modern

It's pretty funny how it seems so hard to get an answer a question like this without having colleagues feeling compelled to give advice such as "you shouldn't care about it". It's something everyone thinks about and cares about. Doesn't mean anyone will decide their fates based on it. And it's interesting, and could generate interesting discussions. 
 
Besides the regional "hot" fields, there's of course also thematic ones, like fellow forum momeber I'm-ina-control suggested: 
 
Some hot fields (in nor particular order and without necessarily meaning I appreciate all of them or even really find them to be meaningful as fields -- but some people clearly do), or buzz terms:
 
 
- History of Capitalism
- Science and Technology Studies-related approaches, histories of knowledge
- Environmental History, including animals, climate change
- Transnational/"Global" Topics and Approaches
- Spatial History
- Digital Approaches/Methods
- Drugs
- Memory stuff (though less than a few years ago)
- Big Data- related (both as topic and as method)
- Not-Only-Female Gender Topics

With all due respect to the OP and others who are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend that you not concern yourself too much with the job market at this point because it is entirely out of your control and liable to change greatly over the next several years. Instead, focus on what you can control -- defining more precisely your areas and topics of interest, your fields of study (including your outside field), your language skills, your relationships with your peers and your professors, and, most of all, getting ready for qualifying exams.
 
 
There are was to determine the cachet of programs but it takes time, effort, and hands-on research. Briefly, get your hands on physical copies of recent editions of the AHA guide to history departments. Look at the faculty roster for every department. Make notes of where professors with interests similar to  yours got their degrees (undergraduate and graduate). Go to the faculty rosters of those schools, and see where professors with your interests went. If you commit to looking at every department, you will start to find groupings of academics with interests similar to yours. Institutions that have such groupings probably have cachet.
 
Simultaneously, find hard copies of the academic journals related to your areas of interest. Go through at least ten years' worth of back issues. Focus on the shorter book reviews. Look at the institutional affiliations of both authors and reviewers. Cross reference the institutions with your findings from the AHA guides.
 
Pick two or three historians whose books are very well received (and/or who write especially helpful reviews) and do intense biographical/bibliographic research on them. To the extent possible, do this research using hard copies of articles, papers, and books. Find all you can about their institutional affiliations as well as the affiliations of other historians who they acknowledge or frequently cite.
 
If you do the three steps with a certain amount of intensity, you will be able to develop a very good list of programs that specialize in your areas of interest and you will also increase your familiarity with the relevant historiography.
 
(The reason why I recommend using hard copies is so that you maximize your opportunities for serendipitous discoveries. Sometimes the book you need is two books over and one shelf down from the book you want.)

A GPA of 3.7 or 3.8 is good enough to get into any program .

Thanks for the info about "Jap".

That said, and although I did not use it, the person that did clearly did not mean it in any sort of insulting way at all, and was refering to a historic subfield and not to people, so it was evidently just a way to save words. Words should not be considered slur without taking in consideration the context of usage IMO.

This word may account for the different experiences among members of this BB who are studying history. IME, an emphasis on learning and skill development have helped me--as well as those undergraduates whom I've advised--to navigate the application process much more than a focus on politics. This is not to say that politics do not matter, they do.

But I think focusing on politics may lead a "this is a crap shoot" mentality. This frame of mind comes at the expense of developing approaches that enable applicants to understand other dimensions of the process. Most notably, the benefits of approaching the process with an air of confidence.

My $0.02.

you should really be asking this question to as many professors as you can, NOT graduate students, let alone fellow applicants. the advice that anyone could give you here, even the most seasoned graduate students, will pale in comparison to what young professors can tell you about your SOP and writing sample.

That is discouraging. I don't think trying to do a great job on Yale's application is a problem, and I wouldn't assume doing so would come at the expense of other applications.

they will not care about your job as a tutor/counselor.

if you're doing the job because you find it fun, rewarding, and like the pocket money, then by all means do it and enjoy it. but if you're doing it to beef up your CV for grad applications, don't bother.

programs care about your potential as a researcher. tutoring tells them nothing about that. for what an adcom is looking for, your time would be better spent working on a primary-source-based research paper, presenting at conferences (regional ones or undergraduate/graduate ones if you don't want to dive into the big conferences yet), or working as a research assistant for a history professor. if one of your professors suggests that a research paper you've written would be potentially publishable, you should devote your energy to working on that and submitting it for publication.

all of this is, again, if your primary goal is to pursue activities that will look good to an adcom. but if you like tutoring and want to do it, do it. just know it won't make a lick of difference on any of your grad applications.

FINALLY, I just took the GRE and I got the results I was expecting.

I got 740-800 in MATH and 630-730 in VERBAL.

I think this scores are probably enough for the Programs that I want to apply: MEM in BERKELY, CORNELL, COLUMBIA, DUKE adn ILLINOIS

From what I understand, the MAPSS program, like any other terminal masters, is what you make of it. It is a "cash cow" but some students get full funding and many of those who do not get full funding still get accepted to very good PhD programs (with full funding) afterward.

