KM3

I wish people wouldn't pass judgement on other people's decisions, somehow implying that they have their priorities out of line by choosing to embark on training that will not only better their own future prospects, but those of their families as well. There are a lot of factors that go into making these decisions and they aren't made lightly or without much deliberation. They aren't "no brainers." I believe each person does what is best for themselves and their families, even if the decision itself can be agonizing to make. There are far too many variable and personal factors for anyone to devalue a person's decision to work towards a higher degree even if it means temporary separation.

No matter who I have talked to, anyone who is not single has had to compromise or make sacrifices to earn a higher degree with a family or partner. My dissertation topic is fairly specialized and I only applied to a handful of programs, the closest of which are six hours from where I live now with my partner. Believe me, I am not looking forward to being apart for a year until she can move with me, but I understand it is the best for me to work forward on my phD and for her to plan her next career move/education move so we can build the future we want together.

I am deeply sympathetic to anyone in that position. As so many have said, it's not about ending the relationship but a temporary separation. While not desirable, it's certainly doable.

OP, I know it seems tough, but think about this long term. What is the best for your financial future together (I would say higher degree) and what about your emotional happiness? Your career has a lot to do with that. No one can tell you what is best, but if this is something you really want to do, I think your spouse should support it and help you figure out a way that it works for you both.

I wish people wouldn't pass judgement on other people's decisions, somehow implying that they have their priorities out of line by choosing to embark on training that will not only better their own future prospects, but those of their families as well. There are a lot of factors that go into making these decisions and they aren't made lightly or without much deliberation. They aren't "no brainers." I believe each person does what is best for themselves and their families, even if the decision itself can be agonizing to make. There are far too many variable and personal factors for anyone to devalue a person's decision to work towards a higher degree even if it means temporary separation.

No matter who I have talked to, anyone who is not single has had to compromise or make sacrifices to earn a higher degree with a family or partner. My dissertation topic is fairly specialized and I only applied to a handful of programs, the closest of which are six hours from where I live now with my partner. Believe me, I am not looking forward to being apart for a year until she can move with me, but I understand it is the best for me to work forward on my phD and for her to plan her next career move/education move so we can build the future we want together.

I am deeply sympathetic to anyone in that position. As so many have said, it's not about ending the relationship but a temporary separation. While not desirable, it's certainly doable.

OP, I know it seems tough, but think about this long term. What is the best for your financial future together (I would say higher degree) and what about your emotional happiness? Your career has a lot to do with that. No one can tell you what is best, but if this is something you really want to do, I think your spouse should support it and help you figure out a way that it works for you both.

I wish people wouldn't pass judgement on other people's decisions, somehow implying that they have their priorities out of line by choosing to embark on training that will not only better their own future prospects, but those of their families as well. There are a lot of factors that go into making these decisions and they aren't made lightly or without much deliberation. They aren't "no brainers." I believe each person does what is best for themselves and their families, even if the decision itself can be agonizing to make. There are far too many variable and personal factors for anyone to devalue a person's decision to work towards a higher degree even if it means temporary separation.

No matter who I have talked to, anyone who is not single has had to compromise or make sacrifices to earn a higher degree with a family or partner. My dissertation topic is fairly specialized and I only applied to a handful of programs, the closest of which are six hours from where I live now with my partner. Believe me, I am not looking forward to being apart for a year until she can move with me, but I understand it is the best for me to work forward on my phD and for her to plan her next career move/education move so we can build the future we want together.

I am deeply sympathetic to anyone in that position. As so many have said, it's not about ending the relationship but a temporary separation. While not desirable, it's certainly doable.

OP, I know it seems tough, but think about this long term. What is the best for your financial future together (I would say higher degree) and what about your emotional happiness? Your career has a lot to do with that. No one can tell you what is best, but if this is something you really want to do, I think your spouse should support it and help you figure out a way that it works for you both.

I've had the same Dell laptop for 4.5 years. I've seen people railing against Dell repeatedly and I'm left a bit confused. As far as I can tell, I pretty much got the best value for the $600 I spent on it at the time. Often, the criticism is "runs slowly", but that's not even a hardware issue. I'm not saying that one should only consider them, but I think Dell's getting more flak than they deserve. Also, looking at the actual components they're pretty much the same across the board and one could easily figure out what the brand markup is for every brand. The only thing that really changes is the case.

Dell's are terrible computers. Really cheap anywhere they don't expect people to look, and overall just shoddy.

I have an old thinkpad that's served me well and is really robust, but I've had occasional problems and the quality has dropped quite a bit from what it used to be before Lenovo.

The best engineered laptops on the market now are macbooks. You pay a premium, but I'd say it's worth it, and it's what I'm going to be getting next. If you really need windows, your school probably has a license for you for free, and you can dual boot.

