thedig13

Columbia University has a dual degree program (in tandem with the London School of Economics) which will get you a Dual MA in World History (http://worldhistory.columbia.edu/). It's a bit pricey, but if you can afford it and/or find funding, you get one year of grad school in NYC and another in London, which sounds fun enough. One question that should be asked is what fields you're interested-in, and whether or not you're open-minded about moving around to get your MA -- if not, it might be helpful if you gave us a general geographical location.

In addition to the information you've listed, I'd like to know what foreign languages you know (and how well you know them), whether you have a good primary-source-based history paper, who you you might be getting letters of recommendation from (maybe not names, but department, field, and prominence), and your field of interest. While stuff like your major, GPA, and GRE scores matter, your ability to succeed in the classroom is only a small part of the equation. More important to a graduate school is whether you can do research (i.e.: knowing foreign languages), whether you have the raw skills necessary to write and publish papers (i.e.: writing sample), and whether they have professors with enough expertise in your field to properly train you (i.e.: field of interest). So, although the information you've posted isn't quite "irrelevant" to your application, your posted profile is definitely not complete-enough for anybody to be able to make a realistic assessment about where you should apply or how you should strengthen your application.

I think that much language training/experience should come in handy when trying to sell yourself on an application.

You never specified what your field is and what languages you're familiar with.

1. Was your M.A. in History? Also, did you write a strong thesis? Usually, an M.A. in History, extensive language training, good letters, and a strong writing sample will compensate for a weak undergraduate GPA. However, it's also important that you have a defined area of interest (for the PhD program) and your languages are relevant to the period/region that you're interested in. 2. I'm a bit uncertain about this one, but here's my understanding of it: Departments don't really take your financial situation into account when deciding whether or not to send an admissions offer. Sometimes, the actual funding offer will take external funding into account, and they'll work it out with you to make sure that you're covered for tuition, fees, and living expenses. I believe that funding-related matters are usually sorted out after the acceptance letters come. Generally-speaking, if a department accepts you without bothering to coordinate and make sure you're fully-funded, don't go, because it usually means they secretly don't think you're worth the time and money.

I find it amusing and dismissable because it centers around an assumption that most young students at TGC choose grad school to "avoid" the job market and somehow escape the responsibilities of adulthood. The writer's main critique of TGC seems to be that it "is puncturing [her alter-ego's] illusions about what grad school could represent for a young adult eager to take a time-out from the neurotic competitiveness of real life." Maybe I haven't spent enough time outside of the History forums, but I think that most at TGC (especially the veterans and frequent posters) have chosen to consider/attend graduate school because they genuinely love their discipline and/or are serious about pursuing a career in academia. Most of us (at least within the History forum, and maybe the Humanities and Social Sciences in general) have made an informed, independent, and conscious decision to devote ourselves to a discipline that is dramatically under-appreciated within society. We've made a deliberate decision to pursue a career path where the job market is absolute shit, the salaries are meager, the benefits are (often) nonexistent, the lifestyle is hectic, unstable, and unpredictable, and those who are employed are overworked into the dirt. We're not starry-eyed idiots trying to live up to some misinformed and hyper-romanticized illusion of what life of mind is like. We do it because we love it, but we know that it's not going to be pretty and we have no illusions about it. If somebody's applying for grad school because they're scared of a bad job market or because they want to avoid the so-called "real world" (a term I despise, since it's not like undergrads and high schoolers exist in some alternate reality devoid of responsibilities, stresses, and problems), then he/she was in for a rude awakening sooner or later.

