Simple Twist of Fate

Just email the Graduate secretaries and/or the DGS. They will be able to offer better advice than we can. However, I wouldn't worry too much -- if it's not on the history website, it's probably either not a priority or they're used to this happening.

It's a good article -- thanks for the tip Safferz.

At my university, I know that it's not uncommon for undergrads and grads to be in the same language courses (I'm not sure if these are technically grads taking undergrad courses or undergrads taking grad courses -- or even if the distinction really matters in languages). And I don't believe they're paying out of pocket. (...usual caveat about different universities having different systems, so who knows...)

Usually not. They tend to give professors a bit of leeway. My advisor missed one deadline last year by several days, but I still got an admission decision (well, it was a rejection, but I suspect that was unrelated). Also, it may help that it's the weekend, because it may be the case that no one will be looking at the apps until Monday.

I'm not at Harvard or Chicago, but I am at a school with five years of funding for PhD students. With the usual caveat that every school is different, there often are a number of options. First, many schools will continue to offer teaching opportunities. Some will be "adjunct" roles, while others will be TA roles. These are just not guaranteed - they're competitive. Second, one can often find alternative work at the university, college or department level. This might involve working on an academic journal that's based at your university, for example. Third, students usually apply for fellowships of various kinds. In my field, there are numerous organizations, libraries and archives that offer dissertation fellowships. So you might spend your 6th year on fellowship at a particular archive, far away from your campus -- if you're lucky. Or your school (and institutions within it) might offer competitive internal fellowships of various kinds. Fourth, I do know of students who just get jobs that aren't related to academia and continue to work on their dissertation. This is not preferred, as people are looking to build their CV, but it's not the worst thing in the world. I'm certainly overlooking some other alternatives, but maybe someone else can chime in. Different departments support their students differently in this way. Some have a reputation for being unhelpful in this regard, and that's an important thing to determine in deciding where to go.

I'm actually doing terrific. On this Thanksgiving, I'm just thankful that I will have soon made it through my first semester. It has been hard at times, but I'm excited for what's to come in the next few years. Hope you're doing well with everything, CageFree. Is it just me, or are this year's applicants not freaking out as much as I remember from last year? Maybe that was just my mental state.

First of all, the age 27 doesn't really make you a non-traditional applicant. Plenty of people go into PhD history programs at that age. It's actually a big positive to have some life experience before applying for PhD programs. It lets them know that you're serious (i.e.: not applying out of desperation), and that you are capable of being a professional. Second of all, consider the possibility that a spotty academic record doesn't have to be something you have to apologize for. In fact, depending on how you are able to incorporate it into the story of your trajectory as an historian, it can actually be an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to your discipline, the diversity of experience you offer to your institution (some of which may get tons of applications from blue-blood grads of top schools, and would actually welcome the chance to include someone who has faced a struggle to get where they are), and your character. What is more compelling - a story of overcoming obstacles on the way to becoming who you are today, or of looking back on those times with regret? Now obviously you can't sell this point too hard, or else it will be off-putting. But if I were you, I would briefly address it in a positive way in your SOP. 1-2 sentences that get the point across without getting into too many details, and without sounding like you're making excuses (and it sounds like you wouldn't). I think that several people on these boards have had somewhat similar experiences, so hopefully they'll be able to offer more well-developed thoughts. Good luck.

I've just sent you a PM.

