Simple Twist of Fate

The others are correct that you need a general idea of your interests, if not a specific topic. It's perfectly acceptable to say "My interests lie in the intersection of race and class formation in colonial America" (to just choose a bunch of random words). That's nowhere near a dissertation topic, but it is a signal that your interests (hopefully) align with the particular faculty at the school you're applying to. If you'd like, feel free to send me a personal message (I also study early America) and I'd be happy to talk with you more in depth about defining and refining your interests in a way that would suit admissions committees and potential advisors.

I know a bit about it -- feel free to PM me with more specific questions.

Sent you a PM, greenwintermints.

Congrats vtstevie. I'm really glad everything worked out for you this year. Temple is a really strong place to study early American history.

DO participate in PAT because it has the potential to be personally rewarding and could aid in your professionalization as an historian. DO NOT participate in PAT because you think it will help you get into grad school. It really won't help you in any meaningful way.

And UConn isn't offering funding? If that's the case, I would bite Illinois State's hand off. UConn has a solid department, but I don't think that it's prestigious enough to consider going into unnecessary debt over.

Well, there's no admissions test for foreign languages... At my current (Ph.D.) university, there's an expectation that your language will be taken care of by the third semester, whether by taking language classes or by passing an exam at some point. It's okay for you to not know how things work -- there's a pretty steep learning curve on a lot of this stuff. In graduate history applications, you will identify a potential advisor. This person will ideally have similar research interests to yours (this is usually referred to as "fit"). At the very least, he or she will need to be in your field. So while it's common to switch advisors once you're in a program, you select one during the application process who you could work with. So once you've identified your research interests (which I understand may not be fully formed at this point) you should go back through the secondary sources you used and identify which scholars whose work you find useful are still teaching at graduate degree-granting institutions. Alternatively, you can do what I also did, which is to comb through the faculty pages of practically every scholar in your field. I applied to work with my current advisor in part because her faculty website said that she was working on a forthcoming book project similar to my own work. After you've identified several scholars who might be interested in working with you, you can begin to build a list of schools to apply to. Unfortunately, in this process, we have to apply to places based on where potential advisors are, not based on where we'd like to live, or the strength of the program. You haven't got a chance of getting into a graduate program if there's no (tenured) faculty member there who can support your research. Best of luck. PS- feel free to PM me about early American history more specifically, or particular historians who might be interested in your research.

Good to see another early Americanist. Take a look at this recent thread: A lot of the same points apply to your situation. It's pretty much impossible for us to say what your chances are. Too many variables. It's impossible to gauge the quality of your research from this position. But there's no reason you couldn't get into a strong MA and then Ph.D. program, if you work at putting together a solid application package. Like I said in the other thread, focusing on research over something like extracurriculars will help you in the long run. Nothing wrong with going to a small, obscure liberal arts school. I doubt that would hurt your chances much, if at all. Many students in top programs once went to pretty anonymous undergraduate institutions. I would also say that the prestige of your potential MA institution is less important than several other factors - namely, the potential for funding, and having a strong advisor. Also, for early American history, languages are often not hugely important (unless your research really demands it). Since you have some time, it might be worth considering whether you could enroll in a language class to show you have at least some proficiency in a foreign language.

To balance what's been said, I will offer a different kind of example: an asst. prof. at my current institution has three doctoral advisees. She's something of a rising star in her field (has been described as a "rockstar," etc.) and I don't think there's any doubt she'll get tenure. Another student I know applied to work with an untenured faculty member - instead of rejecting her, they worked with her to change her advisor to another, well-suited, tenured faculty member. In some situations, it does make sense to apply to work with an asst. prof. One way to tell - emailing them. Another way - if the dept. website has a list of graduate students and their advisors, check to see if that prof. (or other asst. profs) are listed as advisors. Overall, though, I would characterize these situations as rare. If there's a POI you're really interested in who is untenured, get as much information as possible, and make sure there are other people you could potentially mention on your application.

You have a 57% chance of a funded acceptance. No, but seriously, that's all great... but your possibility of admission will depend more on the quality of your research, the fit between your research and the programs you apply to, and a considerable amount of luck. Don't take this the wrong way, but programs don't particularly care about what clubs lead, or your community service. Those can be absolutely great things to do for your own benefit as a human being, but don't feel as if you need to demonstrate those things when applying for history graduate programs. I know that lots of people go out of their way to perform service and do extracurriculars for the sake of their undergraduate applications, but this is a very different beast. If you're determined to do a Ph.D., focusing on improving your research rather than on participating in extracurriculars will be more helpful. Good luck.

Depends on how you work, of course, but seven months should be more than enough if you're really engaged with the project. Remember, most programs will ask for a sample between 10-25 pages, so it's more important that you have a concise, polished, intelligent piece of writing than a really substantial piece of research.

vtstevie, in an effort to avoid derailing this thread, I've sent you a PM.

AHA's take: http://blog.historians.org/news/1989/is-there-any-value-in-us-news-rankings-of-history-grad-programs

School prestige is not so important. As always, things differ by school. It's possible to get some admissions people who are prejudiced towards big name schools, but they're probably unlikely to admit it in public. I also went to a small, undistinguished midwestern liberal arts school for undergrad and got into a few solid programs -- and without the benefit of an MA. On the other hand, it is theoretically helpful to have recommenders/advisors who know people at your applying university, but far from necessary or determinative. It's important that your writing sample demonstrates an ability to work with primary sources -- and in other languages if that's applicable to your research. Since your writing sample is so important, I would definitely suggest reworking it in some way or finding another paper.

This is an admirable sentiment, but advisors (not only their names) are extremely important in helping you build those connections, pushing you to excel, and making sure your research is top notch. One of the schools I was looking at last year was in the high 40s on the new rankings, but my POI had a 100% placement rate for his advisees (I think there were three of them, so the sample size was small, but that's pretty impressive). I would also say that not looking outside the top 10 is nuts. Think of all the great schools that would leave off. Had the same thought. I looked at the google cache. Spoiler alert - it's essentially the same as the last rankings (2009).