Simple Twist of Fate

It's true that in terms of admissions, the GRE is not hugely important compared with the rest of your application. As NEN says, it won't get you into a program (though, as CageFree points out, it does help with funding. I know that my very strong GRE scores helped me secure funding at the schools I was admitted to.) However, if you're like me and frustrated with the seemingly arbitrary nature of the application process, the GRE is something you have a greater degree of control over than anything else. It's a test that can be studied for and conquered. Even if you've done poorly on practice exams, you have time to work hard and master it. Personally, I went from sub-50 percentiles on my first practice test to a 99% verbal, 99% writing and (I think) 67% quant. So don't write it off completely just because you have poor history with standardized tests and with the practice tests. I probably sound like the cover of one of the many GRE-prep books, but you can defeat it.

Just reading over this thread (because it's kind of fun) and have to say that I read SK's question as comparing costs-of-living, rather than prestige (but it's still a strange comparison, so I don't know). SK, I would suggest that you speak to some of the professors at your undergrad institution and ask their opinion. It can be hard to take strangers' advice, especially when it is negative. Perhaps hearing from a few professors (especially younger ones or any of the profs who remain attuned to the current state of affairs in history graduate training) might serve you better. My advice is the same as everyone else. I wouldn't even try to apply with your credentials (unless, possibly there were outside circumstances such as a personal crisis or a major switch from engineering or something like that). Graduate school is exponentially more challenging than undergrad, and includes far less room for error. To persevere and succeed in graduate school requires a different attitude than you're exhibiting in this thread. I don't mean to be rude, as I'm sure the other posters also do not, but it doesn't look good for you in this regard. Good luck, though.

I don't mean to harp, but I wonder how much time you've spent in midwestern college towns? I can't speak for the south, as I've never lived there myself, but there are many very liberal (I'm guessing you're not avoiding the south because it is too liberal, hence my inference) colleges and towns in the midwest. Bloomington, Champaign, Evanston, Ann Arbor, Chicago, Madison, Louisville, etc are all known to be very liberal and accepting places, for example. I would also suggest that if you're serious about working in academia, then you may ultimately end up living and working in a place you're less than thrilled about (at least initially). Again, I would suggest you apply to all programs you fit well with, and if a midwestern/southern university accepts you, go visit! Maybe you'll find that life in between the coasts really isn't so horrible (it's not). Additionally, consider the possibility that in grad school, you probably won't have either the time or money to really enjoy an exciting locale. In fact, living in a great city like Boston has its disadvantages for a grad student - namely cost of living and numerous distractions.

While I would urge you to heed TMP's advice about really thinking about what you want to get out of grad school, and whether a year off or MA might be the best route, I'm not sure we have enough information to declare your advisor "out of touch". The fact is that in some sub-fields of American history, there is a fairly low standard for languages (at least one of the schools you're thinking of applying to told me similarly not to worry about my language skills - although that was after I was admitted). I would also agree that getting into Stanford of Berkeley is "entirely possible" given the right circumstances and a strong overall package. However, we simply don't know much about how you will look as a candidate, so it is very difficult to determine how realistic those hopes are. However, I would say this. If you're committed to going to grad school, you should be committed enough to go to any institution that's the right fit for you. I know that isn't what you want to hear, but I think it's true. I suggest that if you're determined to apply this year, you compile a list of schools based on your research interests' fits compatibility with the faculty. Apply to the New England/West Coast schools if you're a fit there, but don't force it if you're not (you'll just be wasting the application fee and your LoR writers' time). Also apply to some other schools that you're a good fit with outside of those regions. The best approach, I think, is to cast a wide net, and to worry about your location among other factors when deciding among the institutions that (hopefully) accept you. jorcutt is right that it's important to be comfortable in your environment, but that's only one factor - including funding package, advisor fit, prestige, etc - to consider. If you're not willing to at least consider an institution in between the coasts (and the likelihood is that your "perfect" advisor probably might not be at one of the schools you named, because things always work out like that) then I would suggest that you rethink your priorities. PS- I also see a lot of the attributes I had from undergrad in your description of yourself. Same GPA, similar GRE, small middling college, American history, hell, I even started a tutoring service at my college too. So best of luck to you.

