mvlchicago

To be clear though, that article focused specifically on a certain set of jobs; namely those involved with I-Banking and consulting. If you're attempting to go from History PhD to consulting, I'd say you have a lot to do regardless of what school you're at. That being said, I'm not trying to suggest it's not an uphill battle for any field. The fact is jobs are scant and there is almost always competition. My original point was just that institutional prestige matters less if you're going for a museum, or a media firm vs. Tenure Track. I'm of the mindset that people connections matter more for most of this anyway, and that institutions only help you build those connections.

the other fact is that, politically speaking, it looks much better to knock off funding for anthropology (I know Walker's been focusing on that) than history.

With the caveat that I'm not quite the person from who you asked for help, I would also suggest (in agreement with the exploration of placements where possible!) that you speak with students at Universities you are considering directly? Obviously have a little tact, but more often than not I've found graduate students at specific schools to be the best resource. More generally, I would amend the advice you've received to reflect the following: do not bother going to a PhD program that does not fund you. This is because if you want to successfully complete a dissertation–which is, for all intents here, a book–and complete it to the best of your ability, you do not want to be TA-ing or working other sorts of jobs in addition to doing the research necessary to finish that book. It's incredibly challenging, stressful, and you'll probably burn out even if you finish. I think most people are telling you to worry about prestige because they assume you want to work a Tenure Track job. If that's your intention I would tentatively agree, except to say that it's not impossible to get that sort of position from a non-top 20 school, just difficult politics and intellectual hustle required. But outside of Tenure Track, there are so many things one can do with a PhD that really the pedigree of the degree is irrelevant: writing your own popular books, offering advice to journalists, working in editing houses and firms, working in museums, finding research fellowships from year to year, teaching all sorts of high school levels. Ultimately, there are so few jobs from year-to-year that any student who is setting themselves to a one-minded "Tenure Track or Bust" sort of mentality will likely be disappointed regardless of where they are.

"Plus I met a nice girl in Turkey and I'm starting to realize that there's more to life than the mountains of books I've been surrounding myself with for all these years (even though I do still love them oh so much!)" DAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Sorry. Now that that's out of my system... First off, breathe. It seems like you've been going full steam for awhile, which is good, but also means that most of your energy has been dedicated to something that you're seriously questioning. And that's okay! The transition between academia and "the real world" takes time and effort. I think this is the #1 thing I wish I'd had realized while prepping for PhD programs: turns out most people don't actually care how much Latin you can parse. I would suggest continuing with your applications, at least. This is because you've been doing so much to try and set yourself up for a history project that maybe you should at least try to get into a program and see what happens. It's also because I think no matter what field you're in (ranging from Comp Sci to Philosophy) it's increasingly becoming the case that you need a masters degree to start most careers. If you're admitted to a PhD program, you won't have to pay for the masters while getting a real chance to make sure you want to leave academia. This will also give you time (a couple of years) to really explore the full set of fields you could possibly enter and spend a couple summers doing the internships necessary to make connections in them: journalism, media, museums, social science research in tech industries, programming, thinktanks, there's a lot of stuff you can do with history. The biggest thing it's going to take is time; so I wouldn't stress the fact that it's taking you some to figure things out! I know that "youth ticking away" is something with which we're all concerned, but no matter what field you go into, it's going to take time to build the sort of stuff you need for a successful career. So don't put to much pressure on yourself! Enjoy the time you've got now while prepping to make your next moves .

