thedig13

I hope this is sarcasm. I've never heard of Thucydides, and I'm only vaguely familiar with Herodotus. Stop making me feel woefully under-educated, dammit!

Are you at Princeton? I thought Americanists at Princeton could substitute Spanish. I believe that's what the Graduate Student Handbook said, although they may have changed it, or I may be misremembering...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sufficient for entry." If you mean, will they accept you as a first-year graduate student? Maybe. But obviously, more is better, it shouldn't be the biggest strength of your application, as plenty of those you'll be competing against will have more than 2 years. On the other hand, if what you mean is "will I finish a PhD program," then, as others have pointed out, it depends. Most schools will expect you to take a language exam once you're there, regardless of how much coursework you did as an undergrad -- you can say whatever you want on an application, but actually proving it is another matter entirely.

You're fine. See my post above.

[bolded text in quotation for emphasis] With respect, the idea that being better-qualified might actually hurt your chances is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've heard on this forum. Certainly, you may not have had the opportunity to study your language thus far simply due to poor access to the right resources, and maybe a school might take this into account when choosing to admit you, but a single acceptance letter does not a tidal wave of evidence make. Some programs, such as UCLA (under "Foreign Language Traiing" at http://www.history.ucla.edu/academics/graduate/admission-information) or UC Berkeley (under "PhD Foreign Language Requirements" at http://history.berkeley.edu/graduate/guide-graduate-program), openly state that, within certain fields, students who don't already have extensive language training from Day 1 have an unrealistic chance of completing the program. Harvard University's History Department (http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/languages.php) expects every single grad student to be able to ace at least one foreign language proficiency exam before classes even start, and Columbia's (http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/doctoral/admissions.html) "strongly encourages" applicants to know how to read all relevant foreign languages before even enrolling. To be fair, I will admit that I've run into the occasional historian who didn't think that I needed any foreign languages, but they made it very clear that, as an Americanist, I stand as the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, I've had other professors adamantly insist that all prospects lacking foreign languages get shredded during application season. Most programs won't let you advance to PhD candidacy (if that) until you've passed all your language exams, so, unless you're an Americanist or a British Europeanist, which are the only fields where any school will let you graduate with less than 2 foreign languages, that means that somebody entering with 0 relevant foreign languages will have to pick up two languages in the span of 3-4 years. So, unless you think that (either 1) students -- who are already pushed to the limits through a combination of graduate-level coursework, TA/RAing duties, and obscene amounts of reading -- can realistically expect to, within 3-4 years, learn 2-4 languages well enough to successfully translate academic texts (or 2) History Departments can afford to hand out acceptances to applicants who lack a realistic chance of completing the program, since they're practically OVER-funded and their professors have tons of free time...

Essentially, for all of the language exams I've heard of, they just hand you academic texts (possibly sometimes literature?) written in said languages and expect you to be able to translate it with reasonable accuracy. As far as I know, virtually all departments offer a testing as one of the options to demonstrate proficiency. If I recall correctly, some schools let you bypass the requirement through coursework, but many others will require you to actually take their language exams, regardless of what coursework you've done to prepare. Obviously, if you want to know the specifics of a particular school's foreign language requirements, you'll have to contact them directly and/or find a copy of their Graduate Handbook. That being said, Harvard University and Columbia University's History Departments both have sample language exams and/or copies of previous years' exams on their respective web pages. They're a great way to decide if you're adequately-familiar with the language to pass the real deal, and, if not, to gauge how much more training you'll need before you're ready. For instance, I recently printed out a few of these sample exams and showed them to a Spanish professor at my university, who estimated how much further into Spanish I'd need to go before I'd have a strong chance of passing. - http://history.fas.harvard.edu/programs/graduate/program/language.exams.php - http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/doctoral/language-exams.html I believe UChicago used to have samples as well, but I can't seem to find them anymore.

As a bit of a graphic-novel nerd myself, your class sounds absolutely awesome. I know I'm not a grad student yet, so I hope that I'm not speaking out of place, but I'd suggest throwing some of Alexandra Stern's Eugenic Nation into your syllabus. Her first chapter, in particular, does a great job of drawing connections between the racialization of diseases, then-modern medicine (people were just discovering the health-benefits of hygiene), and the eugenics movement that emerged around that period.

I giggled repeatedly. Have you checked with a doctor to make sure your brain-cells aren't deteriorating?

Which science fiction?

What happened to "the term 'leisure reading' officially disappeared from my vocabulary," CageFree? By the way, massive Lord of the Rings nerd here.

Well, I'm minoring in Creative Writing. As much as I love academic texts, creative literature is also a huge deal for me, so I dabble in it for fear that my love for and/or my ability to write good non-academic literature will atrophy and wither away.

