Jeppe

Previous Schools (Name, type, or tier): European top 20, following that one semester as visiting student at SIPA
Previous Degrees and GPA's: Political Science BA, translated to 3.7
GRE Scores (Verbal/Quantitative/Analytical Writing): V 590, Q 550, AW 4.5
Previous Work Experience (Years, Type): 1 year at my national UN Mission in NYC. 2 years as research assistant at a security studies think tank during college
Math/Econ Background: Some statistics, micro/macro economics
Foreign Language Background: Fluent in mother tongue (obviously), some skills in French and Spanish
Intended Field of Study in Grad School: International Security
Long Term Professional Goals: A position at either an international organization (UN, NATO) or a research institute/think tank, possibly after taking a PhD on top of my MA
Schools Applied to & Results: Georgetown SSP (got deferred to Spring 2010 because of some late transcripts), SIPA (accepted), Fletcher (waitlisted), Yale - European and Russian Studies (accepted), Syracuse Maxwell (still to hear from them)
Ultimate Decision & Why: Yale. Not only is the cost significantly lower than SIPA to begin with, but Yale also offered me a fellowship. Besides, my chances to pursue a PhD afterwards will most likely be better with this degree.

I'd have to disagree with one of the above posters, I do not think it matters too much where you get your MA from. I think the truly important thing is the quality of your research for your MA, who the profs are in this program (and just as important who they know), and the strength of your LOR's. LOL, I guarantee, if you're ambivalent about a PhD before your MA, you'll have a more concrete idea about what history is and is not once you complete your MA (i.e. gogogo book a week slog!) If you're like me and still willing to inflict more pain on yourself once completing your MA, then you'll know for certainty that you are either plan nuts or really want to earn a PhD. Good luck to you.

While having an advisor who is known in your field of interest is great it is not necessary. In fact, there are great scholars who did not have faculty in their dissertation committee who are specialists in their fields of study.

Interests change and it is not completely unheard of a graduate student applying interested in something and realizes their second year they are interested in something else. Of course, when applying one looks for ideal advisors in such and such specialty, but one should also look for support even if it's outside of their knowledge.

I have had faculty who is outside my historical subfield supervise my thesis simply because there was no one else doing that kind of work. This can be rewarding as well as frustrating, at certain points, because one can't turn to an advisor for specific questions. But in regards to the historical field the objectives are the same and one can engage with professors outside of one's department to other history departments as well as conferences.

I would look into the department as a whole and ask: if I were to change my research interest would I still go to this university for the next five to seven years? I look for supportive faculty, even those outside my subfield in history, as well as fellow students I can share my work with.

I am heading to Stanford.

It was my top choice when I was applying because of the faculty fit and (call me shallow but I spent almost a quarter of a century in Northern Europe so it's important) THE SUN, and I am so very happy to have an offer from them.

It is hard to reject Oxford as I also ditched a Masters offer from Cambridge last year for a better-funded offer elsewhere. Oxbridge is an old dream but it is not happening I guess... oh wait, postdocs are becoming a slave requirement for humanities Ph.Ds now, so who knows...

I can't wait to cross the Atlantic in September!

The standard for most Yale grad students is to teach two years. Just saying.

Actually, in most top programs you'll have no more than two semesters as TA (even if you are supposed to do more than that according to the priginal offer) as usually the 4th year you research abroad with external funding. That's the case at Yale, for instance, and the placement has hardly been a problem for ther alumni recently.

For an Americanist at Yale with no need to go abroad, it is highly possible to do more than two semesters as a TA if one so desires. They expect you to TA in years 3 and 4, but you can also teach in year 5 if you don't take the University Dissertation Fellowship until year 6.

