
pudewen
Members-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Everything posted by pudewen
-
If you want to look more specifically than just Modern European History, you could consider what aspects of nationalism appeal most to you. The study of nationalism really touches on most of the major thematic subfields of history (which is why basically any historian of the modern period can advise on it). That is, intellectual, social, cultural, and political history are all important to nationalism, and which of those you find most compelling could help drive your decision about who to work with. That is, are you interested in nationalism as an idea that drives how people view their world, as a force in the international relations of the 20th century, as something leading to the flourishing of artistic and literary expression in societies (and languages) not previously at the center of the European cultural world, etc? Asking questions like these can help narrow down what sort fo historians you should be looking at. It's hard to give advice on something like "nationalism in Western Europe" because it could mean anything from the Irish Republican Army's use of terrorism to the influence of Norwegian folk music on Edvard Grieg (I mean, I guess that's actually music history which doesn't really fall within the scope of most history departments, but I think that really conveys the point). As an example, I'm really interested in nationalism from the perspective of the formation and development of ethnic identity. That meant, for me, that anyone working on ethnicity in China (my geographic area) was a great fit (helpful, since it's a hot topic among Chinese historians right now), but basically so was anyone working on Chinese social history of the Qing Dynasty and/or the Republic. In the end, though, StrangeLight is right. Look at your bookshelf and what in it has really interested you and inspired you. And then look at who they cite for sections of particular interest to you and read those people's books as well. And then find where those people are and apply there. You know what interest you better than anyone here does, and you know the literature relevant to your area better than any of us (unless someone else here is working on very similar questions).
-
Just to respond to one thing in your original posting that no one has mentioned. It seems you're worried that there won't be adequate support for studying nationalism within history departments. You really shouldn't be; nationalism, and related issues (particularly ethnicity and ethnic/national identity) is a well-studied and popular topic in history. I'm likely to be working on issues related to nationalism for my PhD, and wrote my undergraduate senior thesis on a nationalism-related topic, and have received nothing but support from the historians I've worked with and talked to about my interests. There's no question that it's a very viable area for a historian to be working in. The one (potential) caveat is that historians will usually be approaching nationalism in a particular time and place, not generally. Even more general works like Benedict Anderson's are more focused on the historian's area of expertise (SE Asia in Anderson's case, though Imagined Communities itself also placed considerable important on Latin America). So if you want to work on nationalism within a history department, it will definitely be helpful to have a particular and relevant geographical focus.
-
I'm headed to Harvard, and also having fun with the long-distance housing search from here in China. Also having fun with Harvard's decision that they should try to contact me using my undergrad e-mail address from when I attended their summer program in Beijing 3 years ago even though that address stopped working when I graduated.
-
I saw that a bunch of people were finally rejected by Columbia in the last couple days. I wonder what it means that I still haven't heard anything.
-
Would you choose a lower ranked school over a higher one?
pudewen replied to Iknownothing's topic in History
Well, I wouldn't bargain directly (i.e. say "I won't go unless you give me this). But asking for things is perfectly ok, and often works. At Johns Hopkins I asked about getting money for language study this summer (ie the summer before I entered) and after initially telling me he didn't know whether it was possible, my potential advisor wrote saying I could get $5,000 for it. And I don't think I would have come off as pushy/aggressive: I simply asked if it was possible. -
If the professor signs with a first name only, and addresses you by first name, you should just respond with their first name. Otherwise, I'd stick on the safe side and use "Professor So-and-so." I've actually had two really different levels of formality with my two schools. One of my prospective advisers still addresses me as "Mr. last name" after several e-mails back and forth (all of which I've signed with just my first name), while the other signs with his first name and seems happy to have me reply that way. edit: I disagree with barricades; signing an e-mail with just a first name is a clear sign that they want you to use their first name - it's just a way of saying it's ok without explicitly asking you to do so (probably since they know some students are uncomfortable calling professors by their first name regardless of whether the professor is ok with it). Any other form of signature (initials, full name, title) is at best ambiguous (so stay formal), but use of a first name isn't/
-
I haven't, but I just heard from my potential adviser last week that the grad school had "officially" approved my admission, or something of that sort. He said that they'd be sending a letter shortly with financial info, which (since I haven't gotten it yet) I assume does mean snail mail. I think we just all get the standard package, though, which is something like $21-23k/yr guaranteed for 5 years, plus money for language study for the first two summers (and my adviser told me they would be willing to fund language study this summer too!). If you haven't already, you should read the EALC grad student handbook (or whatever they call it) - it's pretty comprehensive, including about financial stuff. It looks, for instance, like a 6th year of funding is basically guaranteed from the university dissertation write-up fellowship as long as you finish in 8 years or fewer.
