CageFree

Those same people who don't take you seriously when you say you don't want a kid when you're 25 will think there's some wrong with you (i.e. "crazy cat lady") when you actually don't have any kids when you're 45. Point is, there's no winning with these people. 

Like how you see the world "child" and have to post? Anyway, I'm done. Good luck with your baby names. Let's give it back to the child-free people. 
 
And I didn't "attack" you. Go back and read. I said this thread is for child-free (the movement) people. 

Childless and child free are very different things, and I for one find it grating how you are making this thread about yourself and how a thread about people who have no desire for children has been hijacked about somebody here who is all but lamenting about not having any kids.

A guy who just brings up babies with someone he barely knows is obviously cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

I think the point of this thread was by choice, not circumstance. You make status updates about picking out future baby names on your lunch break. 

PhD students are more important. Get over it please.

Yeah, I would say that people overestimate the important of your adviser having to do exactly what you do. My adviser works on a different time period and country, though same general region,and we have different thematic interests. And you're right, your interests are likely going to change... I would say that of the people I know, about 2/6 are doing exactly what they set out to do, 3/6 have stayed in the same general time and/or region but changed interests, and 1/6 have made dramatic changes (like Europe to South Asia, or 16th century to 20th).

You may have been "around the block," but not in our field. So.. when it comes to fit in HISTORY, yeah, we know more than you.

Yeah, I would say that people overestimate the important of your adviser having to do exactly what you do. My adviser works on a different time period and country, though same general region,and we have different thematic interests. And you're right, your interests are likely going to change... I would say that of the people I know, about 2/6 are doing exactly what they set out to do, 3/6 have stayed in the same general time and/or region but changed interests, and 1/6 have made dramatic changes (like Europe to South Asia, or 16th century to 20th).

I think this is the next most entertaining thread I've come across besides the "How to find a husband in graduate school" thread.

There are many many strategies for this.  The only piece of universal advise I will give is that you can not read every word but you should turn every page.  As for me... when I was in course work I read every word of the introduction, the conclusion, I than looked at the notes to see what kind of sources the author used.  In part this is to decide if he or she could possibly reach the conclusions they do using those sources (this turns out to be a surprisingly easy way to spot massive problems in books).  I than pick a couple of chapters that seem most interesting or like they are key to why the book was assigned.
 
If chapters are repetitive, pick one.  Nature's Metropolis for example has three commodities chapters which are brilliant but for the sake of a grad seminar you really only need one to get the argument.   
 
Some people read the first sentence of every paragraph, which can work, but I don't use that very often. 
 
It may seem like a waste, but at least skim acknowledgements, after a bit you'll learn to read a lot into academic family trees.  Learn to read pictures and maps critically.  Are they there just for the sake of being there or are they part of the argument.  Hint, if they're not captioned well it's not a good sign for the book.
 
Articles will always take longer to read than the equivalent number of pages in a book.  They have to be read more closely.  Just the nature of the beast.
 
As for reading loads.... my masters program (respectable state school, not big name), was 1 book per week plus 1 article.  My phd program (ivy, big name), is between 1-2 books per week or the equivalent number of pages in articles but rarely both that many articles plus a monograph. 
 
In my experience "Reading" for course work, "Reading" for comps, and Reading for your own research are all very different and what I just said applies to course work.
 
For comps it's read the book until you get it and put it down.  In my program comps lists can be up to 250 books.  You can't spend a lot of time with anything and you learn to be super efficient.  It was my experience that books I really liked in comps I really had to have the discipline to put down.  If I liked it I had gotten the argument.

You may have been "around the block," but not in our field. So.. when it comes to fit in HISTORY, yeah, we know more than you.

This.
 
Just a few more things:
 
Academic fit also means having alternatives. If, say, your primary adviser leaves.. would that mean you cannot continue? If so, the program was probably not a great place to be. The days of faculty getting a tenure-track position and staying there until they died in their office are long gone.... professors move, especially those who are mid-career. My adviser left after my first year because "life happened" (in other words, I don't blame this person one bit for leaving and it was not planned), but I have three other faculty in my field that I was able to choose from to continue. I would not go to a program that only has one person working in my field.
 
There's also politics (and I don't mean department stuff). If you lean a bit conservative, a super-left-wing department might not be a great place, especially if you work on, say, United States history... and viceversa. Unless you like arguing a lot... 
 
