chlobot

I just posted similar advice and so agree completely.

This may seem very basic, but I would highly recommend reading through a standard textbook for one's particular geographic area of interest just to become familiar with the big picture narrative. I think that one thing new grad students find shocking (I know I did) is that graduate professors do not teach a detailed narrative history of a particular subject (as you might find in and undergrad class). Generally, they will only introduce you to the most recent/relevant historiography and assume that you have a background that enables you to assess the literature in light of the larger narrative. Now, you can pick up much of what's going on from selected historiography, but it's much easier going in with a more complete understanding.

First off, congratulations on getting two great offers! It sounds to me like you felt OSU was the right choice from the beginning, but now you're having second thoughts because of a perceived prestige difference. While I do think that it's really important to work with a well-known mentor, for what it's worth, I also think that feeling comfortable where you'll be spending the next 5ish years of your life is important. Moreover, it would concern me a bit to commit to a program without having communicated with my potential mentor. I don't think his/her unresponsiveness bodes well. After all, working with a star in your field really only pays off if that person is interested in your academic development and is willing to go to bat for you when it comes to funding and, eventually, finding a job. Just my two cents...good luck with your decision!

Agreed. Read some trash while there's still time.

Just as an FYI, departmental structures differ from university to university. At Fordham, for example, there are associate professors as well as assistant professors. The two are not the same -- the former have permanent positions and are tenured, while the latter are not tenured.

I don't think that it will matter so much this early in the process. You'll probably want a little help choosing your courses, but it's not as if you're going to plunge into dissertation research right away. You may want to email professor X and ask whether working with professor Y would be a good idea in light of the fact that professor X will be unavailable. Professor X will almost certainly respond in the affirmative. That should eliminate any weirdness.

I completely agree that teaching experience is crucial when it's time to get a job, but most fellowship students TA at some point in their careers prior to putting themselves on the market. Fellowships usually just free students up for a few years, after which most students supplement their income by teaching. Graduate coursework is so much more demanding than undergraduate coursework that being freed from teaching in the first one or two years can make a big difference in a student's performance. Also, it gives the student time to pursue research interests and give conference papers, which in turn increases CV quality.

Your characterization of those who have financial aid packages but are waiting to see if more prestigious funding packages become available as seeking to "bleed" a school to the detriment of those waiting for funding misses the point. As StrangeLight said, many programs have different funding tiers. Some packages are more prestigious than others. It make perfect sense to wait for the best funding package possible. While one, because one already has funding, may not "need" additional funding economically speaking (and most of us understand that the price tags of various packages will not dramatically differ), certain fellowships are more valuable than others in non-monetary terms.

*fingers crossed*

I sure hope so....I have another fully funded offer and will need to accept or decline it by then.

I spoke to my potential advisor last week, and he told me that it could take a couple more weeks until financial aid packages are all sorted out. Apparently the financial aid is distributed on a rolling basis.

First of all, congrats on your achievement. You are in an enviable position. I totally agree with Sparky, and admit that I would feel differently about your dilemma if you had been accepted to Harvard's history M.A. program. I think it is reasonable to self-fund an M.A. from Harvard and then re-apply for the Ph.D. with an expectation of better admission results (although there is certainly risk involved in this approach). However, the fact that the M.A. is not a history M.A. makes the risk for you much greater. Definitely find out about this particular program's placement rate in history programs before you make your decision.

Agreed. Also keep in mind that, once you're in the program, you'll have a chance to get to know other professors better, and if their interests align with yours somewhat, they might be willing to work with you.

Oh well. I still think it's weird, though, that no one's posted anything.

Oh, good! I was going to try to call again but don't want to be a pest. I'd appreciate hearing what she says this time.

I'm also waiting for Georgetown. I called the history department a couple of days ago and the secretary advised that decisions had been made already and that if we hadn't heard anything yet, we had been rejected. As I posted in the GTown thread, though, the fact that not a single official acceptance/rejection has been logged on this board makes me skeptical. I'm hoping that she was just having a bad day.

I find that I don't mind it so much when the trolls are creative. Like the one who was accepted to the University of Zamunda, for example.

Right on.

Oh, okay, that's a totally different story then. If I was in your shoes I'd take the funded offer unless you're going to have the chance to do some research/writing in the intervening period to improve your application. If the environment and the fit are great, who cares whether it's not a top 10 program? None of us are getting jobs anyway

Totally agree. This is my second career (I'm an ex-lawyer), and I can't even explain how fantastic it is to get to do what you love on a daily basis, whether it's in a top 75 or a top 10 program. Screw the naysayers.

I would say it depends on whether you have been admitted to M.A. or PhD programs. If you can get a fully funded M.A. at a decent place, I would do it. I was in a similar situation last year, took my fully funded M.A. offer at a well-regarded, but certainly not Ivy institution, and am applying to PhD programs this year. I've had significantly better results this time around. I agree with many of the posters on this board who have noted that having an M.A. gives one a leg up in the admissions competition. First, by being in an M.A. program, you've shown your commitment to and ability to excel in a graduate program. With the economy the way it is, I think schools want students with a track record of commitment and success on the graduate level (which is very different from undergrad). Next, you can get additional letters of recommendation from folks who have graduate education experience. Moreover, you will have a better idea of how the system works, what you really want to do (I thought I did, but changed my mind completely during the course of my graduate studies), and most importantly, what the current state of your field is. This will inevitably translate into a more realistic and well-researched statement of purpose. Finally, you're cheaper -- your potential PhD school will be able to fund you for fewer years than those who are starting at the beginning. If you're talking about straight-up PhD programs, I certainly would not take an unfunded offer. Again, as many posters have noted, unfunded students are often edged out of the competition for prestigious fellowships/grants later on. Moreover, I think getting funding becomes more difficult with time, as schools want to fund stellar students in their entering classes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's increasingly a challenge. I would definitely think long and hard about turning down a fully funded PhD offer, though. Make sure you are being realistic about your application package if you would have to apply again without any additional academic experience to improve things. Many folks here with superb stats have been rejected by top programs, so there is certainly a risk that it will happen again. I don't know that your chances improve by casting only a slightly wider net without providing these schools with a better application package -- Columbia, Penn and Berkeley are also extremely competitive, after all. Best of luck making your decision!

Just spoke to the history department secretary (?) and was told that all decisions had been made and if we hadn't heard by now that we were rejected. I find this a little strange as, again, no one seems to have received a concrete acceptance or rejection yet. Not that I would be surprised if I was rejected, but I'm wondering if I wasn't just being brushed off.... Anyone else have any info?

I think that it's also important to remember that there are lots of jobs outside of the academy that PhDs can do -- I know a couple of people in my current program are pursuing public policy or archival positions, for example. At least for me, having worked for years in a profession that I found completely unfulfilling (law), I am just happy to be doing something that I love to do. Getting a tenure-track position after graduation would be icing on the cake.

Yes, that is a big question.

FYI: http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2010/01/28/harvard_endowment_leads_others_down/