I would advise you to consider applying to a few places if you meet these conditions. 1) You are willing to admit that there is a strong possibility, perhaps <50% depending on your circumstances, that you will not receive a funded offer for a PhD program this cycle. This is especially the case if you're only applying to schools of the caliber you mentioned. If you can't deal with the emotional trauma of rejection (which is very real) and expect to be able to return to it in a year, don't apply this year. 2) You can spare the expense. If that extra application fee/GRE fee/transcript fee means you can't eat for a week, it's probably best to wait. 3) You have a very strong idea of which schools/POIs would fit your interests. If you don't have at least 1-2 schools/POIs that immediately pop out to you as great fits, don't apply this year. 4) You believe you would be substantially happier spending next year in a history graduate program rather than in your current job. If you're content with your current job, especially if it has long-term potential, then don't apply this year. 5) If you already have a very strong sample of historical writing that shows off your abilities with primary sources - preferably in a foreign language and in the field you're applying for. If you don't have this ready, don't bother. It will take a month just to revise everything to fit the different page length requirements each program has. As for your other concerns, I don't know why applying once would hurt you the next time around. People get in on their second try. If your application is so bad that they would actually remember it a year later, there's little chance you'll be getting in there anyway. On the other hand, if you have a strong application, but end up getting rejected, there's no reason not to think that some of your advocates will remember you the next year. [the trouble being that there's no real way of knowing how your application is received other than acceptances/waitlist/rejection] Finally, 25 is not too old at all. I think it's a very good age to begin a doctoral program, actually. Good luck with whatever decision you make.

While it's best to know if a prof. is taking students, it's pretty common to be unaware of this and apply anyway. If you're really concerned about saving on application fees, you could email the DGS. You might also consider a couple of things to try to read the tea leaves a bit. Does their faculty page list them as being on leave for the coming year? Do they seem to be nearing the end of their career? If they're in their mid-70s, that's something to take into account, given that you're likely to be there for at least five years. If the department maintains a list of current graduate students, does this prof. have a lot of students already (relative to other professors)? Sending emails out is a good idea because it can result in conversations or valuable information. But many profs won't respond. Not because they're inconsiderate people, but because of any number of reasons - they're busy, disorganized, on leave, inundated with a million emails a day, etc. I don't think one should expect a response. It's great if you get one, but it doesn't really mean anything if you don't. I applied (with several successes) to many schools without hearing back from my POIs because they were good fits. I didn't want to look back with a feeling of what might have been, for one thing. Good luck.

The main question is whether this Ethnic Studies prof can speak to your abilities as an historian. He might be able to write a glowing recommendation about you as a student, researcher and person, which are certainly not bad things to have in the LoR, but adcoms are ideally interested in hearing from someone who can evaluate you as a potential historian. If your work with the Ethnic Studies professor was historical in nature, then that might be a good option for you (though the bias against non-historians does remain). If not, then I would focus on cultivating your relationship with the other prof.

Hi there, and welcome to this forum. Your concern is a common one. Because it is so common, I would suggest finding old threads about this topic using the search function. That will offer you a range of responses. My answer, frustratingly, is that it depends. Some programs really don't care about the GRE. Others will take a look at it and use it to weed out applications at the first stage. Others will glance at it and only really pay much attention to it if the score is bad. Others will use it to determine whether you'll receive funding, if that's competitive. Others will use it as a major criterion for internal fellowships. Others will have an absolute cutoff number that they'll stick with. In general, the theory I've most often seen (and which jives with my experience) is that it's the state schools which either have an inferiority complex, or need to constantly justify their existence, that have the most stringent focus on GREs. The higher tier schools will care less about your GREs. Though there is a huge range of how the GRE is used, it's generally agreed that most schools don't weigh it nearly as heavily as your writing sample, language skills, SOP and overall fit. Plenty of people do very poorly on the GRE and still are accepted into great schools. It's just that the rest of your app has to be that much better. Rather than having a slight strength there, you have a minor weakness that jumps out right away. I would suggest that you apply to schools that a) Don't have a cutoff for GRE scores. Some schools will mention such a cutoff on their websites - though that's pretty uncommon. You are a natural, strong fit for. If your research accords well enough with a school's faculty, your GRE scores will soon be forgotten.

Truth. I was pretty calm about my application before the deadlines (though I won't deny that by the end of the process I was a bit frazzled). When the rejections roll in, that's when the nerves will activate. Right now, all the possibilities remain open. It's a really beautiful time, actually.