I don't think so, no. I'm not sure what the POI would gain by looking at your CV at this stage. I would also consider waiting to contact POIs for about a month. The mid-late August period is usually an especially busy time for profs, which decreases your chances of receiving a helpful response. In addition, if you're hoping to make an impression or begin a conversation (which I think should be your secondary goal in contacting POIs, after gaining information about their willingness to take new students, etc) it's better for that to come just a little bit closer to application season, so there's a chance they'll remember you. Of course, if you're planning to make a bad impression, the more time for them to forget, the better.

I'm going to do something dangerous and try to make a generalization. It has seemed to me that profs at the top programs can afford to be more choosy, because they often have dozens of well-qualified potential students to choose from. The result is that if you apply to work with a well-known professor at a big program, the chances are that your qualifications (GPA, GRE, LoRs, writing sample) are probably matched by a number of other students. What sets you apart is the novelty and fit of your research interests. In the middle-tier programs, profs might also have dozens of students, but they may be more willing to consider other factors to compensate for an imperfect fit. I also had a set of interests that not many professors tend to specialize in. That's one of the things that I find so exciting about my interests - that they're relatively "virgin soil" so to speak. My experience is that some professors are more willing than others to take on students with somewhat diverging interests - roughly according to their "prestige". The best advice I can give is make a running list of profs. with interests that are in some way related to yours (by looking through the work that most interests you, by cruising the faculty profiles of various schools, and by asking your professors if they know anyone with your interests) and ask them over email if they would be interested in a student with your research interests (keeping in mind that a no-response doesn't mean they won't consider your application, and a friendly or even enthusiastic response doesn't mean they'll support your application). Good luck.

