czesc

I've been thinking about the Berkeley decisions. Their website claims they accept around 10% of applicants. Even if this forum isn't a representative sample, the number accepted here seems low, especially given some good numbers for the rejects. Funding could be one issue. I know people who work at Berkeley in other disciplines. It does not sound like a good situation there financially or organizationally right now (which is one consolation for this reject). That said, Gov. Brown has promised to revitalize the UC system. I guess the department may be waiting to see the money before it makes decisions on that basis, though. I also wonder if there's been some attempt to cut back on admissions in the wake of the poor job market. That said, I'd love to hear from any of the Europeanists who got in about what they proposed to work on, their POI contact, etc. (either here on the forum or by private message) if any are willing to talk.

When the first notice is a rejection, it does not feel good (or give one much hope). Sigh. EDIT: Whoever wrote "Bqhatevwr" as their comment in the results is my hero of the day.

Do you know if they're doing one for every potential admit?

A Harvard interview? Have they done this before?

Penn interview up...I remember hearing on here that Penn conducted them I think, but don't see any in the results from last year? Is this common / something an applicant should expect to receive if things are going well?

How many times have I searched "history" in the results and freaked out upon seeing a new one only to realize it was an "art history" result? Too many times.

And condolences to the first rejection. Everything is really coming fast this year.

I have had professors suggest it as well. And I only think it would be dishonest if the person was absolutely sure he or she didn't want to continue through with the PhD. And don't forget that the person who leaves to do something else is going to be "giving back" to the department by being the one they point to in order to say "see, you can do anything with a graduate education in history!" It's a good advertisement for the relevance of the field.

Caveats to that: first, I wouldn't pursue an MA you have to pay for in this situation. Why not apply for a PhD and leave, if it wasn't the person's bag of tea and they could be employable, after the first two years of coursework, with the honorary MA (attending an institution where it's offered, of course?) Otherwise, the person is condemned (if we're talking about a US PhD program) not only to potentially paying for a standalone MA, but to do another two years of coursework upon deciding to pursue a PhD. Of course, all of this assumes the person could get into a PhD program without first getting an MA to begin with. Second, there really is value to having a PhD vs. an MA at think tanks and in the government. At many of these institutions, it mean automatically being at a higher pay grade, and it implies a certain level of expertise and research experience that you wouldn't be seen as having with an MA alone.

It did come on a Saturday though, and the previous admit was by phone on Friday. I get the feeling at least one of the two must be a PoI leak?

I'd be interested to know if it's just American History admits at Berkeley so far too... (I am more or less planning to do European stuff)

There's been a Berkeley admit? Congrats to whomever it was, but ach, I'm officially pessimistic now.

Congrats! Where at?

Are you talking about the one with the cookies?

I'd stick with programming (and definitely get a qualification in it of some kind while doing so). For all the terrible odds of becoming a tenured history prof, becoming a staff writer at some political magazine, at least on a salary that'd feed you, is nigh impossible.

It's still a relatively long and annoying commute from NY though, especially if you don't live next to Penn Station. Do a lot of people who do this wind up living in that part of town? Is it easy to pull off, given the schedule of grad classes, without compromising much on choice?

Ditto for Harvard?

I would be wary of this line of reasoning. While there are definitely employers who feel this way, there are others who see the PhD as evidence that you have less experience in an office/other business setting, that you will tend to be less subordinate, that you will jump to an academic job when one becomes available (or to a higher-paid job), or simply that you are vaguely "overqualified" for a position for any other reason. In addition, you should think about where your competition will have been acquiring experience and whether you will have any chance going head to head with them if they have done work that's much more directly analogous to that which you're applying to do. A PhD's skills are transferrable, but that doesn't mean they're competitive with someone who has more exact qualifications. Sorry to be a killjoy; I just wanted to make it clear that a PhD is not just a win-win and that there are definite trade-offs to getting one: namely, you will probably be no more or even less marketable for the vast majority of jobs outside academia. EDIT: Note what I wrote above is true in the US; I don't think it's as true in other countries, where PhDs are more common general qualifications.

What are you all considering knowledge of a language for purposes of this? I've taken a year of Arabic and lived in an Arab country where I picked up some dialect, but that's really far from "knowing" the language in any form.

I took a course in American Intellectual History in undergrad that had a heavy emphasis on this period. We did a lot of primary source reading, but a lot of this has been anthologized; I'd recommend "The American Intellectual Tradition, 1865-" (Capper and Hollinger) which also has introductory notes for many of the writers featured. It might help you get a good feel for trends in thought during this time.

This sounds really good. I'm also applying in European history at a few of the schools you're going for and I haven't heard a thing..

I looked back at history PhD acceptances and they seemed to come within the first two weeks of Feb. last year. Hang tight.

It's not often there's any good news at all about history teaching jobs, so lap it up while you can, caveats notwithstanding: http://chronicle.com/article/Jobs-for-Historians-Rose-Last/136403/ http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/02/gains-history-job-market-may-mask-serious-challenges-those-seeking-positions

Thanks! Too late, unfortunately; I already applied (when you say you're a Fall 2013 applicant, do you mean you'll begin your apps then or will enter then? I think most people in this thread are applying for entry in 2013). I don't think I would've been able to take a graduate course on the side, anyway, since I work a really demanding and unpredictable job hours-wise. Are any of you contacting professors during the waiting period?

I've heard it was actually preferable to email them after in many cases. I'm waiting until after the holidays, myself.