I do early American/Atlantic world history -- but it's difficult to tell you which programs would be a good fit for you without any information on your specific research interests. By its very nature, Atlantic world history is pretty amorphous, so it's difficult to make generalizations about. If you'd like, I'd be happy to talk to you over PM if you don't want to tip off your identity. I don't think it's too late to contact programs. But keep in mind that a POI might be very busy and unable/unwilling to respond and strike up a conversation at this point during the year.

Sure you have a chance. Some schools have a GPA floor, but I've heard plenty of stories about great schools that are willing to accept students who have had a rough start. Your situation isn't entirely uncommon. In fact, it could make a compelling narrative in a personal statement (which students who have done well their entire careers and never had to struggle often lack). When it comes time to apply, I would suggest that you check the websites of your potential schools and possibly with the Directors of Graduate Study to find out if they have any firm policies on GPA. Usually they'll be more interested in your history GPA, and it sounds like that will be strong enough to avoid any cutoff issues. I'm not sure when you're thinking of applying or where (MA? MA/Phd?) but it's very important that you build a strong research portfolio, and that you develop your language skills. Sounds like you're already doing those things to some extent, but keep your eyes open for opportunities. The other things are important, but secondary. Oftentimes if you work hard, keep your grades up and take advantage of research opportunities, your Letters of Recommendation will come together seamlessly. As silly as this sounds, I'd also recommend (to you and any undergrad lurkers) that you take advantage of your classes as opportunities to grow as historians, readers, writers and researchers. Too often we (including myself) view classes as a hurdle, or as a game to be played in order to achieve a desired grade. But the better an historian you become, the better your overall application package will be. Good luck!

If you want to provide the highest-quality education you can to your students, I'm not sure a Ph.D. is necessarily the way to do it. I'm not being flippant. Earning a Ph.D. will improve your research and writing. How often do secondary school teachers use those skills? Can you justify spending several years on a dissertation in a fairly specialized topic when, as a teacher, you have to by necessity teach more broadly? While I won't deny that you learn a great deal of content as a Ph.D. student, I would also claim that you could do much the same at a local library. I would be curious to know what others say, but I would suggest you think of what you're really looking to get out of this versus what's actually expected of a Ph.D. student. It's a big commitment to apply to and attend a Ph.D. program. Unless you're really committed to research, I simply don't think it makes sense for you to pursue that. As for your chances of admission - yeah, I think that would damage them. Partly for the reasons I've pointed out (they may see your needs as opposing what they're offering). But also, many scholars covet grad students as their intellectual legacies. If you're not committed to continuing research, then your potential advisor might want to look at someone who is so committed. None of this is meant to denigrate teachers, by the way. It's great that you want to serve your future students by developing as an historian. Unfortunately, I just think that the system as it is now is stacked against you.

Definitely good to have a backup plan - for the obvious reason, but also because once results start rolling in, it's sort of scary if you see your options in life crumbling one by one. I didn't really have a backup plan, figuring that I would get into one of my schools. But as it happened, I received a whole lot of rejections early on and only got into some schools relatively late in the cycle. So for the better part of a month, I was scrambling around, convinced that the rest of my responses would be rejections, trying to figure out something else to do with my life upon graduation. That wasn't a fun month. Lots of sleepless nights, lots of whining to my girlfriend. Even if you feel your chances are very good, for your own mental health, it really is best to have something else. Especially if you end up on a waitlist. Waitlists are the worst. OP: I don't think you should feel pessimistic about your chances because your advisor told you to look into other options. He's just looking out for you. However, you do clearly have some other options to think about, which is not a bad start. I have a friend in Taiwan right now doing the teaching-English-abroad thing and he seems to really like it, by the way.