Finally, there's the department culture. Some departments are very collaborative and collegial, others are super cut-throat (especially when grad students have to compete for funding). 

You may have been "around the block," but not in our field. So.. when it comes to fit in HISTORY, yeah, we know more than you.

CASI? 
 
Playing academic politics (assuring faculty, etc) isn't the same thing as having the faculty who can support you in your given areas of interest. 
 
 
That said, I think fit was the most important thing to me. My biggest mistake was listening to an assistant professor I didn't know well who suggested extra schools not on the basis of fit. I had a list of strong fitting schools that was about 4 schools long, and got talked into applying to way more that I don't think were "perfect fits".  At the end of the day, the programs I thought were best fit were programs I got into. I based it off of places where I could find one or more POIs who did research in the same areas I was interested in. Looking back at the SOP I used for the school I'm enrolling in I addressed fit based on a few things:
 
My time period of focus My geographical focus(es) (I have transcultural considerations to make) The specific things I study within that time/geographical period My methodological goals/philosophies  sub-focuses/minor subject area Additional faculty who I thought would support my research beyond a single POI/advisor (e.g. the rest of my department-based committee)  departmental support in my career goals (which in my case is not academia/becoming a professor) I laid out very explicitly what I was interested in, what I wanted to do, who I hoped to work with/learn under, etc. I don't see this as being a clone stamp of the professors I'm choosing to work with - I don't do 100% of any one thing they do, but I also don't see how or why I would be considered troublesome unless I didn't actually fit with the department's scholars in terms of what I want to study. ETA: obviously I'm an art historian, but believe there are plenty of similarities in what we consider when talking about specialties/fit.

Wow, that's very cynical and ... I don't think particularly accurate.
 
Fit in my book is that you work has the support within the department to mature and advance.  If you are a historian of early modern Swedish hip hop, with a particular interest in the cultural exchange with Namibian biochemists than fit would mean that the department has a Scandinavian historian, someone who knows something about early modern popular music, an Africanist and hopefully a historian of science.  That all of these people are open to helping students who do not replicate their work exactly.  Because frankly there is probably not room in the world for a transcultural comparative for 15th century Scandinavia and Africa.

"Fit" more often than not means that you're not going to rock the boat, challenge prevailing orthodoxies and cause trouble (which usually means "more work") for people.  It also often means the ability to be a grinning blank slate that faculty can reproduce their own ideas upon rather than showing an annoying proclivity for thinking for yourself.
 
ETA: I didn't see this was a history thread, but I think these short observations about "fit" are normative for most departments.

I've been using movie scores, preferably stuff that's sort of classical yet new agey at the same time, like Clint Mansell's soundtracks for Moon and The Fountain.
 

- from The Fountain  

- from Moon  
I also write to Enya.

I've been using movie scores, preferably stuff that's sort of classical yet new agey at the same time, like Clint Mansell's soundtracks for Moon and The Fountain.
 

- from The Fountain  

- from Moon  
I also write to Enya.

Just a few thoughts:
 
Although several people have mentioned the job situation (your SO will have to find some type of work, which may be easier in or near a large city than a small, isolated college town), another factor to consider is social life. My partner and I moved six hours away (cross-state) from family and friends, which meant having to set up new social networks. As a grad student, you can build friendships with people in your program and others you meet through classes and extracurricular activities, but for your S/O this may mean that a) their social life will revolve around yours, or b ) they will have to make friends outside your circle, which largely depends on their ability to find work and the nature of the job itself.
 
My program is in a relatively isolated city, and the first year that we were here my partner was finishing a teaching certificate in a nearby small town. My entire social life revolves around grad school -- which means my poor STEM-trained partner has learned (through osmosis) more history in the past year than he did in 18 years of formal education.  Now that he has a job about half an hour away, he socializes more with people at his job site, but I don't really participate because they go do things after work, and I have to be here.
 
The good thing is that because he already has a graduate degree he understands the pressure I'm under. We don't argue over things like why I have so much grading to do or why I stay up late to read and write. Some partners (with or without a graduate education) will be very supportive, while others may not understand the grad school mentality and rhythm, and that may cause some strain as well... especially if your partner made sacrifices to move and acclimate to a new place.

Did your meds come in yet?

I missed that part.  You know us grad students don't read word for word.
 
That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!