mvlchicago

No jobs. No jobs anywhere. Just monasteries and museums.

^^^^Jesus how much truth can one post have? That is some quality knowledge dropped right there.

...I don't understand what the point of this post is? Job markets can change in varying ways over half a decade. Is there something particular about this year you're trying to highlight? Don't come to graduate school for 20th century US History?

I'd seriously suggest having at least one senior faculty you want to work with because they're also more likely to have networks that will help you with job placement down the road and (usually) less likely to bounce upon attaining tenure. It is of course possible that all your junior faculty folks become legends in the field during your five years there, but it feels like an unnecessary risk (not knowing your fields of course.)

^^^ Is Davis on the Quarter system? Sorry if I missed that memo .

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other usually; going to a top ranked undergrad place won't make up for the fact that you're massively disqualified for a PhD program. Similarly, going to a low ranked undergrad place won't dissuade the very strong letter that your advisor wrote to the admissions committee. Does being amazing at a top ranked undergrad place help your case? Sure. But the networks for PhD admissions (especially if you have a Master's) aren't nearly as solidified as the ones for jobs just yet. Do your thing, I think you'll be surprised how much the MA helped your ability to conceptualize your project's "fit" at the schools to which you apply.

Another thought: (and you reallyyyyy should talk to your advisors/people writing your letters before you pull this move) people's projects in grad school and professional interests shift all the time. At least two faculty from whom I took courses in undergrad started their PhDs with the intent to study something quite different than what they ended up studying. That is to say, it might be creating a lot of unnecessary work on yourself to do the shift right this second. Instead you might still portray yourself as interested in 20th century Poland with the intent to be "transnational," and from there move into America during your first few years of coursework. I'm saying talk to your faculty before you do this because I'm unsure of how this'll be perceived in your future grad program, but it's something that does happen.

Europe –––> America is usually easier than America –––> Europe due to the language question. Languages will also provide at least a slight edge (usually) on other American candidates assuming you can read secondary research. I agree though with the sentiments expressed above; you obviously have some interest in the field or you wouldn't be making the jump, but you also need to clarify why and how precisely this jump was made through citations and books. Was there a book or faculty person that deeply inspired you to change your field? That might be the best way to frame the narrative rather than saying "lol America." Urban history could also serve as a useful transition, as there has been a lot of work done on the city in Europe and cosmopolitan values as a function of hegemonies on that continent and the process of shaping other ones. If you start digging through the books and journals with which you're familiar, I'm certain you could create a narrative about your deep interest in urban history that ends with your discussion about urban history in America. TL;DR not crazy, just put some thought into your project and talk to your faculty references about the shift to get their perspectives.

I wouldn't stress writing something from scratch; a thesis is usually written in the context of advisors and peers who are invested in seeing your project become a substantial piece of research. You totally could write something using the resources available to you on your own, but if your plan is to come up with a quality writing sample for grad school, I think it'd be more plausible to think about the ways your thesis uses its primary sources and how you might incorporate a couple more into that piece of writing. Emailing your advisors is super kosher here. In any case, don't knock artwork/photographs; we've entered the visual turn and being able to write interesting and compelling contributions on the basis of visual sources is a very useful skill, even if the historical discipline would have you think the only thing that matters is the written source. What's more, the historical discipline is really knocking down all sorts of walls and "interdisciplinarity" is one of those key words floating around right now. So if you're truly committed to being a historian, I'd think you could flip the non-historical elements of your training into an advantage if you think and work on your SOP a lot over the next few months.

In which this thread becomes "Telkanuru complains about theory while Mvl waxes on the brilliance of Peter Novick for five hours on Thursday."

Guys I have class tomorrow this is such an odd feeling. Like an old friend.

Idk if he's still taking students//where his interests are moving now, but Gyan Pandey at Emory published a book on the relationship between Dallit and African American history in 2013ish, part of which focused on the ways that the groups pushed against their particular histories of prejudice.

*finishes all the administrative tasks for classes (should've been done earlier this month) and responds to all the emails*

think about it this way. For every personal experience you've had and are thinking about slipping into your SOP, ask: is this A ) relevant to my interests that I've so clearly stated so far or B ) does this show me as the sort of person who finishes projects I start?

look on the bright side: these people retiring means more space for the next generation! It'll ultimately be good when hiring comes round for y'all

I've not yet encountered the one word email.

I buy hard copies 100 cause I write so many notes in my texts that it becomes difficult for me to really adjust with like mark ups on programs like Papers or even Adobe. Of course, I have docx's of notes on books anyway, but I recognize I'm caught in the trap of privileging the form of the book monograph rather than adjusting to e-texts. Also not having a book w u in class seems like a really really bad move. Idk if your memory's eidetic, but I find it lowers the pressure immensely in following conversation during seminar if I can open my book to varying quotes, or recalling sections before tryna contribute. Just my thoughts though~

If you're alive you're probably fine. More seriously I'd suggest remembering your letters of reference are only as good as your faculty feel comfortable writing them. If you know now it'll be awhile before you apply, I'd suggest writing your faculty and telling them of your plans over the next couple of years. That way, they can write a draft or something of a letter now, while the experiences are still fresh, rather than you contacting them out of the blue three years later and scrambling to remember who you were as a student.

^^ Jellin' he gave a talk in 2014 at Chicago. Seemed like one of those few academics who's a badass, way ridiculously productive and still a good person. Enjoy the class!

EDIT: Completely misread your second comment, but looking at the syllabi I've seen for my first two term experience, it seems that the model of buy-5-core-books is functional. Re: Seminar papers, I'm not an expert, but I did take several upper-level PhD seminars in undergrad and I think the way I'd characterize this difference is not so much of quality, but how you conceptualize your essays. Like, my undergrad thesis was meant for me to explore whatever I found interesting so long as it fit the broad rubric of history primary source research with some set of secondary articles and books. The PhD seminars, however, interrogated the questions I asked predicated on their relevance to what other people found interesting. That is to say, it treated the writing of their research papers as something that could conceivably be published in a journal not just based on quality but based on the methods, sources, and conversation that were happening in said journal at the time. The difference–relearning how to write–I think came from having only had to previously write for people who were basically paid to read my writing and now being asked to write for people who would have zero stakes in what I thought or how I thought it. I therefore had to learn how precisely to articulate my thoughts according to precise vocabulary and ideas that were being expressed by not just leading scholars in my fields but also the people who'd been publishing in the journals over the past five years for example.

As interesting a discussion as this would be, I'd gently suggest making a new thread where it won't come with the baggage of this one.

We really should get a "BEFORE YOU ASK US IF IT'S RIDICULOUS TO APPLY" sticky on this thread; I feel like we've been/will be answering this question a lot over the next couple of months.

Wow. Like with the quality of UW-M students, I thought that they had to be one of the standard five year-funded programs. I'm like almost more impressed by their placements now.

^ Had they never guaranteed five years of funding before?

what is vacation