New England Nat

It was at least two years ago.

TMP, the fact that Stanford was the most expensive place on my list by 20% is why I didn't apply. But I've now run into and fan girl Richard White enough that I still think I should have given it a try.

If you are going to starve, don't do it, but otherwise you have to bite the bullet. I calculated between transcripts, gre scores and fees I paid out $1500 for the process. That I totally didn't have. But the adcoms know better than you do where you fit and I and a number of my friends are currently sitting in programs that we didn't think we really had a chance in october during our cycle. I think Stanford I didn't apply to because of cost. But I should have. It was a mistake.

Stevie, Right now you can still DO things about your application. The bad time is between the deadline and when you hear back from schools. People really go crazy during that period when their fate isn't in their own hands.

Do what you are going to do, but there is very little chance anyone is going to look at your bibliography. You have to remember that adcoms and professors are going through these applications in a very short period of time and they have hundreds of applications to read. The chance that they are going to read your entire text is very low.

The other thing to know about MA programs as a stepping stone to PhD programs is that many of the top PhD programs in the country aren't taking that many students right out of undergrad anymore. It makes more sense for them financially to take students with masters degrees who have a better sense of what they want to do, are less likely to burn out, and often already have a project in hand.

I would plan on taking the GRE over the summer or at the beginning of your senior year in college. Many people find that they need to take the test several times to have a score they find represents their best efforts. I think my point when I told the story was two part. 1) don't cut the reach schools off your list because you assume you wont get in there. The Princetons and the Yales of the world are looking to diversify their cohorts and they do consider your kind of experiance to add to that diversity. You do have to show them drastic change over time. But I can tell you I know of at least three people at Princeton and two at Yale that either failed out or dropped out before they failed out of college at that age. There are likely even more than that but it's not exactly something we shout from the rooftops. Though I have been joking about framing that .7 GPA transcript and putting it next to all my diplomas in the end. Conversely, you can expect not to get into a number of state schools and schools that are having to justify their existance within a tough economic climate. Those departments need to point to how brilliant their grad students are with all their shinny GPAs and GRE scores. 2) you will have to address this in your SOP, but don't make the entire document about it. If you were to look at mine the paragraph is at the end and is essentially disconnected from the rest of the document, "finally I'd like to explain something about my transcripts..." They will see the blotches in your transcripts and expect an explaination. Don't go over long. If you had a medical reason for it you could rely on that, but if as you describe it was about lack of motivation/not going to class than own the hell out of it. Claim personal responsibility for your history, and say (very briefly) what you learned.

So I'm about to give more information about myself than I would normally. I failed out of college when I was 19, a GPA so bad you would be shocked that it could be that low. I worked out "in the real world" for eight years taking a course at a time at the local community college as I could pay for it. Roughly six years in I got motivation and started going through classes like gang busters. I transferred into my state's flagship state university where I graduated with a double major, but when I applied for PhD programs I didn't get in. It was 2009 and the bottom of the world had fallen out. It was beyond a bad year to apply to graduate school and I didn't get in anywhere. It was probably for the best because I didn't really understand where I should be going anyway. I went out of state to get a masters specific to my studying interests at a state school, and applied to PhD programs after my masters. I got into more than I didn't, including a couple of Ivys. My GPAs were First college .7 Community College 3.9 Second college 3.5 (language and 400 level sciences are killers). masters 4.0 The adcoms will see a change over time, and understand that people can change. You may have to get a masters first just to put a point on it. My other friends who have similar fail out -> success -> PhD program stories also had to do masters. You sound like you are making sound decisions and are motivated. Apply to the programs that are best for you. The ones that are more likely to give you a second chance in life are going to be the schools that don't feel like they have to prove themselves. I didn't get into schools with History departments ranked in the 30-40 range, and got into ones in the 1-20 range. It is what it is. My advice: Be prepared to explain your history in no more than 1 paragraph in your statement of purpose. Own responsiblity for your failures, say what you learned and that you are no longer that person.

If you have footnotes, leave off the bibliography for this purpose. Assume anything beyond 20 pages wont be read even if it's just a half page or two pages.

I think based on your post you have read this thred entirely right. There is very little to loose other than the money in going through the app cycle. Especially if you look at it as probably unsuccessful. A word... if you are wanting to do it this cycle you need to start preparing the aps now and in a hurry. Many US programs have a dec 1 deadline and it is not a simple thing of just filling out forms.

On a happier but related expected cohort size thing.... Princeton's yield last year was down from the 2011 giant pool and I expect that they'll go back to 36 offers for a desired yeild of 22-24 this year.

