Jiddy

I think the most frustrating part of this cycle has been getting stuck in a sort of "limbo" for some schools, where we've seen both rejections and acceptances go out, but heard nothing ourself. It leaves me with a sense of hope, even though I know it's likely that they just haven't gotten around to rejecting everyone. I appreciate the cold efficiency of UT and other schools who send everything out at once/within a few days of initial rejections/acceptances, leaving no ambiguity.
Anyways, good luck to everyone still waiting to hear back from schools, or also stuck in limbo!

Thank you so much for the update! Not surprised, but still.. Boo. Glad they're notifying us though. Getting salty that some other places made their decisions a long time ago but still haven't sent out rejections. I'm sure they have their reasons but I'm getting impatient ?

NYU sends the last official notification of rejection to me today, which marks the end of my 0 acceptance cycle. Though some people are questionning about spam and troll info, I think all the result posts related to the programs I applied were accurate. They indeed sent rejections a few weeks after the offers. So I still want to appreciate GradCafe and this thread for the information, which prepared me step by step to a no-acceptance-at-all result. I do hope those similar to me but dedicated to reapplying this year DO NOT LOSE HOPE. I feel comforted from many of the encouraging posts I read here and I want to extend mine at the end of the cycle. I am now through with the results and I deem it as an opportunity to explore more opportunities relevant but outside the academia. I have the belief that this will turn into a blessing in disguise. Best luck to you all, to those who keep their head up!

