borderlands

Just FYI the Jacob K. Javits fellowship was cut this year for 2012-2013 academic year. Ford Predoctoral Fellowship might be an option for some applicants. Also, even if the programs you are applying to offer full funding it is important that you apply for grants, fellowships etc. In the long run these help distinguish competitive applicants to other programs. Last thought, one might be able to negotiate or even (depending on the situation) combine fellowship funding along with program funding for a higher package.

I'm guessing that you are considering programs outside of Southern California? If so, then there a couple of other programs to consider: Vanderbilt University as a whole has a very strong Latin American history program, although, I'm not sure if they have a specialist in Argentina. Columbia University has Jose Moya who specializes in Argentine history. U of Connecticut will have Mark A. Healey who previously taught at UC Berkeley and recently wrote The Ruins of the New Argentina. There are, of course, other programs with strong Latin American history programs but few with Argentine specialist. UC Davis is also another option Charles Walker might be a person of interest. One serious concern, though, is the writing sample: whether you will be submitting something new or your previous thesis which focuses on a different field. It is not uncommon to have graduate students switching topics or even fields. Strong Ph.D. applicants tend to have previous experience in courses, writing in their area of interest and a strong writing sample. I would try to get in contact with professor's you are interested in working with and let them know your situation of switching areas. Your gpa seems to be of slight concern also, but you should still apply to PhD history programs along with MA programs. Some programs particularly like applicants with teaching experience.

As Henry Hudson suggested, there is no substantive money in academic writing for articles or books. There is some money in textbook publishing particularly if it's for a major publisher who's been contracted for California or Texas k-12 standards. I believe there might be more substantive money outside of an academic press e.g., Norton and Vintage. Some historians do publish with these presses but it is typically after tenure (having published at least one or two with peer-reviewed academic press) has been secured and with a broader much larger audience in mind. Alan Taylor has written a couple books for Vintage that are really good. It is rare to have an academic press best seller. Probably the most recent best-seller would be Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial published by W. W. Norton & Company.

1. Regarding standardized testing, as well as for inquiries/concerns about the GPA--you will be competing from the best of the best--thus it is a given that test scores and grades are high. Of course, not one single factor is a "make or break" but it's the whole package that seals the deal (that includes funding discresions as well). Personally, I would place a much greater emphasis on the quality of the writing sample, particularly for historians more than any of the two factors aforementioned. 2. I would question your statement that race, gender, and sexuality is "more popular" than labor, religion and political movements. To be sure, there has been and continues to grow an interest in these latter topics. Your question about faculty "fit" is an important concern but it varies from one graduate history program to another. At UC Berkeley applicants are admitted without having a direct advisor, the strongest applicants of each field is admitted, although faculty must show some interest in possibly working with you. At the U of Michigan there must be a faculty member who is interested in working with you and whom the selection committee agrees with for one to be admitted. More to the grain, it is important for one to draw connections in the statement of purpose between your writing sample and research interest to a couple of faculty members (preferably tenured) current research interests and projects. The clearer that you draw these lines, not just with one professor's work and interests but at least two or three, then the greater of a chance of you being admitted. 3. The last commentator gave a good answer. Best of luck!

I would not draw such a quick line between history and poli sci by methodological approach of qualitative or quantitative approach. I believe that one should "count if you can" with the research topic and should be done whenever possible. Historians use statistics when possible to support an argument whether it's census data, unemployment, labor ... etc. The archive can be used in interesting ways as well to note the number of court cases and litigation for x or y; make an argument that x or y was or was not prominent at such a studied time. I believe the large distinction has to do with poli sci's relevancy of the subject matter to today, theoretical models, and implications it has on the future. Historians are not so much concerned with the future (although we do care) and more conservatively most historians do not work with anything that has occurred in the last ten years. While we are concerned with the larger picture, at least for general/ introductory courses, the best historical work has to do with nuance and seeing history not so much for its outcome but for "the what if's" and the possibilities of a given situation without knowing the future. Of course, not all of us are going to agree on what the exact cut-offs make or do not make history; this is open to discussion and dialogue. There are some interesting works on this if you are interested e.g. Peter Novik's That Noble Dream, Collinwood's The Idea of History, and more recently, Kerwin Klein's History & Theory. Nationalism can be and is studied in history whether we think of it through Benedict Anderson's "imagined communities" or something that is real. The important thing is that you offer a solid writing sample in this topic--through a thesis under the supervision of a historian and that you contact faculty that might be interested in your research before you apply. Best of luck aspiringhistorian!

