Aubstopper

I think Chicago only takes 1-2 people per subfield, if that. The cohorts are very small at 1-3 people, but my friend who is currently attending via Islamic Studies said that they accept approx. 20 people. Her cycle they accepted 2 out of 45 applicants in that subfield which yields a 4% acceptance rate if you're just looking at competitiveness within that specific field. I'm sure other fields like philosophy of religion probably have more applicants. It consistently ranks as the top religion program in the country, which is why it is so picky.

I applied to Brandeis's NEJS PhD. Results usually aren't expected until the end of February. I'd do a search of the results section on here to see when the schools you've applied to generally respond back.

I do Modern Jewish Intellectual History, though I'm by no means a "pure historian." I'm interested in taking the retrospective and examining the political/philosophical implications of the present (more of a political philosopher). I am applying to one history program, but that's more so because there's a professor who does the same things as me who happens to be in a history department. A History PhD is probably more marketable but us humanities people obviously aren't in this for the money

There are plenty of people who are accepted to PhD programs without already having a Masters degree, and as you can see from this website, there are plenty of people with Masters degrees who don't get into PhD programs. I'm sure having a rec from a professor with a prestigious background helps, but it's more about what you can contribute to the university in terms of original research and your potential to succeed as a graduate student/beyond. Don't focus on the stats or the numbers, because they can be daunting, I know; just focus on creating the best application you can.

I've applied to Yale, but in the Religious Studies department (essentially because that department was a better fit than history). As it happens, I'm familiar with the admissions process for both religious studies and history -- I have a former colleague from my time at UofC who is now in the History department over there and I spoke to 4 professors, including the Religious Studies chair. The way it works is on professorial nomination. The professor or professors you proposed to work with nominate you for admission, then your application goes to an adcom and is ranked against other candidates. What seemed to be most important was language preparation, your writing sample (the book review for history as well), a clear SOP, and the recs. The MOST important thing they look for is candidate "fit." Then there's the whole thing about subfields within the department. At least for the Religious Studies program (and I know the history program has subfields, but I'm unsure if they do admissions exactly like this), the way admissions is set up makes for unsuccessful applicants who want to do cross-disciplinary work. They evaluate by subfield and want approximately 1-2 people from each subfield making it 10-12 total, or something like 22 total for history. The university requires interviews for all departments and those seem to be send out between nowish and early February.

I spoke to my POI via Skype about it during my inquiry stage. From what I understand, the college system is more for undergrads and at the grad level, your choice of college only is about where you'd like your social life to be (at this stage, it's more about the school accepting you than a college, which you can have them choose for you if you'd like). Other than the college system, it seems to be similar except Oxford accepts more international students and doesn't guarantee aid. As you can see from the Oriental Studies website, 30 spaces/143 applicants (averaged over 3 years) is an almost 21% acceptance rate compared to US prestigious programs which as you know have a 6%-10% acceptance rate. One of my peers from my MES program applied to PhD programs in History all over (something like 20+, which i don't know how people do) and was rejected from everywhere except Oxford, where she was not given aid. Lucky for her, her family is wealthy so it worked out. What aspect of admissions do you mean specifically?

It's safe to say, most NELC programs like it if you have your primary language of research (fluent, or close to), a secondary language of research (at least at intermediate), and reading knowledge of French and German (you get 2 years in program to gain proficiency before you matriculate to the PhD portion). Given that Oxford's Humanities DPhil programs require that you already have a Masters degree (which I see you're working on) and that the program is only 3-4 years long, you're expected to already have the resources to be able to do advanced research in your area of study. You don't submit a statement of purpose; you submit to them a research proposal. The specific language requirements depend on the research you propose... While preparing my application, I've found this page especially useful (click on the tab "Selection Criteria"): http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/dphil-oriental-studies I haven't applied YET, but I will once I get this Davis application out of the way (it has like 10 essays wtf). Oxford's Oriental Studies DPhil seems to have a much higher acceptance rate than other programs (something like 20%), but it's important to state that, especially if you are not an EU citizen, it's difficult to secure university funding. If you feel you're not ready to delve entirely into a research program and aren't okay with trying to secure external funding, then US universities are a much better option. I was told this even by my POI, who really does want me to attend, but felt that Oxford's funding situation looked a bit bleak in comparison to the funding situation in the US.