"Financial Aid is not available for this [Terminal M.A.] program." http://history.yale.edu/academics/graduate-program/masters-degrees

...no one is trying to avoid a discussion of a perfectly mundane topic? If one started a conversation like "I want to become a lawyer, what are the hot fields in law right now" or even something more beyond school like "I want to play baseball, what are the best positions to play" it seems a perfectly reasonable place to point out that, regardless of the field in which you are trying to break, that one's qualifications and capabilities to perform the job will do far more for one's job prospects than whether or not one can put hot buzzwords on their CV. If one even looks at the data posted here, there are few actual conclusions one can draw about whether or not a field is "hot." As this topic started, it figured into an intimate aspect of the OP's thinking. As that got de-coupled, more information came out. Beyond that, I'm not even sure what an interesting discussion on "hot topics" is; are you evaluating from where the trends came? Or why anyone cares about the salience of topics that have little meaning? This topic didn't really give much reason to think about the idea of hottest fields besides a listicle: "10 Hot Fields Your Qualification Exams Should Be On!"

The SOP is weird because you want to show both a sense of how your interests could fulfill a lovely long career as an academic nerd, but also leave yourself open to plenty of interpretation and improvement from the faculty of the school for whom the SOP is intended. My general advice about approaching it has two stages: first, write out the 1000-2000 word statement that you think most encapsulates how your interests relate to the field. So, for example, when I was writing about my interest in how identity was formed, I made sure to think specifically about how the key journals for Atlantic, EM Europe and Latin America were approaching the problem, and was sure to use some of the key vocabulary present in those essays in how I described the issues. second, when you've written that out, look to the faculty at each school. If you're applying there, your POIs should have some opinion/research related to specific ideas and sources that are important to sections of your statement. Start figuring out where you can replace the more *general* trends and vocab used to describe the issues in your statement with the ways that your POIs and related faculty at the school are approaching them. It's great procrastination to look at said school's faculty and seeing odd interests that overlap with those of your own, and makes your SOP seem much more closely aligned to what the faculty at the school is doing. I think it's hard to describe a specific level of specificity because it really depends on your field and what has or hasn't been done. "Specificity" for a German Reformation PhD student would look very different from "specificity" for a 9th century Islamic Andalusian student. Follow the trail of your main articles in the past five years, and you'll find yourself asking the right questions .

I feel like this is generally asking us to chance you based on your scores and their conversion into US programs. Honestly nothing you've listed is helpful in determining your "chances." What are you interested in specifically? With which professors do you want to work? To what programs are you seeking admission? How do you see those interests developing as a result? Are there any relations between your geographic interests? The languages stuff is good provided they're useful to your interests. Beyond that, I suggest you start thinking about the questions I've listed above before asking about what your chances are like, as whether you get in or not will be more impacted by the specificity of your research as indicated by your SOP and writing sample than what your grades in Germany were like.

...it was the last sentence, you can't expect me to have gotten past the emails of y'all, could you?

^ how'd you find that out nerd?

I've always thought about the "cutting-edge hot topics" as a framework or conversation, rather than a set of dissertations that will land a job. I guess this largely depends on perspective; but for example the recent bubble of postcolonialism is a methodological conversation. As long as you can frame the "bubbling with excitement" topic in a way that mentions postcolonialism–which could including framing things like "postcolonialism is awful and we should abandon it 5ever"–you can have your cake and eat it too!

The conversion point was completely separate; I think that the operating word is irrelevant. I was genuinely confused as to how someone could be "converted/convinced/enjoined" into history if one starts with the premise that history isn't some specific "cult" or set of practices; historical methods are found everywhere. Unless there's some de-historicizing of medicine, I literally just didn't see to make it into an issue. In terms of "gifted" or not, I'm not arguing some issue of whether "we all have talents." I'm just pointing out it's fascinating that someone felt the need here to make a distinction between having a "gifted" person like history compared to literally anyone else. It's not so much about the baggage (although baggage is certainly present) as it is that the qualifier is pointless. Any person who does or engages history should be happy when other people recognize its importance because it is necessary for the discipline's survival. There's no argument to be had; it's just a matter of fact.