I know this thread topic has been done before, but it hasn't been posted-in for a while, and I assume that, since then, we've all finished and/or given up on whatever we were reading at the time. So I'll assume that there's room for us to discuss here. Thus, I am rehashing this old topic. Let's go with title, author, and personal reason for reading, with an optional brief description. For my Honors Thesis, I am reading: - "Survival Pending Revolution: The History of the Black Panther Party" by Paul Alkebulan - "Want to Start a Revolution?: Radical Women in the Black Freedom Struggle" by various authors - "A Taste of Power: A Black Woman's Story" by Elaine Brown For my non-thesis-related research I'm doing for a professor, I'm reading: - "They Closed Their Schools" by Bob Smith - "Brown's Battleground: Students, Segregationists, and the Battle for Justice in Prince Edward County, Virginia" by Jill Ogline Titus For leisure reading, I'm reading "The Fault in Our Stars," by John Green I should mention that I'm not actually plowing through all six of these texts simultaneously with ease, since I'm not an insanely talented reader or anything. I'm taking a manageable, bite-sized chunk out of one, then another, then another, which means that (in terms of duration between front cover and end cover) I'm taking 6 times longer for each book than I would if it had my exclusive attention.

His PhD was in Ethnic Studies. Should I be worried now?

I'll be applying for PhD programs in a year, and a few questions about my LoRs have come up. I'm reasonably certain about where 2 out of my 3 recs are going to come from, but I'm struggling to choose between two options for the third. I know this is early, but having some answers will really help me decide which relationships I should really focus on cultivating. The first professor I'm considering is a Visiting Professor in History. He's fairly young, and I'm not sure how established he is as a historian. I'm taking a bunch of classes with him, but haven't done any research with him, although we have chatted on several occasions. Obviously, asking for a LoR from him might be problematic: I don't know him all that well, we haven't done all that much research together, and I'm not sure how much weight his name will carry. However, I have another year to remedy these problems. The other professor I'm considering is a Full Professor in Ethnic Studies. I've done quite a bit of research with him; he specializes in interactions and conflicts between racial minorities after 1945, and he's pretty well-respected. I've only taken one course with him, but he knows me by name and we've completed quite a few projects together. My main concern is that I've heard (I think maybe on this forum) that interdisciplinary studies (i.e.: Ethnic Studies) can be frowned-upon by some historians. Certainly, if this isn't actually a problem, then this professor would be able to write me a glowing recommendation; my only concern is whether or not the people on the admissions committee will listen to the word of an Ethnic Studies professor. This also ties in to questions about who can write my LoRs. On PhD applications, they request three LoRs from professors of history or "relevant fields". Is Ethnic Studies "relevant" enough in this case?

I'm going to parrot what TMP said. An MA program is a valuable opportunity to get a general "feel" for graduate school before jumping into a longer-term PhD program; it'll give you a chance to refine your interests, develop your academic expertise, and build a more complete understanding of what you need to do to succeed in a PhD program. Can you give us more details about your geographic region of interest, your time period, and your foreign language abilities? That might give us a more complete picture of your competitiveness as an applicant.

Karaya -- I'd like to discuss this in deeper detail with you. Check your PMs. Respectfully, TheDig13

I agree with most of the above advice, but in particular, this one: Foreign language training is important, but only because it allows you to do research in certain fields (i.e.: US-Middle-East relations, for instance). But if your interests don't require it, you may not need it quite yet. It makes sense for a Latin-Americanist to learn Spanish and/or Portuguese because duh, but unless you're going into Mexican-American immigration history, picking up an extra language may not be necessary for an Americanist. Of course, the first foreign-language is a must-have.

I didn't know you were U.S. History -- your post didn't specify region. However, now that I've been enlightened, I would urge you to pick up Spanish. While it is true that U.S. historians aren't expected to have transcendant language proficiency, I'm going to parrot what CageFree said: Keep in mind that, within Hispanic-American communities, English isn't always the primary language, and Spanish is an integral part of daily life. Additionally, having a number of languages might give you a critical edge in the applications process. I'd advise you to take your coursework at the college level; if not, I've been told that Rosetta Stone is the way to go. If you can, find an excuse to spend a month or two overseas, do it. Immersion does wonders for your language proficiency.

It seems as though your application is mostly-strong, but I have to ask where you stand in terms of foreign language training. What, specifically, is your geographic region (if any), and which "various ethnic groups" are you focusing on? If any of these groups use a language other than English, what kind of experience do you have with these languages?

