StrangeLight

i'm working on the third draft of my thesis now. i think most professors would have been fine with version two, but my advisor is very exacting and a little bit of a control freak. i don't mind, because ultimately it makes my work stronger, but i wish i had more time in a given day to work on it. i'll defend the thesis some time at the end of february or very beginning of march and then just work on cutting it down for publication. i'm not too concerned about the defense itself because, like rsidonk said, any advisor worth his or her salt won't let you sit the defense unless your MA will pass. i also don't get too defensive about criticism of my work because i figure that all of it is designed (hopefully) to make the work better.

hah! i know. i'll take any job i am lucky enough to be offered. my snark was for the OP. i guess i needed to add a smiley to convey that.

chauncey's been working on the sequel since gay new york came out. i'd love it if he finished it, but i'll believe it when i see it.

alright, seriously. who is telling you guys that hiring committees aren't made up of people within your subfield? i go to a pretty small grad program (a massive school with a small-ish department and cohort). we're hiring 3 new faculty members. for the latin american search committee, we've got one heavyweight latin americanist, a latin americanist senior grad student, and two professors whose secondary fields are latin american (one does transnational US-caribbean-central america and the other does africa/african diaspora). two are well-versed in the field and two are largely up to date with the major works and trends of the field. for our german/eastern european search, everyone on the committee is a central/eastern europeanist. for our east asia search, again, two primary east asianists and two others whose secondary fields demand a familiarity with east asian history. they're gonna know your field. i promise. and even if the committees aren't stacked with specialists, they're going to consult the specialists they know to find out which programs and advisors are really the cream of the crop. from my (admittedly minimal) first-hand and second-hand experience, the only hirings where "ivy league" trumps all is at the community college level. and i imagine the OP isn't looking for a career at a community college.

how about this? don't talk to your husband about work. ever. if you and he were in totally different fields, or one of you wasn't in grad school, then i guess it can be okay to talk about with some frequency, but when you do the same work, or work together, DO NOT bring the shop talk home. leave the time you have together to the discussion of all the other many parts of your lives. don't monitor what work he is doing versus what work he should be doing. that's his decision. except for the raising of your child. make him do more of that (although i sense you exaggerated how little time he spends with your child, but if not, really... make him spend more time with the kid). if you need to say you have an interview or won a fellowship, then say it plainly and don't take it personally when he doesn't jump up and down about it. if those sorts of things were important to him, he'd be applying for every fellowship or award he could as well. is this all a recent change in his behaviour? was he once a type-A go-getter than got ahead on every project and seized every opportunity that presented itself to him? or has he always behaved like this, and over time, it's really getting to you? if the former, then ask him what's wrong, what has changed, discuss the alteration in his behaviour. if the latter, understand that this is simply the way he is and you're trying to change him, directly or indirectly.

yeah, not to pile on too much, but you're asking all the wrong questions. first of all, no one will "know" your work when you're a newly minted PhD. no one. even if you've published two articles, a chapter in a volume, and presented at 5 or 6 conferences (and this is a pretty high output for most grad students). so you won't be known, never mind potentially famous. what will set you apart when you apply for a tenure-track job at the satellite campus of a public university in the center of the country six hours from a major city is your research and your letters of recommendation. those letters should hopefully come from well-known professors inside and outside your field. if your program has superstars, then their letters will carry weight regardless of what school you went to. if your letters are from unknown professors but you went to an ivy league school, that won't get you as far.

holy eff. i'm on the third draft of my thesis and thought i was behind.

you poor kids. let me offer a bit of advice from last year. if and when you get into wisconsin in a few weeks, don't go puffing your chest out about all the other admissions offers you're going to receive. wisconsin admits early and, often, without guaranteed funding. they give more acceptances than they expect to yield because they figure many students will take funded offers elsewhere if they get 'em. i'm not saying it's easy to get into wisconsin: it isn't. but they're a special case and don't get ahead of yourself counting your admissions before the big envelopes arrive in the mail. put the adult block protection thing on this site for a month or two. whatever you need to do to stop from clicking refresh once the first news rolls in. you'll thank me later.