Really? Exactly what good would it do you Septimius if you found out tomorrow rather than on April 16th that you were in? I have no intention of replying until the last possible minute and I don't feel even remotely bad about it. I feel completely differently about getting a PhD now that I have been accepted than I did when I was applying, and I will be absolutely certain before I accept any offers that have been made that this is in fact the direction I want my life to go. Take a deep breath, think about something else for a few weeks, and for god's sake, quit using all caps to emphasize your point.

I think I have to agree with papercuts. These brilliant strawman applicants with great funding packages from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, who are sitting on the lot and trying to extract more dough for the sheer evil joy of it--if they exist at all--almost certainly don't read these boards, which are after all full of friendly commiseration, stories of funding crisis, and sympathetic tales from the waitlist. The effect of the OP seems rather to have been to offer the undecideds--probably still a majority at this point!--who are already losing plenty of sleep over what may be their most important life decision for the next five or ten years, an extra helping of guilt over their terrible selfishness.

I'd be willing to bet that most people on this forum who have more than one offer they're still considering could give you reasons just as convincing as the folks who've already been 'excused' in this thread. But blanket castigation followed by piecemeal exemption still spreads a lot of hurt feelings about. I understand the feelings behind this thread (adding to my own slow decision-making is the fact that I'm waitlisted at my hometown school), but it left a very sour taste.

In this case, I am in fact referring to a very large PhD granting program. UCLA history claims to be the largest department in the country, and this is likely where I will be attending, so it is important to me that I have a realistic assessment of what will happen during my degree progress.

As I said I will likely be attending UCLA, let me explain explicitly why I have yet to accept that offer or decline my other. UCLA is probably academically the best fit that I could hope for in any school, however I am only being offered tuition remission through a readership for the first year and a TAship for the second and third year. Everything else is up in the air. My other admit is utterly and completely unfunded. While the choice does seem stupidly obvious, it really isn't. I have been told by my unfunded admit that I may very well end up with a financial offer in the coming weeks. Because I have a family, I have to be exceedingly circumspect about what sort of commitment I am making here.

As for the idea that entering with a better funding package leads to even better funding possibilities down the line, this is something that was strongly impressed upon me in the History 2010 thread when I posted my acceptance to UCLA. I don't really care to dig it up at the moment, but the date of the post should be around Feb. 18th if you care to search out the replies to which I am referring to. I then took the ideas expressed in that thread to my advisors, who agreed that there certainly can be such issues in departments where funding is drastically different from one student to the next.

My point in sharing this, and posting my previous replies, is an attempt to show how the process just isn't as simple as the OP made it out to be. Just because one school looks like the clear choice right now, does not mean that will be the same case next week or even later today for all I know. While I really wish I could move on from my other admit and make way for someone wait listed there, it just isn't that easy. I suppose I am different because I have a family, and therefore must place a greater importance on funding packages than I would like, but it should go to show that not every case of "accept this offer, deny that one" is so cut and dry, and this, I assume, is why people such as myself will likely be waiting until April before making our final decisions. I know it must really suck to be on the other side of fence here, but there are reasons as to why people have yet to show their hands, and they aren't always vapid or greedy.

You severly misunderstand. The idea of holding out for more funding is to get in a position to receive grants, research assistantships, dissertation fellowships, travel grants, ect as the degree progresses. My concern in this respect is not that I have a better apartment but that I have a fuller C.V. full of the research opportunities afforded to me by having been in a better funding tier during my graduate studies. Personally, none of my offers are oozing with money, so it behooves me and my family to wait and see if something better turns up, which is a significant possibility according to one of the adcom members.

Your reply reeks of arrogance and irritation. While I disagree with the notion of posting a thread like this, I at least made an attempt at civility when I replied.

Yes, my intention is that those people who already know where they do not want to go, but were accepted, to let them know. Although to sit on offer "until the last minute" as you put it, in order to extort more money from a program by holding your decision hostage is quite juvenile. The adcomm here at UPenn has on numerous occasions said how frustrating it is when applicants wait until even April to notify them, the understanding is that they notified accepted prospectives in mid-to-late January, it is professional courtesy to likewise be reasonably punctual in replying.