What are the "all accounts" you are referring to, if you don't mind me asking? If this is a silly question, my apologies -I haven't the faintest idea about about U.S academic job market scene, and the track record of different universities. I am considering offers from Columbia and Michigan as well, but I lean towards Princeton.

i don't know if you intended this, but this response came off as very defensive.

no, i don't call vets or dentists "doctors." but i would if they wished me to, because at least their work deals with the body. i have little doubt that, all else being equal, a vet or a dentist would be more useful in a (human) medical emergency than someone with a PhD in physics or religious studies.

when i travel in europe, i will continue to refer to physicians as "doctors" and PhD holders as "professors," assuming they hold professorships. but thank you for your concern. if those professors wish to enforce their legal right to be called "doctor" they are welcome to sue me.

Thanks to all of you for the congratulations. The whole day has gone by in a kind of hazy numbness. The best part was telling my wife, my family, and, of course, my mentors. At the same time, though, it makes me want the best possible results for everyone here. I feel extremely fortunate at this moment and hope the rest of you get to experience the joy and release of stress and tension that comes with getting an acceptance. Thanks again, everyone!!!

uhhh...

it's the history of gender and sexuality, using gender theory and/or queer theory.

Congratulations Pudewen and Roarie!

From a parent:

"You're not as disappointed as I am."

Uh, yes, I think I probably am.

My roommates and I just discussed this. We decided that you don't say anything. You give them a hug, a pint of Ben & Jerry's, and complete control of the remote for the day/night.

Their placement of history PhDs is excellent, at least within the subfields that I'm familiar with. That said, anyone graduating in 2011 is probably in trouble no matter where he or she received their diploma from.

I've been lurking on this board from time to time for a while (since I myself applied and got into grad school a few years ago -- every so often I pop in again to see who might be applying).

To the original poster: As a current graduate student at a Top-5 program, I can advise you that the best way to get into an Ivy League school is to focus on research skills and experience. The best way that you can prove to the admissions committee that you would be a good bet as a PhD student is if you can show that you've "done history" effectively before. I came straight from undergrad, but my sense is that the farther out you are, the more research experience they are going to expect of you. As for myself, I had done some archival research for my undergraduate thesis.

Less a "qualification" than a mere requirement is that you have all the languages you will need to pass the general exams and do the research for your dissertation. Some schools/professors will let you get away with still needing to work on one, but you should be very well-linguistically prepared. And my sense is that language skills can only hurt you, but that they're unlikely to help you very much. (I might be underselling the advantage of being multilingual just a little, I suppose.) But yes, good language training is a must.

They are likely to cut you some slack on the verbal section of the GRE since you are a non native speaker, though you're TOEFL scores will have to be adequate.

Writing sample, very important -- and should demonstrate that you have a solid training in historical research skills as well as analytical thinking. Choose wisely.

Finally, the other extremely important criteria for an Ivy is to get strong letters of recommendation from well-known faculty. As for my own: I had a history superstar of sorts; my main advisor, who was not a superstar but did know the faculty at all the schools I was applying quite well; and a third rec that I doubt helped me as much. So from my experience, having 3 strong recs, only 2 of whom likely had leverage worked. I do think that the second letter I mentioned -- from the non-superstar but nevertheless well connected advisor -- was probably the most helpful. It's an unfair fact of these admissions that knowing someone helps enormously. But it's important to be aware that it's true and do your best to help it work to your own advantage.

Also...

I see that there has been some debate here as to the relative merits of an Ivy education. Maybe I would be expected (given my own good luck) to say this, but it's nevertheless true: going to the best school you can get into is extremely important. It is not the only factor. I have colleagues here with bad advisors who aren't happy, and would likely have been happier elsewhere. It happens anywhere, and you need to do whatever you can to make sure it doesn't happen to you. (Note, faculty who are currently up for tenure but who have not yet been observed as advisors with tenure are unpredictable.) But having a PhD from a Top-10 school is huge on the job market. The appalling fact is that these job search committees get thousands of applications, and they have to weed some out somehow. You hear of lesser known universities getting weeded out completely.

