CageFree

No, don't worry. That person applied to social work. I submitted my Pitt application the day it was due and was admitted, so I wouldn't worry about that type of stuff. My own program has a similar policy... the deadline is there for a reason.

Different programs have different application timelines. Pitt seems to make decisions in February, based on my experience from a couple of years ago.

You probably should have had an option for people who are already married. I had just gotten married when I started grad school.

I'm a 2nd year Ph.D. student, almost done with coursework. I work on Latin America but dabble in American History too, and my interests are mostly on gender and race. I'm almost done with my coursework. Some of my recommendations: Latin America/Caribbean: Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico, Gil Joseph Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Michel-Rolph Trouillot The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America, Nancy Leys Stepan Genealogical Fictions: Limpieza de Sangre, Religion, and Gender in Colonial Mexico, Maria Elena Martinez Recreating Africa: Culture, Kinship, and Religion in the African-Portuguese World, 1441-1770, James Sweet Partners in Conflict: The Politics of Gender, Sexuality, and Labor in the Chilean Agrarian Reform, Heidi Tinsman Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, Eduardo Galeano Peru's Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640, Steve Stern A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture, Marguerite Feitlowitz U.S. Gender and Women's History: Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic, Jeanne Boydston Rape and Sexual Power in Early America, Sharon Block Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940, George Chauncey Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730-1830, Clare Lyons Other: Maus, Vol. I and II, Art Spiegelman

I wonder if it's dependent upon department culture. Profs in my department always sign emails to individual students with their first names (or even nicknames). I would only address a professor in my department as Dr./Prof. _____ if it were someone I don't normally talk to and thus isn't someone who would know who I am.

See, I felt very weird about contacting them after I was rejected (or after I declined an offer). There is one that I would love to have as a potential reader, and I feel very strange about contacting them, especially since none of my profs really known them.

I could almost understand this behavior if you two were close in age but you said she's older. She can't handle the stress and taking it out on you is wrong. It doesn't seem as if she does it on purpose, but unless you see a huge improvement, I would not think of this person as your "friend." As for the people saying that it's not a GS's job to mentor, some schools and programs encourage mentorship, either through formal means (my school has a program designed for that) or simply by encouraging collegiality.

Not only that, but your SOP really ought to be a reflection of who you are as a person. Using anything that resembles a "canned" format may work for, say, business school, but in the humanities our writing style is almost like a fingerprint... it's very individual. There should be something in common in all of your papers, kind of like a common "voice" that carries through regardless of the topic. I can tell when I read something I wrote, even if it's something from 15 years ago, because it sounds like ME. I know that sounds very artsy and weird but I think it's true...

I, for one, was not in any 'serious relationships" at age 22. I dated off and on, but I didn't meet my first husband until I was 25, and got married shortly after turning 28. And you know what? Even that was too early, which is why I ended up having to start again at 33. I remarried a year ago. If I wanted kids (I don't), I could easily start having them now. I've never had a dating profile on a website, I've never done speed-dating, and I've never even asked someone out in my life. I did not meet any of my "significant" relationships through school or through work... I've ALWAYS met people at parties where my only purpose was to have fun and make friends. I've just never put any effort into "finding a mate." I can't speak for everyone else who has replied here, but it seems that other people who are in long term relationships have similar advice for you. The fact that I or some other people on here are in long term relationships should validate, rather than invalidate, our input. Don't you think?

I think some of your initial posts definitely gave the impression that you were prioritizing finding a "husband" over everything else, especially because you expressed a lot of anxiety over aging (at 22!). But now that it's all sorted out, just remember that there is no hurry. Use your "single" time to develop yourself and see the world. It gets much harder to do those things once you have people depending on you.

Then I would simply focus on getting through those two years. If you meet someone, great. If not, that's fine too. Making "finding a husband" a priority is counterproductive. Not sure if you ever saw Sex and the City, but there was one episode where Charlotte had made husband-hunting a "job" of sorts. Kind of amusing.

A person who chooses B or C (or some version of that) is someone for whom grad school is a goal, rather than a backup, it seems unfair to take the the spot of someone who really wants to be there (and this is especially true in the case of funded programs, where you are essentially making a commitment). Of course, plans and life change, and no one can foresee that, but if you know from the get-go that you will drop grad school when you "meet someone," because THAT was the goal in the first place, then the level of commitment simply isn't what it should be. Grad school isn't finishing school.