it doesn't really work like that. many people get into top 10 programs and rejected from smaller ones. you can't really leverage the acceptance of one school to get admissions to other schools. you might be able to squeeze them for a stronger funding package, but even then fellowships are usually determined long before you receive an offer of admission (some schools vary). schools will butter you up and court you if you're entertaining other offers, but that'll rarely result in increased financing. indiana doesn't care one little bit if you got into harvard or not. and, frankly, the only way to get into these places is to tailor your SOP and your proposed thesis project to the strengths of each individual program. pick one potential advisor and make it clear that their interests and strengths align with your proposed work. pull in a handful of other professors from the department whose thematic or regional foci overlap with your proposed project. on paper, we all have 3.8 GPAs and 650-700 V GRE scores and one or two foreign languages under our belts. we look the same. what makes you stand out is that your interests are perfect for a given program. which means you 1) need to figure out what your interests are, and 2) need to find programs that are really strong matches for those interests.

all fair points. i will say, though, that search committees most definitely have people who specialize in that field on them, unless the program is so small that they're looking to hire the first faculty member in a given subfield. between last year and this year, my grad program has conducted 5 job searches for new faculty (not to replace retiring faculty, just to expand the department) and in every case, of the 5 committee members, at least 2 are from that particular subfield and the others defer to those two on their recommendations of which programs are or are not strong. so, absolutely, unless you're applying to a tiny college, your search committee will have a few members in your area of expertise and they will be familiar with your advisor, your LOR writers, and the quality of your graduate program. more than the "top 10" OR national recognition, your job prospects depend directly upon the reputation of your advisor and that person's networks and contacts at other schools. the big name professor is not always at the big name school, and occasionally for certain subfields you'll look at the top 10 schools and realize that few of them employ the established heavyweight OR the up-and-coming superstar in your field. being X's student is more important than getting your degree from school Y. promise. and if you're a few years into teaching and you've already published, the reception of your work counts more than the rest. now, granted, a prestigious university might help you get published with a top publisher, but a big-name advisor would probably help more. also, one of the reasons princeton might not have funding or designation as an NRC for east asian studies is because their faculty is too specialized within east asia or there's a gap. my own school lost their VI funding for western europe last year because they didn't have someone who covered medieval mediterranean history or literature or art/architecture. so universities that really focus their hires, across the departments, on particular eras, will be less likely to secure the designation. as for geographical proximity to other centers, that's why many schools enter into consortium. there's a level of prestige that goes along with NRC designation or FLAS fellowships for graduate students.

ummm... all i did was list every school that has been made a national resource center by the US department of education. i didn't compile the list myself. these are the schools (the ONLY schools, not just my selection or anything) that are funded by the US government as designated national resource centers. portland state is on the list because they have title VI designation with the department of education. i didn't choose to include it, i included every school that has an NRC designation. every three years, virtually every school submits an application to the department of education to receive this designation. these are the places that currently hold NRCs for each subregion. does that not make sense? my point about the job market is this: people who are already in academia know which programs are strong in which historical areas. those strong programs rarely coincide with the non-academia "rankings" of "top 10" schools. princeton, for example, is highly ranked by US news and world rankings in many subfields but they only hold title VI funding for middle eastern history, meaning that their efforts to acquire this designation in other subfields failed to all the other schools listed. get it? who does or does not get title VI funding is a better indication of which programs are actually RECOGNIZED, CURRENTLY, as being the best of that particular focus, within academia. and it's other academics that ultimately hire you, so coming from a program THEY recognize to be strong (rather than one that sounds good to non-academics) is what ultimately matters. my point isn't that we should look for fit instead of top 10 schools. it's that "top 10 school" is meaningless because those rankings are based on nothing, and a stronger indication, a better ranking system, would be to follow the national resource center designations. THESE are the places that employers want you to get your degree from (if you stay in academia), NOT the usual "top 10 lists" that are based on imprecise surveys. the competition for NRC designation is long and detailed and a greater measure of the strength of a given school's program and reputation.