This has been a thread I'd like to contribute to for a while, and I am so very glad that I finally am in a position to do so! Please pardon my typos and the bad grammar. 
Current status (2017-2018): 
Applied (7): Columbia (History - East Asia), Michigan —Ann Arbor (History and Women's Studies joint program), UChicago (History), UCSB (History), Wisconsin - Madison (History) , U of Toronto (History), Princeton (East Asian Studies)
Accepted (declined) : UChicago, UCSB, U of Toronto, Columbia
Rejected: Princeton, Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan
Past status (2016-2017):
Applied (6): Columbia (PolSci), Berkeley (PolSci), GWU (PolSci), UVA (PolSci), Harvard (History), UPenn (History)
Accepted: N/A
Rejected: All of them (UPenn post-interview)
Executive Summary:
1. Choose programs that are the best fit (in my case, this begins with choosing the right discipline...)
2. Contact not just one but multiple POIs (not just to gauge fit, but for advice)
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP (make sure some of the reviewers are advanced PhD students)
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
4. (if applicable) Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experiences/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
Background Info:
I'm an international student with no degree in History but two Master's degrees from non-U.S. schools. I would like a career in the academia not bc this is the only option I have, but the one I desire most. So, to some extent, I am aware of the trade-off, the opportunity cost, and the risk, which means applying to PhD programs itself is an informed decision. And, in my humble opinion, the lessons I've learned are--
1. Choose programs that are the best fit
I know this is a bit cliche, but in my case this was a fundamental and challenging task to complete. To begin with, I needed to know who I am as an academic in order to choose the discipline that is the best fit given my intellectual identity. On paper, I am a significantly better applicant for PhD programs in PolSci than I am for programs in History.  And I wasn't sure if I wanted to become a historian or a political scientist during my first cycle of application. For instance, I didn't know if I want to approach international politics as a historian or become a political scientist with a historical perspective. When I was preparing for my applications to History programs in 2016, I felt like I was "defecting" from one field to another. That identity crisis did real damage to my first cycle, and completely turned my existent academic training against me. Multiple POIs  even (explicitly or implicitly) asked  me why I wanted to be trained into a historian. 
So, the lesson is, if I cannot even identify my intellectual self, then the committees and POIs cannot either.
I spent the past year painstakingly coming to terms with the fact that I want to be a historian (with my research interests encompassing field A, B, C...). And this has not only made the "searching for programs that are the best fit" process in 2017 a lot easier, but also helped me to concentrate all my energy on accumulating more research experiences in field A, B, C. And I am a lot happier. 
From the results you can see that I applied to Columbia twice, once to the PhD program in PolSci (rejected) and this time to the PhD program called History - East Asia (accepted). I think the results speak for themselves. (And I am openly glad that I only need to send TOEFL and GRE scores once!)
2. Contact POIs
For the first cycle, I only contacted one POI for each of the program I applied to, and the contacting itself was of a very superficial nature- I simply asked if a given POI was interested in my research plans/academic background and if they were taking students. That was helpful but not productive. For the second cycle, I made sure to at least contact 2-3 POI for every program I was considering to apply to, and also asked all of my POIs if they have any advice on how to further develop my research interests and prepare my application. Most of them replied and most of those who replied gave advice in great detail. Two POIs literally pointed out that some of my research topics were not as original as the others, and have been already well studied. As you can imagine, I avoided writing about those research topics in my SOP. Some POIs shared their idea about what a good writing sample was, e.g. based on solid and original work, creative narrating, etc. And others suggested that I elaborated on a few research topics I originally considered not so important, bc they thought these topics could potentially lead to important research.
In short, by contacting POIs via dozens of emails, I became a better applicant already, even before I made a decision on which programs I should apply to. In retrospect, contacting POIs was a significantly helpful experience where I had a perfect excuse to ask renowned historians to take time to mentor me on how the mind of a professional historian should work. 
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP
Many people have offered excellent advice on how to revise one's SOP, so my focus here is rather on asking reviewers to help with the revision. For the first cycle, I asked three PhD students to review my SOP, but none of them are actually doing PhDs in History (oops!). For this cycle, six PhD students selflessly offered insight. Three of them were my own senpai, who are doing PhDs in top History PhD programs and would like to go the extra mile to get me in a top program too. Three others were people I know from this very forum - I didn't ask for their permission, so please allow me to refrain from revealing their identities - with two of them being advanced PhD students/candidates. I did lots of heavy revisions to my SOPs according to their advice, e.g. I abandoned all the language about "passion", "hope", "enthusiasm" bc they show nothing about my expertise or my professionalism. 
What prevented me from asking more people to review my SOP during the first cycle was that I was shy, and unconsciously afraid of hearing people say "this wouldn't work, you need to rewrite everything". Yes, showing my SOP - a piece of my mind and my intellectual self - to other people, especially strangers made me feel exposed and vulnerable, but this was nevertheless a must do. It's way much better to consciously feel vulnerable rewriting a SOP for the 17th time than to unknowingly submit a vulnerable SOP to the committee and get it slaughtered. I am so very grateful that so many people took their time (while being crazy busy with their own work) to selflessly rescue my SOP again and again. And in my humble opinion, it is significant that one always humbly asks for permission to send a SOP to a potential reviewer in advance, with great respect and gratitude, before sending out the SOP.
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
My writing samples for both of the two cycles are actually about the same research topic. And no, my English skill/narrating style didn't improve that much in the past year. What changed is that I wrote my master's thesis based on the 2016 version of the writing sample, adding to it a lot more original research, then wrote the 2017 version of the writing sample based on the thesis. In other words, the research itself was stronger, more sophisticated, and significantly more mature. I thought revising the writing of a writing sample took a lot less time than enriching the original research the writing sample was based on, so in 2016 i focused solely on the "writing" part of the writing sample. But this was a tactical decision instead of a strategic one. A stellar research may end up producing a good (but not extraordinary) writing sample, but i feel it is unlikely that an immature and weak research can produce an original and solid writing sample. After all, the people who make decisions are established historians themselves, they can see.
4. Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experience/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
I don't have any degree in History, so this is more like my own "demon" to deal with. Please ignore the following if you don't have the awkward disadvantage of never having majored or even minored in History. 
This is easier to say than to do, but is doable. I have been spending my gap year working as a researcher for an NGO and was hired bc of my expertise in politics instead of history.(ironic~)  Bc of the nature of my work, I got to travel a lot (domestically and internationally) and communicate with academics from non-History disciplines, activists, and other professionals on a regular basis. At first, I was afraid that this kind of non-History experience was bound to further add to my disadvantage of not having a degree in History, but i was wrong. Many of the ideas - especially the good ones- in my SOP were a result of my learning from these people's perspectives. Hypothetically speaking, if one's interested in the historical transformation of gender norms, it doesn't hurt to work with those who endeavor to shape gender norms in our era. No, they are not the historians who study what I study and what happened one century ago, but they (are trying to) make or shape the history someone's gonna write about 100 years later.
So how did this play out? During my first interview with Columbia, the professor asked nothing about my research in History but a lot of my "work", and was very interested in knowing how i make connections between my work and my research. I later learned that another applicant who was also interviewed was asked similar questions - not about their research in History, but their non-History experiences. So, when it comes to the final decision and the quality of everything else  is the same/highly similar, the committee may also look at applicants' non-History experiences.
So, if you are also in a similar situation where you have a significant amount of non-History training and (work) experiences for whatever reasons, which can potentially lead the committee to assume that you are not committed to/experienced in History,  don't think about defending or justifying yourself (like i desperately tried doing in 2016 but in vain). Instead, think about how you can offer the program something special which they don't usually find in other applicants. 
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
And don't just confine it to family and friends. For instance and in my case, I would say a very important part of my support system is my colleagues from work. After I failed my first cycle, my supervisor made an effort to send me to attend more conferences and do more business trips. I think part of this was bc I was obliviously very upset and needed distraction, and part of this was bc (my supervisor from work confirmed) my supervisor believed that this kind of experience would help me mature more as a researcher (regardless of the discipline), which, in turn, could help with my second cycle of application.
Meanwhile, a colleague from work who's a native English speaker checked the language of all my SOPs and writing sample for me, that was A LOT of time-consuming work. 
In addition, I would also say that all the POIs I contacted were also part of this support system. First, they were all very kind and encouraging. (and this is pretty much a guaranteed response from them) More importantly, many of them would offer advice on how to better prepare one's application if one asks nicely and skillfully, and this kind of support is what, in my humble opinion, an applicant might need more - even more than the emotional support (not saying emotional support is not important, though) from family and friends.
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
In my humble opinion, one won't be offered admissions to top programs bc one is passionate about one's research. I believe I was only offered admissions bc, first of all, the committees and POIs saw me as a professional historian in the making. In retrospect, during the first cycle i acted like a passionate soldier marching towards my targets like (no offense) a lot of people did or would do, but during the second cycle I somehow managed to behave, to some extent, like a sniper -  I was a lot more precise, I made calculations,  and I shot at my target professionally with the intention of getting the job done. 
My final two cents: there are many many soldiers and significantly fewer snipers in this world. Many soldiers can be replaced by other soldiers, but each good sniper has their professional signature and style (and even self-made bullets!) which eventually make them stand out and get "caught" by the "good people". (yes, I've watched too much crime drama...)
 
Best wishes to everyone!

Things I Wish I'd Known Before Applying If a particular school is your top choice (or even in your top three), make it known on your application somehow, especially for schools that do not have waitlists (*cough* University of Chicago). I made that mistake, and was told later that the admissions committee feared I wouldn't come, and didn't want to take the risk of admitting me.  The response you get from POIs after writing to them to express interest in their programs is indicative of the relationship you will have with them later, and can be indicative of the department's culture. I don't buy the argument: "Professors are busy and find emails from prospective students annoying." Everyone is busy and everyone finds emails annoying. Professors who care about mentoring grad students will respond, maybe not within 24 hours, but they will do it at some point. I am very happy to report that I continue to correspond with amazing people, both faculty and current students, even though I won't be attending their schools. Those are the people who will become both colleagues and (with luck!) friends. Once you're in the pool with people whose CVs resemble yours, acceptances and rejections are extremely difficult to predict. At visiting day events, I met people who were rejected where I'd been accepted and vice versa. So much of admissions comes down to department politics, which is annoyingly hard to figure out before you're in the thick of it. Which brings me to the next point... Students who are further along, feel free to correct me on this, but: I kinda wished I'd asked POIs whether their departments were accepting people in my subfield. Before I applied, I thought such a question was gauche and shouldn't be asked. But I ended up applying to one school that wasn't taking anyone in my area of interest, because the school had promised its two spots to people already enrolled in a masters program there. I didn't find this out till after I applied.  Do deep Google searches on your POIs, and update those search results as the deadline nears. I had compiled a long Google doc of POIs long before applications were due, and did not update the doc much as I was writing my statements of purpose. It turns out that the main person I wanted to work with at one school was going to be moving elsewhere in the fall -- but the school of origin didn't update their website till the end of November. By that time, I had already written my statements, and ended up sending off an SoP full of specifics about that person's work, not realizing that they weren't going to be around in the fall.  That's all I can think of for the moment. Hope it's of some help.