False. Plenty of people don't start having "serious" relationships until later in their 20s. My husband didn't until he was in his early 30s... too focused on other stuff. The other thing is that a relationship that might work at age 22 might not work at age 32. People change SO MUCH in their 20s. What happens to "this lady?" She moves on. She goes back to focusing on her career, and seeks her own happiness. Maybe she'll meet someone, maybe not. Either way, her life isn't over simply because she "didn't get married." Given she is a mid-career lawyer, she probably has the resources to do other things she enjoys. If that is, literally, the worst thing that could happen, you really need to rethink your priorities. There are FAR worse things that can happen to you than calling off a wedding after realizing you were about to make a mistake. One such example would be to actually MARRY that person, even though you knew it wasn't right. Another would be to marry only to realize afterwards that the person not right for you. Even worse would be to have children with that person, and thus be forced to continue some kind of relationship or connection. Ending an engagement is much better than a divorce. Trust me. And worse than all of those would be to marry someone who isn't right for you, but stay with them regardless because of fear that you won't find better, only to let resentment and disappointment build over the years. Looking back at the past twenty, even thirty years and realizing that you could have been happy had you made a different choice... either to pursue a personal goal, or to wait to meet a person that is worth sharing your life with, rather than settle for the first "Mr./Ms. Maybe" that appeared to be interested (i.e. just to be in a relationship/married). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWzLgWWu5wU One more thing. Try this for perspective. Let's say you met someone, and hit it off. Then he said, "I don't want you to finish grad school, I want us to get married and have a family." Would you a) dump him and continue pursuing your goals, b ) do as he asked and quit, or c) quit for now, and hope you can go back in a few years? If the answer is anything other than a), then grad school isn't your priority, and if that's the case, I would ask that you kindly let others to take your spot.

You can't PLAN these things. You have to let go of the desperation and learn to be happy by yourself. You need to be able to be happy even if you NEVER marry and NEVER have kids. If your life is devoid of any meaning without those things, that's your problem right there. It is way too much pressure for someone to know that YOUR happiness depends entirely on whether they stay with you. Every friend I have who complains about being single seems to have some kind of strict timeline for love and family... marry by age ___, first kid by ___. They have online profiles on every dating site, speed-date, etc., and they are still single because guys can smell the desperation a mile away. The problem with having timelines and deadlines is that life doesn't work like that. Life is full of unexpected twists and turns. I met my now husband while going through a a divorce. I wasn't LOOKING... in fact, I had "f__k off" figuratively tattooed on my forehead. I had sworn off marriage, relationships, etc., and pictured myself living with a bunch of cats. We met at a party, and two years later we got married. We were both in our mid 30s at the time. A partner worth having is going to be attracted to someone who is able to stand on their own, who has their crap together, and who doesn't make them the center of their happiness. A partner worth having isn't going to say that they "can picture marrying you" on the third date because one ought to think long and hard before getting married. Take this from someone who married in their late 20s thinking I was doing things "the right way," only to end with a bitter divorce. Talking marriage on the third date should be a red flag because at that time you should still be evaluating whether you want to know that person better over the next month... not the rest of your life. This is especially true when you're only in your early 20s! Similarly, a person worth having doesn't put you at the center of their world, and isn't willing to settle for the first "Mr./Ms. Maybe" just because of fear of never finding someone else. When you date, each partner is evaluating the other person. Think about what it is you currently have to offer (and I am not talking about looks and what not... think about your life situation) to someone who would actually be worth it. If you are working on a Master's, are you likely to have to move when you finish? Will you really have the time to devote to a relationship? Can you pull your weight financially? Please do yourself a favor and take a mental break from "dating." Stop worrying about meeting someone. Make yourself someone worth having by working on being happy on your own, and when you get there, either you will meet the right person, or it just simply won't matter anymore whether you do. Either way, you need to be happy being alone before you can be ready to make someone else happy.

I also echo looking to transfer within the university, especially if you have already built good relationships. A good friend of mine transferred from a ___ studies program into History, still kept their main advisor from the old department in their committee, but now is doing work on history rather than ____ studies.

I would try to get something with a 4th generation Intel processor (like an i7) and as much ram as you can get. If you are looking for a gaming laptop too, make sure it has a dedicated video card with at least 2 gb memory (like an NVidia G-Force), and an HD resolution screen (1080, not 768). I have never had issues with Dell. My XPS M1530 is still running well after 6 years, it's just that I'm doing a lot of heavy photo editing (research) and with 4 GB of RAM and a duo core processor, it was getting taxed pretty heavily. My previous dell had also lasted 6 years. I now have a Lenovo U530.