That is, most Islamic Studies subfields require beyond advanced level Arabic and I took Persian/Hebrew instead. My Arabic is only at the intermediate level at best.

Very cool! When I decided to attend HUJ, I did so in the middle of my undergrad career as UCLA didn't have a collaborative program with the university due to a State Department travel warning (it was right after the second Lebanon war and a few years after the bombing of the Frank Sinatra cafeteria near the Rothberg school); I had to "drop out" of UCLA then reapply a year and a half later. I took Morony's course on Early Islam back at my time at UCLA. As for Dr. Myers, I did well in his course and found his theses fascinating, but him and I had a bit of a personality clash. To me, he comes off a bit "above the people." I'm proposing to do a bit of work with Islam for my PhD as well (given my interest in Sabbateanism and my background in the Middle East). I contacted potential 'secondary' advisers though I spent more time taking Persian than Arabic in undergrad/grad school (because it's easier and Al Kitaab makes me want to slit my wrists). In regards to Harvard, I was planning on applying to work under Peter Gordon but out of all the POIs I sent out inquiry emails to, he was the only one who didn't get back to me. I figured it was not worth it and was told by my former professors that Harvard probably wasn't a good fit anyway. Oh well. Sounds like you're in a good place with UofC. James Robinson is a good guy. What specifically are you proposing to research? The only thing I can think of that requires Judeo-Arabic is something to do with Maimonides.

When I was there, we didn't have advising at the undergraduate level (other than the academic counselors assigned to us through the International Institute), unless, I think, you were writing an honors thesis (which I opted not to do, as I was preparing for MA apps). My time there was a bit disjointed, and the majority of my major courses were transferred through my time at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and credits from a community college. I did manage, however, in my final year to take Dr. Myers' "Jews from 1881 to Present" course, which actually was my first introduction to Jewish Intellectual History. When were you there? Who are you wanting to work with at UofC? I took the majority of my courses through the Divinity School, so I'm pretty familiar with most of the faculty (Paul Mendes-Flour was my adviser).

It does seem like the applicant pool has been shrinking (not just in religion programs, but other humanities forums were talking about it as well), but who knows...maybe people just decided to not post on GC. I'm applying to: Oxford (DPhil, Oriental Studies) UC Davis (PhD, History - Modern Jewish History) Yale (PhD, Religious Studies - Judaic Studies) Princeton (PhD, Religious Studies - Religion, Ethics, and Politics) Brandeis (PhD, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies) My area of interest is modern Jewish thought. I wrote my MA thesis on Sabbatean antinomianism, its version of Lurianic Kabbalah, and its effects on later European Jewish secularization movements a la Gershom Scholem. I'm hoping to take it a bit further and look at Jewish political messianism. I guess I'm optimistic, but I'm also trying to be real here. I have 6 languages more or less down; a grad degree; a unique background (I'm coming at the research in the way of Middle Eastern Studies); very good recs; a very good writing sample (my thesis); typical GPA for the programs; very good pre-application interviews with Oxford, Yale (2 with Yale!), and UC Davis; but a so-so GRE. The process is really unpredictable since we're dealing with subjectivity on the part of the adcom...and I've taken off 3 years from academia. Though then again, one of the professors at Yale told me that it's an attractive quality to work in the "real world." The "real world" is boring and I want to be back in school already. This waiting process is brutal.