i mentioned this in another thread, but thought it merited its own topic. a lot of people on thegradcafe seem to be pretty consumed with graduate program rankings. i think the prestige or national recognition of a given graduate program is important to our future career prospects, but i firmly believe that the US news and world rankings system (which is what most people are referring to when they mention "top 10 in my subfield") is deeply flawed. the rankings are built upon the opinions of other historians, but those historians are ranking all subfields and usually only have a real knowledge of the movers and shakers in their own subfields. as a result, the big name schools tend to make it into the top 10 by default because profs will just say, "penn's a great school, they must have a strong african history program." the US department of education hands out lots of funding to different schools and designates them as national resource centers for given geographical regions. schools have to apply for this designation and funding and they go up for review every 3 years, so the centers are usually located at the schools with the strongest area studies programs in whatever region for which they receive funding. the schools that become national resource centers are usually (but not always) the schools that receive title VI funding and the ability to grant FLAS fellowships to graduate students. so, while the NRC and FLAS designations are built around "area studies" programs and not necessarily "history" programs alone, i think they provide a pretty strong indication (at least stronger than the US news and world rankings) of which school is strong in which geographical focus. so, for the rankings obsessed, here is the funding situation for 2010-2013: (schools with slashes means they're in consortium, which means they're splitting the funding) africa: boston university, harvard, indiana, michigan state, ohio, UC berkeley, florida, kansas, UNC, penn/bryn mawr/haverford/swarthmore (undergrad only), wisconsin, yale. canada: maine/SUNY plattsburgh, washington/western washington. east asia: columbia, cornell, duke, georgetown, harvard, ohio state, stanford, UC berkeley, hawaii, illinois/indiana, kansas, michigan, oregon, southern california/UCLA, virginia, washington, wisconsin, yale (no FLAS), michigan state, colorado (no NRC), utah, penn. international: columbia, duke, indiana, michigan state, penn state (no FLAS), illinois, kansas (no NRC, undergrad only), minnesota, UNC, pittsburgh, wisconsin, washu. latin america: columbia/NYU, florida international/miami (no FLAS), indiana, ohio state, stanford, tulane, arizona, UCLA, UC berkeley, florida, illinois/chicago, kansas, michigan, new mexico, UNC/duke, pittsburgh, texas-austin (no NRC), wisconsin madison/wisconsin milwaukee, vanderbilt, yale (no FLAS). middle east: arizona (undergrad only), UC berkeley, columbia, george washington (no FLAS), georgetown, harvard, indiana (middle east), NYU, ohio state (undergrad only), princeton, UCLA, chicago, michigan, UNC/duke, penn, texas-austin, washington, yale, indiana (islamic studies, no NRC), portland state. russia/eastern europe/eurasia: columbia (no NRC), duke/UNC (undergrad only for duke), georgetown, harvard, indiana (inner asian and uralic), indiana (russia and east european), ohio state, stanford, UC berkeley, chicago, illinois, kansas, michigan, pittsburgh, washington, wisconsin. south asia: columbia, cornell/syracuse, UC berkeley, chicago, michigan, penn, texas-austin, wisconsin, washington. southeast asia: cornell, northern illinois, UC berkeley/UCLA, hawaii (pacific islands, no FLAS), hawaii (southeast asia), michigan, wisconsin, washington. western europe/europe: cornell (no NRC), UC berkeley (no FLAS), UCLA, forida, illinois, minnesota, UNC, texas, washu, wisconsin, yale.