Hello, and welcome to the gradcafe. First of all, you have a lot of time to prepare, which is great, so try not to let yourself get stressed out too early. By that, I mean, don't worry if you get a B+ on a history paper. Many intellectually-ambitious people have that moment when they get a poor grade (not that a B or B+ is a poor grade, but as you point out, grade inflation) and worry that they now will miss out on their dream graduate school, and consequently won't be able to get a job, and will die in a cardboard box, etc. The advantages of beginning this preparation early are obvious, but savor your undergrad experience as well, and don't let The Plan get in the way of a healthy lifestyle or good mental and emotional health. In retrospect, I wish I had done this more. For example, I now realize that many of the things (extracurriculars mostly) that I pursued because they would look good on a CV almost certainly had no bearing on my admissions. As to your actual questions, I would suggest several things to focus on: 1) Developing your research skills, and being able to show that you have developed these skills. It's unlikely your eventual writing sample will come from something you wrote during your sophomore year, but a research internship or something like that can show that you have research experience. Be intentional about this. Take your professors' advice seriously, and begin from the assumption that you have a lot to learn. 2) Don't close off other possibilities. If your current plan is to go to graduate school right after undergrad, that's great, but recognize that a lot can happen between now and when you submit your apps in 2.5 years. If opportunities seem to conflict with your Plan, that's okay. A good friend of mine was so committed to her Plan of going to law school that she turned down a lucrative job in Spain that basically fell into her lap. A few months later, she decided against law school, but the job opportunity had passed, and she's now jobless, waiting for a year to start a Master's program in something else entirely. 3) Develop your own distinctive research interests. It's great that you know you're interested in Latin American history. Do you have any thoughts about what part of that is most appealing to you? You might be able to develop that for your honors thesis. As you do research in Latin American history and discover the fields that interest you most, take note of the best scholarship you read. Are any of the scholars still teaching (at schools with graduate programs)? Take note of this, it will help later. The minors you're considering could be helpful for this. If you're thinking you might want to do economic history, taking a few Econ classes can help you figure that out. Rather than being attractive assets for your CV (which they're not in any significant measure, and can actually be detrimental if you let minor-collecting turn your focus away from historical research), consider a minor as a way of defining your interests and possibly approaching your research interest in Latin America from multiple perspectives. For example, I minored in English and Philosophy, and took quite a few Sociology classes (not quite enough for a minor). At every opportunity I got, I (shamelessly) focused research papers with open-ended topics on my field of early America and profited by learning to apply the methods and theory of different disciplines to my own field of interest. 4) Keep in the back of your mind that you're embarking on an intellectual journey - at which the end may be graduate school, or something better. When you apply, you'll write a Statement of Purpose describing this journey. As you go on, keep track of what's significant to you. For me, I can recall 1 or 2 moments (one in a professor's office talking with him, the other while doing some very tedious research and having one of those great moments when you feel like you've just done something significant) that gave me the confidence to pursue graduate school in history. Though my SOP didn't describe these scenes, they were key to helping me frame and describe my "purpose" as it were. Also, as everyone else will point out, languages. It's good that you're going into Spanish, but the more languages you're competent in (and more specifically, the more you're able to prove you're competent in), the more competitive your application will eventually be. Finally, your question about undergrad "name brand". Your assumption is that "top schools are not very open to students who went to non-elite schools". I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that this is one of those many things that is hard to give advice about, because every admissions committee has its own little biases. Some schools will probably be impressed by a big-name school. Others apparently favor some measure of "diversity" in their cohorts by including a mix of different academic backgrounds. No committee wants to admit that "We chose X over Y because X went to a better name-brand school." Yet there is the undeniable fact that a 3.7 at Yale is likely to seem more impressive than a 4.0 at Pine Holler Bible College. In truth, there's probably some validity in this over a large sample size (and I say this as a proud and unrepentant attendee of a very-much non-name-brand school). However, I believe that while your generalization probably describes some members of some adcoms, and perhaps some schools, it isn't a significant enough barrier to a) prevent you from applying to top schools, barring your entry, assuming you put together a strong application for each top school, and c) requiring something "extra" to compensate. My advice is that you don't worry about that particular aspect of your application. You can't control an adcom's reaction to your school's name any more than the dozens of other variables you can't control in this process. I also chose my undergrad over a more prestigious alternative to avoid debt, and it turned out to have been a good decision. For one thing, I absolutely wouldn't have had the same great relationships with professors at the other school as I had at my alma mater. It's also *very* nice to go off to grad school without any debt. While I can't speak for all of the schools I applied to, I know that among the schools I was accepted to, my application beat several applications from students at far more prestigious undergrads. One prof. specifically told me that my subfield chose my app over someone's from Harvard. I don't know why she proffered that particular example, but I have to admit that it felt good (nothing against the Harvard-people). :-) Don't look at coming from a state school as "limiting your options" or as "something to make up for". The Ivys, the Chicagos, the Berkeleys of the world might bite your arm off if you put together the right app with the right fit for their needs and their program. EDIT: Sorry - this was a much longer response than I anticipated. I think I had many of the same apprehensions as you did prior to my application cycle, so I wanted to offer my thoughts and experiences to assuage your worries. Feel free to PM if you have questions or would like to talk, and good luck with your sophomore year. As someone who just left undergrad, I envy you.

What practice tests are you using? I'm asking because last summer, when studying for the (old version of the) GRE, I experienced a large amount of variability between practice tests. One book's practice tests in particular were consistently giving me poor verbal scores, and when I looked up reviews of the book, I found that I wasn't alone. For me, the most accurate practice tests were the ones in the official ETS book of previous tests - though I suspect that since the test has changed, they won't have anything available like that. You might consider taking more frequent practice tests. I found actually taking self-timed tests to be far more useful than most of the other study techniques I tried. Taking an enormous number of practice tests also allowed me to hone in more accurately on what I needed to improve, what to expect and my overall progress. I probably took upwards of 25-35 practice verbal tests, and ended up with a near-perfect score (780/800 on the old system, equivalent to 99%) despite the fact that my first (Kaplan online) practice test near the beginning of the summer pegged me below the 50th percentile. Almost all of those subsequent tests were on paper, but I found that the experience wasn't significantly different in the actual test - even with the computer-adaptive questioning. Remember that the GRE is a test that you can effectively study for, so don't despair even if your scores haven't shown improvement yet. I would also echo the sentiment that you shouldn't totally give up on the math section - but only because it is relatively easy to study for. Compared to the verbal, a little effort spent wisely goes a long way on the math section.