In lieu of a few posts which point out that perhaps the professor was attempting to motivate and push rather than to discourage, I've chosen to re-consider my thoughts on this matter. Obviously, this professor sees (or saw) enough potential in you to have supervised a research project to a degree which you found satisfactory. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration that a 3.5 won't get you into graduate school, but it's certainly true that it's on the low side, and (unless you raise it, which you should try to) it would make you an easy target for ad-coms that need a quick-and-easy way to filter out what they perceive as weak prospects. You should indeed ask him whether he meant "unacceptable" as an absolute assessment on your chances for graduate school or as an expression of his disappointment at your level of academic achievement relative to your potential. In retrospect, the OP gave us a single quoted word devoid of much context, rather than a transcript of the entire conversation (which would've been unreasonable to expect anyway), which may have led to the jumping of conclusions. If the professor did indeed intend to mean that your chances of graduate school acceptance are nonexistent, then obviously, I stand by my previous advice. If he clarifies and says that he meant that he expects more out of his students, and especially one who's serious about getting into graduate school, or that you can still get in if you start bumping up your GPA, then that's a fair-enough statement to make, and you should (maybe) still consider him for your LORs. Like TMP, I'd have questions about whether or not he'd be able to convincingly describe you as a promising young undergraduate with otherworldly potential for graduate work (and you don't want to waste any LORs on anything short of that if you can avoid it).

Sorry, did you mean 200 books in 48 hours, or that you're given a total of 48 hours for the written exam? Because if you're required to study 200 books in the span of 2 days for qualifying examinations... That's outrageous.

A 3.5 GPA from Syracuse University is far from "unacceptable." Obviously, you still have time to raise your GPA (which you should try to do), but also keep in mind that there are a multitude of other ways to compensate for a below-average GPA. For instance, language training. An individual with interest in graduate study in History can make him/herself a more competitive applicant by developing some background in relevant languages (to get an idea of what to start learning, look up which languages are required to get a PhD in your field). And, like others have said, your professor is an idiot. Find more supportive/competent individuals for your LORs. If you don't like speaking out in class, start stopping by office hours to chat about the content and make yourself known to your educators. Remember, no professor wants to write a letter for a student whose only accomplishment (as far as the prof is concerned) is getting a good grade in the class. Get to know your profs, and give them a chance to be impressed by you, your interests, your achievements, your ability, your potential, and your goals. You seem like a promising-enough candidate, but the bottom line is that, one way or another, you need to establish enough of a relationship so that they can remember your name and see as much of that promise as possible so that they can write some good recommendations for you. A big part of success in graduate school is establishing relationships and networking anyway, so it'll be good to start practicing now. Ultimately, a master's program may be inevitable. While your GPA isn't "unacceptable," it isn't going to impress anybody, and you may need the extra coursework, experience, writing, and networking opportunities of a master's program to definitively prove to strong PhD programs that you have what it takes.

A lot of this discussion thus far has centered around whether a difficult medical history hurts a candidate's chances of admission. I think some others here will agree with me: the best programs tend to be more accepting/accommodating towards this sort of thing. For instance, at least one individual here on the TGC History forums has acknowledged that he/she was a college dropout for some time before being admitted to graduate programs in the Ivy League, and (apparently) he/she was not an entirely unique case. Most importantly, before you think about entirely omitting health/personal problems from an application, consider this. Much of one's success in graduate study (and in academia as a whole) boils down to whether or not he/she is in a suitable program that can meet and adapt to changing individual needs. If an adcom refuses to acknowledge that setbacks occur and are often unavoidable or if you have to shamefully hide a legitimate medical condition from a Department, is that really the sort of system where you can reasonably expect a healthy dose of support and encouragement? What if your condition continues to be a problem once you start graduate study? Can you reasonably expect the department to be understanding and say, "Don't worry, you can take the month off to deal with Medical Condition X. We promise we won't kick you out of the program"? If a hypothetical school is really the sort of program that says, "Oh, a drunk driver ran you over and you had to have emergency surgery and breathe through a tube for a month? Well, we don't care! You're out of the program!", then do you really want to trust six years of your life and your (eventual) future in academia to those people? In many ways, the application process is largely about finding the right place for you, a place where you can thrive and succeed and build the foundation for a career. Don't shamefully cover up a legitimate medical condition; use it as an opportunity to filter out the schools that can't or won't be understanding to your needs, and to identify the ones that will work with you (and whatever unexpected things come up in life, as they inevitably will for everybody) in a mature, responsible, and supportive manner.

