CageFree

No, I noticed the same thing. I'm doing okay. Just a bit overwhelmed with papers I have to do...but it's a doable load.

How are you guys doing? Can you believe exactly one year ago, we were here freaking out about whether we were going to be in the position we are in right now?

It makes sense and I wish I had the time myself. It's just this particular quarter, with the number of books I have to read (I didn't include the 2 books a week I'm reading for one class, and the book I'm reading for another)... I think the term "leisure reading" officially disappeared from my vocabulary. I suppose the Timerman book is sort of for leisure because it's not in any of my book lists. Scary, huh?

My eyes are not that young lol. Depending on the tablet (like an Android tablet) you should not have any trouble doing that... Zotero has an Android app and it can be managed online too, and you can use the kindle/pdf reader to mark up your pdfs.

Reading right now (curiosity/research/comps): Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number - Jacobo Timerman State Terrorism in Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and Human Rights - Thomas Wright The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History - Samuel Moyn I'm working on several papers right now... two lit reviews (one on human rights, one on youth movements), plus two other papers. I have about 30 library books at home right now :/ Leisure reading? Surely, you jest.

I use Zotero and only use PDFs. I mark them up using PDF-XChange, which allows you to highlight and add notes (and it's free). Using Zotero you can also add notes that are searchable. I just can't justify using my printing allowance for journals.

I think that a mention of how you went from that field to your current interests would be a good idea... how did you evolve from place A to place B? I wouldn't spend more time than that. Just something along the lines of, "although I'm still interested in A and am considering it as a minor field, I want to pursue B because..."

It really depends on the school. At my school, you would be admitted with funding, but I know that my alma mater has SERIOUS funding problems in the same program. PM me for more specifics

Prop 30 prevents automatic trigger cuts that were going to happen; the UC system was going to increase fees by 20% or more, the CSU system was going to admit a lot less students and raise fees. In the UCs they were going to continue the trend of accepting more out-of-state students because they pay more than in-state students. I'm not sure this will affect funding other than keep things the way they are right now. Every school and department has its own funding parameters. I'm at a UC and I'm fully funded for 5 years through TA/Reader positions, for example.

I don't know what liberals you've been talking to, but I don't know any pro-choice liberals who would condemn a person for making that decision... it's the whole point of being pro-CHOICE.

Just thought I'd pass this on: http://www.gradhacker.org/ They are dedicating this week to grad school applications and have some really good articles, including how to write the SOP and how to select programs.

If your other two professors are historians, I think having his perspective will be fine. Many people who have degrees in ethnic studies have taken numerous History courses. Besides, many people are approaching history from interdisciplinary perspectives, so having someone from an interdisciplinary field should not be a problem.

I haven't said anything particularly different. Our only point of disagreement, it seems, is whether putting off retirement to pursue a Ph.D. is a good idea or not. I was not referring specifically to your post regarding negativity, btw. There were other posters who were very discouraging of the OP.

The decision to go into a Ph.D. should be considered carefully by ANYONE. It's never a practical decision. And what's so wrong with delaying your retirement into your 60s? I probably won't be able to retire until my 70s, given I'm a career changer. Should I have just stuck to a career I wasn't happy in instead of setting foot in academia because I'm in my "prime earning years?" As for evidence of the negativity, just look at all the replies the OP got. It's one thing to outline, realistically, what graduate school in History entails, but I cannot imagine telling someone that they should not further their education because they are going to be "missing out" on earning money. It's condescending.

This is true. I think taking time off to do a Ph.D. after a few years of being established in a district would make the most sense... assuming you would be able to teach advanced classes upon returning. The way to do it, perhaps, would be to get the job while ABD, and after being tenured, then present the Ph.D.. At any rate, there are districts (I taught at one) where having advanced degrees is looked at very favorably because it helps the reputation of the school and helps attract higher-achieving students.