Although I did not get accepted by the History program at Chicago in the last application cycle, one of the professors at Chicago in my field (African History) contacted me when she realized that I had been accepted by MAPSS. She offered to supervise me and said specifically that she was "always willing to help anyone who wants to study African history."

She also put me in contact with other MAPSS students she supervised. Many of these students are now at top PhD programs (Chicago, the Michigan joint PhD in Anthropology and History, etc).

She even gave me the contact of a friend of hers who studied for a masters at Oxford and recently completed his PhD at Princeton because I said there was a chance I might attend the LSE for my masters. Needless to say, this professor was extremely helpful and all of her students seemed to adore her.

Ultimately, you just have to see if MAPSS will give you the kind of support you need to reach your goals for the amount money you are spending. $60,000 (for tuition and board) is a lot to spend on a program that does not guarantee entry into a PhD program afterward.

I would have taken the MAPSS offer just to work with that professor if Chicago had offered me more than 1/3rd funding. Luckily I have 75% funding (tuition and board) for the M.Sc. @ LSE, which was my top choice for the masters programs I applied to. Further, studying in London gives me the chance to access the extensive British archives on Africa.

I would apply directly to a PhD program at Chicago if that is what you really want to do. Even if you do not get accepted to the PhD there is a very good chance you will get an offer from MAPSS. If you choose to apply directly to MAPSS thats also great. Just contact the professors in the departments that you would like to work with the most and see if they will supervise MAPSS students and ask to speak to their former students.

Lastly, if you are willing to spend the money for MAPSS, then you should also consider studying in the United Kingdom. The LSE is the most expensive school in the UK for masters programs and the average tuition cost for the upcoming year is £16,512 = $25,327. The cost of board is £12,000 = $18,432. That's $43,759, which is about $3,000 less than the cost of just tuition for MAPSS. That $3,000 can pay for round trip flights to England and a bit of spending money.

Most of the other schools in the UK will cost a lot less than this and there are benefits to having an international degree.

I hope this helps. Good luck on your grad apps.

yes, definitely look at straight-up history programs and write that you want to work on women's history and gender in X place during Y time. also, when applying to programs, take a look at students' comprehensive exam fields. for some schools, you'll see people with one or two regional focuses (i.e. latin american history as the biggie, brazil as a specialized field). occasionally, however, you will find programs that privilege thematic concentrations as exam fields, so you'd see someone with fields in latin american history and gender history/gender theory. the latter sort of program will give you a stronger foundation in gender history within and outside of your regional and temporal focus, and so you may want to pursue those programs.

Imagine yourself writing a formal letter to a friend who is well educated but doesn't quite understand what history is and why you want to be a historian. Use the specific questions (if any) in the SOP form as talking points.

Tell this friend a story--a narrative--in which you cover the points.

An aside. Never delete anything. If you're going to start over, archive what you've done.

A suggestion. Assume that you are going to be a titan who makes significant contributions to the craft. Write with a certain swagger because you know that your papers and letters are going to be published, and that down the line graduate students will be trying to figure out how to write SoPs so they can come and work with you. Write with a purpose because you know that are taking steps down a path that sees you claiming your legacy as an academic. Write with a sense of fun and passion because you're writing about something you love. Write with a sense of comfort because you're communicating with a trusted friend.

others can advise you on specific people to work with much better than i can, because this is outside my field, but i'll throw this out there for anyone:

i am not sure how wise it is to mention personal details or life history as a motivation for subject of study in your SOP. i'm not saying it's bad, i'm saying i'm definitely not sure if it's a positive or a negative. some professors and programs probably like to see some sort of personal connection between the applicant and the topic, but in my limited experience in grad school (two years in), saying "this is important to me because it's part of my family history" is usually taken as a negative in an SOP. not because we shouldn't or can't have those personal connections, but because it seems unprofessional and less serious than "i hope to contribute to and alter this historiographical debate."

i've seen far more applications crash and burn on the "this is my personal history" SOPs than i've seen succeed. that's not to say you can't mention it in an SOP or that it's a death knell, but... i think the more cautious approach is to include that sort of information in private conversations with PAs and to leave it out of the SOP itself. just my two cents on that.

as far as the OP identifying himself, i took sigaba's comment to mean that it was interesting that the OP chose to identify himself at all. those details don't change any of the advice or the shape of his project or his desired academic aims. at the same time, most of these threads are filled with superfluous information. to the OP in particular, there are probably university fellowships reserved for minority applicants (i know this is the case in my own program) so i think mentioning race and/or gender should occur somewhere in your application so that you're eligible for these, but i would strongly avoid including this information in your SOP. you can study the impact of the civil war on black women's rights while being black, white, male, female, etc. my sense is, again from my own limited experience, that adcoms will react to the inclusion of this material in your SOP more like sigaba did ("why is this information relevant?") than how many others have.

so... in sum... any personal or identity-related connections to anyone's topic are valid and legitimate and probably worth mentioning in an informal setting, but i'd strongly discourage including any of this information in an SOP.

Bingo!