Grafton is legendary, indeed. Although, I am pretty sure he's not on the admissions committee for Princeton HOS. I was told to target committee members specifically, at least three.  
Bottom line, I think having the right advice, or running into the right people giving you advice, can be a game changer. This is specific to my case, because I had a few weaknesses in my application package. Others, who are brilliant, knew not to screw up their undergrad, probably got no advice and still got into an Ivy on the first go.
Hopkins is quite competitive, from what I've heard. I also wonder if interviewing on the last few days, or the last day, puts you in a slightly worse position - but also better (if you are an excellent fit/interviewer). Recency effect is stronger, and any blunder you make, is remembered that more vividly. But on the flip side, you also have a stronger chance at dazzling and having that remembered. The latter scenario isn't applicable to me, I cave under pressure.
Wisconsin's history program is a top program. I heard they've got funding woes. But more acute for International students, such as myself. Americans aren't really affected.  
You got interviewed by Hopkins, accepted into Wisconsin. I don't think that Indiana and/or Chicago were really out of your reach. Tailoring the SOP could have done the trick. Who knows.   
All I know is, I no longer buy into the whole 'special' nonsense. It's all about knowing how to present your application the 'right way'. Obviously, you still need to be good on paper, gpa/gre/lors. But you don't have to be a special cookie to get in, or need to have a stellar profile.