If you are considering Canada, I would look into Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. Particularly, Jennifer Spear who published Race, Sex, and Social Order in Early New Orleans, while it may not be the south east it definitely contains racial/ethnic, sex, and gender comparative history. Julianna Barr, at the University of Florida, is doing some really interesting SW Native American history, which might be of interest. There is also Ned Blackhawk at Yale both in the history and American Studies Ph.D. programs (although his focus is more on Native American history). I would also look into University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill as well as Vanderbilt University, particularly, Daniel Usner.

Recent article, "The Professor and the Pornographer," from the chronicle of higher education about tenure-track positions and alternatives, "My adviser, Alan Brink­ley, joked that I was proof that it was now easier to get a TV show than a tenure-track job." http://chronicle.com/article/The-Professorthe/127629/

First of all, not all History programs are under the division of the humanities some schools consider it under the social sciences e.g. UC Berkeley, U of Chicago, as well as others. While the humanities, overall, seem to be in decline with budget cuts, I believe, history as field is in a better position than newer programs such as American Studies, Ethnic Studies, Gender & Women Studies as well as languages. This is not to put these programs down but rather what we are seeing being cut at major public universities (like UC Berkeley through "operation excellence" and others) as well as at some private institutions. We cannot control the market for professorial jobs but we can take control over what we do. Publishing articles as well as presenting in conferences can make a huge difference in distinguishing scholars even if one does not come from a top ten program. Ultimately, one can underperform or outgrow at any graduate program. As well as going beyond one single subfield to mastering two fields and perhaps a comparative understanding as well. Promoting one's self as an international scholar presenting in conferences in Europe as well as Latin America and other places in multiple languages can take you and your scholarship beyond the United States. We may not be able to get rid of elitism but if you see yourself as a historian and do it at all costs hopefully you'll succeed.

Why rankings matter? I found this article this morning and I thought about our discussion: if and when rankings matter. This article, although five years old, is quite revealing of aspects of top ranking history programs. Simply food for thought. http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2005/0510/0510new2.cfm

I also just submitted my application for graduate housing. My first choice was a two bedroom but well see how it turns out. I'm planning to move in a month before the Autumn quarter begins. Is anyone planning to move out Hide Park during the summer?

That is wonderful news! Congrats!

If you want to take serious the offer from the U of Florida they absolutely need to provide you with an "official admittance" letter as well as an official funding letter. Do not make the mistake of accepting offers based on unofficial emails or over the phone! Thus contact U of Florida immediately via phone or email and tell them you will not consider their offer until you have these documents. The only way to know how TA and RA at A&M works is to ask the department on the availablity of these positions. Some programs directly place their graduate students in their department courses while others, if limited, ask the graduate student to find these on their own. Depending upon the school this can be a fairly easy process or a difficult one--contact current graduate students in the department to see how this has worked out for them. At this point, I believe, the Texas A&M is the most solid offer in your hands.

@sidiosquiere Congrats on making a decision! Unfortunately, rankings do matter however there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it and that is the reality. Some programs have greater strenghts in some areas than others but more importantly its about knowing where you will be most productive in what kind of program. Smaller graduate programs seem so much more committed to their graduate students than well established programs. Wish you nothing but the best! borderlands

I would send an email letting them know that you have accepted an offer elsewhere. You do not have to let them know where but sometimes they do ask, if they are unaware of where you have gotten accepted and/ or other schools you are considering. Thank them for their time and perhaps include reasons why you denied their offer, of course this is optional. I sent a personal email to each faculty I met up with and included "I hope that this decision does not curtail any possibility of future research or collaboration." Most will understand particularly when it comes to declining decisions based on structural issues such as funding and other resources.

As soon as I took a decision, I let the other graduate programs know where I was going. If you are not taking their offer serious then decline it!

Before you make that decision be sure to have a written copy of the funding offer. This is standard practice. Call them and say I cannot consider your offer because i don't have an official letter of funding from your program. Word of mouth and unofficial emails is not going to keep them from backing out or altering the offer once you have accepted! Best of luck!

@sidiosquiere First, you should not be upset at the fact that your potential advisor was not there for the recruitment day for the program. I was similarly unable to meet a few professors whom I was interested in working with because they were on paid leave doing research out of the country. The issue at hand seems, I believe, to be structure of the program (funding and resources) vs. "fit" (faculty support). These are questions that are difficult and I went with the former. I think it's best to have all the resources you need to successfully complete graduate study than having a professor or two who can advise you through your interests in whatever subfield of history they may be in. A graduate student needs strong and supportive faculty who will look out for you. However this relationship can be, and is, built once you are in the graduate program. Go with School B I personally went with the graduate program that offered me the most resources over particular fit-- but this is a decision only you can make; knowing how you work--under what conditions.

