qbtacoma

Something I noticed while reading this - 2009 was a high for openings in history positions. So it makes sense that there would be a drop immediately afterward because there was just a big round of hiring. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! In all seriousness this news doesn't affect my assessment of my chances in the field later. It just puts numbers on it.

Most of my results are related to a political blog I wrote for in college - off-putting to some - as well as a lot of buzz about those opinions. Honestly, I'm up front about my biases and there's nothing I can do if people are offended by my politics. There is also an embarrassing poem I wrote when I was 16. Thanks for ideas on pushing results down!

You know, I'm wondering about this. I've had no lack of great professors doing very interesting work on ethnicities of all kinds, but all of them have been white except for two. What's up with that? I don't know if this is the exception rather than the rule, but I wonder at the capacity of the department/university to want certain content to be taught but not make an effort to address the employment gap. The student body was also really white as well, but I think that is laziness on the part of the admissions department. I also ran across a site that reports income at universities by seniority, field, race, etc. Female faculty at my private, regionally prestigious undergrad made less than half of the salaries the men did. WTF! I can't believe that any of the faculty or staff would put up with that, but apparently so!

Seconded. We can all disagree amicably, and have a better discussion for it.

Actually, right now I'm working for friends as a live-in cook. One just started her grad program and finds the packed lunched and home-cooked meals helpful! I really like my job, and I'm learning a lot about cooking. I think all of our diets will get worse if/when I go to grad school myself!

Best of luck, Medievalmaniac (and everyone else!). Your story makes me glad that I wrote a sentence or two in my SOP about why I got an F in Calculus. Sheesh - I can't believe something like that would torpedo an entire application! It almost makes me wonder if the programs are forced by some internal standard to put extra weight on undergrad GPA, because by any reasonable standard you sound like a home run candidate.

Ah, clueless grandmas. What would we do without them?

It is really interesting to hear not only predictions for the field, but also ideas on what trends are already present. To clarify on the Internet issue, I didn't mean to imply anything bad about digital technology and history (Google Books is a lifesaver!), but I was thinking more along the lines of how overwhelming it will be to use the Internet for sources, especially for the history of regular people. It's going to be the first time ever that we see people of all kinds speaking for themselves, with greater frequency than ever before. This is opposed to, say for a random example, only one surviving account of a riot from the perspective of the rioters is an editorial claiming to explain everyone's grievance. As of right now it is still the case that we read between the lines of the privileged recorders to uncover what the majority has said. I personally consider any surviving text or artifact to be a potential source (though not all sources are suited to certain lines of inquiry, obviously), so to sort through all the content even with good organizing will be quite a task. As far as women's history, I don't see myself doing research in the short term that will explicitly focus on women, but I definitely think the kinds of questions brought up by gender analysis etc. are invaluable. The reality is that not only did women experience things differently based solely on gender, but also that people were aware of this disparity and often emphasized it, so research that explores that is relevant and shouldn't be shunted off to a "minor" status. (Not that anyone here is advocating that.) When writing about women (or men!) it is important to remember and comment on the fact that gender molded their choices. As ChibaCityBlues points out, analysis that is relentlessly focused on that aspect of gender can obscure other important things about the ordering and priorities in peoples' lives. But people should be more aware that there isn't some mystical level playing field in which all people are empowered to make the same choices; women's history points out some of that. GK Chesterton has it exactly right. White straight dudes have often refused to see that they were writing *their* histories, which were selectively edited (consciously or not). Plenty of white straight dudes are writing histories these days that don't do this, but plenty of them are as well, which is why there is a division between "general" history and "minority" history, as though white straight dudes aren't a small group in and of themselves. This isn't a problem specific to history, though - think of Hollywood, where the vast majority of movies are made with white straight dudes as protagonists even though most people are not white and straight and male. This self-centered viewpoint needs to be pointed out.

$150.25 is my highest, believe it or not. Thanks UBC! Good thing I really want to go to you.

Well, good luck! I struggled with keeping things under 1000 words, so from your bare outline I'd immediately cut the discussion of the field in general - they know why it is important. Also if possible have people read the drafts once you are satisfied if only to double check organization, typos, etc.

