virmundi

As should be clear from my previous posts, I think that we should all pitch in to help each other -- not just the childless helping those with children. You don't, apparently. At some point, everyone has to leave Galt's Gulch, though.

Okay -- the notion that it is "just as inconvenient" for someone without kids to take a particular TA assignment completely ignores the fact that for people with kids, there are obligations of getting them to/from school, paying for childcare, making them meals, helping them with homework, socializing them, and dozens of other things that are subsumed within these categories. The childless have their own obligations -- and if they have good reasons for not wanting to take on a particular assignment, they should by all means be made to feel welcome in expressing those to the proper personnel within their department and those considerations should be weighed against the legitimate concerns of others. There is no element of "forcing" someone else to take a crap job except insomuch as the department obviously *does* "force" people to take assignments when they actually create the final list -- but advocating for what you need is not the same thing as pointing at a childless person and saying: "hey, Joe doesn't have kids -- why don't you stick *him* with the three hour commute instead of me?" Creating an equivalency here isn't fair. And once again, suggesting that covering for someone on a single occasion is an adequate equivalent to making several people's entire lives far less stressful (maybe even just point blank *possible*) for ~15 weeks simply doesn't cut it here. I refer you to the last paragraph in my previous post.

In response to point B, I might suggest that your statement vis-à-vis suggesting that maybe it is irresponsible to have children in graduate school might easily be accompanied by an ancillary statement: "You are not a serious student if you do not sacrifice your personal relationships to your work." Should we admonish people not to have kids in graduate school, but cater to their relationships with adults? Obviously, my answer is: of course not! Let's not get bogged down in creating categories of who *always* deserves what and when. The point here is to be humane about all of this. It is more humane to enable a single mother to be there for her kids instead of imposing a possibly (and for a graduate student *probably*) crippling financial and life burden of additional childcare and parental absence. It is likewise more humane to schedule a married couple inasmuch as it is possible so that they can see each other and maintain a healthy relationship. It is equally humane to attempt to ensure that single students do not automatically receive the short end of the stick in all situations and at all times. I am not suggesting -- and I don't think that Wildviolet is either -- that there should be an institutional imperative to screw over people without kids. There is *absolutely nothing wrong* with going to your program administrator and advocating for your needs and desires *whatsoever your situation*. I *always* did this and was able to make successful arguments to my administrator for why I should TA for a certain class and how doing so would be beneficial to my career in academia. This kind of self-advocacy is an important aspect of learning to be a successful academic. No one here is advocating for "arbitrary top-down judgments" dictated by some anonymous "The Man" who is out to screw over people without kids. Why *shouldn't* you be able to advocate for what is best for you and your family? Why shouldn't this be taken into account? Indeed, your irritation and inconvenience *should* gave way to someone else's pressing need. My irritation and inconvenience ought to give way to *your* pressing need. We are *not* cogs in a machine and we *do* have the ability to make cognitive decisions outside of an abstract rubric that strips us of our humanity. Suggesting that all of this should be reduced strictly to an atomization of personal and highly contingent momentary decisions as opposed to being humanely considered within the systems themselves is an inadequate solution -- it actually doesn't deal with the unforeseeable situation that you, or me, or anyone else might find ourselves in at some point where we really *do* need that entire semester of time on "light duty" because of a family (or personal, etc.) crisis. Should we really find ourselves forced out of our chosen career path because the members of our institutions are forcibly rendered blind to human need out of some notion of professional "fairness"? No one here has said "for the rest of my Ph.D. please exempt me from anything." No one here has advocated for a strict rule that completely screws over the single or the childless. We can do better than creating abstract and dehumanizing policies that do not allow us to advocate for what we need and to have those needs considered! If am I inconvenienced for a semester so that you can save your marriage -- for God's sake, let us hope that I can manage to put up with this in good humor rather than resenting the fact that this cut into my ability to coordinate with my World of Warcraft group!

Yes -- let's restrict child-bearing to the 1% now too! Oh elitism -- so charming.