SK903 -- To be frank, given the sorts of questions and responses you've posted on this thread so far, it seems as though you're not especially familiar with what graduate school is all about and what people do at the graduate level. Outside of your GPA and your academic year, you've given us very little information about your strengths and weaknesses as an academic prospect. We can only give you good advice if you give us a good idea of what else you bring to the table, but questions intended to give us a better picture of who you are (i.e.: your GPA within History, why you have such a low GPA, whether or not you have a Thesis project lined up) have gone largely unanswered; instead, your responses have been unhelpful inquiries about online blogs and how you can avoid getting the Master's degree that your application seems to desperately need. As much as I hate to be rude or presumptuous, given how bad your History GPA is and the nature of your responses, I'm going to have to conclude that you just didn't give a lot of serious effort throughout your undergraduate education, but now, as you finish out your last few academic semesters, faced with questions about what your job prospects are post-college, you assume that a fully-funded graduate program is a convenient solution to all of your problems and concerns. If you're serious about graduate school, you should start by reflecting on why your academic career has been so dreadful up to this point, networking with professors and learning more about what they do professionally, and working to make yourself better-informed as to what graduate school is all about. Take this comment, for instance. An overwhelming majority of serious applicants to a History PhD program will have a 20-page primary-source-based research paper ready by application-season, and, among these, many will have even published articles in academic journals. With a 3.0 GPA and an amateur online blog, how do you intend to stack up against a student with a 3.75 GPA and multiple articles in proper academic publications? It's like bringing a thumb-tack to a sword-fight. That's not to mention the importance of foreign-language training, networking with professors at your institution, networking with professors at other schools, and developing refined, in-depth interests focusing on one or two distinct fields of history.

After looking through this thread, I would start by asking how far-removed you are from your undergrad studies (from the way your post is worded, it seems like you're set to graduate soon), why you're interested in pursuing a PhD, and if there's any sort of reason for your lower GPA (i.e.: death in the family, medical illness). As some have already pointed out, graduate study is dramatically more intensive than undergraduate work, and a student who can't scrape together a 3.0 GPA in History seems unlikely to survive at the graduate level. Most students who have the sort of academic interest, focus, and experience to do well in a graduate program could probably earn a 3.0+ in an undergraduate program with relatively minimal effort. Thus, unless there were some major extraneous circumstances which affected your performance, I'd agree with the other posters here who say that your chances of admission are slim-at-best. I haven't even been through my first application cycle yet, so take this advice with a massive block of salt: I would start by taking a few years off from my education in general. Some people start thinking about graduate school for the wrong reasons, and need a few years to themselves to evaluate whether or not they're genuinely interested-enough to commit themselves to the field. Given your low GPA, I'm tempted to conclude that, at this moment, your interest/focus in History may not be where it needs to be. If nothing else, having some time to yourself might be what you need to really re-evaluate your goals and decide if this path (some would call it a "lifestyle") is the right one for you. If so, perhaps you'll be instilled with the vigor and focus necessary to overcome your shaky academic background and succeed at a high level. If not, at least you won't be wasting valuable time and money trying to get an education that wasn't right for you anyways. If, indeed, you do decide that graduate school is right for you, I'd agree with RiotBeard -- a less-prestigious MA program might be a good gateway to a decent PhD program. Alternatively, some schools accept students for a Second Bachelor's degree, and this might be a good chance to demonstrate that you've pulled yourself together and are ready to take on graduate school. Also, I'm going to agree with Eigen and discourage you from entering a PhD program with the intention of dropping out. A PhD program that admits you is placing a great deal of faith in your abilities -- as evidenced by the time, money, and effort that the program is committing to you. It would be unfair to the department, your professors within it, to yourself, and to all of the other students who could've been admitted in your stead if you simply half-assed your way through the first few years of the program with the intention of jumping ship as soon as you got an MA.