Though, of course, queer history isn't just about sexuality.

Yes, and hopefully history of sexuality generally will also have a big surge of interest. I think people have thus far been squeamish about teaching it/don't want to deal with undergraduate squeamishness. I wasn't assigned readings about sexuality until my very last semester.

I think it would be a fun activity to speculate on the future of our field while we are waiting for the admissions ball to get rolling. Here are my thoughts: 1. Obviously transnational history is coming into vogue - Atlantic world, diaspora studies, etc. I'm waiting for Pacific world history to exist since that matches my regional interests. 2. I am SO glad I will not be a historian of the Internet age. I predict a huge swing toward quantitative research in the future and a demand for computer science-trained historians since for the first time we'll be able to search all existing sources in a particular medium for, say, the number of times people mention "mincemeat pies" per election cycle. 3. In the other direction, I wonder if there is going to be a scholarly acceptance of discussing emotions and other "presentist" ties to our subjects. I say this because I just finished reading Tiya Miles' Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom and one thing she does is interpret the experience of slavery through Toni Morrison's Beloved. The point was not only that the female slave's emotional experience has not been recorded and that fiction can help us understand what she may have felt, but also a discussion of the inadequacy of words to describe slavery and why the lack of sources is part of that. It was, I think, a successful discussion, but I don't know if I would be brave enough to use that strategy myself. It gets at a sore point of history in that we aren't *supposed* to judge people of the past based on modern feelings, but no one studies history without an emotional connection to the material somehow. 4. Military history is definitely on the down and out in academia, but it is probably the most popular of the popular histories. When do you think this worthy area of study will make a come back? What do you all think?

The programs I'm applying to have a request for new transcripts as soon as grades are updated, presumably official ones. However, you should check the FAQs for your programs; very likely they will tell you what the program prefers. However, I don't see why they wouldn't want this information.

It would be helpful in many cases to include a letter from a professor who has witnessed your learning and growth. For me, one of my letter writers taught me three classes in my freshman year, and I know I didn't start college with a lot of impressive work. (I didn't know double spacing was a thing, for instance.) However, by the end of the year I had learned a lot and responded to his suggestions - I wrote my final paper for one of the classes based entirely on a comment he made on a previous minor assignment. So he can speak to my willingness to use criticism constructively, etc. Being a superstar and having all your professors say "this student's a superstar!" can be comparatively bland. I've done B work at times for my other letter writers too. I informed all my letter writers the semester before that I was going to apply for things. I just gave them a heads up to see if they would be willing, and then about 2 months before the deadlines I got back to them with specifics. Also asking so early gives you a chance to find new people. For you, I'd wait until the end of this year and ask. They might forget over the summer, but if you remind them with plenty of time that should be fine. Whatever you do, don't spring it on them (e.g. less than 2 weeks before the deadline) - it takes a long time to write letters.

Why thank you!

"British Columbia? Why would you want to go to Canada?" Really.

This was my first (and hopefully only) time I have applied to graduate school. My thoughts: - The GRE is a racket, an expensive hoop that no professor I've spoken to thinks is valuable but which is still inexplicably required. I was recently at a conference where one of the keynote speakers, a law professor, said that the LSAT predicts nothing at all about a given student's performance in law school but correlates very highly with said student's grandparents' income. I suspect the GRE is exactly the same. - Why the difference in fees? Why is it that Brown can process applications for $75 a pop but Columbia can't do it for less than $100? I suspect some places are using their prestige to take in more money, which sucks especially when programs that are just as prestigious and competitive (like Michigan or Wisconsin) can do it for less and with serious budget crises to boot. - I wish I had not been so blundering when I first started contacting professors. Thank goodness for Grad Cafe! I've gotten such a good use out of it, and I really value how respectful and positive the users are here. - On the other hand, I was surprised at some of the childishness and trolling I've seen on the Chronicle fora. I thought a site like that would be full of well-thought-out zingers and delightfully constructive criticism if any. Ha.

I was curious about this. Are they going to courteously contact us if our applications are missing something, or do we have to just wait to be rejected for incompleteness? I'm sure it varies by program, but for those that don't have the online thing are they generally up on that? Also: I submitted my last application today! I'm done!

