iamincontrolhere-haig

It's worth, I think, distinguishing between the job market for particular and still generally geographically-defined subfields, on the one hand, and "hot" themes in the historical profession, on the other. The AHA publishes statistics on the number of doctorates conferred and jobs advertised in given subfields. In 2011-12, for instance, there were roughly 425 degrees conferred in North American history and roughly 150 jobs advertised. In the same year, there were roughly 60 degrees conferred in Middle East/Islamic World history and roughly 25 jobs advertised. You can do the math. My perspective on themes is more anecdotal. We inhabit a discipline suffused (perhaps determined) by academic fads. Many of us, in the past ten or fifteen years, have discovered that we are in fact historians of capitalism, or transnational historians. These fads--not to pathologize people's research interests too much--are doubtless reflections of our particular times. And as you know, fads (and the times) are fickle. It therefore strikes me as unwise to let your research interests be too greatly inflected by what you perceive as the overarching thematic interests of the historical profession. Bottom line: If your proposed project could be easily overseen by either a specialist on US foreign relations or a specialist on the modern Middle East, statistics say that, all else being equal, the latter gives you a better shot at landing a tenure-track job. (Because it's the subfield I know best, I'll say there were 4-5 TT jobs in the US/World subfield last year. I would guess the figure for Middle East jobs is higher.)

Read everything Sigaba wrote above carefully. He knows of what he speaks. I have two points of my own to add, but given my relatively meager experience they should be taken with a grain of salt. First, it seems to me that the career path you envision is much more common among people who receive their PhDs in political science than history. Policymaking, like political science, is often based on prediction and prescription. Historians tend to be wary of those words. Likewise political scientists tend to have more connections to the policy world than do historians. While US foreign relations historians are off interviewing old Foreign Service hands, political scientists are milling about the Council on Foreign Relations. (I imagine the overlap between the policy and political science worlds has narrowed as political science continues on its latest quantitative turn, but I also imagine that institutional stickiness continues to hold the two worlds together.) Are you so wedded to the historian's methodology that you are willing to sacrifice your career goals? (Note here that there is a middle ground: you can decide to be the theory-minded person in a history department or a history-minded person in a political science department. Many schools will allow you to have a political scientist on your history committee or a historian on your political science committee.) Second, if you decide that there is no question about your commitment to pursuing a doctorate in history, I would urge you to refine your description of your research interests. Cold War political and military history is an absolutely gargantuan field. In my limited experience, advisors want their applicants to write a clear statement of what they intend to research. So rather than say you want to research Cold War-era U.S. military history from a political standpoint, suggest a more specific project, narrower in its geographic, temporal, and thematic scope. Your statement of purpose almost certainly won't predict your dissertation, but it will show the admissions committee that you can ask new and interesting questions. (Note here that thinking smaller isn't the same as thinking small.)

You don't need to do anything to "make up" for going to a state school. Although it may be difficult to divorce yourself from this mindset, try not to think of everything you do from the perspective of an admissions committee. Instead, work on deriving as much intellectual benefit and personal enjoyment as you can from your undergraduate education. Take as many courses as you can, both inside and outside your field of interest. Challenge yourself. Join the honors program. Learn new languages. Read widely. Be open to changes in your plans and your interests. Most important, visit office hours and build meaningful relationships with your professors, even in GE courses (that's where I was first urged to consider graduate school). Later during your time as an undergraduate, you can ask these professors about enrolling in one or more graduate-level courses. By taking this approach, you'll be less stressed and, I would argue, better prepared for graduate study than you will be if you relentlessly scrutinize your every move asking, "Will this help me get into graduate school?" Edit: This thread () also has a wealth of information about the application process. Were I in your shoes, I would pay particular attention to the "lessons learned" section of each post.

ETS has something called a "testing year" that begins on 1 July. Scores are valid for five "testing years." The ETS website has answers to tons of these sorts of questions: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/faq/

David M. Kennedy's magisterial Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War deals with the "FDR knew" conspiracy theories on pages 516-526 (roughly). Kennedy cites Roberta Wohlstetter's Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, which explains why the military and intelligence bureaucracies failed to anticipate and repel the attack but does not, if I recall correctly, suggest that FDR knew the attack was coming or deliberately left the Pacific Fleet vulnerable. You might also check out Justus D. Doenecke and John E. Wilz's From Isolation to War, 1931-1941 and Michael C.C. Adams's The Best War Ever: America and World War II.

What are people's thoughts on taking courses in a discipline outside of history? As somebody who wants to study US foreign relations, I figure I would benefit from learning to speak the language of political scientists and international relations specialists. I only worry that I may get too hung up on methodological quibbles (to my mind, there's no such thing as an independent variable in the real world) to derive a huge benefit from courses that focus on the "science" part of "social science."

ProQuest has a database entitled "Dissertations & Theses" that is in all likelihood available through your school's library.

Interlibrary Loan! I've heard from numerous grad students that it's saved them a ton of money, and it seems like an especially good option for books you don't anticipate having to scour over again for orals.

I'm headed to Cornell in the fall to start a PhD in history. I just signed a lease for a nice one-bedroom apartment in Lower Collegetown, so it's nice to have that over and done with. I won't, however, feel completely stress-free until I receive my NetID! I called the graduate school about a week ago and the representative said they're behind schedule but assured me that NetID's were "forthcoming."

You might've seen this already, but Sigaba outlined a method for keeping track of research that seems intriguing (no use of any of the programs you mention, though). Here's a link: I'd definitely be interested in hearing more about people's experiences with Zotero, Papers2, and the rest.

At some point browsing websites yields diminishing returns. Send a few emails out to professors whose work interests you and contact some current graduate students. I've found that these conversations tend to be at least as valuable as reading course descriptions and scholarly biographies on programs' websites--though both are crucial. From the conversations I've had, I've learned that almost every graduate student changes his or her interests once they arrive in graduate school. Sometimes the shifts are small, sometimes they're titanic. Who knows? You could end up wanting to study the construction of bridges in 12th century China. With that in mind, I would advise that, while you should be selective in where you choose to apply, you should aso cast a wide net. Don't worry too much about finding a POI whose research and teaching interests conform exactly to your own.

I'll preface this by saying this is probably only an option for Americanists. If you have a good idea of the kind of project you want to work on and will be moving someplace else for grad school, determine whether there are any nearby sources you want to check out and will not be able to access as easily once you start school. I wouldn't let it interfere with language preparation, but even if you don't find anything you end up using it could still be a valuable experience. For instance, I live in California right now. There are two presidential libraries here that I want to explore at least a bit before I head off to New York for school.

Cornell it is for me. I need to buy some warm clothes...

Just started Andrew Preston's Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy. I've been anticipating the book for a while but good grief, it's massive!

I'll second what virmundi said about languages. I've taken language classes and "normal" classes over summer sessions (I graduated from another UC), and I've found the language classes to be more in line with what you would expect during a fall, winter, or spring quarter class. I'm hesitant to recommend taking upper-division history courses over the summer for a couple reasons. First, there tends to be less reading, even if there's actually a little bit more time in lecture. That's less material and less time to absorb it. Second, summer courses are often taught by grad students. I don't at all mean to denigrate graduate student-led courses. But if three of your thirteen history courses are led by graduate students, your opportunities to forge close relationships with professors (and hopeful letter of recommendation writers) diminish. If, on the other hand, you're talking about taking lower-division history classes, fire away! Especially if you want to study world history and you're taking a US history survey, or if you want to study US history and you're taking a world history survey, I don't think you're missing all that much.