As "lyonessrampant" mentioned it largely depends on the graduate school program. When an applicant is placed on the waitlist they sometimes let them know that it's because of funding reasons, if all applicants admitted receive some kind of funding. Not all programs work this way-- an applicant can be admitted from the waitlist without any information about funding. It is best to always ask about the funding situation before declining other funding options. Most grad programs have another waitlist on funding.

I can say from personal experience that waiting until you are done with undergrad to apply is one of the best things I have done. My senior year I felt a lot of pressure to apply from academic programs I was in and from professors-- besides writing a year- long thesis and learning Portuguese-- it would have been a tremendous amount of work. Do not get me wrong, some folks apply during their senior year but most have at that point already done research for their thesis and GRE's out of the way (summer) before the academic year begins. At the end of the year, one can feel burnt out and also question whether one is going to grad school because "it's the thing to do" without understanding other opportunities that are open. Taking the time to consider my options as well as working for these last several months has made me realize that a history PhD is what I wanted to do. I no longer felt pressured to take a decision to go into a graduate program because that is what those who mentored me expected of me. This time in between has made me realize that I genuinely enjoy historical study. I recommend you take the time to apply and wait until you are done with undergrad.

In financial terms the English PhD is more viable than Public Policy PhD. If you can't wait any longer chose the English PhD or reapply to Public Policy PhD's for the next application process maybe funding options might change when applying to a wide variety of programs. Best of luck!

I was in a similar dilemma waitlisted at a top graduate program. I decided to no longer wait to make a decision. But it was slightly easier in my case, when I thought of it in simple terms: would getting accepted to this other program change my decision to attend this other top program? The answer was no so I withdrew my application from the waitlist in the program. If I were you, I would wait until April 14 then if this other program has not replied simply call them and ask what is your standing in the waitlist. If you do not get a response make the right choice and accept the best offer at hand. Also, if the program you are waiting on does not offer full funding to everyone that is another thing to consider. Best of luck!

Most Master's programs are unfortunately unfunded meaning that the applicant has to go into debt through loans. It's very hard to get funding for graduate programs if it is a terminal MA degree vs a Ph.D. program that offer M.Phil en route to the doctoral degree. I would not go into further debt. It is truly not worth it, if you think about it in financial terms like you mentioned, but if it's something you really want to do then reapply to MA programs that do have funding or at least partial tuition exceptions. Do your research into funded MA there are a few and reapply next year. If you think your application is strong enough for the PhD program along with your GPA and GRE then apply to these programs next year.

I withdrew my application at the U of Michigan from the waitlist. I just got tired of waiting and the whole process in of itself. I wanted to be done with, so accepted U of Chicago's offer and declined Davis' offer. No easy choice but I'm glad its done, and I can actually sleep at night, from always waking up restless or with anxiety throughout the day from application process and waiting. Good luck to all other applicants making a decision! This forum has been a great way of dealing with all this roller coaster of emotions.

I'm no Europeanist to begin with but I can give some advice to the question: what sort of topics are considered viable when I write my Statement of Purpose. Followed by the problem: this topic/ area has already been covered and/ or perhaps extensively written on. A good historical paper (e.g. a publishable paper) must cover the historiography of the subject/ topic/ area. The basic premise is simple: this is where other historians have gone; the problem with the previous work method/ scope/ new information e.g. archives (that was perhaps not available before); and this is where I'm going with this where no other historian has gone before. I gather from your historical background that you understand this. The problem is that this topic area has already been covered and you perhaps doubt the value of the scholarship you produced to that of other scholars and that is perfectly fine. We have all been there when one feels like we are making kindergarden arguments/claims. If it's a new topic area one does not worry too much about this except that other historians, as one does, finds this area possible and worthy of research. Most established topics/ areas have a historiography that one must cover and make one's own argument. I would work with the ideas/ claims that your research sample makes and incorporate them into your statement of purpose as well as state your other research interests. I would also read Peter Novicks, That Noble Dream: The "objectivity question" and the American Historical Profession.

I would think about doing a MA in journalism. There are some good programs that allow some academic emphasis with journalism--I would only look into these programs, the only problem is limited funding, but if its a risk you think is worth doing then do it. While a masters degree may be more marketable than a BA I would be worrisome to pursue a degree solely based on financial matters. To tell you the truth I do no think one would be in a better position with or without an MA in this current economic situation. Do what you think you would like best. You do not want to be a dreadful MA history student who could finds his financial/job opportunities to be the same as before completing undergrad. If you want an academic degree then take the full responsibility that comes with it. Which might mean living a less than financially/ job secure life. It's a risk that one takes to do what one really wants to do. Be happy with what you are doing no matter what happens!