Parents really don't have "spare time" when they are graduate students with younger children. They work and they parent. Essentially what you are suggesting is that somehow people with kids suck it up or get out. This could also be applied, as it often was in the past, to people who weren't independently wealthy. The point of diversity in the academy is that diversity of experience and background is good for intellectual inquiry. If you choose not to have kids, then I 100% support your decision, but where do you think that your future students are going to come from if no one else does? It's about the perpetuation of society as much as anything else and surely we all should have some minor investment in that. And by the way -- I've seen precisely these kinds of shifting around of TAships and teaching schedules, etc. for people who were taking care of sick parents over the long term (and even in one case, a beloved family pet). It's not just people with kids and there is nothing wrong with it. You might need your institution to have this level of humane consideration toward you some day.

Your effort to raise your kids responsibly is eating into the time that someone else has to sit on the couch and drink wine. You should be ashamed of yourself!

I do not think that your irritation trumps someone else's efforts to be good parents who are present for their kids -- sorry. And it is precisely the TA-assigner's job to make those kinds of judgments. And they do. All the time. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

If you didn't mention that you have young kids and this plays a role in your desire not to travel far for your TAships, be certain to do so in the future.

There is no inherent disadvantage to not entering a Ph.D. program immediately. There are plenty of students who don't do so until later (including myself). In fact, one clear advantage is that you'll have the chance to do a couple of other things with your life and check those out. If you like them, you may find yourself happy and you haven't really lost anything. If you don't like doing those things, you'll have those experiences to reference during the tough times of your graduate career (and they are myriad and many ) which will, hopefully, help you put the hardships into perspective.

You are most welcome. Applying to both is a wonderful idea. If you get into one and not the other, the decision is an easy one. It's getting into both that is a "problem" -- but what a wonderful problem that would be to have, right? I suppose that in some regard, if you are guaranteed to have a position for 6-8 years after your completion, it makes sense for you to go with whichever institution will offer you the best overall experience and the best boost to your research agenda...! It is also certainly not out of the question for you to go to Oxford and try to see if you can have the professor from Davis as a reader on your dissertation. That is quite common here in the U.S., although I'm not sure how common that is in the U.K. In any case, best of luck with this process!

You need to be more specific about which job market you are talking about. In the U.S. job market, a degree from U.C. Davis is not necessarily a weakness compared to a degree from Oxford. I was specifically and directly warned by many scholars in my field about the risks of trying to get a job in the U.S. right out of a U.K. Ph.D. program. It can be done -- but it is by no means a slam-dunk because U.K. degrees do not easily map onto U.S. degrees (and teaching experience matters a lot more in the U.S.) and your letters of recommendation play a very important role as well. A scholar from U.C. Davis who is well known and well-regarded here in the States would get you much further than an Oxford professor whose work is less familiar and who hasn't been traveling the same conference circuit for years on end. With that said, you also need to consider which scholar and institution will ultimately best further *your* research. Having 20 scholars of the Middle East means very little if they are all doing things that are different enough from you that they might as well be working on 19th century U.S. history. Having the *right three scholars* at U.C. Davis would be more valuable than having 20 at Oxford who are only a mediocre fit. Obviously, if you are aiming for the job market in Turkey, than Oxford is the bigger name. Of course, it will still come down to the quality of your work. Sounds like the U.C. Davis professor might well be a great fit for you as an advisor, whereas the Oxford prof. isn't as sure of a thing. Can the Oxford professor and the other professors out there be good enough guides to match the expertise and level of in-born interest that the individual at Davis will bring to the table? These are all important considerations. Obviously, Oxford is, on the face of it, a stronger contender than U.C. Davis, but I would suggest that you think very carefully about this before you make a commitment.

Yale's history department relies on an oral comprehensive examination -- no written component.

Bravo, Runaway. I wish I could uptick your post more than a single time. It is rather obnoxious that so many choose to define "diversity" within narrow confines and then project their narrow definition onto the word as it appears in other contexts. A statement of diversity is quite valuable in terms of having the ability to pitch yourself to a graduate program specifically in terms of how you will make a graduate cohort and program a more interesting, unique, and altogether exceptional place that encourages and supports intellectual exchange and rigor. If you can't manage to articulate who you are/what you have done that makes you stand out as a unique individual on the planet, be assured that a graduate program will (rightly) choose the more interesting person whose credentials are also equally matched.

I would back way off and approach this issue again when you've been working with her for a while. It sounds like something you've done inadvertently has gotten under her skin. Focus on "Y" and worry about "X" later on when you've demonstrated sufficient mastery in "Y" that your adviser is satisfied with your progress therein and when you know her better. Just my $.02.