Having a Masters does feed into my original point of a professor's/committee's evaluation of preparedness for graduate school. There might be a larger emphasis on GPA and GRE if one is coming straight from undergrad into a PhD program because there is less material to base one's evaluation on. Yale's admissions process for PhD is done through nomination by professor, then the committee evaluates it. In that sense, more weight is put on a potential adviser's opinion of you as a candidate. Not necessarily so at other universities I'm applying to. My GPA and GRE would be considered par for the course of the typical applicant to these sorts of programs, but in the end, when it comes to the humanities at the ivies, it is your research proposal, your recommendations (and the notoriety of the professors recommending you or whether the committee knows them), and language preparation. In every email I sent out, I asked what qualities constitute a successful applicant to your program and I received relatively the same response from everyone, which I'm relaying here. Language preparation especially seemed to be a large factor (I have 6 languages under my belt, most more or less relevant to my area of study). They love it if you already have proficiency in a main language (in your case, Biblical Hebrew, maybe Aramaic and Modern Hebrew) and knowledge of French and/or German---it means you can get straight into the meat of things rather than having to spend years of your PhD gaining language acquisition to do your dissertation. As someone who would obsessively compare myself to others on this site especially when I was applying to A.M. programs, I just wanted to stress that GRE/GPA may be some of the things but not everything. It's important to have confidence in oneself/experiences and let that bleed into your SOP. And to know that even if one is rejected, it's not necessarily because one bombed the writing section of the GRE or got a B- in Calculus one's freshman year, it could be that one's research and interests just didn't fit into the program---and if that is the case, you probably don't want to spend 3-7 years of your life in a place that won't make you happy. Which is why it's very important to write these programs and get a gist of it all so you don't waste money on an application that will probably be a 'no.' Good luck to you as well! I think that the fact that you're getting responses (even if it's not of the doing handstands variety) is an extremely positive point in your favor. I am friends with several professors and they tell me that when application season rolls around, they get hundreds of emails and ignore most of them (especially if they look like form letters). I'm sure you'll do just fine

I think a large problem that I've come across on this site (and others) has been an obsession with pointing out one's GPAs and GREs when, in reality, the process is so much more complicated than that (as MarXian) has stated). What I've learned from this go-around in the PhD process is that when it comes to the more elite institutions, what matters most is whether or not your research fits in with your potential adviser(s) and if, in general, you are a good fit to the program. The only way one can go about this is to just email around as much as you can; what's the point in spending money on an app where you know that the prof isn't that interested in your research? All the schools I'm applying to are schools who have shown an exceptional interest in my research and whom I've spoken to either on the phone or through Skype (at their insistence). Not one asked me what my GPA was or what my GRE scores were, because at this level, it is more about your potential to succeed in their program and your ability to represent said program well after graduation. Of course, the GRE/GPA does help in evaluating that, but a greater weight is placed on your research, what your previous professors have said about your abilities, who those professors are, your foreign language skills, and any other things that can be attributed to your potential success in their program. I'm speaking, of course, only about top, top tier institutions that are inundated with hundreds and hundreds of applications every cycle. Those of you lurkers out there who are put off by people posting their GPAs and GREs: don't compare yourself to them. Think about what makes you unique as an applicant and what you can bring to that university that no one else can. Try to stand out among the herd. It's important to understand that there is no exact formula for a successful PhD application. Rock it.

rlattin, I too was in your place last year...I'm currently in UChicago's MA in Middle Eastern Studies. I agree with KieBelle's list of top MA programs. She forgot, however, John Hopkins SAIS which also has a Middle Eastern Studies concentration (and is amongst the top), and George Washington's M.E. Studies MA. If you're looking for purely political science and something that will prepare you for govt career, i'd suggest one of the DC schools for the obvious reason that you'll be given more opportunities for internships, etc. If you're looking for a good history, religion and language background then Harvard, UChicago, or UMichigan...though UChicago CMES does have a duel program with the Harris School for ME Studies/Public Policy MAs. Oh and UChicago is pretty good with funding also, if that's a factor in your decision. (they gave me a half tuition scholarship and i will probably get a full scholarship the following year). If you need any help or pointers just IM me :-)

yes. some universities are not even accepting anyone (i recall hearing about UC Santa Cruz Philosophy..amongst others).

you're still lucky. my best friend had an almost perfect GRE, a 1560 (perfect verbal) 5.5W, and did not get into not one of the 7 universities she applied to.