Yep. Grad school is the first step to be a history professor at a sweet college somewhere nice. Goodness, if my only option turns out to be working at a for-profit college or struggling as a community college adjunct for the rest of my life, my Plan Bs are going to kick in hard. But no! I have decided it won't happen to me! I am worthy! Lalalalala!

I've seen this topic discussed indirectly on a lot of threads, particularly for the folks with job offers outside of academia, but I'm curious if others are taking the same approach I am. Given the very difficult job market, especially in the humanities, are you going into the application process (or did you go into it) with a Plan B? For me, having several back up plans is essential to why I'm choosing to apply now. Originally I thought I was going to do a program in Library and Information Science rather than history, with a plan of working a few years and then going back to get a Ph.D in LIS so I could be a professor. I really liked certain aspects of LIS that are, let's face it, more hands on and less Ivory Tower than history, and I struggled with reconciling my social justice interests with my love of academia. After a few conversations with professors, I decided that I should go all the way and really do what I love - research, reading, having challenging discussions - for my career. I can always do LIS later (though that job market is also pretty bad right now). I would also be interested in the foreign service should all that not work out, and to qualify to serve in it I would have to pass the exams, which I feel I could do fairly easily (if I can do grad school, I can surely do that). Heck, working at a food bank could be a dream job for me. There's a lot I'm passionate about. Here's the thing, though - part of the reason I'm so optimistic as to apply to grad school at all is because I'm pretty much assuming that the bad job market won't apply to me. I will almost certainly get a TT offer, possibly even in a decent location! Yes, I know this is arrogant and naive and probably wrong, but if I didn't believe it then I wouldn't be applying to grad school at all. Wishful thinking is a powerful motivator...but I'm also glad that I could be very happy doing many different things. Are other folks thinking these things? Do you see your Plan B (if you have one) as a vague possibility or as an almost certain next step when you don't get a TT position?

Yes, if you are going to renege in an ethical way it depends on what you've already said and the reasons you give. "I can't afford to go to your program with the financial offer you've given me" an acceptable excuse if it's true. As bhikhaari says, if you haven't signed a contract then you are legally okay. Was the offer made informally, in conversation or in writing (or email)? Or was it formal? If you have good reasons to back out (upon further research the program doesn't match your needs, you feel spooked by a dysfunctional department dynamic, finances) you should communicate them now. Clearly they are willing to invest in you and can address your concerns if brought up (tactfully, in some cases). If you are just waiting for "better" offers, though, even if this program is perfectly fine that's more ethically dubious. That's like being in a relationship with someone you can barely stand until someone sexier comes along, IMO. Not that you're doing this. The school probably won't warn other programs away from you. However, you might have to work with them in the future, so being honest and courteous is important.

This is an important element of the general question "is this a place I want to live?" I only looked at programs in places I want to live, which led me to rule out some great opportunities. I.e., a scholar whose research pretty much opened my eyes to a whole new world of research is at a school in what I think is a crappy place. I am unlikely to choose where I live ever again, so I'm making the choice to be happy now. To me, weather is an acceptable aspect of your final decision only if you have totally equal offers. (It is what I did for undergrad - I chose the school with the better location.) If you know ahead of time a program is in a too cold/hot/humid/dry place you will be miserable at, why waste the time and application fee? So for me the weather question needs to come way earlier in the process, not at the final decision.

Check out Notorious Ph.D, Girl Scholar: http://girlscholar.blogspot.com/. I like her writing style and she has posts up on grad applications, teaching, and what grad students want from their departments (read the comments on those entries as they are quite enlightening). Historiann (http://www.historiann.com/) often discusses grad school-specific things and she has a big blogroll specifically for grad school blogs. Female Computer Scientist (http://femalecomputerscientist.blogspot.com/) is pretty fun to read as well.

19th/20th century US history with a focus on intersections of race/immigrant status with the development of public health policy. Eugenics is a natural point of research but I'm more interested in how/if race-based thinking was used to establish epidemic policies, health awareness campaigns, etc. Disease prevention and nationalism shared a lot of rhetoric; hence the interest in immigration as well.