Also, as far as how ones future CV is concerned, to think that a difference of a few thousand dollars a year of a stipend given to you during your graduate program has any significant bearing on your marketability is ridiculous. What is important is where the degree is from, what published works one has, the quality of your dissertation, what those on your dissertation committee have to say about your potential, your prior teaching experience, your current research interests and pending publishing rights, what international fellowships and research one has achieved, and your fit for the department at hand. To assume that any school would say: "wow, applicant A received $17,500 a year as a stipend from Stanford, and applicant B received $18,500 a year as a stipend from Duke. Let's give the tenure-track position to the guy that was offered a grand more, because that means he's better." C'mon. Really think about what your saying here. To think that an institution would even take this into consideration is like saying that when your shopping for a new car you choose to buy the Volvo over the Audi because the Volvo has a bigger ashtray. While that might matter slightly to a heavy smoker, it is just silly to think that it should be considered important. There are 50 more important things that matter to an institution when reviewing job applications than who received more in funding, especially when it varies from year-to-year and region-to-region and even school-to-school in the same region on the same year!


To hold out on notifying a school for the sake of trying to bleed more from them, especially in a year when you are damn lucky to have gotten into anywhere, is unbelievably infantile and predatory. If this is how any of you choose to make any of your life decisions than maybe you should turn down all your offers, and instead go to Haiti and sell cans of Campbell's soup for $8.00 a can to the newly homeless and destitute.

While I completely empathize with you, I think it is a bit too much to ask other people to hasten their decisions for any reason. Even though people may have received their acceptances already, that does not necessarily imply that they have also received their funding packages, or that they are even ready to make a decision having received full funding at all of their admits. My current advisor told me to not make any decisions until pretty much the last minute, particularly as I am hoping for a boost in funding for one of my admits. The last thing I want to do at this point is make a rash decision that will affect my entire career trajectory, only to find that my other choice was about to considerably up my funding (which would likely have a huge impact on my future C.V.).

Moreover, consider that the choice is more than simply academic for most people, and it is not always an easy decision to make. The situation is conceivably more complex for any given person than you can know from the perspective of an internet forum, and too multi-faceted to assume that people faced with multiple choices are any less anxious or nervous than you are.

I think it's a good idea to contact faculty at programs you are interested in with the advice noted above. In my case, I had contact with by email with people at all institutions to which I applied and phone interviews with faculty at two of the programs. Those two are the ones that accepted me. I was able to gauge the "fit" factor with several of the people I talked with and, in one case, the POI was extremely helpful during my application process with suggestions and queries on my behalf.

It's hard to gauge the importance of any one factor in the application process because it is such a chancy endeavor. In my case, I found contact with faculty to be extremely helpful.

I just want to put in a plug for emailing potential advisors during the application process. A couple of people have advised against it, noting - quite rightly - that it's entirely possible to get into top programs without contacting a single professors. But my view (and the view of my undergrad advisors) was that it can't hurt to put yourself out there. Honestly, I don't know why you wouldn't email potential advisors. In my opinion, it was a great barometer. If they send you back a genuine response - excellent. You might be fortunate enough to start up a real dialogue with them - thus, sticking yourself firmly in their mind. If you get something non-commital, then no harm was done. After all - as has been mentioned - they are busy people. If you get nothing at all, well then they probably aren't the best advisors anyway. If they can't make time for an email, will they really make time for you long term?

You'll also find on these boards posts that provide a type of standard template for emailing a potential advisor. This can seem helpful at first because - as has also been noted - it feels slightly awkward emailing strangers. This template usually amounts to "Dear Professor ___, My name is ____ and I graduated from X University. I wrote my thesis on X and have a broad interest in X in which I know that you have a specific expertise. I am wondering if you are taking on students for the next academic year, etc etc." I would caution against sending this type of form email, as it just comes off as trite. If I had to read 20 of those within a short span of a few months, I would probably send a non-commital response too. By all means, be brief - but be detailed. Make sure your emails contain some substance. Try to actually read some of the professors work before you blindly email them so that you can demonstrate why they should care about your work and why you would be a good fit in their program.


I emailed at least one professor at all of my seven schools. I received encouraging, upbeat, and helpful replies from six of the seven. The most accommodating contacts were actually at top programs. Two were staggeringly helpful. They provided tips on the application process and gave me advice on other potential programs where my interests would be well-served. And these folks are famous and well-respected within my field. In the end, making contact early was extremely successful for me, and I would fully recommend doing it - but only if you do it right.

The math section is horrible if you're not a math person, but with a little studying/reviewing I think you should be able to break 500 (I SUCK at math and even I got a 530).

Yeah, I wouldn't worry so much about the Quant. It's by far one of the last things anyone will look at on your application, and even a 'good score' isn't really that great percentage wise. I got a 730, which placed me just outside the top fifth. It still comes after LORs, SOP, transcript, writing sample, GRE Verbal, GRE Writing.

While departments may downplay the importance of the Quant section, I'm pretty sure if you score a 300 they will think (correctly, IMO) that you have no business becoming an academic. At least get into the 500s if you don't want departments to cringe when they see your scores. Seriously, the percentile rank on a 300 has got to be less than 10th.