From your post, it seems that you're new to TGC, so let me be the first to say welcome to our community. To answer your question, transitioning from one discipline to another is fairly common between undergrad work and grad school. It's not the norm, but it's hardly rare. Most here (including myself) will encourage you to try for a Master's degree in History before moving onto a PhD program. They're generally easier to get into, and will enable you to refine your historical interests, get some writing and coursework under your belt, and network with prospective LOR-writers, which will strengthen your eventual application into PhD programs. Also, Master's programs are a great way to get your feet wet within the field. Many prospects enter a doctoral program with all of the enthusiasm and energy in the world and are absolutely floored by the rigorous demands of the system. Graduate-level work in a Master's program will give you a chance to figure out exactly what kind of stuff you'll be doing for the next six years and to decide whether it's really a commitment that you're prepared to make. By the way, some schools actually encourage "real-world" work experience, so that may be an advantage in your favor. Two other thoughts: First, history isn't necessarily a rigid, set-in-stone field. There are creative ways to combine history with other disciplines. For instance, a professor in my own department wrote her dissertation on the insane asylums of 19th-century Germany. If your specific interests deal with the history of psychological disorders in Medieval England or perhaps some sort of undiagnosed condition that Henry VIII may have had (or something of that nature), then your psychology degree may be a great way to market yourself as a viable candidate in that field. It makes sense; you can't be a competent Medical Historian if you know nothing about Medicine. If this isn't the case, then (obviously) don't lie about it just to get in, but it's a thought. Finally, languages are a great way to (partially) make up for a lack of extensive coursework in the topic (and are critical regardless). Many candidates end up dropping out because they have to pick up languages as they go and no professor wants to teach Spanish instead of history. For a late medieval/early modern historian such as yourself, I'd train myself in French and German and maybe Latin to enhance my application.

While I don't want to presume to understand the relationship dynamic between you and your partner, I would suggest bringing him into the loop as soon as possible. First, the longer you wait, the harder it will be to eventually bring him up to speed, and on the off-chance that the situation gets any stickier in the interim, that won't help either; secondly, his financial situation is (apparently) connected to yours, and so I'm sure he'd like to know what's going on. That being said, I'm going to parrot what Prof.Susan.Nance posted and say that the department doesn't really have the right to rescind an offer of admission on these sorts of grounds. You will have to be proactive moving forward in terms of finding a replacement supervisor, and make sure that no feet are dragged in the replacement process. However, all in all, I think you're overreacting.

I'm going to parrot what others have said in this forum, and try to make it clear that your GRE scores do matter, but not compared to your writing sample, letters of recommendation, and statement of purpose. You need to clearly demonstrate that you have interests which the department can help you pursue, and vice versa. Which brings me to my question for you: what are you interested in studying, and who within these departments you're applying to share these interests?

Do you have any sort of information about the long-term success of the Columbia/LSE program's students in terms of getting into PhD programs in History and related fields?

How is this different from the Columbia/LSE program, which has also been described as a "cash cow"? Are both of these less-than-ideal for individuals who have a PhD in their long-term objectives?

Hello, all. I've been doing research on prospective programs I might be interested in after my undergraduate degree. As a dual-major in History and Creative Writing, I'm especially interested in the intersection between History and Literature (i.e.: constructed historical "truth" and "self-conscious fiction"), and I thought this program offered through Columbia (but located in Paris) might be good for me. http://www.historyandliterature.columbia.edu/ Unfortunately, I don't know much about this program, outside of what is stated on the program website, and nobody on TGC has really discussed it at all. I'm wondering if anybody's heard about this program, and if they can tell me what they know about it. I know a number of people have discussed the Dual-Master's program with Columbia/LSE, which is the other History MA option offered through Columbia. Thanks, all.

I have the same question, but for Spanish and French. Thank you, GradCafe! (Also, sorry to you, Unforth, for jacking your question.)