Some programs actually specify what kinds of housing and benefits they provide for their students on their websites. If not, I have found that the administrators who handle graduate admissions at the departmental level usually are pretty forthcoming and helpful in giving you this information or connecting you with current students who can do so...!

Okay -- just checking.

What's wrong with being able to retire in your 50s if you've put in 30+ solid years on the job? As far as I can tell -- nothing, but there are an awful lot of people out there who think that a pension for a job well done is equal to communism unless you are a corporate CEO. This is a foolish mentality. People should work as long as they want -- but no one should be forced to work until they die (like an increasing plurality of Americans these days) because their ultra-wealthy society cannot be bothered to compensate their labor appropriately. People have been tricked into a race toward the lowest common denominator when it is against their own interests. In any case, if you've read my posts carefully, you'll note that I haven't suggested that anyone *shouldn't* pursue a Ph.D. if they want to do so. However, the consideration to do so is *particularly relevant* to an individual whose primary goal *is not to be a college professor* -- a goal toward which is what almost all Ph.D. programs in history are oriented. To be perfectly honest, I think that you are taking my advice to the OP a bit personally, Cage. And yet, my mother was a teacher, my sister was a teacher -- hell, my wife has been in education for almost 25 years -- I have nothing against teachers. I certainly don't have a judgment of you for choosing to pursue a Ph.D. instead of staying in a teaching career -- or for anyone else who chooses to switch tracks halfway through the race (as I did when I decided to leave the corporate world and pursue this path instead). This *does not* negate the soundness of what I said. I actually have taught and advised students at the university level and many of them *have not considered the issue of cost of opportunity in relation to going to graduate school*. There is nothing condescending about bringing it up and advising that someone think carefully about how their mental calculus might change if they consider where they want to be professionally in ten years and where they want to be in terms of earning power, ability to do basic things like own a home, etc. You've misread what I've posted if you think that I have advised anyone "not [to] further their education because they are going to be 'missing out' on earning money." That simply isn't what I wrote; it isn't what I mean; and I am not being condescending nor deserve to be labelled as such. Advising someone who explicitly posted here seeking advise to think carefully about their goals is not the same thing as suggesting that they not pursue the Ph.D.

In an era when teacher tenure is under relentless assault and, unfortunately, all too many Americans are looking resentfully at teacher's retiring in their 50s with pensions instead of pushing to have similar humane treatment, I do not think that it is safe to assume that those years of earning can safely be considered not to be a big deal. Again, there is a lot that needs to be considered carefully here and it is, of course, a highly individual decision -- but it is hard to make good decisions if people are not actually offering up different perspectives and interpretations of data, right? In any event, I have encountered far less disdain for teachers among academics than in society more broadly. In the academy, it appears to me more that the Ph.D. in history still is designed to prepare people to work in the research-oriented positions of yesteryear as opposed to the 4/4 positions that are far more common now. My personal experience has been that the programs suffer from inertia more than a prejudice against teaching among faculty. I have heard enough people talk about faculty who look down on teaching to believe that the phenomenon you are speaking of is more than purely anecdotal, but I think that it is relatively minor compared to the broader assault against K-12 public education in this country.

You make good points, CageFree, but I do think that it is relevant for people who really want to be *high school* teachers to consider whether a 5-7 commitment to the Ph.D. process makes sense versus spending that time teaching instead. In terms of salary, I know that in the school districts in the places I've lived (my spouse is an educator, so I've paid attention to this a bit more), the pay-scale bump for Ph.D.-holding teachers isn't high enough to make up for the lost years of prime earning power. Both the third-tier school where I earned my B.A. and the R1 where I did my M.A. had top-notch M.A. History programs that catered to working teachers. Those teachers were able to engage in rigorous research and explore their passions in history at a pace that was manageable for them as working professionals without lowering the expectations of quality and rigor. There is no doubt that a teacher holding a Ph.D. in History has the potential to bring a high level of skill and engagement into the high school classroom, but I still would caution those whose calling is teaching in a high school to think carefully as to whether a Ph.D. is the best way for them to acquire the skills needed to teach history at a high level. Of course, to those who answer "yes -- this is absolutely the right choice for me," then I say "bravo/a" -- my intent is not to discourage...!