-
I'm out of the country and have been out of e-mail contact for about a week, so I had a (bit out of date) pleasant moment yesterday when I finally got e-mail back and found out I'd gotten into Johns Hopkins. Made the rejection from Stanford (a fate I seem to share with many of you on the results page) that I found out about at the same time feel a lot less bad.
-
As the HEAL admit, I can confirm I was admitted through the East Asian Languages and Civilizations department - no need for all of you to worry.
-
Me too! I definitely wasn't expecting an e-mail then either, but my addiction to checking my e-mail for results finally paid off. Congrats to you!
-
As someone who did my undergrad at an Ivy, I'd say none of my classmates would get "upset" about someone using the term Ivy League to refer to any prestigious school, we just thought it was silly (and I still do) because the Ivy League is a collegiate sports conference with a specific membership that has nothing to do with those 8 schools being the best 8 in the country academically (they obviously aren't and never have been, particularly since the term "Ivy League" was invented).
-
Looks to me like you're applying everywhere I am plus a few more. Or are the departments different? Good luck in any case - and if you get into Yale and have any questions let me know; I did my undergrad there and so know the Chinese history scene pretty well.
-
Haha. And good luck at Chicago to you!
-
You say you're in East Asian History. Based on looking through past decisions, it seems that the East Asian Studies Department at Princeton does do interviews, though the History Department does not. Since many East Asian historians apply through East Asian Studies (as I am), perhaps your friend had an interview because (s)he applied that way.
-
Those were both for MA applicants - I think those decision are usually later because some rejected PhD applicants will be transferred into the MA pile. So PhD results are likely to come before that.
-
I'm just starting to learn Japanese but am fairly competent in Chinese (I'm in Chinese history, so that makes sense). That means I recognize most Kanji, even if they have a somewhat different meaning than I'm used to, but fairly often have no idea how to pronounce them. So, of course, I substitute the Chinese pronunciation in my head, which isn't exactly the same as making up the pronunciation, but is probably just as baffling to a normal Japanese speaker.
-
Given the size of most grad student stipends, I'd say living in Manhattan isn't really something I consider an advantage.
-
I'm with GK Chesterton on this. As a white (partly Anglo-Saxon, some Protestant ancestry - though an agnostic with some Jewish ancestry doesn't really make me any more of a minority in academia) male, I get asked constantly why on Earth I would possibly be interested in Chinese history. I think anyone in this country, regardless of race, sex, etc. who doesn't study either US history or their own background gets questioned about it. Though I don't think I agree with his suggested response to that sort of question.
-
The other problem with StrangeLight's post is that the "national resource center" lists are no more right about which programs are best than simply looking at the US News top 10 would be, at least for the field that I'm familiar with. It's ironic that you bring up Princeton, which, for East Asia (my area) is certainly (I doubt you could find a single East Asian historian who would say otherwise) better for East Asia than several schools on the list you posted (as are UCSD and Johns Hopkins and probably more that I'm not thinking of) - Kansas, for instance, immediately jumps out as not belonging in the same league. My assumption is that the schools that are picked are chosen not simply because they are the best, but in order to spread out resources to different parts of the country and to try to ensure that the program as a whole funds schools in as many different states as possible (for political reasons), which is not really a relevant consideration for someone looking for the best programs nationwide in their area of study.
-
Personal Query on Graduate Program (Medieval Chinese History)
pudewen replied to Chanyoung Kim's topic in History
There may not be that many people working primarily in the Yuan, but there are plenty of scholars working on the Tang and Song, and many of them would likely have broad enough backgrounds to be perfectly capable of advising someone interested in Yuan history. I'd recommend that instead of googling "medieval Chinese history" or whatever it is you are searching, look at what books and articles you have read that you have found particularly interesting and important and google their authors to find out where they teach. Alternately, you can look at department websites, most of which have listings of faculty by field, and see if they have anyone who might fit your interests - though you should make sure to look at departments of East Asian Studies/East Asian Languages and Cultures as well as History, as many American schools put their Chinese history faculty (at least those who work prior to the modern period) in those departments. For the Yuan specifically, you might also try looking for historians of Mongolia - Morris Rossabi at Columbia and David Morgan at Wisconsin (though I think he's retired) come to mind.