I'm assuming this is a response to my post. I did plenty of research before applying, and only applied to schools where I felt I would be a great fit. Every school I applied to is a top program in my field with excellent professors working in my specific area of interest and in locations I found liveable. I had one clear-cut top choice (I was rejected) but other than that, I didn't spend too much time "ranking" my choices -- I didn't see any reason to debate whether I'd rather attend Princeton, Yale, or NYU since there was a good chance I could be rejected by all of them. I knew I'd be happy at any one of the schools I applied to, but they were all very different programs with various pros/cons, and once I knew what my options were, I started comparing them specifically. Considering I'm still waiting to hear back about funding at one program, I don't see any reason why I should make a decision before feeling like I have all the information I need (and, by the way, I notified the programs that I'm no longer considering.) Just because you managed to visit schools across America and made your decision months ago doesn't have any bearing on my decision, or anyone else's. I don't need an "excuse" -- we're obligated to notify programs by April 15th, not before, and I don't feel remotely apologetic about taking the time I was allotted so that I can walk into a program in September feeling like it was the absolute right choice.

And yes, I do work full time, which meant that I didn't have time to do extensive visits at all the schools I applied to. Once I found out where I was accepted, I was able to do longer visits, hang around campus, attend some lectures/public events, get a feel for the program and the university. I certainly had no intention of making a decision based on a brief campus tour back in October. I'd guess that most "thoughtful" individuals actually take the time to "think" about their options before "pulling the trigger."

It's hard to do enough advance research to know whether you will fit in socially with the people in a department. That's one of the reasons people go on visits. And, you can do tons of research on programs and potential advisers but not know, until visiting, that one or the other of them is a better fit for what you personally want in an adviser. Email and phone calls are not always enough, and it doesn't mean that someone hasn't done enough research before applying.

I think the waitlists are being drawn out longer this year with fewer overall admits going around, so many folks have offers but are waiting for programs they prefer to admit them off the waitlist. Wouldn't be surprised to see the active acceptance period stretch well into May (which is pretty unusual in my field).

As for the poster with two offers who had to do research and visit the programs, are you KIDDING me? Do your homework before you apply! How do you even know you "fit" with the program? Or quit being a nervous nelly and pull the trigger already! Last year I applied to 12 programs and I knew good and well the various funding levels at each program and which I would prefer. I would venture to say most thoughtful individuals do the same.

As someone who is still staring at 2 offer letters trying to sort out which one to accept, the answer is yes. I'm not doing it to be cruel to those on the waitlist (I'm guessing the same goes for all of the other people who are still deciding at the last minute) but it's a big decision, and since I didn't get into my absolute top choice, I want to make sure that I've fully weighed the options. Remember, many programs only notified accepted applicants in mid-March -- I got my last decision about a month ago, during which time I had to find a time to visit schools, research the programs, weigh the pros/cons of each program, etc. This all takes time. 4 weeks blows by pretty quickly, especially when you're trying to make a huge life-altering choice like where to spend the next 5-7 years. Also, crucially, many programs don't make funding decisions until April, which means that applicants are waiting until the last minute to see whether or not they're going to be able to even afford to go to a program.

Don't miss out on Swensons either. Best. Fast. Food. Ever.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

For my part, I think the very nature of post-modernism-- its hyper-relativity and subjectivity-- runs contrary to any sort of united ideology that can die, per se. On the other hand, I see elements of post-modernist thinking as very useful to the historian.

What I expect, and hope for, is a move away from the hysterics and polemics that arose from the post-modern challenge. Post-modernist theory doesn't threaten to be the "death of History" or anything of the sort-- any more than Quantitative, "Scientific", Feminist, Social, Cultural, Anthropological or Linguistic theories have. It does, I think-- as all of the turns to other theoretical approaches-- present a challenge to how we understand the past, and how we disseminate that understanding, and bring to the fore underlying questions of why we do history, both as individuals and collectively.

What will almost certainly be the case, I think, is that whatever the intentions may have been, particularly extreme post-modernist thinkers -- their methodologies, and the sorts of problems they raise about the project of History will be useful to add nuance to the models that historians use. In short, I see post-modernist theories to be, ultimately, just more tools in the analytic tool-shed.

As for the future of history, I see the death of postmodernism. I think those of us trained to speak in post modern terms will finally be able to address it and kill it.

queer history is already pretty big, i think sociology probably does more now. to expand i think there needs to be another Gay new york written, but for women or lesbians. so much of the work done has been male centered - Foucault, Chauncey, and for reference matt houlbrooks book -Queer London.
as an amercianist id love to see more studies on the 80's, but im not sure where to turn, since Los Angeles is my city of interest. if the 80's havent been touched i would doubt people would be even eager to touch the 90s. i wonder if there is work to be done on riot grrrr.