LONG POST, sorry!
Since the application season is nearly over and I’ve heard from mostly all programs (aside from NYU, waitlist or rejection at this point), I thought I’d debrief. I am usually not one for these type of posts, or even forums, I frequent only when needed, to relieve anxiety or boredom, and never visit again. But having read many posts, and followed some people's successes and failures, even rooted for some, I wanted to leave whatever words of wisdom I could, to help out whoever may end up coming across my post.
First off, I am a ‘unique’ case, well not unique but different than the traditional history student, I’ve flunked out of my undergrad, changed my major 3/4 times, before finally settling on history. I retook all the courses I failed (7), as well as any course I got less than a B, about (3-4). It took me, with a mandatory gap year, 7 years to finish. BUT because my university did this funny transcript thing, it ended up being that it took me 5 years to finish my BA, instead of 7. Nevertheless, once I decided on history, I took primarily history courses, and graduated Cum Laude, gpa 3.6-3.7. But I will list my exact scores and gpa below. 
Anyway, I have been immensely privileged to have received close mentorship from a very dear MA advisor, who was my confidant, editor, and guide. He is an extremely well respected senior academic, friends with many Ivy professors, and through his connections I received a lot of advice and kind words from them, in turn. He told me which schools to apply to, read over each and every one of my SOPs to each school, told me how to approach his friends (for me they were POIs), and told me which ones to avoid. And really, most importantly, he never stopped believing in me, and that helped me believe in myself. The reason I am harping on about my supervisor, is because I truly believe having a strong support network is crucial. You need someone to believe in you, especially when you stop believing in yourself, and you will. I am pretty confidant/arrogant and I had moments of intense doubt.
I was extremely reluctant to embark upon the academic path because of the job market, so when I did my MA, I promised myself my academic aspirations would continue no further than my MA thesis. I needed to prove to myself that if I wanted to do academia I could do it and I did. However, when I got to writing my MA thesis, I worked closely with my supervisor, and he made me fall in love with my field, and academia, and I simply couldn’t resist the pull. Nevertheless, my supervisor is a very sober man, and he told me that the job market is tough, and if I want it, I needed to take the ivy route. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to offend, but that’s the advice I got). He did warn me of the difficulty, but as months went by he was more confident I’d get in than I was initially. I am not sure what changed.
Next, while I am a history student/scholar pure and simple, I did my MA thesis on a history of science topic, and just fell in love with the field. I wanted to pursue my degree in history of science BUT with a strong emphasis on history and less science. Here is the thing, I am and I remain a student of history proper. That’s just a fact that I had to finally admit to myself and to my interviewees, at an unsuccessful interview at UPenn HSS, which is the reason I didn’t get in.  This is important, you need to be clear about your identity as a scholar. I have no science, anthro, or STS background to speak of. I took one psych course, and one history of astronomy course both 101, and did well, but that’s pretty much it. My complete lack of any ‘science’ background played against me at Penn, but also my interests are very history centered rather than science. My supervisor however disagreed with my thinking and said that I could style myself as a history of science student regardless of my lack of background because of my MA thesis. Perhaps, or not.
This is my second year applying. First year, I applied to Harvard and Princeton, I visited both schools, and interviewed at Harvard (unofficially), with a POI that is a close friend of my supervisor. Very encouraging and positive interview. Now for the History of Science at Harvard, it is not housed within the history program, and the interview was unofficial. HOWEVER, you absolutely must contact professors before applying to the History of Science department, in fact, in the application they ask you if you contacted anyone, and they expect you to do so. So if you get advised against this, don’t listen, contact! The same goes for Princeton! AND DO NOT JUST CONTACT ONE, CONTACT AS MANY FACULTY MEMBERS AS YOU CAN. But do so prudently, and don’t forget to read their works and speak about them in the email!
Anyway, with Princeton I visited the campus, sat in on their Monday seminar, which I really liked. My POI was out of town, so I just met with the DGS, it was a formal meeting, nothing special. I loved Princeton, the atmosphere, the campus.
I got rejected from both, and because my supervisor is good friends with both POIs at Princeton and Harvard, he got a lengthy explanation of why I got rejected. The problem was my SOP for both, and letters for Princeton. My supervisor asked the Harvard prof if I was a strong candidate for the Ivies and heard a resounding YES, and with this he urged me to reapply. 
For Harvard my SOP was too narrow, the project I presented was too thought out, and I seemed rigid and inflexible, because unlike the regular history program, in HOS you take 2 years of courses, in which the department actually encourages students to explore different fields, even to change your initial topic. I seemed like I was ready to hit the ground running and I would not be receptive to other avenues of thought.
Now for Princeton, the problem was entirely different. I had initially pitched to them a different topic, but then decided to ditch it, and run with the same proposal as I sent to Harvard, and Princeton was blindsided. And felt I’d reject them for Harvard that they were sure I would get in. I thought so too, so I understand completely. L And I would have rejected them for Harvard, so no hard feelings. They also felt I needed more focused letters of reference, mine were from history professors, I needed history of science. I wasn’t science enough on paper. I agree, and I am still not!
Before applying the first time around, I had finished my MA, so I could have lots of time to apply to schools. When I got rejected, in the gap year, actually immediately after handing in my MA thesis, I decided to turn some of my thesis into a journal article, with my supervisor’s blessing. The paper has since received ‘Major Revisions’ to a respect well ranked journal, so I knew my paper was solid, and this paper I submitted as my writing sample for my second round of applications.
The first time applying, I submitted more or less the same paper but it didn’t yet undergo rigorous peer review at 3 journals. Anyway, Harvard prof said they liked my writing sample, very strong, and after the peer review it was even stronger and better. So I knew I had a great writing sample. THAT IS IMPORTANT! As a history applicant, the writing sample, together with the SOP, is one of the single most important pieces of your application. WORK ON IT!
I had also volunteered for an international history of science project, so this made it seem like I was busy during my gap year. Also I only had 1 history of science recommendation, and 2 from history, so I needed another history of science recommendation, which I got from a coordinator of the project.  The letters were important, I didn’t really think so, but they are. Princeton told me this.
So my profile was as follows:
BA GPA: 3.6-3.7 Cum Laude (history)
MA GPA: 4.0 Summa Cum Laude (history) – in the results page I erroneously listed 3.8 that’s a mistake (pls ignore)
Volunteer for a history of science project for over a year
1 paper to by published in a well ranked academic journal in my field, ‘major revisions’
2 letters from history of science professors, 1 history
GRE: 163 (V), 153 (Q), 5 (AW).
And I speak/read/write 2 foreign European languages, aside from English.
As you can see I didn’t do well on Quantitative, but I was told by both Harvard and Princeton it was good enough, so long as I am not studying history of math. I didn’t retake it because of that. Harvard was my gold standard and what was good for them will be good for everyone. They don’t focus on GREs, only if they are really terrible, mine weren’t.
Now reapplying! I applied to in earnest, and with a lot of effort, to Princeton (HOS), Penn (HSS), Columbia (history), and Yale (HSHM), and I’ll include Brown (history) but the statement was not my best work by any stretch of the imagination (the deadline was Dec 1, first one, and I waffled, it was my own fault). For NYU, I threw in the app on the last day it was due, my statement was written in 15 min. Because I didn’t yet hear for Penn (HSS) interview and I got really nervous. I made contact with an NYU professor back in August but ultimately felt it wasn’t for me. Radio silence from Penn made me rethink only Ivy rule or that NYU made zero sense, so I just threw 127$ down the drain to allay my anxieties. I got contacted to interview at Penn the next day. L I should’ve just withdrawn my app but having paid already I felt I should just stick with it. So for NYU’s sake, I hope they reject me and use the 127$ to buy themselves something pretty.
The reason Harvard is patently absent from my list is because my POI is retiring and will not be taking anymore students, and I would have no one to work with. That was important for me, to have at least one person I could conceivably work with, BECAUSE, when I wrote up my new SOP, I tailored it to schools, and to the faculty. I got in touch with people at every school, they told me their interests and I wrote up an SOP to reflect their interests and mine, to an extent of course. The strategy was TO GET IN! But also, have someone I could work with, potentially, but be open to possibilities, be flexible. That’s what I wished to convey, flexibility and passion.
Now for the SOP, I didn’t, and urge the rest of you, please please do not write about your bad grades or about your bad gre scores, do not get defensive, do not explain, otherwise you will draw unwanted attention in one of THE deciding documents of your admissions, your SOP! Instead, I suggest, and it’s what I did, when attaching your BA grades, copy paste the images into a WORD file, on the last page include a little short blurb about your grades, to explain them, then convert the file to PDF. The shorter the better, have it read by others (brutally honest people), to check if your explanation is suggestive of something. You don’t want to be suggestive, and invite further scrutiny. Don’t give a life story, they don’t care. In fact, they don’t want to hear it. The first thing the Harvard prof told me at my interview, ‘do not mention anything personal in your statement, we aren’t psychologists, we aren’t your friends, we may feel bad for you, but you won’t get in this way’. Stay professional. This is a phd application, not grief counseling.  (Again, I am sorry this offends, but that’s the advice I got, and I kind of understand it, you need to demonstrate your ability to withstand 5-7 years of intense and protracted research and writing). Any weaknesses in health, mental or physical, will make the committee think you’ll drop out. Remember, they are investing in you, and you need to be a solid investment.
If anyone wants to see my SOP, I’ll happily share it, if someone can learn from it, all the better! Someone did it for me, granted I struck out at Princeton, but I got into Columbia and I was interviewed for UPenn. That’s to me a success.
I struck out at Brown, Yale, Princeton, and eventually UPenn. BUT UPenn was after interview, and it was apparent that I wasn’t a good fit, however, on paper I was a very strong candidate, and they told me this at every interview. Some faculty members liked me a lot, others did not at all. They did not like my purely history background. The interview was intense, I had a horror stricken look on my face. To the point that other Penn students came up to me to ask what went wrong. I was grilled. Actually grilled by at least 3-4 professors. I met with about 9, intense is an understatement. But then also, I already had an offer from Columbia which I was going to accept, and I came in relaxed, even though I prepared hard, I didn’t prepare enough for the questions they asked. And I wouldn’t have needed to prepare as hard, had I had a history of science background, rather than history. Or STS or any science background.
I don’t mean to brag (who am I kidding? Obviously I want to brag! I got into bloody Columbia!!!) but for Columbia, I got elected a Richard Hofstadter fellow, with a stipend of 31,925$ per year for 5 years. That’s more than Princeton and Penn. So I know I got a competitive offer. I also know that Columbia has around 600 (probably closer to 400-500) applications per year to 25 spots. That’s intensely competitive. I got in. It is and will remain the greatest achievement of my history career thus far.
Also, I hate to admit it, the reason I applied to the history of science programs, even though I am clearly a history student all the way with a sub-field interest in history of science, is because statistically it is easier to get into history of science programs. I know you’ll all scream that it’s just as competitive, IT IS NOT! With the definite exception of Harvard (acceptance rate 10-13%), History of science programs are not as competitive as history programs. And maybe with the exception of MIT and Johns Hopkins. There! I said it. Statistically, the acceptance rate is 20-30 percent across the board, I am not exaggerating, I have actual numbers from my POIs, with the exception of MIT and Hopkins, I don’t know those but I heard their acceptance rate is brutal. For goodness sake, I was good enough for Harvard and Princeton, I was encouraged to apply, AFTER they saw my profile, my grades, my writing sample. Princeton POI encouraged to reapply. You may bulk, but again look at my profile, is it competitive? That’s up to you to decide.
I will say this to everyone, believe in yourself! You can do it! I got into Columbia, if I did it, you can too! I am not special by any stretch of the imagination.
I can tell you the specifics of every rejection, Yale, Princeton, and Brown. Well, Brown I mucked up pretty bad. But I won’t bore you further. If you would like to hear what advice I got from Princeton and Harvard, PM me. I didn’t get in, but I could certainly pass on the advice. But then I didn’t reapply to Harvard. So who knows. For Princeton, I shouldn’t have applied at all, not with my topic, I was a bad bad bad fit.
My first choice were Penn, Columbia, and Princeton. My back ups (as ridiculous as they are for phd apps) were Yale, Brown, and NYU.
I read somewhere, and was also advised by my supervisor to apply to 5, and will likely get 1 acceptance. Also, my supervisor actively discouraged me from applying to Yale and NYU. But at the end relented, clearly to assuage my anxieties.
What I would do differently?
I would have applied only to Penn, Columbia and Brown. I would still keep Penn, because it is a first-rate program, by all standards, even if it is an STS/HOS program, and not too aligned with my interests. But it is an excellent program, with outstanding faculty. To prepare, I would have tried to develop and further my interests in STS/HOS, and style myself less of a regional/temporal historian (which is how we are taught in History) and more of a historian of biology or chemistry. Also, I would have worked harder on the Brown application. Brown has some great faculty, and I should not have made it a back up, and I did that against my supervisor’s advice. He thought Brown should have been one of my top choices.
I am extremely happy with the outcome, and I wish everyone the best!
Good luck and Excelsior!
 