American History R_Escobar (20th century, American Indian), crazedandinfused (antebellum, intellectual), hopin'-n-prayin' (southern, religious), stevemcn (transnational), Simple Twist of Fate (early American), zb642 (20th century, labor/working-class culture), BCEmory08 (19th-20th century Catholicism, labor), irvinchiva10 (20th century, immigration/immigration reform) natsteel (early American political culture and intellectual history) unforth (19th century US political and military history, US Civil War) hbeels (colonial, early national, 19th century, transappalachain west, historical memory of these eras/areas) thedig13 (20th century U.S., culture and protest, African-American) European HistoryKelkel (Modern Germany, political), goldielocks (Britain), SapperDaddy (Eastern and Central Europe), kotov (Modern Romania, Holocaust, labor), RevolutionBlues (Modern Western Europe/France labor and leftist politics), theregalrenegade (18th/19th cent British Empire/environment), jrah822 (19th century Britain; emphasis on colonial relationship to India), grlu0701 (Intellectual & cultural history,fin de siecle Germany and Italy), naturalog (modern European [mostly German] intellectual and cultural/sexuality and gender/political radicalism), runaway (Eastern/Central, memorialization & visual culture), Sequi001 (Modern France, gender and sexuality, colonialism/imperialism) Abetheh (19th/early 20th century Germany and France, religious politics vs secularization) African HistoryOseirus (precolonial/early colonial West Africa), Singwaya18 (20th century East Africa), Safferz (20th century Horn/Northeast Africa), The People's Scholar (Spanish colonialim in Africa- i.e. middle/West Africa) Jogatoronto (Psychiatry in early colonial West Africa) Latin American HistoryCageFree (20th century, Southern Cone), BH-history, The People's Scholar (18th-19th century Colombia) StrangeLight (20th century Central America) East Asian Historyalleykat (Modern China) kyjin (Pre-Modern Japan) Near/Middle Eastern Historyuhohlemonster, (modern Israel, Iran, Palestine) oswic (modern Egypt, gender) Atlantic Worldsandyvanb crazedandinfused Global/World History [*]cooperstreet (Cold War) Jewish History [*]uhohlemonster, (modern Israel) [*]hopin'-n-'prayin, [*]kotov (Holocaust), [*]naturalog (sometimes modern European/Holocaust), [*]runaway (memorialization & visual culture), [*]ticklemepink (20th c. Germany/U.S) Science/Technology/Environment [*]shaxmaty1848 (Cold War) [*]StrangeLight (environmental history, ecological distribution conflicts) Social [*]annieca (Cold War and Post-Cold War East and Central Europe) Classical and Medieval [*]Hogs of War (Monastic Studies and Conflicts in Authority) Cultural [*]StrangeLight (gender, race, ethnicity, and religion) [*]hbeels (race/ethnicity, religious, masculinity/feminimity, print/literature) [*]crazedandinfused (race, nationalism, performance, rhetoric) [*]alleykat (religion, race/ethnicity, cultural relativism)

Sorry, I'd just like to clarify: Is a "W" a big deal?

I'm a second-year undergrad taking a Botany course as a Breadth requirement. It's a real pain in the ass, and I'm anticipating a final grade of about B, which will lower my GPA. I'm considering converting my grade to a Pass/Fail option, which will keep it from hurting my GPA. Of course, I'd like to know how this will affect my chances of being admitted into grad school in the future. How will tacking on an additional Pass/Fail course affect adcoms' perception of me? By the way, right now, my current GPA is a 3.897 with no previous Pass/Fails and 1 previous Late Withdrawal in Physics (for a "W" on the transcript). In short, I'd like to know: When admissions committees look at grades outside of your field, is it better to have a "B" or a "Pass" on your transcript?

Thanks, you two. Much appreciated.

Most of my current reading is related to research for my Honors Thesis: - Revolutionary Suicide (Huey Newton) - War against the Panthers (Huey Newton) - Black Panther Party Reconsidered - American Babylon (Robert Self) - Living for the City (Donna Murch) Incidentally, I was wondering. An alumni of the History Department at Stanford wrote a dissertation that I'm very interested in reading as part of my research. Unfortunately, she never picks up her work phone, and records of said dissertation don't exist in Stanford's archives. Are there any other methods I might try to gain access to the document?

You're the best. Thanks. This is why I love TGC so much. Such a supportive community.

All right. Thanks, you three. I really appreciate it. This has taken a great burden off my shoulders. Just a follow-up question -- if you guys have any tips on how to start my research, I'd love to hear some of your input/advice. I've already looked up contact information for a few people who helped run the program (without calling yet), and I've read up on some of founder Huey Newton's philosophies on education. Not really sure where to go from here.

I am thedig13, and I approve of this message.