iamincontrolhere-haig
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by iamincontrolhere-haig
-
-
My long-term goal would actually be outside academia -- what I would like to pursue in a PHD program is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history, which I think could eventually lead me to the policymaking/thinktank world. Is it OK to admit a potential interest beyond academia in applications, or is that dirty secret better kept close? Also, is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history entirely too vanilla to sell to an adcom?
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.
-
This may have been answered but my internet is kinda screwy so I'm just gonna ask while it's letting me!
I'm applying for PHD programs this coming fall and took the GRE when I applied for my MA in 2008. Are those scores still valid or should I be planning to retake the test?
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."
-
Most of my current reading is related to research for my Honors Thesis:
- Revolutionary Suicide (Huey Newton)
- War against the Panthers (Huey Newton)
- Black Panther Party Reconsidered
- American Babylon (Robert Self)
- Living for the City (Donna Murch)
Incidentally, I was wondering. An alumni of the History Department at Stanford wrote a dissertation that I'm very interested in reading as part of my research. Unfortunately, she never picks up her work phone, and records of said dissertation don't exist in Stanford's archives. Are there any other methods I might try to gain access to the document?
ProQuest has a database entitled "Dissertations & Theses" that is in all likelihood available through your school's library.
-
I've been wondering about this too. I bought all of my books in undergrad, but I don't think I can afford to do that in grad school with the amount of books we're expected to read per class. But there also aren't enough copies in the library for everyone to borrow either... (and I've never been a fan of short term reserve because I prefer reading at home and the books are often signed out by someone else when I go in
)Maybe I'll just have to figure out how to purchase most of my books cheaply. I'll need a lot of them for orals second year, anyway.
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.
-
Anyone here done with decisions yet?
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.
-
Congrats to all those who received Yale and Columbia acceptances earlier today. You're going to be Ivy Leaguers! Hoping for more good news for everyone soon.
-
GUYSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!
While someone did post an acceptance for OSU on the survey board, I get to call it FIRST ON THIS BOARD!! I saw that when I was leaving work and I was like, oh man, my password for OSU site is so complicated that I need to be on my laptop to see it. So I walked 40 minutes, probably my fastest commute time ever, back home from work... I just had a really good feeling in my tummy and was pleading to my POI to please, please, pleaseeeee accept me.
AND I FREAKING GOT IN!!!! With full-funding!!!! THREE YEARS OF WAITING IS OVER!
Now I know what it's like to cry- of happienss, not sadness.
OH MY GOD! I called up 2 of my LOR writers- one was actually on her way to teach a senior seminar... hahaha.
SO OVER THE MOON! *goes back to more happy dancing*
Congrats! From what I've read on this board, it's very well deserved.
If you don't mind me asking, where did you find out the financial aid information? I was also lucky enough to be admitted but can't find any information about funding (maybe it's undecided)?
-
Thanks,
Haig, do you have a regional focus?
My focus is definitely more temporal and thematic than regional. I guess I'm a bit behind the historiographical times in that I want to work primarily--but not exclusively--with American sources. Think *Choosing War*, *Taken Hostage*, etc.
-
diplodocus-
Where else are you applying to? Anyone else out there doing US foreign relations or the Cold War?
I am. In so many words, I want to study the intersections of domestic politics and foreign affairs. We have Princeton, Chicago, Vanderbilt, and GWU in common. I'm almost positive Princeton will send out its acceptances this week--fingers crossed!
-
Gerald Ford was left-handed while sitting down and right-handed while standing up.
-
Congratulations to all those who have heard back from UT! If I may, did you receive personalized emails from individual professors, or mass emails from the DGS?
Thanks!
Template email from the DGS.
Feels great to have some concrete results. Congrats to everyone who was offered admission and I'm hoping for positive results for everyone else on the board (and the sooner the better)!
-
Not all that useful I know, but I remember this time of year with not so many fond memories....
I'm currently a student at Princeton's history department. They have either made their choices or are very close by now. They try to do all their work on next years PhD applications before the start of the new semester (Feb 6th). Writing samples were being read for the past several weeks, and the departmental staff was putting together this years acceptance packet about 10 days ago.
I should warn people. The current first year cohort is extraordinarily large as far as the department is concerned and they may under accept this year to compensate.