I think I'll throw myself into this mix, now that the dust has settled and I'm off to make my decision between two excellent schools very shortly. Long story short, I have quite the non-traditional background coming into being a historian, so I'm happy to share.
 
I finished my undergraduate as an English literature student. But my thesis work was far from just literary--I got travel grants to do archival work across the Pacific, and while I had wanted to dig up early literatures of the American occupation of the Philippines, it led me to learn all about migration and labour history in the long 20th century. Got more funding to learn ethnography and oral history on a beautiful Pacific island.
 
My first round of applications was just not meant to be. I tried to fit in what I felt was an eclectic but exciting set of interests in to English and American Studies, but I didn't have a strong enough application to do so. But just before I graduated, a dear mentor (and an accomplished historian and high-level academic at my school) directly took my under his wing and introduced me to a new research centre under the history department. I got to know a historian of empire and slowly, through a series of not unfortunate events, was introduced to the biggest names of the subfield in which I currently work. I finally found the words for what I had stumbled upon as a bumbling English lit student, and all these sets of words end with "history."
 
This second round, I applied to three schools (Harvard, University of Washington, and University of Toronto), and got into the latter two. I had planned to work in an application to Brown and NYU, but simply could not afford them. International application fees were the death of me, and not to mention that just a couple of weeks before I geared up to compile applications, I had to get a new phone.
 
All that verbosity aside, here are my pieces of advice:
 
1. Write your SOP as professionally as possible. Especially for folks with less-than-stellar backgrounds in undergraduate or masters history (or, for that matter, neither an undergrad nor a masters in history), you want to make up for these check-box deficiencies by showing exactly how you can conduct yourself in the field. Lay out your project with sharp, clear prose, allude to previous literatures if necessary, and really piece together a narrative that makes you as irresistible as possible. I applied to Harvard "just to see," but also because a there was a scholar there who really wanted to work with me. Unfortunately, the overall narrative didn't pan out as well as it could have with Washington and Toronto.
 
2. Leverage as many connections as possible. My current advisors and mentors are quite connected, to the point where a POI in both schools into which I got accepted are dear friends. One recommended the other, and they speak highly of each other all the time. Furthermore, you never know what kinds of political battles are behind the scenes. From the little sprinklings I've been told, at one of my schools, the decisions were made very difficult because of my nontraditional background. But once again, connections helped everything along.
 