Also, another anecdote: I went to a public school for undergrad. One of the top public schools, but nothing Ivy caliber. When I talked to one of my profs about grad school, he said to me, "We only hire professors from about seven different schools. Go to one of those seven if you want a chance." I suspect seven is a mild exaggeration, but it captures the picture right.

It's true that Ivy League students don't always get the best teaching experience. They always say that about Princeton students in particular. But Princeton students do extraordinarily well on the job market. I am not entirely sure about the relative success of Ivy candidates compared to others at liberal arts college jobs, but the conventional wisdom where I go is that you want to avoid teaching at an LAC if you can because you will get a 4-4 teaching load and never have time to do the research to move elsewhere. Admittedly, there's a research-university bias to the logic here, and some might be happy at an LAC (although 4-4 sounds terrible to me, personally). But the big point I would make is that having a PhD from an Ivy has really helped colleagues of mine to weather the economic downturn on the job market. It's tough everywhere, but candidates from my school have done extraordinarily well. (Wherever you do end up choosing from, you should inspect the placement records quite carefully before making your decision.)

It's not fair, but job prospects are undoubtedly better with an Ivy or similarly-prestigious PhD. It's important to be aware of these realities when applying to grad school and making selections. Don't go to a school where you would be miserable or with a terrible advisor, but go to the best-ranked school that is a good fit. Superstar faculty at lower-ranked schools can give you an edge, but there's a limit to how much of an edge. It might not be worth it if you have the chance to study with a rising star, or a solid department that covers your research interests, at a higher-ranked school.

Also: regarding the OP's point that being a good Top-10 contender would make him a good candidate anywhere, that's absolutely true. There are exceptions (particularly if the applicant has not chosen logical programs), but most of the students who get into Ivy League schools get into all or most of the other schools they applied to. Again, anecdotal evidence, but I also know a lot of grad students. The admissions process is exceptionally tough, but the candidates who have struck the "winning formula" have a tendency to be successful across the board.

Good luck!

I know! I would insist on seeing their accreditation before going to this "Yale" you speak of.

I've run myself out of one-up votes two days in a row just by reading this thread. Even when the advice got a bit inimical, it was still usually very perceptive and thoughtful. And here's to an OP who dealt with it all calmly and tactfully! Is it any wonder that this is a great community?

Pastiness has always been acceptable, lack of soul however is a deal-breaker. Sorry. You can always do the John Mayer blues-minus-any-actual-soul thing but you strike me as nowhere near douchy enough.

A lot of what I want to say has already been said by other people, but I feel compelled to say something anyway. I will be celebrating my 20th anniversary in 2 months, so I like to think that I have bit more experience in keeping a relationship together than most.

A marriage, or any relationship, works only when two people are willing to support each other, despite the sacrifices that such support entails. It involves accepting the other person the way they are, even though you wish they were slightly different.

Reading your post, I get the feeling that you seem to want to shape him into your idea of success. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe he has a different idea of success? Have you ever considered the idea that he might not want to be a rock-star academic? Has it ever occurred to you that he might not WANT your "advice" on graduate school? Maybe he just needs someone to listen to his woes; someone who will say, "Wow, sounds like you had a rough day!" rather than telling him what he should do about it. Maybe he wants to be treated as an intellectual equal even though he didn't get into quite as good of a grad school as you did.

FYI: I come from a family with many strong, successful women. For example, my sister Chrissy (who paid for her graduate education by first becoming a NSF fellow, then a Hertz fellow) has been the "successful" one as compared with her husband, who still works part time so he can pick up their kids from private school. She has a Ph.D., he has a M.S. She is a tenured professor, he is a research associate in her department. If you were to walk into her house, though, you would not know which one was more successful. They treat each other with respect and kindness.

I could give you more examples of the women in my family and the men who married them, but I won't bore you. Just trust me--the attitude you have is immature, and not at all conducive to convincing a male partner to stay with you. ("Keeping" makes him sound like a pet or a trophy.)