Hypnotoad

I'm glad you brought this up, becuase I haven't really been thinking about it. I have always been fascinated by military history, but judging from the current state of military history in academia, it would probably be quite detrimental to my graduate (and career) prospects to answer the question that way. Which is not the end of the world because African American history is easily the aspect of American history that interests me most, and I've always had a strong interested in the African diaspora too. My favorite historical monograph that I've ever read is The Black Jacobins by CLR James. And when I read Fanon early on in my undergraduate studies I was blown away by him. So there is certainly room to go in this direction too.

Thanks for the advice everyone. My research interests relate to the experiences of African Americans in WWI, particularly black soldiers. There's been plenty of research on black soldiers in WWII and (obviously) the Civil War, but comparetively little on WWI (at least as far as I can tell). And yet this was at the time of heavyweights like WEB DuBois, Marcus Garvey, and Booker T. Washington. It coincided with the Great Migration of rural sharecroppers to the industrial centers of the north. A time of growing radicalization of black people. A time when Jim Crow, the Klan, lynchings, and dinfranchisement were at their worst. Though many blacks opposed the war, many black men saw it as a way to get a piece of the pie. Wilson's framing of the war as one to bring democracy to the world led many to belive the war could help obtain a greater share of democracy in the US, and saw the service as a means of personal advancement. Early on recruitment stations were actually turning black volunteers away because the army had reached its black quota. There were that many eager volunteers. Only later did they reverse course, when the need for men was very high (in the spring and summer of 1918 the US was sending 10,000 men a day to France). Some themes to think about and explore: -For those who volunteered, what were their specific motivations for wanting to serve in the military? -For those who were drafted, how eager were they to serve? What were their views on being conscripted by a government which ignored and oppressed them to such a degree? -For those who resisted, why did they feel the need to do this, and how effective were they? -To what extent did the US's use of black troops mirror the British and French's use of colonial troops on the Western Front? Especially France, which used thousands of West African soldiers. -How did being in France (where they experienced much less racism than at home) affect soldiers' social and political consciousness?- -What effect did they have on French and European society? I've read that the 369th Regimental band is what first introduced live jazz to European culture, a huge segment of which later became fascinated by African American music and culture. -How were black soldiers' experiences of the war different from their white counterparts? Most were confined to manual labor jobs, as longhoremen, gravediggers, and materiel handlers, though there were two combat divisions that served in some of the biggest operations of the war. -How did their changed consciousness affect American and particularly black society on their return home? This is especially important considering many of them had high hopes for a changed society and better personal fortunes as a result of the war, but in fact were greeted by a postwar period that saw an increase in oppression and violence, as evidenced by a significant increase in southern lynchings, and major growth of the KKK. But also a major growth of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and other radical black organizations. So... anyone think they know of any departments (MA or PhD) where these research interest would be well-received?

So here’s my situation: I want to teach history at a community college- though many CC’s now prefer PhD’s, I have done some research and talked to a lot of acquaintances I have “in the biz” and they assure me there are still numerous opportunities for MA’s (in fact all but one of these contacts have only an MA). Teaching (at least for now) interests me more than research- so the way I see it, why go through all the extra research to get a PhD if I can do what I really want to do with an MA? (And if I do change my mind and end up really liking research, I can always apply to a PhD program after finishing my MA- so there’s little downside.) This probably makes my situation a little different from a lot of people on this board (and in most of the humanities fields) as most people seem to have a PhD as their end goal. Most of the info and advice I’ve read about applying to grad schools in non-applied fields is also geared towards PhD’s. So long story short, I have some questions about the specifics of my application process and I was hoping people on this board could provide some insight. 1. Does anyone know of history departments (w/ terminal MA programs) that have a strong emphasis on teaching and/or give out a lot of TA positions? The best one I’ve found so far is San Diego State- but that was by chance. I have no efficient way of finding other programs with a similar emphasis, but from what I’ve read it will make my life much easier after graduation if I’ve had at least one TA position. 2. Everything I’ve read says that the most important factor in picking which programs to apply to should be based on faculty members, i.e. which potential advisors would be the best fit for you. Is this really as important if my goal is an MA, not a PhD, and my primary desire is to teach rather than conduct research? It seems like the factors I asked about I asked about in #1 might be more important in my case. 3. If I am applying to a more “traditional” program (i.e. mostly turning out PhD’s who hope to work at major research universities), how much should I highlight my desire to teach (esp. at a community college) in my SOP? Chronicle of Higher Ed has a great columnist who writes specifically about CC issues, and he has pointed out more than once that (fair or unfair) there is a tendency for professors at big four-year research institutions to look down on their CC counterparts and their work. So I’m wondering if they might thumb their nose at an applicant who has that as their goal. Should I downplay this aspect in my SOP and talk about other things instead- or will focusing on that be a breath of fresh air for admissions committees due to its uniqueness? I’ll stop there for now. Any info or advice (including opinion and even pure speculation!) is much appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks everyone for the info! Very helpful. Though I love history I don't have too much research experience and my foreign language skills aren't the best (to say the least). So completing an MA first could be useful for strengthening those areas before moving on to the next level. I get the sense, however, that funding is not as easy to come by for MA programs as it is for PhD programs. If so, this is a major drawback for me (well, most people probably) since I can't really afford this type of degree on my own. Is my perception accurate, or is MA funding easier to obtain than I thought?

Hello all. My question concerns the benefits of obtaining a History MA before applying to a PhD History program. I finished my undergrad degree in May 2010, and it was always my plan to wait a few years after graduating before applying to graduate school. I'm not sure why, but that was always the way I envisioned doing it. Grad school has always been in my thoughts however, and I plan to spend the next year applying for the Fall 2013 term. I guess I don't really have a more specific question other than, 'What are the benefits and drawbacks of each path?' Applying to an MA program first, versus applying straight to a PhD program. One thing I've noticed so far is that PhD programs seem to be more common, so maybe it would be easier to find the right place for me. Just a thought. I don't have anything more detailed than that yet, so I was hoping people who have gone each route can share their thoughts and perhaps this will help me tease out some of the specifics of my situation. Any info is appreciated, and feel free to ask me any question. Thanks for the help.

I am currently narrowing down the research areas that I think I'd like to focus on, and one aspect of my decision-making process is the language(s) that would be required for each area of specialization. I am wondering exactly how well you are expected to know a foreign language. In the past, my attempts to learn a foreign language have not exactly gone well. For whatever reason, it just never seemed to click for me like it did for other people. And I'm told the language I had a difficult time with, Spanish, is supposedly one of the easier ones for native speakers of English to learn. (Full disclosure: I definitely could have put in a lot more effort in learning Spanish, so maybe things would be different if I were really focused and determined in my second attempt.) So I guess the first thing I'm asking is how proficient in a foreign language do you need to be in a 'typical' (if there is such a thing) graduate history program? And the second question would be, am I going down the wrong path entirely by using the language requirement as one of the factors I'm (currently) using to narrow down my choice of specific research interests?