I actually did have a somewhat crappy GRE score (comparably): 1100 with a 4.5W I got into half of the programs I applied to-- 2 of them with scholarships. BUT, I have a good GPA from a top 20 uni, research experience, have lived and worked abroad, speak 6 languages (at varying degrees of fluency), and my research will be credited in a book that is coming out in a year. however, i figure that I need to retake it and study a little bit when i start to apply to PhD programs.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: UCLA Major(s)/Minor(s): Middle Eastern and North African Studies with a minor in Hebrew Undergrad GPA: total GPA is a 3.65 and major GPA is 3.68 Type of Grad: n/a Grad GPA: n/a GRE: bad Any Special Courses: was in M.E. studies honors program abroad and took classes with former israeli politicians/diplomats Letters of Recommendation: a) Farsi Professor Religion/Philosophy professor c) Israeli ambassador that i did research under. Research Experience: was a research intern at the Harry S Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace in Jerusalem studying Iran's influence in Africa. Research will be published in a book. Teaching Experience: I was a tutor in 9 subjects, a Student Instructor at a local community college in Biological Anthropology, tutored Palestinians in Ramallah and Darfur refugees in Jerusalem, etc Subfield/Research Interests: the Levant and Iran. SOP: it was pretty kickass Other: Lived abroad in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, Israel. I have studied Hebrew, French, Farsi, Arabic, and Swedish and am at varying levels of fluency in each. RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): University of Chicago (Middle Eastern Studies with scholarship), University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Modern Middle Eastern and N African Studies), Boston University (International Relations and Religion) Waitlists: n/a Rejections: SAIS (Strategic Studies), GWU (Security Policy Studies), Georgetown (Security Studies) Pending: King's College London (Terrorism, Security and Society) Going to: University of Chicago (MA Middle East Studies) What would you have done differently? bring my GRE score up. I didn't really study because i didn't have time with school and everything. I decided at the last minute to apply to grad schools...so there wasn't much preparation there. It didn't really matter in the end, but i'm thinking about getting my doctorate and for sure i'll need to bring that score up! Oh and i wouldn't have bothered to apply to SAIS and GWU because as it turns out, i loathe economics anyway.

I just rejected my MA offer from UMichigan.

i think that georgetown would be best for policy, and Harvard would be best for history. If i were if you shoes opting for Phd in the future (which i am ) i would be hesitant to choose Georgetown's Arab studies program only because it is extremely specific to only one people of the middle east--and though the arabs have indeed shaped the history and culture of the area, unless you plan on studying for your phD exclusively arab culture, i'd suggest go for a degree that is more broad (ie includes turks, israelis, afghanis, persians, etc) since it is less limiting and provides a stronger overall foundation on the middle east. I'd suggest that you look into the PhD programs that you're interested in and try to figure out what they are looking for....hell, you could even email the faculty themselves.

it depends...what are you interested in specfically? for arabic language, i'm positive that georgetown has a very strong program..since all of my arabic books were published through Georgetown (and al-kitaab is kind of the standard now).

who cares? it's part of THEIR preference--it might not be part of yours or someone else's but people have different factors that are important to them in deciding where to go. As for diversity, political views are just one aspect of it. I happen to agree with the OP, since i have hit problems in my research due to conflicting political points of view...and in some of my classes i have had to amend some of my work for certain professors so to align with their pov (because it was common knowledge that he marks people down if they don't have his pov); however, I can see where you're coming from....though i still believe that it depends on the individual AND one's particular field of study.

regardless... some like to fight the good fight against their opposers, some like to be in an environment in which they have all different povs floating around, and some like for their advisors to share their politics...and these preferences are subjective to each individual graduate student. Who cares if someone wants their povs to mesh and who cares if someone enjoys being in opposition? It's all about personal fit to a particular program...for some politics factor in more than others...it doesn't make one person less open-minded or their research flawed--it's a PERSONAL PREFERENCE! who cares?!? none of you can judge the other on this subject any more than one can judge someone who prefers a school with a warmer climate...you don't see people jumping all over that person for being 'weather-biased' or for skipping out on all the great schools in freezing weather!

when it comes to the elliott school, they said that decisions would be online on the 20th...i'm not sure about georgetown but i don't think that many people have heard from their MA programs either. I myself am still waiting on both.

i study middle east studies, and i have to say that the political views of the faculty and student body have actually influenced my decisions in both my undergrad and grad school careers. I have attended schools/classes in which my views meshed and others where they didn't, and though I do believe that it depends on the particular person's motives for their beliefs, for the most part, i'd rather have a 'fit' in this regard; i have gotten along perfectly with people who have the exact opposite views as me and i respect them for it, but there are some situations in which a person's beliefs on certain issues are more emotionally or religiously charged rather than academically so. I have just felt more comfortable when doing my research when i don't have to worry about extreme partisanship...i understand that my area is controversial and that's why ive studied it, but i have to admit, the politics of it all (within america/europe) tends to annoy me sometimes.