Last year's acceptance letters went out by email on Feb 10th.
This makes me feel both good and bad. Good because I'll know sooner rather than later. Bad because Princeton is my top choice and I probably have even less (of an already slim) chance of being admitted!
Thanks for the information nonetheless!
-
What strategies have y'all been using to stave off thinking about admissions?! I realize that this is an impossible endeavor, but...
I've been playing pick-up basketball and lifting weights. A jolt of endorphins does amazing things for stress!
-
Finishing up The Shock of the Global: The 1970s in Perspective today. It's an edited volume that focuses on economic, political, geostrategic, and social changes in the 1970s and is part of a self-conscious effort to de-center the Cold War from our narrative of post-1945 international history. Some of the articles are fascinating but quite short, so the book as a whole provides some really interesting avenues for future reading.
I need to choose what to start next. It's between James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet and Kim Phillips-Fein's Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan.
Speaking of Stephen King, has anyone had the chance to read 11/22/63? I hear good things.
-
I was once told, "perception is reality" and if that is the case then let me do my best to change that. My main point in all of this is to say that historians shouldn't always treat similar events as always being germane, because it is a disservice to that event. The Arab Spring certainly has SOME similiarities to OWS, sure: mass popular uprisings over a frustrated political structure, however when you leave it at that, it detracts from the uniqueness of both cases. For example, in the Arab Spring, those countries were ruled by autocratic despots and didn't have much means to protest against the political structure. In the Arab Spring, there was the sense that it could potentially lead to armed conflict. Obviously there are stark differences between OWS & the Arab Spring, and therein lies my issue. To use a comparison as the main basis for a discussion does a disservice to whatever things you are comparing and that is why I used the term 'lazy'. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter, in my opinion because we are too focused on looking at the surface issues that match both cases. To me, the point of the historian is present the issue that has occurred, discuss all tangential issues and then finally incorporate a similar situation to highlight how things could have unfolded. To start off by discussing the similarities waters down your case because the average person isn't looking for nuance, they are looking for quick and easy sound bites. As a historian your duty is to get as much of the information out as possible, without having to make it fit into a neat, cookie cutter pattern. Comparing and contrasting is important, but it shouldn't be the first or the key step. Looking at the prime cause/s can also incorporate that but again I strongly believe there must be independent assessment done before you can get to the stage of matching and contrasting.
While I have very much enjoyed the discussion of subjectivity vs. objectivity in historical study, I'll try to move the discussion in a slightly different direction.
Let's talk about comparing and contrasting. I see your point regarding the dissimilarities between OWS and the Arab Spring. If we as scholars go too far in our attempts to frame these two (disparate, in this formulation) movements as a singular entity--as, say, early symptoms of an inchoate global revolution--we risk de-historicizing them by ignoring the unique circumstances and histories that gave birth to and propelled them. These specific (usually national) histories are worth understanding.
That is not to say, however, that we cannot gain anything from comparing and contrasting OWS and the Arab Spring. Indeed, as the historian John Lewis Gaddis says, "surely understanding implies comparison: to comprehend something is to see it in relation to other entities of the same class [that may] . . . stretch over spans of time and space that exceed the physical capabilities of the individual observer" (The Landscape of History, 24-25). If we fail to probe the similarities between OWS and the Arab Spring, we risk missing the bigger picture. And while these similarities can sometimes be superficial, as you claim, many significant ones lie not on the surface but deep beneath it. To use one example, Jeremi Suri has a wonderful book in which he reframes superpower detente as a reaction to the protest movements in the US, France, FRG, USSR, and PRC that can be summed up under the banner "1968." Even so, Suri has been criticized for leaving out important protest movements in Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, India, Pakistan, and more. Why should we not search for commonalities among the origins and trajectories of these protest movements (or between 1968 and 2011, for that matter)?
Then we've come full circle, or close to it. If there are both national and transnational elements to any history, and if our goal is a fuller understanding of the past, why should we establish the primacy of one perspective? (By no means to I intend to limit the scope of this discussion to these two perspectives--national and transnational. They are convenient because they are relevant and easily juxtaposed.) If an amalgamation of historically sound perspectives gives us the fullest and most nuanced knowledge of the past, then subjectivity reigns.
Most In-Demand Field?
in History
Posted · Edited by 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.)