A funded MA would not allow you to teach at a high school, generally speaking. Same with Ph.D. programs, as the funding usually requires things like TAing or grading. Ed.D. programs are often offered on evenings and on a part-time basis, but that's not the case with Ph.D. programs, given that the expectation is that the degree will be your entire life. I was a high school teacher for a number of years. I simply cannot imagine doing that AND pursuing a Ph.D. in History at the same time. A Ed.D. would be slightly more realistic, but only after having a few years of teaching (and a solid curriculum) under my belt. Even then, it'd be tough... a friend of mine completed a Ph.D. in educational policy while teaching and she basically never slept. And no, it wasn't funded.

I wouldn't use words like "self-taught" or "self-trained," but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that your interest is something that grew out of your own intellectual curiosity... you can explain how you got there in your SOP. I had ZERO coursework in my proposed field of study because I switched continents, time periods and themes completely (Late Antiquity to Modern Latin America), partly as a result of being out of academia for over a decade. My interest in Latin America developed organically, from "life experience" and curiosity about my own past. I asked professors if the lack of coursework (or a paper in the field) would hurt my chances, and they all said no, that if I was trained well as a historian it didn't matter what I studied as an undergrad. I have found that to be true... I have more reading to do than some other people in my field at this point of my career, but having taken a few classes on Latin America wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

I would maybe resend the same email with a note saying that you sent that a few weeks ago and figure it probably got lost in the shuffle. Be very polite and understanding because frankly, they are busy people and responding to you is merely a courtesy. Although there is such a thing as common courtesy, you are not entitled to a response, not even an acknowledgement, given you are not their student. Your email should not ask if they "read" your email but simply whether they received it. Often, it simply gets lost among the many other emails. Sometimes, however, it's a sign that you should look elsewhere. During my application season, I had a few instances of "no response." I found this past summer (from one of their former advisees) that one prof was going through a tragic personal situation at the time I applied (which explains why I got no response). Another, I found out, is known for never replying to emails because s/he doesn't think grad students are worthy of their time. I also had one prof who responded very enthusiastically right away, and then after a couple of emails (and an invitation to drive to the university to meet for coffee), communication stopped altogether. My adviser knows this prof and gave me a bit of insight on a personal situation that explained what happened. Some profs are very personable, others are not. It's like any other type of work. Some really try to recruit students, others don't seem to care, and yet others flat out scare students away. I had a really bad experience (via email) with a prof at a school I was strongly considering, and did not complete the application. Apparently that professor has never had a graduate student. EVER. In all of those cases, I took the silence coming from the other end as a sign to look elsewhere, and did not bother applying to any of those programs. This past summer there was one prof in my country of study I was hoping to talk to. I got her email address from a friend who has worked with her in the past, and apparently she told my friend that I should definitely write, that she would love to talk to me, etc. Two emails later, I still haven't gotten a response. It's been two months. People are weird like that, sometimes.

I would give it a couple of weeks. There's a fine line between eager and pushy, and the last thing you want is to irritate a POI.

That is very program-dependent. In mine, you have to pass the exam(s) before you can take your qualifying exams, so you have a couple of years. Some of us took our exams right away just to get them out of the way, others are still working on their languages.

Some programs also allow Americanists to do quantitative analysis or something similar in lieu of a language, though I think this does these students a disservice, not to mention it's unfair to those of us who have to know at least one, maybe two, sometimes three or four languages. Knowing a second language shouldn't be solely for the purposes of research... it is also an intellectual pursuit, not to mention a useful life skill. It used to be that most well-educated people could speak two or three languages; this is still the case in much of Europe. I was in South America this past summer and was quite impressed by the number of people (most of whom were not academics) I encountered who spoke English in addition to Spanish (quite well, in fact). Not only that, but they viewed knowing a second language as a life skill. As for the OP, it's simple. You want to study French history, learn French. Not only for reading, but also for conversation. You will likely have to go do research in France at some point and trust me, knowing how to SPEAK the local language makes EVERYTHING much easier. You can't expect archivists to know English and help you find resources.

I wouldn't contact them so much for admissions, but to confirm that people you want to work with will be available. You don't want to arrive for a MA program only to find that your POI is going on a two-year sabbatical.

Are you applying in History? If so, the grade will be relevant. If you are applying in, say, Mechanical Engineering, then it wouldn't matter. I had an F from a calculus class Freshman year, and I doubt that made much of a difference other than lowering my overall GPA. My history work was strong and that's what mattered, ultimately.

If you are still in school or graduated in the last 3-4 years, letters from profs are best. I included a non-academic letter but I had been out of academia for 12 years, so I was lucky to have one, let alone two letters from undergrad professors. My non-academic letter was from the principal at the school where I taught, so it attested to my teaching and thus was relevant. Still, the academic letters carried more weight.