yeah, i'll echo the sentiment that most people applying for graduate school don't actually care if their program is ivy league or not. many on this site do care about rankings, but they shouldn't. to prep yourself for grad school, figure out what you want to study a little more precisely. what era of chinese history? what type of history (social, cultural, economic, political)? who wrote your favourite books on chinese history? where do they teach, does that school have a graduate program, will those professors take on new students? if you're really concerned with prestige, check out which schools have been designated national resource centers for (east) asian studies by the US department of education. that's a strong CURRENT indication of which programs are nationally recognized for their strength in your region of study. columbia, cornell, duke, georgetown, harvard, ohio state, stanford, UC berkeley, hawaii, illinois, indiana, kansas, michigan, oregon, university of southern california, UCLA, virginia, washington, wisconsin, yale, michigan state, colorado, utah, washu, and penn all have funding from the state department for east asian studies. notably, however, colorado doesn't have national resource center standing and yale doesn't have any FLASs (foreign language area studies fellowships), suggesting that both were on the cusp for funding and, unless they make significant new hires between now and 2013, they may lose the funding altogether (something that happened to my school when it lost title VI funding for western european studies). depending on what era you study, you may need to know classical chinese. i don't know for sure if you will or not, but that's something to look into. in general, you want at least two foreign languages in addition to english, so if you're fluent in chinese and working on japanese and russian, that should be sufficient. just keep up with the languages. read books in your field and start thinking about the types of historical questions you want to answer. also, be prepared that the MA you're getting in china might not transfer to US institutions, and you might have to enter another MA program (i.e. you may be admitted to an MA/PhD combined program at the MA level rather than at the PhD level). that's it, really. study for the GRE, figure out in a more precise way what you want to study, read and work on your writing sample and statement of purpose, and research programs. and try to detach yourself from the idea of going to an ivy league or "top 10" school. the graduate level rankings are really bullshit. many of the big name schools that get top 10 rankings don't even have programs in those particular subfields. they're meaningless. if you're worried about prestige, look for schools with national resource center designation.

yeah, just be honest. that's all you can do, really. admit your writing is rusty, that it took you longer than anticipated, and that you WILL start writing projects much earlier/go through several edits in the future. if you own up to your mistake (and sounds like you have), it should all work out fine.

the SSRC funds international students who are going to school in the US. i'm sure the equivalent organization for the physical sciences or humanities does the same. the mellon foundation also funds international students at US schools for mellons, lawlers, and ACLS mellons (these are usually dissertation research or dissertation writing fellowships).

yeah, i hit 60 to 70 hours a week regularly. on average this last semester, mondays and tuesdays i'd spend an hour in class and 8 or 9 hours working on my own stuff. wednesdays and thursdays i'd spend 6-7 hours working and 3.5 hours in class. on fridays i'd spend 4 hours working/prepping, 1 hour in class, and 4 hours teaching. on saturdays i'd get in about 6 hours of work and sundays i'd put in a solid 10 to 12 hours (with football on tv on mute as i worked). on particularly busy weeks, i'd work a little longer on saturdays, mondays, and tuesdays. i don't know how people put in 80 hours, i feel exhausted on the especially busy weeks when i break 70 hours of work. i'm not sure about what programs you're applying for, but i definitely wouldn't assume that you won't be teaching because you're an international student. it's very common for international students with less than fluent english to be TAs. and no, funding yourself will not increase your chance of admission at top schools. or most schools. they'll admit you on your ability and fit only. then, if they can afford it, they'll offer you a fellowship/research assistantship/teaching assistantship package, or if they can't afford it, they won't fund you. then, if you can pay for yourself, you can go to a program without funding. but especially at the top schools, they won't take you just because you can pay. they don't take your financial situation into consideration when they determine acceptances (at least for PhD programs). only after they make you an offer does your financial situation really come into the picture.