I agree that an MA is the best starting point. Most PhD departments are looking for the following in an application: a personal statement describing your specific interests or "intellectual autobiography" and how it is best served by studying in that particular department, a writing sample (demonstrating language ability), letters of recommendation from professors who can speak to your ability as an historian, GRE scores demonstrating verbal proficiency and a solid GPA (with more emphasis on grades in history classes). How many of those would you be able to supply at this point? An MA will put you in a great position to be able to supply those. Additionally, not to be indelicate, but it sounds like you may have the means to be able to support yourself through an MA, which may be necessary. That's a good situation to be in. Is there any overlap between your interest in history and your training in engineering? For instance, are you at all interested in the history of science, or engineering? I ask because that could actually help you when you eventually do apply to PhD programs. After all, history PhD programs get hundreds of history majors applying every year - engineering majors are less common - this helps set you apart. Whether it's setting you apart in a good way (by turning this perceived disadvantage into a strength by focusing on science and technology) or in a bad way may ultimately make the difference in the success of your eventual application. Of course, if you're not interested in studying the history of science and technology, and would rather just put that behind you, then I certainly can't fault you for that. But if you wind up in an MA program, I would encourage you to look into this field and at least give it a chance (perhaps this is something you've already done). And there's no reason you couldn't combine this with your preexisting interest in Modern South Asian history. That might actually make you a highly attractive candidate for PhD programs, and ultimately, a marketable PhD on the job market. As for your claim that, "I know more about history both generally as well as Modern South Asian than most undergrads with a history major." ...well, as CageFree points out, that's not really hugely important. For one thing, undergraduates with a history major might not know as much as you about history, but they still may be better prepared for graduate school. Graduate schools are looking for abilities and potential, not someone who is familiar with content. Perhaps others have different experiences, but my graduate school experience to this point is not focused on acquiring knowledge about a subject (ditto my undergraduate experience, though to a lesser extent). Sure, content knowledge is important and it comes. But other skills are far more important for thriving in history graduate school: critical thinking, language skills, research, time management, networking, etc. Many of these go along, I imagine, with being a successful engineer or businessperson. However, I would also imagine that many of the things expected of a history graduate student (ie. thinking on a rather annoyingly abstract level) might be antithetical to someone who is used to problem-solving as an engineer.

It takes more time than you'd expect to just enter all the information, even if you have everything ready. Especially if you're applying to 10+ schools, and especially if you're neurotic about triple-checking everything (it paid off for me - on one application, I accidentally uploaded the wrong SOP before submitting it, and only caught the mistake at the last second because I decided to one last check. I didn't get in to that school anyway, but I think it would have been more certain if my SOP was talking about an entirely different school and an entirely different POI). This isn't even taking into account the weird, unexpected questions some applications might ask -- or the different SOP and writing sample lengths you have to adjust for. I would definitely advise spacing this out, rather than trying to put all the info in the night before. Not because it's impossible to do it that way, but because it's so tedious that no one deserves to do all that at once. I would also advise, if you haven't already, that you write down the different log-in combinations and websites for each school. Chances are you'll be revisiting them an unseemly number of times in the next weeks, and you'll start to forget which school is associated with which website/password/email/login, etc. And then when admissions decisions start rolling in, you'll want to check your application status every 3 minutes, and the very last thing you'll want will be to be locked out.

Yeah, I remember that being a source of frustration. I think I had to go through the departmental websites each time I wanted to log into that, because trying to access one through the other application seemed impossible. Ohio State's website (the only school of those three I applied to) is extremely frustrating, and I think I had to go through http://gradapply.osu.edu/ > "All Other Graduate Programs" (at the bottom) > Agree > Graduate Application (again, at the bottom for some reason). It's possible they've changed things in the last year, and even more likely that I was using an unnecessarily circuitous route, but hey I got the application through (just enough to get rejected anyway ). I don't have any advice on Brown or Michigan (except not to go to UM - go buckeyes!). Most of these application websites are so terrible that I barely even minded when one of my schools required a paper application.

First of all, that website has quite a lot of idiosyncrasies, so I wouldn't trust their data implicitly. I'm not saying it's wrong, but nosing around there for a few minutes shows quite a lot of data that doesn't smell right to me. I applied to BU and was accepted last cycle. In fact, I almost went there because the POI there for my field is excellent. Most of the reasons I didn't go there had to do with my current school being a better fit, but there were some issues with BU as well, mainly relating to money, unfortunately. My understanding is that they graduate school limits the packages they can offer to 3 years (though they kept hinting that this might be increased to four). Their department is usually running low on money, and is prone to offering admission without funding. I was lucky enough to be offered their strongest funding package, but even that wasn't really competitive with other offers. It's not hard to see how this funding problem could lead to low or slow completion rates (especially, as tmp points out, being in Boston) That all being said, there are some wonderful historians in their department. And it's in Boston, which is a great place to live (and, depending on your interests, do research). If there's a good fit for you, I would apply and leave my options open. I'm certainly glad I applied there.