Keep in mind that there is no single approach to languages among or even within US history PhD departments. Some will allow some flexibility in choosing which languages are most pertinent to your interests. Others will say that if you're an historian of Britain, you must know (at least) German and French. Similarly, some programs will be more rigorous in testing than others. For instance, one program I was accepted to this fall required 2 language exams of all its students (I'm an early Americanist, and based in my research interests, I doubt I'll ever find use for anything other than French) so I asked a lot of questions about it. I was essentially told that the language exams are very easy and are not taken seriously (likely just for Americanists) and I shouldn't worry about only having one language coming in. When I asked my POI about it, he acted like it was just a nuisance more than anything. Other programs take the requirement far more seriously. This makes it difficult to give any advice about what the US system is - because it differs so widely. I agree with pudewen that if you're unsure of your focus, you may want to take a year to think things over (your interests, your goals: do you want to work in the US or UK?) and learn at least one language. It will make you a far more competitive applicant, and will make you much less likely to be stuck researching and studying something you discover you have little interest in. When you do apply, ask your POI about the language requirements and try to get a sense of what's expected.

Have you seen Richard Godbeer's Sexual Revolution in Early America? I just looked at the index of my copy and it looks like he's done at least some work on the subject (probably mostly passing references, though). That, and its relevant footnotes, might be a good place to start for orienting yourself in terms of the scholarship and terminology you might use or reference in your SOP.

It's certainly a legitimate (and, from the glimpses of it I've read in monographs about sexuality in early America a very interesting) subject of study. But, I can understand your trepidation. As someone else pointed out in the other thread, the members of the adcom aren't likely to be the people you'll be working with. If I was writing your SOP, I'm sure I would have a nightmare of a bunch of crusty old folks on the adcom who wouldn't want to lower the "dignity" of their institution by associating it with pornography. It's unlikely, sure, but I would probably be as worried as you are. At my undergraduate institution, I know that there are some (good!) profs who would likely be uncomfortable discussing something like pornography. For instance, I once asked my (very socially conservative and generally awkward) thesis advisor about the "Erotica" section on the Evans collection database and he basically changed the subject as soon as he could. So I get why you're worried. However, honestly, I think we're past the point where pornography is even a particularly "racy" subject for the vast majority of historians. As I'm sure you know, most large departments employ one or more historians of gender and/or sexuality, for whom research in subjects like pornography, rape and incest are daily fare. Since any department you're applying to should have a POI who would be receptive to your project, then that likely means that the department acknowledges the importance of these subjects to history. After all, they wouldn't have hired the prof. otherwise. Good to see more early Americanists around here, by the way. Good luck this cycle.

Can't remember who it was, but thanks to whoever recommended Greg Semenza's Graduate Study for the 21st Century on this board. I finished it about a week ago, and found it useful and enjoyable. There's a lot of stuff in there that is either widely known or not hard to figure out, but I was surprised by how much was not obvious and surprising. Definitely worth a read for those heading off to programs this fall.