the graduation rates for first-generation college students from PhD programs is dismally low. i think first gen-GRADUATE students (so they've had relatives go to college, but not grad school, before them) are only 10% of PhD holders in the humanities/social sciences. the number for first-gen COLLEGE students getting their PhD is even lower. first-gen students tend to be women and minorities, which is why you'll see fewer women and minorities on faculty. for me, as a first-gen college student, i know that i could lead a happy and full and valuable life if i decide to leave my PhD program. this isn't the only thing i could do, it's never been expected that i'll go to grad school somewhere for something. i know that for many of my colleagues with parents who hold masters or PhDs, it wasn't a matter of if they were going to graduate school, but where and for what. that sort of culture or expectation just isn't fostered in first-gen college kids. but it's not just white anglo-saxon protestant males studying "the minorities." i'm female, jewish, canadian, my parents are english and hungarian, my father's side of the family spent the 30s and 40s in concentration camps and ghettos, and in the 50s fled to north america as refugees during the '56 revolution. there's a lot of deep, complicated, interesting history just one generation removed from me, and i study.... afro-indigenous populations in caribbean central america. i do study gender a bit, but i focus on men as much as women, so i study one identity category to which i belong. there's a professor applying for a job at my school who is chinese-american and studies germany. i think that's pretty cool, but of course everyone asks him how he managed to get interested in germany (which i also get asked constantly about central america). fuck. the same way that WASP kid got interested in japan. why is he allowed to go so far outside of his ethnic or gender or racial category and no one bats an eye, but if someone sufficiently "ethnic" (i.e. not a WASP) studies something they're not, everyone expects them to have some sort of personal history that connects them to their topic. it drives me nuts, i actually find it kind of offensive. which is why the comments in this thread by some posters about how "most" people study what they are, or don't study what they aren't, really got under my skin. how come my "ethnic" last name gets me the third degree about why i study what i do but no one blinks an eye when a "johnson" or a "smith" or a "charles" studies french colonial africa or native american history?

well, i'm in a social sciences/humanities (they're not sure) program and i spend 7.5 hours a week in class. i then spend 60-70 more hours doing everything that needs to be done. christmas day was the first day i spent not working since mid-august (that's including weekends), and only because i was on an airplane most of the time. got back to work today and i suspect it'll be more daily work until the end of april, and then i'll take a breather. i'm in a reading-intensive discipline, though. i know people in public policy programs that read two articles per class and call it a day.

if you don't have a masters topic yet, just list your past education and your current research fields.

because it is not fair to every other student in the class whose grade could be improved by dropping their worst score, even if their grades throughout the semester were consistent.

i get what you're saying. what i am saying is that, today, many of the most respected scholars in these fields, the ones truly sensitive to their subjects and not marginalizing them, are not from the minority groups that they study. just look at african american or african diaspora history. much of the best scholarship from the last 30 years to the present day is done by people who aren't black. native american history? how many historians of native american descent are there in academia? but i'm sure the scholars writing on native americans today are capable of doing nuanced, sensitive, high-level scholarship. as for women, seriously... lots of guys write great women's history. today. at this moment. right now. in my program of 60-odd students, only TWO are studying what they are (or self-identify as). two. at the conferences i've been to (international ones, one of them being the biggest for a variety of fields), i'd hazard a guess that well over a third of the participants did not identify with whatever group they study. in fact, this may be a sad testament to the lack of equal opportunity affirmative action hiring in my department, but of our 50-odd faculty members, only three of them study what they are, but we manage to cover every minority or marginal group in most historical periods and geographical regions.

wow, my advisor babies me. i mean, she'll rip my work to shreds and tell me i can't use any of it in my thesis but then she'll say "i have every confidence in you, you can do this." it rings a little hollow sometimes, but at least she says it.

yep. it's okay to say you don't know the answer. it actually makes them more relaxed to know that you're not perfect. this past semester, i taught a basic US history survey course, but i'm an international student who studies non-US history, so i've never taken a US history class myself. i went in there knowing my students knew way more facts and dates than i ever would, and i told them that up front. but i said, we're here to learn this new material together and i'll help you understand it as we go along. they all seemed to be okay with that.

no, i got what you were trying to say. i still strongly disagree with it, based upon my limited experience from my own graduate program and the several conferences i've attended and the applicants for my department's last 5 job searches. but okay. i'm just saying it is not a safe generalization to make. insisting on it actually suggests a lack of familiarity with the major works in those disciplines.

double-post. so instead i'll say... tickle, you should give women's history a chance. i came into my program very anti-gender theory and anti-women's history. i don't know why but it just didn't seem as interesting or as important to me as ethnicity or race did. but my exposure to the theory that came out of women's history really cracked my head open and now i've designed a dissertation project that (among many other things) includes some discussion of gender and the social construction of men's work and women's work, blah blah blah.