I had my child a few years before returning to school to pursue academia, so the situation is not entirely analogous to having a baby while in graduate school. There are some similar challenges, however. You'll need to be exceptionally well organized with your time. The amount of work for a graduate student in the humanities is intended not merely to teach you or test you, but essentially to break you down and build you back up again. If I were you, I would consider very strongly *not* having a young baby during your first year of coursework which can often be the most difficult and stressful period. After that, the workload continues at an insane pace, but you'll be used to dissecting multiple thousands of pages per week, insane amounts of writing, etc. so it'll seem a bit more normal. You'll be adding in a baby who will interrupt your sleep regularly for the first three (at least) years of life, and then not infrequently interrupting it thereafter (my darling child is seven... still interrupts our sleep early on a Saturday morning)... Throw in relatively frequent illnesses (as their little immune systems have to come up to speed), midnight, two A.M., four A.M., and six A.M. feedings and then a pile of Foucault or discrete mathematics or whatever on top of it all... Another challenge is that babies and kids cost a lot of money. Their food, clothes, medicines, toys, etc. all add up -- even if you are a thrifty shopper! You will find that some professors will be sympathetic to the challenges of having children, while others will have absolutely no patience for what they consider to be a "personal choice" and will hold it against you forever if you have to miss class because your child is sick and cannot go to daycare/school. If your advisor or someone important for your career happens to be in the latter camp, it can negatively impact your chances on the job market. I write all of these caveats not because I would want to discourage you, but because I think that it is best to be as aware as possible of the challenges involved *before* you are in the thick of things -- that way you can perhaps try to shape your schedules, goals, and program such that the challenges of a raising a little one can be balanced with those of your work. Having a supportive partner with a quasi-flexible schedule makes a big difference, as does matriculating into a program in which many of the students/professors are younger and have young children. I know people who have had kids in graduate school and managed to get through successfully and also those who waited until they landed on the TT to have their first child and have been successful as well. There are no absolutes when it comes to this stuff! Good luck with your applications (and future parenting )...!

Given your interests, did you happen to look at SBU? You certainly can't get a program more deeply into Franciscan theology than that one!

It is worth really thinking carefully about why you want to do a Ph.D. in history. Given that the process takes somewhere between 5-8 years (or sometimes more), you have to be certain that the gains are worth the opportunity cost. Those are prime earning years that are irretrievable. If your ultimate goal *isn't* to work at the college/university level, then you might want to consider whether you can pursue your goal in another fashion. While a Ph.D. in History *can* be useful for careers other than a job at a university, it remains the case that most Ph.D. programs in History are still oriented specifically toward the goal of preparing one for a tenure-track position. In this sense, the degree is still very much a vocational degree.

This is true of course -- but connections are critical to this field and there is no doubt that people who come from traditionally privileged vectors of society have far better opportunities to network and are, on the whole, far better at it because they've been doing it longer. I don't think that anyone here has suggested that there is something wrong with a person of privilege succeeding. The problem is that so many privileged people believe that they begin the race at the same starting line as their un-privileged peers (as opposed to far ahead) and then assume that they cross the finish line sooner because they are better. This attitude and the fiction of a pure meritocracy are both very damaging to the prospects of people who do not start out with advantages. By all means -- don't apologize for having advantages! It behooves everyone who has them, however, to be humane and acknowledge that those advantages exist and attempt, in whatever small way is possible, to extend the benefits of privilege (i.e. easier access to success) to those who don't have it.

Find colleagues somewhere else that are doing work similar to yours and make connections! Get into a graduate student support group (your school hopefully has one) or talk to a school counselor (again -- hopefully your school makes this available to you). It is crucial that you find people to talk to that can support you on a variety of levels -- and it sounds like you could use a boost from others who have been in the doldrums (and everyone gets there at some point) and gotten through them... but also a gut-check from other people in your field who do work similar to yours. I might be wrong, but it sounds like some reassurance from someone whose work is similar to yours that your progress is indeed appropriate given your work might be helpful? In any case -- my advice would be not to give up yet! Earning a Ph.D. is about perseverance as much as it is anything else and this too will pass... And if it doesn't, then you can move on in good faith that you stuck it out as long as possible. Just my humble opinion though.

Hmmm -- well you are both making a pretty strong case... Thanks for the information!