhD program; and depending on the quality of your writing sample, statement of purpose and recommendations, possibly a very good one. That's not to say you shouldn't apply to MAs as well; it's always possible that your PhD apps won't work out, but I wouldn't give up on a PhD program with the background you have. That said, on the subject of languages, taking German this year is a must, and if I were you I would look into the possibility of doing an intensive class in German, French, or some other language you think could be useful to your future research next summer. Then, mention that plan in your statement of purpose. If you are working in British history, entering with either the equivalent of three years of German study or two years of German and one of French should be plenty. You'll have two years of coursework to improve your languages further. Other than that, your GPA is fine, and if the GRE goes as you expect, that will be fine as well (the Q section is ridiculously easy, and even if you do badly, it doesn't matter for history programs other than history of science). What you said about your research in your post sounds like about the level many successful applicants are at, so all in all, you're good to go. Apply to a mix of programs (though only ones you'd be happy going to), and be wary of taking on debt; try to find MA programs (even if less highly ranked) that offer the possibility of funding. Going into debt to get a graduate degree in history just isn't a good financial bet.

I mean, actually you do. At least, the reason all of us are participating in essentially the same formalized training and certification process to receive PhDs in History is because it allows us to be paid for researching and teaching history (even if, barring unlikely and massive success, the amount of money isn't very large). You might not become a historian in order to make the most money you can possibly make, but the reason anyone wants to become a Historian, rather than merely someone who spends lots of time reading historical scholarship and takes their vacations in archives is to get paid for it. Edit: Actually, to be fair, becoming a Historian rather than an amateur practitioner of history also allows access to the remaining social prestige of academia. Conceived of most favorably, this makes it easier to do the sort of research we want to do, conceived of less favorably, it means we can belong to the world of the elite (again, if we're lucky enough to have the level of success necessary for a professorship at a major research university) despite not being paid like it.

I can't speak to that program specifically, but I was accepted to Harvard's History and East Asian Languages PhD program with no MA, which would lead me to expect that the same is possible for the History and Middle Eastern studies program. Edit: Looking at the program's website, it seems that students in it are administered within the History department, which definitely does not require an MA as a prerequisite for admission.

On the question of TA-ing, I think there are two things worth considering. First, there's a relatively good chance it will be necessary if you want some sort of funding, which, unless you can afford to pay tuition for grad school (a bad financial bet in general), you'll want. You have to pay the bills somehow, and I think it's hard to argue that being a TA is a worse way to do it in terms of its effect on your learning than working a part-time job elsewhere. The second thing is that, if you want to get a job that requires teaching (and it sounds like you in fact want a primarily teaching based job), having teaching experience on your cv is very important. If you're trying to get a community college type job with only an MA, I'd venture to say it's absolutely necessary. In fact, you should probably be seeking out opportunities to teach (especially if you can get to design and teach your own class, which some universities let grad students do). If you were looking for an MA to do something like museum work, then yeah, TA-ing wouldn't do you much good (and might be distracting) outside of the financial side. But since you're looking to teach, you'll need to TA.

The language point can't be emphasized enough. You should have a strong reading knowledge of Latin before even thinking about applying for a PhD. My impression is that it would probably be preferable if the Latin included some work specifically in Medieval Latin, but since I'm guessing that isn't available at your school, take as much Latin as you possibly can. If you haven't taken any yet, take it for both of your remaining years; two years isn't enough, but that's one less year you'll have to do post-grad, whether independently or in a Master's program. As for other languages, if you can manage it, French and German would both be very useful. To get into a PhD program, you'll almost certainly have to be at a very high level of Latin, and programs would probably be happier if you'd done some French or German too. If you want to work on a topic that would make something other than Latin your primary research language (say, Old Norse or Byzantine Greek) you definitely should try to find a way to start preparing for that as well. Frankly, I don't think you'll find it possible to be ready for a PhD program by the end of undergrad, but that's no reason to be discouraged! Many Masters programs are designed for getting people up to speed in languages in order to enter a PhD, and you should have time to do enough to be very competitive for good MA programs (assuming your other stuff: writing sample, statement of purpose, recs, etc, is all good).

I think you stand a chance. If you don't get in, I'm guessing it won't really end up being about the foreign languages, as my impression is that what faculty want out of applicants in the languages department is to have the tools to do original research in their field immediately (really, to have already done it) and to have enough language preparation to be able to acquire any language skills they are likely to want by the time they finish the coursework part of the degree. I think you are at that point (particularly if you take Spanish this year), and though your languages won't be winning you bonus points, they won't be keeping you out either. One caveat. I don't know any of the things about your application that will actually determine whether you'll get in - most notably your writing sample and your statement of purpose. Your GPA is obviously plenty good and if you have good letters, that probably reflects doing good research and being a good writer, but no one here can tell you whether or not that will get you in to the programs you want. But I feel fairly confident that languages won't keep you out. If you're still worried about it, I'd write to prospective advisors at the places you want to apply and ask them if they think your language preparation will be a problem. They'll probably be perfectly willing to give you honest feedback.

I think that Strangelight's basically right about applying without languages as an Americanist. History departments don't want you to know languages because it proves that you have "academic brain." They want languages because they are necessary for people working in many fields to do their research. But foreign languages are often not necessary for Americanists, and I'd venture to say that a lot of Americanists are little better off in that department than you. ticklemepink may be right about taking a year off for all the other reasons (though I spent my whole year off wishing I was already in grad school), but it's not because you'll be rejected without better languages. Now, all that said, I think you maybe should reconsider the extent to which you could get value out of knowing an additional language. I fully admit you that you know your own area better than I do, and so I might be completely off base, but I'd be shocked if, working on the US Southwest in the 19th Century (even studying Native Americans) you wouldn't get some use out of Spanish. You should probably talk to people more knowledgeable about the source base for the sorts of topics you're interested in, but if I were you, I'd seriously consider taking first year Spanish as a senior instead of more French. It's more likely to be useful, and you should really be thinking of languages as tools for your research not as barriers you have to clear for admission to a graduate program. Faculty will be more impressed if you tell them you switched to taking Spanish because you realized it would be valuable for your research than if you tell them you kept taking French so you'd already be able to meet their program's language requirement. Obviously, if Spanish isn't useful, this goes out the window, but I have trouble seeing how it could not be. Plus, borderlands are a hot topic in history right now, and being prepared to look at Southwest native peoples from that perspective (or looking at what was happening in Mexico with similar groups of people who simply happened to live across the border) could be valuable for you.