I gave the first negative vote to Sigaba's post. Not only is it irrelevant and inaccurate (how exactly does gender and ethnicity figure prominently in his description, when he only used two such terms in the entire post?), but I sensed that it was directing the thread towards a debate about race and admissions policies like affirmative action.

Are you planning to take any time off? What do you really want to do a PhD? What do you hope to get out of your experience as a graduate student for the next 8-10 years?

As long as you offer a study plan that is focused, specific and well thought out, it doesn't matter where your internship was or what your thesis as on. You can even describe how these helped you narrow your focus.

your writing sample shows you can write well, analyze, get into detail and scholarship. Yes, ideally it would be close to your topic, but I'm told it's more important to show your mastery of research/writing/analysis than to be on the same subject. Chose based on quality, not specific relevance.

One thing I'd like to add is that it is extremely important to do extensive research about the departments that you might want to apply to. Check every department webpage, see who works on your field at every place. See their faculty profiles, if possible their CV, read what they have written, what they are doing now, what reviews say about their work. It is not enough to go with your favourite scholars and authors. I have actually discovered many outstanding historians in this process and not onlythe other way around.

I started with a huge lists of possible places (about 20+), then narrowed it to some twelve, and finally to six (in part by contacting people and seeing if they were actually interested).

I'm the exact opposite - I go over department web pages practically for fun, I find it's the perfect compliment to, say, sports (and with baseball right around the corner, I should be looking at a LOT of schools). I just jot down the names of people I'd like to work with, whether they guarantee funding and if they have a foreign language requirement at this early juncture - once I have a list of about 15-20 I'll start narrowing it down and looking into the harder info.

It's still early, don't stress too much yet. For now, just look at your favorite books on your shelf, check out where the author teaches and make note of it. If you're going crazy looking at too much info as of now, simply tone down the amount you're taking in at once - that's what I'm doing anyway.

I agree wholeheartedly with herodotus.

This is a HUGE decision. A lot of us don't have much experience with the intricacies of the academic world. Also, while we have access to graduate students and professor of the programs we have been accepted to, we do have the right, and probably the obligation, to be skeptical of what they say (and what they don't say). They are, after all, trying to sell themselves now. Of course, you have your advisors to talk to, but sometimes that isn't enough. It's nice to get the perspective from people who are on the same boat as you. And if professors can't handle discussions on their teaching/advising practices, or the strength of their placement records/departments, then that's their problem. I do not find it unprofessional at all. This is a public forum, but it is, after all, a profession where one of the main goals is to serve the public good.

It's unprofessional to discuss the pros and cons of working with various professors on a public forum. Even if you substitute your potential advisers' real names for "Professor A" or "Professor B," it's not hard to tell who you're talking about. Mentioning someone's health problems ("so-and-so had a heart attack") is beyond the pale. There's a private messaging feature. Use it.

This isn't accurate, seeing as none of my letter writers knew anyone on the Columbia admissions committee; as I stated in an earlier post, none of them even work in my PhD field. It certainly helps if your letter writers have contacts in the graduate programs you're applying to, but it isn't necessary to get admitted.

What makes an applicant competitive? I believe there are a couple things that answer this question beyond your letter of rec. writer knowing so and so and he/ she is a great friend of mine. Even if your professor knows another professor in the admission committee it does not guarantee you admission in any way.

Curriculum Vitae is one of ways to measure "competitiveness" for graduate school and professorships. Particularly, for inquiries of previous research, presentations, conferences and publications. Anyone of these, while applying to graduate school, can give you a leg-up from other applicants.

Quality of the research sample. Can the applicant write well? Engage with historiographical arguments and make a significant contribution to the field while using primary sources from archives.

Straw of luck. Admissions committee is looking for so many in such and such field or possibly no one in that field for various reasons; including retiring faculty, tenure denial to a professor in that area, more admits from a field accepted than expected last year. Also, funding, the most hard hit right now are state schools.

As one can see multiple things go into selecting an applicant rather than simply someone in the admissions committee knowing someone, however, it is not unusual because the history profession is indeed a small world. None of my letter of recommendation writers knew anyone at U of Chicago where I was admitted although they had certainly heard of them and know their research.

The real question should be: what can I do to make my application stronger for the next admission's cycle. Others in this forum have made plentiful of suggestions to this concern.

While this may sometimes be the case, I definitely don't think it's the rule. From visiting schools, talking to other admits, , to my advisers, and even my own experience, while having your letter writer know someone in the faculty might help a little, it is definitely, definitely not a requirement. That's not to say it's democratic. There is a lot of internal politics. But the nepotism doesn't seem to run deep in graduate admissions.

I have no idea. But with History PhD programs, your letter-writers really have to know someone on the admissions committee. It is more who you know, not what you know, in my opinion. You can have the most dominant application of all time, but if your writers don't know professor X, then I don't think they will look at you. Even if they do know professor X, he or she has to be on the committee, AND it has to be his or her "turn" to get a graduate student. Anybody who thinks the process is democratic...they just don't know what they're talking about.