The thing is, the average teacher starts in their early 20s, and you generally can get a full retirement at 30 years of service. That means that you'd be in your 50s by the time you are able to retire, and many do retire at that age. Taking 5-7 years for a Ph.D. would push that retirement date to your early 60s... I really, really don't think it's a big deal in terms of "earning power." Many become teachers as second or third careers because they project to work into their late 60s/early 70s. Plus, you don't get huge pay bumps for teaching more than 30 years. I think we can all agree that you can't teach AND get a History Ph.D. simultaneously. And let's be honest, there are VERY FEW people who teach at the high school level who would want to put themselves through a Ph.D. program. I also don't think you NEED a Ph.D. to be a good teacher. But I do have a problem with the institutionalized "looking down upon teachers" attitude in academia, especially considering how bad the academic job market is.

I sent specific feedback to the OP privately. However, as someone who quit teaching to get a Ph.D. (with NO plans to go back), I want to throw in my two cents regarding the broader issues being discussed. 1. It's sadly ironic despite the horrible condition of the job market and the fact that in many states a mid-career high school teacher makes more than some professors, not to mention the abysmal training high school grads/undergrads have in the social sciences, that universities discourage Ph.D. students from going into secondary teaching, or that they would look down upon someone who wants to pursue a Ph.D. even though they want to teach at that level. In California, a tenured, experienced teacher with a Ph.D. can make upwards of 90K/year in some districts nearing the top of their scale. Starting salaries are in the 40s, sometimes low 50s... comparable to an entry-level tenure-track position. With so much talk about finding "non-academic" pathways for Ph.D.s, I think it'd be worth it to allow the opportunity to complete teaching credential coursework while pursuing a Ph.D. Let's face it... not everyone is going to end up in a tenure-track job at an R1 school. Some people are going to find academic teaching unfullfilling (my friend did). Some people may find out they like the teaching aspect more than the research aspect. 2. I taught with a history Ph.D. and he's one of the best teachers I've ever met. He teaches advanced classes and uses his training to teach research skills. A lot of high schools today have many AP and IB courses... in IB, students are expected to prepare original research projects and advising them is similar to advising a thesis. Same skill set. 3. This attitude that one "doesn't need a Ph.D. to teach high school" is just part of a larger issue, i.e. that teachers are not considered partners in education. Remember, those undergrads you get who have never had to write a research paper before, or take notes... the ones who can't see past their own noses during discussion section because they have never been expected to think critically... they could have used a well-trained historian for a teacher.

Check your PMs

So far, so good. I love my cohort... we're a very small group (half the normal cohort size), so that's bringing us closer together.The other grad students (at least the ones in my field) have been very helpful and everyone has been incredibly welcoming. If only it would cool down a bit... then I'd be on cloud 9. It's been RIDICULOUSLY hot!

I'm in my mid-30s and there's one other person in my cohort who is around my age... most everyone else is in their late 20s. Because she has kids and I don't, I actually find I have more in common with the younger crowd... I don't have to worry about putting a baby to bed at a certain time, for example. Personally, I feel that a person is only as old as they feel. My mom is almost 60 and feels like a 45 year old... and people usually think we're sisters rather than mother and daughter.

I would strongly recommend you pursue a M.A. first in order to gain writing and research skills in History. It's not enough to "know a lot" about History to get into a Ph.D. program... you also have to prove you can WRITE History. Letters of rec need to come from professors who are familiar with your history work, rather than engineering professors or employers; you need writing samples in History to show you can do the work. Without any formal training, you just won't be able to get any of those things. If this is really your passion, the M.A. will make you a much, much stronger candidate and even though your undergrad work was not in History, I think the M.A. would make you a very competitive candidate (assuming you do well).

I am so sorry for your loss.

One of my recommenders actually told me (jokingly, of course) that "a low GRE score in math was a badge of honor" among historians.

This is exactly what we were told at UC Davis as well.

I, for one, didn't mean to imply that the article would actually BE published. I said "publishable" and "journal-quality." Just to clarify.