superfluousflo

I totally agree that teaching is urgent. I have heard that it is difficult to get a TAship at Princeton regardless of your interest. At NYU, you're right, plenty of students teach even though it's not required. It helps to save money/push the fellowship into a sixth year. I have some hope that my potential advisor at Cambridge will have some good contacts in the US as she received her PhD from Tufts. Tenure is another conversation. I am just trying to assess my options.

This is the third time that I'm applying for a PhD program. I applied once for a MA. Each time, I find out something about what I need to improve. I hope that I've done what I need for admission this year but there are no guarantees. As such, I think that some people can apply only once and get admitted to a top program directly from undergrad. Others need some time sharpening their skills before admission. Still others, regardless of what they do, might not get admitted to the programs they want.

Am I mistaken or were a whole lot of Tea Party candidates elected to the House 3 years ago? On top of that, haven't they had a huge influence on policy and discourse in those years?

In many cases, I think that getting a MA first is useful for filling in any weaknesses you have, particularly in research and possibly also language training (not that a MA is necessary for that). There is a thread about a person lacking research experience in the history forum and you might read it to find out if the advice people are giving there is applicable to you.

Last year was tough. Michigan over-yielded leading them not only to forgo the waitlist but also they are unable to admit any new students for 2012-13. Otherwise, I wasn't admitted to any of the schools that waitlisted me primarily due to very high yields everywhere. I learned what I needed to improve and I did what I could in the 8 months from the final waitlist rejection to the first application deadlines of this cycle to improve my file. If you are waitlisted, I recommend emailing your POIs for their thoughts on your application. I was given very helpful feedback and considerable encouragement.

I doubt that it would include footnotes in that word count, but emailing the department couldn't hurt.

I did not get an email. I just checked the status because I remembered it was there yesterday. It would say "at department" near the top of the first page. If it doesn't, that's probably not a commentary on your prospects.

Well, between yesterday and today, my Columbia application has made it to the department. If the past is any indicator, they'll send out waitlist and acceptance announcements in the middle of February.

That's what I meant. I might have put "don't" in the wrong place for emphasis or something.

I think that funding is a great thing. Getting a FLAS would be a boon. All I'm saying is that such a notification is not an indication of interest or that your application has made it on to a "yes" pile.

You really don't think that these schools have sent these emails to each of their applicants who have indicated an interest in a field that would require considerable language traning and fieldwork? Which is to say that they aren't necessarily trying to build a competitive package for me but rather that they want their applicant equally aware of these external awards, which will ultimately help these programs off set costs.

That last post was too naive. In a 4/4 tenure track position, I understand that the expectations for research and continued contribution to one's field is still held in high order for tenure review and it is difficult to continue that work as you have a heavy teaching load. Even if one wants to be a liberal arts college, teaching a research are heavy early on, with teaching responsibilities subsiding as one progresses in one's career. Better that than adjuncting, was my point.

I guess I didn't realize so many people applied for postdocs. It does make sense though. I would think that an Oxbridge PhD would have a deeper, more expansive network for postdoctoral positions over a graduate from a lower-tier school. Am I mistaken? Perhaps it all comes down to research topic and fit. As it always seems to. In terms of teaching and research: If you want to teach more than research, I suppose a 4/4 tenure track would be a god-send. At the moment, I am not interested in teaching at an R1. Regarding teaching experience: Are more American schools moving away from allowing their doctoral students teach courses? I know that it's not required at Princeton and NYU. Does this hurt their prospects?

I think that there is plenty History to be written about social inequality. Some might confront it more directly than others. I think that it is silly to be dogmatic about it. I've read some uninspired Marxist histories of the working-class that are based more on Marxian theory than evidence. Niall Ferguson, though exhausting, has given some perspective on the history of social and geopolitical inequalities and asymmetries in Civilization. Of course, I don't suppose many of the OWS would be keen on his conclusions (and that's reasonable). I think that researching to production of social inequality in its myriad forms is highly admirable and essential. At the same time, I think it needs to be potentially more rigorous than what we get from the Occupiers. It is important to acknowledge that class history, the history of the production of race, Empire, and the history of domesticity, are all concerned with dominance, hegemony, power, injustice. OWS is nothing fundamentally new but in this historical moment is influential and should be noted. It can't exactly be studied historically yet, but we have our brothers and sisters in sociology and political science who will do present analysis and later generations, I have to assume, will provide historical analysis on, we can hope, a turning point in American economic inequality. We're not there yet, though.

