amanda1655

Nasteel, Your shot is as good as anyone else's. I graduated from a small liberal college that was originally ranked as a regional best by U.S. News before moving to the third-tier of the national rankings. I am in a top 10 program and am doing as well as my colleagues. What school you attended can matter for some departments. The rumor is that statement applies mostly to Princeton and to some advisors at Harvard. I would suggest you apply to a wide variety of schools... some top 10, some top 25, some top 50, and some MA programs. Admissions decisions, although not a craps shoot, are difficult to predict. I was turned down by schools in the top 25 and the top 50 even though I got into a couple top 10s. Good luck with your applications!

I would like to echo Cooper's Street that not many people are doing diplomatic history and that you might have a hard time being admitted to a history program not matter what your stats or qualifications (which are quite impressive). The only person of which I can think in my department (top 10 history program) who works on foreign policy works on the Middle East, not China, and would be unlikely to admit someone with a different regional specialty than his. You might want to check out this article from the NY Times on the state of the job market for people focusing on international and diplomatic history: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/books ... odayspaper Personally, I would apply to a few history programs (perhaps the University of Toronto based on the above article and Harvard based on whom you have been influenced by) but focus my efforts on public policy programs, which seem less data-driven and would more amenable to the type of work you want to do.

Minnesotan - I jerked no one around. Jerking them around would be saying "yes" to a school, and then saying "no." All I did was take time to think about what I wanted to say to ensure that I maintained a good relationship with the people I was saying "no" to. I don't think that anyone was harmed because I took an extra week to let some people know. If they were, they need to develop a thicker skin. As for your comments about gender, you have started and engaged in many such tangents yourself. I could cite examples but I think it would only lead to nitpicking. I am not advocating essentialism. I think that gender is socially constructed. Men are encouraged to act in one way, and women in another. I do think that men are encouraged to show their emotions less than women are. It wasn't always that way (for example, the romantic period) but it is now. Totallyfreakingout - It's nice that you don't think my reasons were valid but I stand by them.

Totallyfreakingout - Calm down a bit. I think it may be a bit rash to call other people "selfish" and "irresponsible" whom you don't know. You don't know their reasoning or the reasons why they are taking a bit longer to inform the other schools even after they made a decision. One of the people I turned down is considered the "Dean" of my subfield in the United States. I have also heard stories about him treating graduate students from certain departments (i.e., the one I accepted) horribly, causing at least one to change fields. He had been very supportive of me throughout the application process, and I was dreading e-mailing him and needed time to figure out how to word my response. Luckily, he responded to my e-mail with courtesy and kindness. Another one was a close friend of my undergraduate advisor. I suspect that my acceptance was at least partially a favor to my undergraduate advisor. The professor pulled a lot of strings for me. I had a hard time letting that professor know because I felt somewhat obligated to him because of how much trouble he had went to. About women and their emotions - Let's face it. Women are acculturated by our sexist society to be emotional and to distrust their own decisions. It's part of the partriarchal dividend that men are encouraged to feel confident about their reasoning powers. Although I doubt ticklemepick was thinking of that when she made her comment, her comment is not totally off-base. Women are often interpreted as being emotionally unstable and have been taught to be so. Part of feminism is recognizing the ways that women have been conditioned to accept their own subjugation. Also, your handle is a little ironic in the context of this argument.

I would take his indecision into consideration even if he decides to stay put. Nothing is more frustrating than having your advisor decide to leave two years in the program, and then being forced to choose between transferring with your advisor and staying put and being orphaned. Professors who are considering other offers are likely to do so again.

When did you e-mail? If it has been more than a few days or a week, I would call. It's April 3. There are 12 more days before you have to decide. You can't wait much longer.

missycari - If it makes you feel better, there is at least one student I know of who is in a similar situation. Have you asked if the professor if he is going to make the decision by April 15th. The student whom I am thinking of asked and was told that the decision would not be made by the deadline.