I don't even know what "conversion" means in regards to history for the most part. I doubt you'd find many people in the public or academia who would stake themselves on "history is unimportant" or "history is useless in science." Even if this particular individual goes to medical school, anyone who values history will have space in medical school to use and develop historical method in fields of medicine, especially medical ethics. But beyond that, "gifted" versus "not gifted?" I don't understand what that distinction is supposed to detail? Like, bracketing the issue of what "gifted" even means, are there verifiable "not gifted" students floating out there that we normally convert instead? Like, why not just say "It's great when people like history"? Or "Isn't it awesome when people feel this passionate about history"? It just feels like you've internalized the discourse of STEM ("We need the best and brightest students to be studying science to keep ahead of whoever is behind us these days") and applied it to history rather than ask where that discourse is coming from and what it's doing for the majority of people.

I have literally no experience in this field but I know this is basically what Mikael Wolfe at Stanford does. He's assistant prof though, so maybe check around to see if there are other faculty there?

iirc Cooper's retiring soon, so I'd look for more faculty besides him at NYU. In fact, I'd look for more than just one faculty at each school, as department politics can always play a heavy role in who does or doesn't get students.

iirc, the formation of Yale's program came to be after the rise of cartel violence in Zacatecas. So, y'know, geopolitical modes of power format how knowledge is disseminated. Fun fun fun.

Hm, can I further ask why you're shooting for the terminal MA vs, the PhD? I don't know much about teaching community college and I'm assuming, moving forward, the PhD is going to become more and more of a requirement to teach anywhere . That being said, I can tell you that if you want to apply to Yale, I'd tentatively suggest doing the Euro-Russian Council Studies program from a perspective of funding: namely, that they offer some (not full) funding to do it, and you'll have access to the range of faculty in the history department as you normally might from the terminal history MA. If funding is of no concern, I don't have much to offer outside of my experience with the history dept. while applying was v positive. Carlos Eire, Stuart Schwartz, Bruce Gordon among others were receptive to emails (a good sign before you're admitted!) and the environment is quite lovely. Four students a year doesn't seem beyond the norm, based on experience I've seen/heard at Chicago and Brown. If you haven't already, I'd suggest calling the program coordinator/graduate administrator and talking to them: sometimes current students will be more than happy to speak with you about the program, and that's probably the best perspective you could get.

"A gifted person" as opposed to...?

There are a few Yale MA programs iirc; mind clarifying which one? History Masters, History Masters Phil, History focus in a different masters (European and Russian Studies comes to mind)?

My best guess is the collaborative efforts of humanities + geophysical sciences in climate change are catching up to graduate students.

It makes sense though; like you are going to need more space when your data are mostly inscribed in textual form . If you want brevity, go to math!

I realized I should've cited this: it came from a blog that analyzed trends in dissertations at UMinnesota from 2007 to now iirc https://beckmw.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/how-long-is-the-average-dissertation/ . As such, the data obviously have more significance for certain populations, but it doesn't seem off from the stories I heard.

300-400 pages.

I started in undergrad. If you've got an idea of what you want to do + where you need to go to do it, start applying!

"unable to find easy work" ? Again, I think you're not quite understanding the situation. If all you want is a steady paycheck, I can recommend any number of two year teaching programs that'll get you set in a high school to teach history and you'll have an in with the UFT and that'll be paycheck/pension/summer vacation for teaching what you want to teach. Like... pursuing the Ph.D is not because you see easy employment at the end of the tunnel. You pursue the Ph.D because there's some fundamental question that is calling to you about the Middle East or America and the World. You spend 5-6 years buried in archives all along the world, deciphering some typist's handwriting and write while worrying about your own healthcare or where you'll find a grant to finish writing your dissertation at the end of your sixth year in order to get some part of the answer to that question. It's not about easy work, it's not about being secure labor, it's about doing something that motivates and gives you passion. Seriously, look at the stats cited above: the Middle East PhD guarantees you a 1/3 shot at a TT/postdoc/private school advertisement. That's not like... great odds for having spent 5-6 years pursuing a subject. It's not about being touchy, it's about wondering whether you quite understand the stakes or reasoning for doing a PhD