I got the same FLAS email. I got one from Washington too. As far as I can figure, they are trying to offset costs. These are examples of two schools with inconsistent funding practices. Washington because they are a budget-strapped state school and Chicago because I think they want some first year students to earn their funding.

In terms of campus visits, I contacted a PA a couple of months ago and he brought up the idea of meeting up. I think that I would wait for that kind of invitation to meet with a professor. But, I'm sure that you'd gain some perspective by going to campus and to your department. You might even have an impromptu chat with a current student. I don't think it would hurt but I wouldn't expect to drop in on a PA.

The point about teaching is a good one. And, regarding funding, I won't go to a program that doesn't provide a full financial package. That said, I've been accepted to the PhD program and have considered pursuing an American post-doc if I take a British doc.

Thanks for the suggestion about contacting the school for more guidance. I guess I'm looking for placement records. I'm interested in modern UK migration and postcolonial history. So, I think that studying in England could be helpful -- archives will be at my fingertips. What do you mean? Has the market down-turn affected Oxbridge job candidates more than, say, Ivy and Public Ivy candidates? Or are you just pointing out that it's tough out there for an new PhD to get a job?

Hello all, I am curious to know if anyone has any data on the success of PhDs from Oxford and Cambridge at getting jobs in the USA. Is there a greater likelihood of getting a US job with an American degree? Are Oxford and Cambridge, and perhaps other international universities, possible exceptions to any rule? Thoughts are appreciated but data is encouraged. cheers!

I am not sure if this is well-known but I just heard from a faculty member at Michigan that they are not accepting applications for the PhD in History this year. You can still apply to one of the joint programs. I was surprised and disheartened to find out.

Princeton, Columbia, and Michigan.

Hello, I am also waitlisted at some top programs. All I know is that the three programs where I am waitlisted will be convening next week to discuss the list and whether there are any spots to be offered. I'd say next Friday is when you might expect to hear, but it's not unrealistic to think that you could hear on April 15. hang in there!

I have a waitlist question, but it doesn't have to do with which schools have them. Is anyone waiting to hear whether they are admitted off of the waitlist before making a final decision? Or are people declining the waitlist for an offer? I guess it comes down to where you are admitted and where you are waitlisted. I'm just curious.

I have to reply to this, it's my major field too (makes me wonder if we've met). My impression is that all of these programs/schools are great. Columbia and Michigan are hard to compete with on a Early Modern/Modern South Asia level, especially if working on India. They both have stellar placement records and impressive faculties. Michigan having just hired Mrinalini Sinha and with plans to hire two more South Asianists in the very near future. Columbia, with its team taught Nicholas Dirks/Partha Chatterjee advanced South Asian history course, might offer the most provocative course in the country. Michigan and Columbia also have pretty good guaranteed funding packages and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem getting external funding for further language training and/or archival research. Then it comes down to location. Ann Arbor or NYC? Columbia gets to offer an Ivy League consortium and the Inter-University Consortium (NYU, Columbia, Fordham?, CUNY, Princeton, Rutgers?, ), both provide incredible access to other University's, their faculties, libraries, centers, etc. Michigan, on the other hand, has agreements with Big Ten schools and has a working relationship with UToronto, with a good likelihood of working with UChicago and other regional schools (just not a close-by as those around NYC). Chicago would be an excellent place for a person especially interested in Bengali history, as they boast Dipesh Chakrabarty and Rochona Majumdar and have done well to produce high level scholars. Funding is precarious for some, excellent for others, but with an offer, you should know about the funding package at each of the respective schools listed. Harvard, in my humble opinion, isn't great as it only has Sugata Bose to offer in the history department, an imminent historian, no doubt, but it seems limited for Harvard. There is a good relationship between Harvard and Tufts, where Ayesha Jalal has done an impressive job orienting advanced study in history toward South Asia. So a person with interests in revolutionary history, Indian ocean, and South Asian Islam would do well at Harvard/Tufts. Finally, Princeton is a curious place for South Asian history. Of course they have Gyan Prakash on faculty and his eclectic tastes would probably suit anyone's interests. Along with Prakash you have Bhavani Raman, an historian of early modern scribal cultures in India. So, Princeton offers breadth that Harvard/Tufts and Chicago don't seem to. On the other hand, Princeton, an awesome department, doesn't seem to have a strongly articulated institutional interest in South Asia, unlike all of the other schools mentioned. I can't give a numbered list; however, I think my preferences are somewhat clear.

Just received my rejection from NYU. This after my POI effectively offered me a spot in the program in person at prospectives' weekend.