I don't think that it's fair to ask someone with a few acceptances to turn down before they are ready. Academics are normally quite neurotic (I know I am). For me, it was a matter of needing to feel secure before I turned down the other schools who had accepted me. It was also about getting the courage to e-mail people that I have spoke with frequently and grown somewhat attached to with what I assume was at least partially disappointing news. Students who have multiple acceptances should be allowed to respond to the graduate schools when they are ready. I understand the position of people on waitlists but the students with offers worked hard to get where they are and need to be given distance. I do understand the people with 3 - 15 acceptances waiting until April 14th at 11:59 p.m. I think they are waiting because the sense of loss that NSGoddessQ described earlier. One of the schools I turned down was originally my first choice. It was hard to let that one go. I needed a bit of time. People need to give others space. I think people also need to remember that it's not the end of the world if they don't get in. What would I have done if I had been uniformly rejected? Went back to my well-paid teaching job and began to think about ways that I could have a fulfilling career in education. It's not the end of the world.

I finally told the last school I won't be attending there. I got back a quick, two-second later e-mail from the Department Secretary that was rather cold. The message I received from their online site when I typed in my reply was warmer. *Sigh* To make myself feel better, I read the e-mail from my potential advisor from Michigan when I accepted, which begins with the word "Yee-haw!"

I know but I just have this feeling (completely unwarranted, I know) that the moment I turn down the one last school I am keeping my pocket, something will implode at Michigan and I'll be left with no offers at all.

I never expected it to be such a harrowing situation either. The first reply I received said that he understood my decision and that the program I had accepted was a great one. He also wished me luck in my grad studies. I felt like crying when I read it. It would have been easier if he had responded with a few choice words or not at all. I still haven't written the other programs. I can't bring myself to let go of them as options, even though I've already told Michigan yes. I guess I should do it tonight, especially since I am sitting on a funded program that doesn't give offers to everyone.

Here is the problem that I see with attending a school simply for a big name advisor: What if your interests change? What if they have a heart attack or get in an accident? I think it is better to go to a program with several excellent professors than to pick one just for one big name advisor.

Wisconsin didn't include a way to decline them in their initial mailing either. That came later when they sent information about their recruitment weekend. Wait two or three days and then if nothing comes, try e-mailing the Director of Graduate Studies or the Department Secretary.

I met someone at a visit day who was planning to visit Ohio State within the next few weeks as part of an official visit weekend.

No one may care about a B- but a D or an F may matter. I'm sorry but I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that our overall GPA doesn't matter. If they really didn't care, they wouldn't ask for both on the application form. They would only ask for your major GPA. Berkeley also asks on their application form for upper division GPA, which would theoretically include classes in philosophy, literature, etc. Your GPA matters. The higher it is the better. Why would I admit someone who hasn't done spectacular in their undergraduate courses?

I think both are important but your history GPA is more important. As someone looking at an application, however, I would be concerned if there was a large gap between someone's cumulative GPA and their major GPA. To me, it would raise a question about the rigor of their undergraduate major if their major GPA there were substantially higher. I would also wonder about their ability to understand the statistical theory necessary to understand some historical articles (if the weakness was in math). I don't know you nor have I seen your transcript so these concerns may be mute. All of them could also be addressed by the quality of your writing sample, your LORs, and your SOP. In general, Master's programs are easier to get into than PhD programs. One caveat there, funding at the MA level (although possible) is hard to find than it is at the PhD level. Also, you may want to start looking into possible PhD programs. Personally, I would aim for the top 50 departments if you want to have a better chance of finding a job afterwards. 40% of all European history PhDs are not employed in T-T positions (I don't know the number for American historians, although I would assume that the percentage of unemployed PhDs is higher in that field). The number drops to 20% at the top 10 schools. It is probably 50% or higher at the lower-ranked schools.

I have to disagree a bit with ticklemepick on GPA. The hard numbers of your application play an interesting role in the application process. They will NOT guarantee someone an acceptance into a PhD program but they can keep someone out. When I was an undergraduate, my professors told me to aim for a 3.75 GPA if I wanted to be admitted to a top program, i.e. Yale, Harvard, Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, etc. Anything above that was gravy. After someone has met the general requirements, the factors that the other posters mentioned come into play. I had a 3.94 Undergraduate GPA, a 4.0 Master's GPA, and a 670 on the Verbal (93%). I consider myself an average candidate, not an excellent one. There are so many people with almost perfect scores that it becomes easy to cut someone with a low GPA or low GRE scores, especially if you have 800 applicants and 25 spots. That said, it's not impossible to get admitted to a graduate program with a low GPA. You just face a harder battle. You have to prove that you are indeed a better candidate and fit than the person with better stats. People with a 3.6 and a 1350 on the GRE have been accepted over someone with a 3.9 and a 1450. BTW, no one ever asked me about GPA either but I think that may have been because the people I was speaking with assumed that I would have a relatively high GPA and GRE scores.