3. Don't be afraid to write a totally new writing sample. I used my undergraduate thesis (in English lit) for one application, because it was strong in cultural analysis, and my POIs worked in those kinds of methods anyway. For my other application, I audited a course in the precise topic I wanted to pursue, and used that class to write a second sample from scratch. I echo what others have said above: use primary sources, and flex your language skills. I deployed both Tagalog and Spanish in that particular writing sample, on both primary and non-English secondary sources. 
 
4. Numbers only matter as much as you let them. My senior year undergrad GPA was a 4.0, but I never took a single course in history all my life. My GRE scores were not anything spectacular, either. The things I could control much better--writing samples, statement of purpose, and good choices for LoRs--really, I think, shaped the meat and potatoes of the application.
 
5. Most importantly: surround yourself with positive energy and wonderful people. This has been the most stressful time of my life so far. And so, I made time to check in with my closest friends for coffee, beers, and long walks in our big city. I've made sure to do some physical activity. My girlfriend was--and remains--nothing short of incredible, for all the love and support she gave me to pull me through this time. When I got my acceptances, rest assured that she was the first person I freaked out to. 
 
I am now deciding between two amazing Direct-Entry PhD programs. I've been told by many mentors and friends (and Jiminy Cricket) that neither decision is a wrong one. I am deciding between two very correct, but distinctly correct choices. It's a wonderful place to be in, and I really wish for the best for everyone else. Abbracci!