First of all, relax a bit. Sounds like you're in great shape. Second, congrats on all your success. Third, I don't think any of those are out of your league. In fact, if I were you, I'd be applying to any program with an appropriate advisor/program regardless of prestige or rank. However, be careful referring to the "University of Indiana" The good people at Indiana University might be offended (only joking - I'm starting there in the fall, though, so good luck with that app). Finally, I think you definitely need to address that. If an adcom sees that your MA took longer than usual, they'll wonder why. If you don't offer an answer, they might imagine something far worse than illness. If your LoR writers are aware of your health concerns, it *might* (or might not - I'd be interested in what others think about this) be useful to encourage them to mention it briefly. To corroborate your explanation, if nothing else. I might also emphasize that your health concerns are mostly behind you. Whether right or wrong, vague references to health problems might make you appear to be a "risk" if you don't provide some closure. If anything, your health issues could help you to frame an excellent SOP - overcoming adversity, etc. This is all a bit cynical, of course, but there's no reason why you can't turn a potential negative into a positive. Good luck with your applications.

70-ish percentile certainly isn't anything to be ashamed of. After all, that means you did better than almost 3/4th of people taking the test. And nobody really cares about quantitative scores, unless you're interested in statistical methods. Your GPA shouldn't really hold you back, either. It really speaks to the lofty expectations we have developed (as well as perhaps widespread grade inflation) that a 3.5 and 4.0 in your major are worrying you. Different schools are going to value your "numbers" very differently. Some don't seem to care at all about GRE scores. On the other hand, one prof told me that my very strong GRE scores really helped me to earn a funded offer from that school. Having really great numbers will make you more competitive for funding, especially the sort of funding that's competitive across the graduate school (rather than within the department). From my own experience, I believe that (among the schools I had occasion to interact with) my GRE scores were much more important in securing me funding (including an extra fellowship at the school I'll be attending in the fall) than in the admissions process. Admissions will be much more focused on research fit, writing sample, statement of purpose and letters of recommendation (in roughly that order). Good "numbers" are certainly a bonus, but if there's a glaring hole in one of those four things, the GPA/GRE won't even come into play. Also - your extra-curriculars are cool, but don't try to oversell them. They're worth, at best, a passing mention in the SOP (and cut out in the eighth draft when you're pressed for space). If there's anything you can do to gain additional research experience in the next few months, you should do that.

Will depend on the program, but I've often heard that not much thought is given to the analytic section. I agree that it shouldn't be - it's really a poor gauge of writing and analytic ability, in my opinion.Also, go ahead and take a practice test (there should be one or two free ones online) to give yourself a baseline. But don't freak out if you don't do well on the first try. I remember the year before I applied, I took a practice test and did so poorly that I started to question whether I could ever be admitted anywhere. But the GRE is very much a test you can study for. I got serious about studying for it and ended up with 99% Verbal, 99% analytic and a respectable quant score (which I can't remember off the top of my head, but it wasn't awful). I'll add that I had a similar experience. I was told all through this process that it's hugely important to get the closest fit possible with your POI. And that's good advice, but I do want to add that it's sometimes more complex than that. The work that I want to do is basically something that nobody is doing, or has done (which is why it's so exciting to me). Therefore, I didn't have any totally obvious POIs - only some that were loosely related to my research interest or field, with the exception of one Prof who I thought might be a pretty good fit. I applied anyway, and I ended up being admitted to three good schools, and was left as first on the waitlist at one great program. In retrospect, I was pretty lucky. In the process, I found out that one prof said he has "wide interests" and basically just advocates for the most impressive/interesting applicant regardless of whether he's done work in that student's area. Another one indicated pretty much the same approach. My advisor for next year turned out to be writing a book that's related to my work - which I didn't know at first (and I'm not sure how I would have known that if not through direct communication). However, at the program I was wait-listed at, I was told that I was put on the wait list because my interests didn't align as closely with my POI as other applicants. So every professor, adcom and program may have different approaches. And honestly, if I had followed all the advice here exactly, I probably wouldn't have applied to several of the programs that were interested in me. As tmp says, there's no "magic formula" - if you feel like you're ready for a PhD, you just have to do your best to put together the very best application you can, and hope that somebody will see something in you.