One good idea is to try and contact your POI beforehand. I assume that, since you're applying to graduate school, you have a reasonable well-defined time period, geography, and thematic focus (also, the thread-title and original post would seem to indicate that my assumption is correct). Where you should go from here depends on what research you've already done. If you've done any secondary-source reading, think about whose work interests you. Then, look them up, and see if they're a professor at a university. You may have trouble distinguishing the big names from the less-than-big names, or the "good-to-work-with" professors from the ones who are rude and unsupportive. But, simply by reading books in your field, you should be able to figure out whose ideas you like and whose you don't. Also, look through the History Department websites of universities you're interested-in. If they're a professor or an associate professor, that should be a positive. Assistant professors are generally the new-kids-on-the-block, so they may not have the experience or the job security to properly see you through a full PhD program, and Emeritus professors are retired. By looking through individual faculty profiles, you can get a reasonably good idea of their field of expertise, whether their interests are relevant to yours, and (sometimes) whether or not they're big names in the field. Another great way to figure out who's good to work with is by asking your current professors. (If you're not already on speaking terms with at least one or two professors at your university, then don't bother applying for a PhD -- you need three glowing recommendations from professors who can attest to your academic excellence by application season.) They're people who have built a lot of connections and developed a lot of experience in the field, and should be able to suggest a few advisors who might be a good fit (both academically and personality-wise). After you've narrowed it down to a list of people in your field whose work (if not personality) fits well with yours, there are a number of ways to see if they're a good fit personality-wise. First, (again) ask your professors at your current school -- their jobs require for them to extensively interact with other professors, and if their field is relevant to your field and the field of the prospective advisor, they might be able to tell you a little bit about the POI's personality. Secondly, if the school has a list of graduate students who had the advisor and/or are currently studying under that advisor, see if you can't get in touch with them. Be cool and respectful and (if possible) subtle about it, since it's a bit awkward to receive an e-mail from a total stranger asking you whether or not you like your mentor. Thirdly, contact the professor directly. If you can do it through an intermediary (i.e.: maybe a professor who graduated from the prospective advisor's department), try that. Otherwise, just respectfully send an e-mail introducing yourself, your work, your interests, your plans for grad school, and ask if maybe that professor's interested in taking students. If possible, try to arrange for some sort of appointment to meet in person and chat. I recommend doing all three. The main idea is to (first) develop a list of people who are professionally-respected and whose fields are relevant to yours. After that, it's about figuring out what sort of person the POI is, and whether or not you can put up with them for the next 5-9 years. That's why it's important to contact POIs beforehand -- because you get to meet the POI in person, but also, you get to introduce yourself (and possibly turn your application from "Applicant 286 with a GPA of 3.9, two lukewarm LORs, and a research internship" to "JTausTX, who I chatted with that one time and who had some pretty good ideas about how we should approach this historical debate."). Finally, if all else fails, don't be afraid to enter an MA program. It'll give you a chance to develop your qualifications, get some grad-school experience, and build more connections with professors.

I second this. Additionally, keep in mind that many universities and colleges in the American South are outrageously liberal. For instance, I've been told that "UT Austin and Rice hate the rest of Texas, and the rest of Texas hates them back." A lot of good academic work comes out of those two schools. Also, consider the consequences in terms of your opportunities. If you want to study a subject, then, ideally, you want to work with somebody who's an expert in a relevant field. By automatically refusing to look at any schools that aren't either on the West Coast or the East Coast, you're probably missing out on a lot of great opportunities because of a bias against a college that may not share the same socio-political views as others in the same geographic area.

While I don't want to say anything about your advisor, I will say that you seem to underestimate the importance of foreign language mastery. It's certainly true that Americanists tend to have more lax language-expectations than those in other fields, but I'd urge you to approach languages as an integral part of professional history rather than some droll, boring chore that needs to be completed before you're allowed to go outside and play. Even for an Americanist, knowing languages opens a vast multitude of doors and puts you at a massive advantage in terms of where you'll be able to take your research. For instance, if you become interested in the LA Riots of 1992, you might need to pick up some Korean. Californian immigrant history? Probably Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese, for starters. This is why there is a language requirement at all -- while you may not be interested in this material now, if there may be some unforeseen time in the future where not knowing a certain language puts a promising research project to a grinding halt. Also, I'd urge you to really start thinking about what, specifically, you're interested in studying. The fact that you're "probably going to look at studying American History (or some type of similar major)" is a bit worrying. You need to really, really start refining your fields. Most people who are admitted into history programs have a fairly specific, well-refined idea of what really fascinates them. Obviously, you shouldn't be so hard-and-set on a particular topic that you become narrow-minded and stubborn about expanding/developing your interests, but, at the same time, a prospect who can say "I'm interested in the health and sanitation problems which developed from 19th-century urbanization in the Northern US" has a massive advantage over somebody who can only define their interests as "19th-century American history." Additionally, if you really start to refine your interests, you can start narrowing down potential advisors (and, by extension, potential schools), and you'll also be able to write a far more impressive and convincing SOP. And, of course, these two factors (languages and specific interests) can go hand-in-hand, which is another reason why you should really start thinking about your interests in more specific terms. An Americanist who wants to write a dissertation on 1890s imperialism and another who's interested in the 1920s Red Scare probably shouldn't have identical linguistic repertoires. If you master Spanish but eventually become enamored with a dissertation-topic that requires Russian, you'll need to start from square one with Russian; but, if you have a more specific idea of what you want to study, you'll have a more specific idea of what foreign languages would be best for you, and a better chance of avoiding these sorts of situations.

Not to threadjack, but to what degree does the LOR-writer's field matter? Is an 18th-century Europeanist recommended by a 20th-century Americanist at a disadvantage against one who is recommended by another 18th-century Europeanist? In that same vein of thinking, which would be better: an LOR from a Visiting Professor in a similar field or an LOR from a tenured Professor in a totally unrelated field?