While it's undoubtedly true that some students thinking about grad school neither understand its rigors nor the competitiveness of admissions and the job market, I would caution against this kind of attitude (I don't mean to single you out, CCL, but this has been something on my mind lately). Cynicism and realism aren't what gets you into good programs. Lots of people who aren't as obsessed with admissions as we are get into great programs. I'm attending a fairly decent program, and from my interactions with many of my cohort-mates over the past few weeks, I can guarantee that most of them were more akin to the people who haven't started their applications by this point or who wrote their SOPs in one draft. Seriously. It's not that they're not as invested in the process or that they're less passionate, it's that they aren't as obsessive. I firmly believe that gradcafe denizens (and the like) are the exception, rather than the rule, among top students. The truth is that chance decides admissions far more than we're willing to admit. It's comforting to think that by following all the unwritten rules, getting tons of feedback and doing everything the "right" way, we'll have a greater measure of control over our destinies - and there's some truth to that. But the overwhelming reality is that your friend might get into Berkeley simply because they happen to be looking for someone who does what he is interested in. Sorry to get further off track. I also do quite a bit of intellectual and political history - but more of the "social history of ideas" variety. I consciously choose not to identify as an intellectual or political historian, for the reasons others mentioned. I know at least one other "closet" intellectual historian who tends to identify as a cultural historian more often than not (but who isn't a cultural historian now?). So, OP, any placement data for intellectual/political historians might not tell the whole story.

Shep makes a good point about expectations, and if you end up having to follow this new rule (which sounds very unfair given your own expectations entering the program) it might be something to address somewhere in the application process - whether in your SOP, or by making sure a LOR explains the situation, or something else. The good thing is that most writing samples for PhD apps are set at around a 25-pg limit, so you may not have to go through the nightmare of cutting your blood, sweat and tears down to size.

I don't want to discourage you from following your interests, but it sounds like you're still deciding exactly what you want to study. My suggestion is that you try doing some research on America before the 20th century. You don't necessarily have to fall in love with it, and if you decide you aren't interested in doing research on that period, then at least you have narrowed down your interests by that much. For me, as an undergrad Junior, I expected to study 19th century US. However after a particularly significant research project, I decided I wanted to work on an earlier period, which certainly determined where I applied and where I currently am. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't be telling you this if you hadn't said 20th century US social and political history. As futurePhD points out, that field is crazily overcrowded - so allowing yourself to explore other possibilities now might help you to get into a good program and might someday improve your job market prospects. Keep in mind, also, that rankings are largely a reflection of perceptions. It's very possible that when you apply in a couple of years, you'll have a choice between a higher-ranked school and a school that's a better fit for you (whether because of advisor, funding, placement, departmental and university-wide strengths or whatever). So, yes it absolutely can be worth going to a school outside of the top 25. In fact, in my field, there are some top 25 schools with pretty rotten reputations for placement while others are doing pretty well. As for language - I would say don't necessarily sweat it until you figure out what you want to do with your research. It doesn't make sense to learn French now if you do end up wanting to do Middle East-US relations. However, that does mean that you should spend this semester really focused on deciding what you want to do in graduate school, so that you'll have some time to learn a language if you need it.

Good to see you c&i. I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. This is a difficult time of transition no matter what, but there's never a good time for a friend to pass away. For my part, I'm doing reasonably well. I told myself that I would spend my first semester concentrating on survival, so I'm not being terribly ambitious right now in terms of involvement and extra work. So far I've actually been able to meet people and have some time for relaxing as well, which has pleasantly surprised me.