Don't know if this will be helpful because I've barely looked at it myself, but I just happened to Stumble Upon this website: http://www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2009/11/100-open-courses-to-learn-any-new-language/ French is the first language listed there (the first two links are broken, but they are actually on the MIT website). Looks like the internet offers quite a few good, free ways to learn/refresh your French if you're willing to put in the effort. Also, I'm very proud of myself for being able to read virmundi's post despite not having studied French in 4 years.

I don't think many people really take the AW score that seriously - especially in terms of admissions. I think it's well known that the AW doesn't really reflect a writer's ability. The writing sample does that. However, I think that having great numbers, including the AW score, really does help in securing funding and additional funding. I know that when one school nominated me for an internal fellowship (in addition to their normal funding package), they said that my GRE scores (which were good, and included a 6.0 AW) would make me very competitive for this award. So while I agree with what Safferz says about prioritizing other things if you have good/decent GRE scores, keep in mind that GRE scores are really one of the only ways for a graduate school (read: not the history department itself) to compare you with applicants across departments.

Congrats! Glad the waiting paid off for you.

That's too bad about having to turn down that offer. Sorry to hear that. I was thinking of wait list people, but I suppose that there aren't actually haven't been very many people sweating wait lists around here lately. Which is great.

I agree with what's been said, but I would also encourage you to attempt to find as original an approach as possible. If you want to situate your argument in historiography (which is necessary), it's hard to show that you can be (for lack of a better word) critical and analytic without attempting some kind of departure from what's been written before. Emphasize the original aspects of your work, even if as a whole, it doesn't "break ground." This will come more readily as you dive into the research, but keep in mind that originality doesn't always mean finding a new, undiscovered topic, but often means finding a new way of approaching a topic. I hope this makes sense. I don't see why it would hurt your application. I suspect that it wouldn't help very much. I have several articles in similar publications (one of which I am involved in editing) and I didn't think of them as much more than afterthoughts for my CV. However, it can be a good experience to go through this process - especially if it means having your paper edited.

Keep it brief, simple and earnest. Mine followed a pattern like this: Hello, I'm [name] a student at [university]. I'm applying for graduate programs in history for next fall, and I'm interested in studying [subject related to prof's interests]. I've done work on [a few words about a project related to this, if applicable]. Are you taking graduate students next fall? That gives them the opportunity to respond to your research and even ask for more details, but it also could initiate a conversation by asking a direct question. If you have another direct question, stick that in too. Avoid trying to sell yourself in the email. Your application will do that - and the Prof will be smart enough to detect this. Just get whatever information you need from them. And honestly, they will almost certainly forget your email, no matter how well-crafted, by the time that application season rolls around. So a simple email requesting information is best, to me anyway. If it strikes up a conversation, then great - but don't be disappointed, and don't take it personally, if a Prof. ignores your email or sends back a one line response. It helps to know if a Prof. is taking grad students, or is going on sabbatical soon, etc, but I don't think these emails have to be very important. In retrospect, I stressed out about mine all out of proportion to their significance.

For some reason, I pictured April 15 to be the craziest day on this board. But it's ending not with a bang... etc.

April 15. End of the line. I was in the area yesterday, so I visited IU's campus (I only had an hour, and it was a Saturday, so I didn't meet any faculty). Beautiful buildings. I'm really looking forward to next year.

Thanks everyone. I just sent off all the official acceptance/decline emails, so now all I have left to do is the hard part. Oh, and as if someone at espn knew, look at who's atop the preseason basketball rankings: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7801992/indiana-hoosiers-lead-revised-top-25-plenty-changes-elsewhere I think this means I will finally have to see the movie Hoosiers, though...

tmp - congrats! I'm so pleased that you'll be a Buckeye, and so happy that you're now in a Ph.D. program that will be great for you. I was definitely rooting for you. I do hope that you still check up on tgc occasionally. I know that your comments stretching back over the year I've been lurking, visiting and finally jumping into this site have been incredibly valuable to me. Future applicants would do well to heed her words in past posts and in this one. Once again, huge congratulations!