I knew I'd forgotten something last night!

I would actually suggest you go this way because my experiance is that anthropology is going to be less open to this kind of subject matter. What I am saying is that you should maintain a clear professional identity, you can do that by making sure you have anthropologists or sociologists on your committee, by presenting material at anthropology conferences. From what you are saying I think this is absolutely the way you should go. You should just pick an identity and make sure you don't come out an interdisciplinary wish wash. I think a good book for you to read is Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists by Sharon Traweek

Yeah, just based on what you have been saying I'd look at Penn and Cornell. I don't know the STS departments outside of cornell. I would also look at what is known as SSK - Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. It's a particular methodology in the study of science that sounds like it's closer to what you are thinking about. But in the US the sciences themselves don't study their own disciplines. Though I did once read a really interesting anthropology of anthropologists...

You are right to worry about interdisciplinary fields, which is why in STS departments they will tell you to make sure you have an identifyable professional identity as either a historian, an anthropologist or a sociologist. Honestly the entire field is shifting more and more towards history because while the history job market isn't great it's much much bigger than the HPS or STS markets. So as much as you want to do interdiscinary work I would find a way to do that in the context of a clearly identifyable program. All the historians of science I know also apply for jobs in history in the geographic and temporal regions of their study. So in theory when I finish I could technically be hired as a historian of science... or as a 20th century Americanist... or as a couple other brands of historian.

It sounds to me like you should look at STS departments (Science and Technology Studies) which are interdisciplinary departments with history, anthropology and sociology of science. The one i know the most about is at Cornell, but you can look under that name at other places. The University of Pennsylvania has a History and Sociology of Science department which would also fit what you are describing. Traditionally the history of science in the US was allied with the philosophy of science, but in the last thirty years or so it has been moving more and more towards general history. In some places this means that there have been "divorces" and "marriages" where entire departments have shifted alignment. History of Medicine complicates this picture even more... but given your interests i'm just talking history of science. Off the top of my head the better history of science departments are Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, Yale, Hopkins, Wisconsin. I would suggest you look into the fields professional organizations the HSS -- the History of Science Society. They publish Isis, the leading journal of the field in the US. As you are doing research, make sure you check out what the faculty actually does. You wont want to end up somewhere full of historians of physics who don't have anyone who could deal with your work.

Any professor you contact now or in the middle of October will assume you are applying in the Fall of 2013 cycle. Professors get a lot of contact from graduate students at this time of year and they are likely to loose track of you. If you go to conferences and meet people face to face that is a different thing, but I would wait. The summer before your application season is when I'd seriously start thinking about it. Know that professors will likely only start paying serious attention October to November and after about december in most cases the window has closed. but again... all of this would be a year off for you.

"Political History Broadly Defined" ... that is political history not about US presidents is a growing field in part because a decade ago it was dead. It's raise had come in part from a disenchantment with the pretentions of "science" and quant. analysis in political science/theory/politics departments. I wouldn't nessecarily say that "intellectual history" is the crossover between those two and my unscientific impression is that the political historians are having an easier time getting jobs. That said... I think we are facing a lost generation of PhDs where people who got their degrees in the year or two before the downturn until probably a year or two ago that didn't get on the tenure track aren't. The profession is not hiring in great numbers in the backlog. On the other hand, I think the ABD hire is a thing of the past.

Crazy Cat Lady, I think that depends from program to program. We all need something occasionally from another historian, we need someone to explain some tangental part of our projects over coffee or give us the historiography in five minutes. As long as they're willing to do that for you as much as getting it from you... than that's not some deep betrayal of friendship.

And now he's changed user names again. Anyone doubting we've got a troll now?

Weepsie, when you get down to those kinds of details and if i'm still around you can PM me. I can talk you through some of your problems but know that i'm just another grad student not an expert.

I had assumed it was that in those larger online settings people are much more likely to call troll faster. Whereas grad cafe is full of earnest people trying to give and get earnest advise.

I'd rather not hand it to you until you are to that point, but if I'm still around here next year when you are crafting a SoP I can show you a copy of mine. Since I have a similar blemish from undergrad.

The GRE can't get you into a program and it depends on the university how heavily they weigh it. Some universities impose a hardline cut off and wont let the department admit someone below that cut off no matter what. My best advise is that you should invest some time in really understanding how the written section is scored and practice writing an essay to that standard. A strong writing score can signal that you are just bad at the standardized questions.

I agree with CageFree. We've talked about this a little in PM I'm more convinced than ever that our other friend is a troll.