Is anyone here planning to write thank you letters after your visit? If so, to whom are you sending them?

I've had the opposite experience. I'm from a place where there are actually four seasons and living in the Southwest has not been a fun experience. It feels like summer all year round and when the temperatures reach 117 or 118 degrees, I don't even want to walk to my car much less drive to work or go shopping. I miss snow. I miss the fall. I miss watching the snow slowly recede and the green grass begin to appear underneath. I don't think I could make it another year in a place with very little change between the seasons. California and the like just don't appeal to me anymore.

A professor at Wisconsin (potential advisor) told me that Wisconsin that they fund their graduate students, on average, for 2.5 years. Because of the desperateness of funding, most graduate students there take far longer than the equivalent at Michigan or Harvard because they find themselves working to pay the bills. Can you believe that?! Most of the graduate students there are forced to work on top of their commitments to the history department? I am finding the financial aid department (which I think is different than history depart awards but I'm not sure) very frustrating right now. They sent me an e-mail saying they would be able to offer me something and I needed to fill out this paperwork for them to officially give me an award and tell me how much. I filled out the paperwork, it's been a week and half and no response. Aargh!

Samantha: I still think you eventually have to think about how much you are willing to sacrifice, especially if you have a wife or husband.

I agree with Samantha and others that you should reapply. You sound as though this is your passion and you should try again. There is one caveat - Eventually, people need to decide how many times they should apply. Every time you apply you are placing your life on hold for a year. Applying five times means that you will spend five years of your life fretting about finding letters of recommendation, writing statements of purpose, and honing your writing sample. This will delay your adulthood and make you an adolescent for those five years. You don't want to wake up when you are 30 or 32 and realize that you have been waiting for graduate school when you could have been finding other ways to make your life fulfilled. I don't know you, Chicago, so this caveat may not apply to you but it's one thing to think about. One day I would like to have children, a stable income, and a community that supports me intellectually and socially. Graduate school is important for me but I am not sure that I would be willing to sacrifice my entire life for it. There are too many other fulfilling ways for me to spend my life for me to wait in for four or five years in stasis and then find I still have not been accepted.

Chicago Helpful - I think you need to take a moment and breathe. Your life is not over. Your life is not going to be monotonous and dull just because the University of Chicago and Northwestern could not offer you a place in their PhD program. There are plenty of other ways to cultivate your interests and contribute for the scholarly world. Here are just a couple of ideas that have appealed to me at certain points in my life. 1 - Write pieces for a weekly newspaper in your free time. Build your portfolio and then become a staff writer for a newspaper. I can't remember who said that journalists were writing a first draft of history but it seems rather appropriate here. 2 - Work as a librarian (university or public). There are lots of positions as an archivist that will allow you to continue working with historical sources. 3 - Work at a Museum. There is nothing more spectacularly geeky than leading tours in a museum and explaining why this piece of otherwise unidentiable pottery is actually one of the most important finds of the last decade. 4 - Own your own used bookstore. Heck, become an elementary school teacher. My kids think I am the coolest thing since Pokemon. Anything I say is cool is automatically cool. You'll be surprised how many students you can convince that they should really be interested in the American Revolution. I have students asking how they can find more children's books about it and whether Liberty's Kids (a cartoon that details the road to the revolution) is available for purchase. If you told them to care about ancient Greek philosophy, they would just to try to please you.

Sorry about Chicago... but creating a fake name. That's HILARIOUS! In fact, I would like to suggest that we all create fake g-mail accounts and start e-mailing the schools who have yet to notify. I've heard from everyone but I think it might relieve some of the tension to play with the admission reps a bit. :wink:

I think it does help, however, to remember how incredibly lucky and privileged we are. There are people in the world who never learn to read or write beyond a third grade level. There are brilliant people who were never able to college because they had to help their family by working in the fields. Our problems - Berkeley said "no," I may have to go to an MA program before receiving a PhD, etc. - are incredibly small compared to theirs. One of the reasons that I suggest people take a year off is because it helps place perspective on this whole crazy experience. Here's my suggestion: Redwine and others, realize that you are incredibly talented and that this experience is going to test you mentally and physically. But, also realize how privileged you are. Take a moment and volunteer. Become engaged in your community. It help take your mind off the PhD program until you get there and it will help you maintain a healthy sense of perspective.