As I have been investigating the biographies of PhD students in top tier history programs, I have been compiling a spreadsheet of where each student received his/her undergraduate degree(s) and Master's degree(s). There has been a bit of discussion in this forum lately about the importance of "Master's degree prestige" in applying to top tier PhD programs, so I hope this list is helpful to other users:
University of Chicago
44 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Chicago webpages
40 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 4 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Chicago PhD students:
University of Chicago - 16 University of Edinburgh - 2 Washington University in St. Louis - 2 Catholic University of America - 1 Charles University in Prague - 1 Clemson University - 1 Columbia University - 1 Harvard Law School - 1 Hebrew University of Jerusalem - 1 Indiana University - 1 Johns Hopkins University - 1 New York University - 1 Northeastern Illinois University - 1 Northern Illinois University - 1 Oxford University - 1 Portland State University - 1 San Diego State University - 1 Seoul National University - 1 Universite Paris VIII - 1 University of California, Irvine - 1 University of Nebraska, Lincoln - 1 Vanderbilt University - 1 Yale Law School - 1 Most common BA institutions for Chicago PhD students:
University of California, Berkeley - 5 Johns Hopkins University - 3 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - 3 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - 2 Washington University in St. Louis - 2 Boston University - 1 Brown University - 1 Charles University in Prague - 1 Claremont McKenna College - 1 DePaul University - 1 Eastern Oregon University - 1 Hebrew University of Jerusalem - 1 Indiana University, Bloomington - 1 Lahore University of Management Sciences - 1 New York University - 1 Ohio State University - 1 Oxford University - 1 Princeton University - 1 Saint Joseph's College - 1 Salem College - 1 Sarah Lawrence College - 1 Seoul National University - 1 Southern Oregon University - 1 University of Alabama - 1 University of British Columbia - 1 University of California, Los Angeles - 1 University of California, San Diego - 1 University of California, Santa Barbara - 1 University of Georgia - 1 University of Nebraska, Lincoln - 1 University of Nebraska, Omaha - 1 University of New Mexico - 1 University of San Francisco - 1 Villanova University - 1 Wesleyan University - 1 Yale University - 1 Columbia University
96 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Columbia webpages
63 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 33 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Columbia PhD students:
Columbia University - 9 Oxford University - 5 Cambridge University - 4 New York University - 3 Bogazici University, Istanbul - 2 Fordham University - 2 University of Chicago - 2 American University in Cairo - 1 Beijing Foreign Studies University - 1 Brown University - 1 Central European University - 1 Chinese University of Hong Kong - 1 Complutense University of Madrid - 1 El Colegio de Mexico - 1 Erasmus Mundus European Masters in Migration and Intercultural Relations program - 1 Free University of Berlin - 1 Georgetown University - 1 Hong Kong University - 1 Jewish Theological Seminary - 1 London School of Economics - 1 National Taiwan University - 1 National University of Lujan - 1 National University of Singapore - 1 Old Dominion University - 1 Sarah Lawrence College - 1 Stanford University - 1 Syracuse University - 1 Tel Aviv University - 1 Tufts University - 1 University of Amsterdam - 1 University of California, Berkeley - 1 University of Maroua - 1 University of Michigan - 1 University of Notre Dame - 1 University of Roehampton in London - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Tokyo - 1 University of Virginia - 1 University of Zurich, Switzerland - 1 Warsaw University - 1 Wheaton College - 1 Yale Law School - 1 York University - 1 Most common BA institutions for Columbia PhD students:
Harvard College - 6 Columbia University - 4 Princeton University - 4 University of California, Berkeley - 4 University of Chicago - 4 Yale University - 4 Barnard College - 3 New York University - 3 Tel Aviv University - 3 Amherst College - 2 Bogazici University, Istanbul - 2 Cambridge University - 2 Cornell University - 2 Duke University - 2 Georgetown University - 2 McGill University - 2 Reed College - 2 Amsterdam University College - 1 Baylor University - 1 Beijing Foreign Studies University - 1 Bowdoin College - 1 Brandeis University - 1 Carleton College - 1 Chinese University of Hong Kong - 1 Colgate University - 1 College of William and Mary - 1 Concordia University in Montreal - 1 Dartmouth College - 1 Drake University - 2 Fairfield University - 1 Franklin & Marshall College - 1 Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva - 1 Hebrew University of Virginia - 1 Lewis and Clark College - 1 London School of Economics - 1 National Autonomous University of Mexico - 1 National Taiwan University - 1 National University of Singapore - 1 Northwestern University - 1 Oxford University - 1 Peking University - 1 Pomona College - 1 Sarah Lawrence College - 1 Stanford University - 1 Truman State University - 1 United States Military Academy at West Point - 1 University College Utrecht - 1 University of California, Los Angeles - 1 University of Michigan - 1 University of Mississippi - 1 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - 1 University of Notre Dame - 1 University of Pennsylvania - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Tokyo - 1 University of Wisconsin, Madison - 1 University of Zurich, Switzerland - 1 Warsaw University - 1 Wesleyan University - 1 Williams College - 1 Yonsei University - 1 York University - 1 Washington University in St. Louis - 1 Harvard University
78 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Harvard webpages
50 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 28 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Harvard PhD students:
Harvard University - 14 Cambridge University - 7 Oxford University - 3 Yale University - 2 Central European University - 1 Columbia University - 1 Florida Atlantic University - 1 Florida International University - 1 Harvard Divinity School - 1 Indiana University - 1 Jadavpur University - 1 King's College, London - 1 London School of Economics - 1 National Taiwan University - 1 Peking University - 1 Princeton University - 1 School of Oriental and African Studies - 1 Stanford University - 1 Sydney Law School - 1 University de Paris I - 1 University of California, Los Angeles - 1 University of Chicago - 1 University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Tokyo - 1 University of Virginia - 1 University of York - 1 Vanderbilt University - 1 Most common BA institutions for Harvard PhD students:
Columbia University - 5 University of Chicago - 4 University of Michigan - 4 Yale University - 4 Brown University - 3 Harvard University - 3 University of Pennsylvania - 3 Amherst College - 2 College of William and Mary - 2 Grinnell College - 2 Princeton University - 2 University of California, Berkeley - 2 University of Virginia - 2 Washington University in St. Louis - 2 Williams College - 2 Adams State University - 1 Arizona State University - 1 Boise State University - 1 Bowdoin College - 1 Brandeis University - 1 Bucknell University - 1 Carleton College - 1 Colby College - 1 Emory University - 1 Florida Atlantic University - 1 Fudan University - 1 Indiana University - 1 Jadavpur University - 1 King's College, London - 1 Lewis and Clark College - 1 McGill University - 1 Middlebury College - 1 Millsaps College - 1 National Taiwan University - 1 New York University - 1 Occidental College - 1 Oxford University - 1 Peking University - 1 Pomona College - 1 Stanford University - 1 State University of New York, New Paltz - 1 Swarthmore College - 1 Tufts University - 1 University of California, Santa Cruz - 1 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - 1 University of Rochester - 1 University of St. Andrews - 1 University of Sydney - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Zurich - 1 Princeton University
97 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Princeton webpages
68 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 29 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Princeton PhD students:
Oxford University - 10 Cambridge University - 7 Princeton University - 6 Columbia University - 4 Yale University - 3 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - 2 King's College, London - 2 Leiden University - 2 New York University - 2 Yale Law School - 2 Bangalore University - 1 Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro - 1 Central European University - 1 City University of New York - 1 Courtauld Institute of Art, London - 1 Humboldt University in Berlin - 1 Hunter College - 1 Imperial College, London - 1 Jadavpur University, Kolkata - 1 London School of Economics - 1 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität - 1 Rutgers University - 1 Sabanci University in Istanbul, Turkey - 1 Stanford University - 1 Temple University - 1 Trent University - 1 Tufts University - 1 University of Amsterdam - 1 University of Cape Town - 1 University of Colorado - 1 University of Georgia - 1 University of Massachusetts, Amherst - 1 University of Sydney - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Washington - 1 University Torcuato di Tella - 1 Utrecht University - 1 Warburg Institute, University of London - 1 Most common BA institutions for Princeton PhD students:
University of Chicago - 7 Yale University - 6 Washington University in St. Louis - 4 Harvard University - 3 University of California, Berkeley - 3 Columbia University - 2 Cornell University - 2 London School of Economics - 2 McGill University - 2 New York University - 2 University College London - 2 University of British Columbia - 2 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - 2 University of Pennsylvania - 2 Williams College - 2 Amherst College - 1 Aristotle University - 1 Bard College - 1 Barnard College - 1 Brown University - 1 Cambridge University - 1 Colby College - 1 Connecticut College - 1 Dartmouth College - 1 Delhi University - 1 Duke University - 1 Federal University of Rio de Janeiro - 1 Freiburg University - 1 Humboldt University in Berlin - 1 Imperial College, London - 1 Indiana University, Bloomington - 1 Leiden University - 1 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität - 1 National Law School of India University - 1 Northeastern Illinois University - 1 Northwestern University - 1 Oregon State University - 1 Oxford University - 1 Princeton University - 1 Rhodes University, South Africa - 1 Ripon College - 1 School of the Art Institute of Chicago - 1 St. John's College, Annapolis - 1 Stanford University - 1 Temple University - 1 Tufts University - 1 University of Alabama - 1 University of Amsterdam - 1 University of Bielefeld - 1 University of Buenos Aires - 1 University of California, Los Angeles - 1 University of California, Santa Cruz - 1 University of Colorado - 1 University of Georgia - 1 University of Hong Kong - 1 University of Kentucky - 1 University of King's College - 1 University of New South Wales - 1 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - 1 University of Oklahoma - 1 University of Richmond - 1 University of Rome - 1 University of Sydney - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Warsaw - 1 Utrecht University - 1 Wesleyan University - 1 Whitworth University - 1 Stanford University
67 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Stanford webpages
49 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 18 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Stanford PhD students:
Stanford University - 8 Yale University - 3 American University in Cairo - 2 Columbia University - 2 École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociale - 2  Oxford University - 2 University of Chicago - 2 University of Edinburgh - 2 Cambridge University - 1 Central European University - 1 CSU Fresno - 1 Federal University of Parana - 1 Harvard Business School - 1 Harvard University - 1 Istanbul Sehir University - 1 King's College London - 1 London School of Economics - 1 San Francisco State University - 1 Sciences Po Paris - 1 Tel Aviv University - 1 Tufts University - 1 University of California, Berkeley - 1 University of Guelph - 1 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - 1 University of Indianapolis - 1 University of Kent - 1 University of Maryland - 1 University of Michigan - 1 University of Tartu - 1 University of Tokyo - 1 University of Toronto - 1 University of Washington - 1 Most common BA institutions for Stanford PhD students:
University of California, Berkeley - 5 Harvard University - 4 Princeton University - 3 Washington University in St. Louis - 3 Brown University - 2 Dartmouth College - 2 Emory University - 2 Oberlin College - 2 University of California, Los Angeles - 2 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign - 2 Yale University - 2 Amherst College - 1 Arizona State University - 1 Barnard College - 1 Bucknell University - 1 Claremont McKenna College - 1 Coe College - 1 Columbia University - 1 Dalhousie University - 1 Federal University of Parana - 1 Fordham University - 1 Fudan University - 1 Kenyon College - 1 McGill University - 1 Pennsylvania State University - 1 Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg -1 San Francisco State University - 1 Santa Clara University - 1 Scripps College - 1 Sorbonne Paris IV - 1 Stanford University - 1 SUNY Albany - 1 Tel Aviv University - 1 Universite Paris I - 1 University of Alberta - 1  University of California, Santa Barbara - 1 University of London - 1 University of Maryland - 1 University of Ottawa - 1 University of Pennsylvania - 1 University of Puget Sound - 1 University of San Francisco - 1 University of Southern California - 1 University of Saint Andrews - 1 University of Tartu - 1 University of Tokyo - 1 University of Toronto - 1 University of Virginia - 1 Wesleyan University - 1 Whitman College - 1 Yale University
108 history grad students list their pre-PhD degrees on their Yale webpages
63 came into the PhD program with a Bachelor's and Master's degree; 45 only had a Bachelor's degree
Most common MA institutions for Yale PhD students:
Cambridge University - 7 Oxford University - 4 University of Chicago - 3 Yale University - 3 Columbia University - 2 London School of Economics - 2 McGill University - 2 University of Alberta - 2 American University in Beirut - 1 American University in Cairo - 1 Bard College - 1 Bard Graduate Center - 1 Bogazici University, Istanbul - 1 Central European University - 1 Dartmouth College - 1 Duke University - 1 Fordham University - 1 Fudan University, Shanghai - 1 Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva - 1 Harvard Divinity School - 1 Harvard University - 1 Jewish Theological Seminary - 1 Linköping University - 1 Nanterre University - 1 National University of Singapore - 1 North Carolina State University - 1 Northeastern University - 1 Paris Pantheon Sorbonne University - 1 Peking University - 1 Trinity College, Oxford - 1 Union Theological Seminary - 1 Universidad de los Andes, Bogota - 1 Universite de Montreal - 1 University of Arizona - 1 University of California, Berkeley - 1 University of Cape Town - 1 University of Colorado, Boulder - 1 University of Florida - 1 University of Georgia - 1 University of New Mexico - 1 University of Pavia - 1 University of Tübingen - 1 University of Utah - 1 Vanderbilt University - 1 Yale Law School - 1 York University in Toronto - 1 Most common BA institutions for Yale PhD students:
Yale University - 10 Dartmouth College - 5 Harvard University - 5 Brown University - 3 City College of New York - 3 Johns Hopkins University - 3 Macalester College - 3 New York University - 3 Princeton University - 3 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - 3 Amherst College - 2 Georgetown University - 2 McGill University - 2 National University of Singapore - 2 Ohio University - 2 Oxford University - 2 Stanford University - 2 University of Alberta - 2 University of California, Berkeley - 2  University of Chicago - 2 Washington University in St. Louis - 2 American University - 1 Binghamton University SUNY - 1 Columbia University - 1 Emory University - 1 Gallatin School of Individualized Study in New York City - 1 Grinnell College - 1 Kennesaw State University - 1 Lahore University of Management Sciences - 1 Lehigh University - 1 Louvre School - 1 Middlebury College - 1 Montana State University, Bozeman - 1 North Carolina State University - 1 Paris Pantheon Sorbonne University - 1 Peking University - 1 Reed College - 1 Sarah Lawrence College - 1 Smith College - 1  Swarthmore College - 1 Texas A&M University - 1 Trinity College, Oxford - 1 Universidad Catolica in Lima - 1 Universidad de los Andes, Bogota - 1 Universite de Montreal - 1 University of Bologna - 1 University of California, Riverside - 1 University of California, Santa Cruz - 1 University of Florida - 1 University of Hawaii at Manoa - 1 University of King's College - 1 University of Maryland, College Park - 1 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - 1  University of Pavia - 1 University of Pennsylvania - 1 University of Southern California - 1 University of Texas, Austin - 1 University of Toronto - 1 University of Tübingen - 1 University of Victoria - 1 Weber State University - 1 Wellesley College - 1 Wesleyan University - 1 West Virginia University - 1 Williams College - 1 -------------------------------------
My take on it is that it seems to matter very little where you got your undergrad education. There is a wide variety of undergraduate institutions, and the selection is so diverse it almost makes me wonder if admissions committees purposefully try not to accept too many students with any one undergraduate background. Perhaps ad-coms are more likely to accept a student into a PhD program if the applicant's undergrad institution is one that is not currently represented, so as to increase diversity? I don't know. All of the undergrad institutions are reasonably legitimate though: although you will see humble institutions like Lehigh or Weber State represented, you never see, say, for-profit online programs or conservative bible colleges represented. The prestige of the Bachelor's degree only seems to matter if a student is applying to a PhD program straight out of undergrad with no Master's degree in between.
PhD students at top tier programs do seem to bring Master's degrees from the generally-understood "Top 40"-ish institutions, with a few exceptions. Middle-of-the-pack rated state schools don't seem particularly well represented. In order to enter a top tier PhD program, one typically needs a lower degree either from another top tier institution or from a non-US school (really any foreign school seems to do the trick, even if it's only as "foreign" as Canada).
I have also attached the raw data in a spreadsheet, in case anyone wants to dig into the data a bit deeper.