mvlchicago

Latin immersion I've always thought was for the fun of being forced to think and speak in Latin for the week rather than practice translations .

ooof. I do not envy moving all your stuff to Hawaii. Best of luck!

The big question is how many of those languages one speaks . Speaking of which (badum psht) have any other Latinists seriously considered the immersion programs hosted by a couple of schools?

#shotsfired

could you imagine if phd programs were like a sports league and they could trade us at will?

I hear only the nerds go there . See you in class a few months from now.

It's a really good program; I'm planning on doing it next year, and have several good friends who've had nothing but good things to say. That said, it's a fuckton of work, just be prepared for that.

I'd just email the faculty, 'cause many schools allow you to do the Fulbright while at their programs. One of my friends, who is going to an Ivy next year, is doing that.

The degrees are very different, so I doubt the people who want an Oxford Ph.D are the people looking for American Ph.Ds. The information I've gleaned from varying adcoms at my old school basically said they felt the lack of classwork at Oxbridge hurt the Ph.Ds they produced, so I feel like you'd end up having to do a postdoc in America if you're looking to jump the ocean (unless you have a masters from another institution of similar caliber, or something.)

I didn't have a whole lot of issue with Spanish paleography from that time period, and I didn't have much experience when I first started archiving. I think the Latin paleography class might actually have some useful feedback since a lot of the shorthand from Latin gets into 13th-14th century Castilian, which eventually bleeds into the 16th century, but I think just practice will help you on this front!

With room/board, Oxford iirc costs slightly less than $50k/year, and that's presuming a higher median for living costs. Comparatively, UChicago's MAPSS program costs about $50k/year in tuition alone, Yale's Graduate School estimates about $64k/year, Brown's tuition is $48k/year, and so on. Generally speaking, if you don't have a tuition waiver, Oxford is usually about $20k cheaper than "peer" institutions in the US. I know, our educational systems suck .

if you think about it, though, 20k even in pounds is probably less than you'll be paying for most Masters programs. While I agree with the bulk of Telk's comment, I'd also lightly emphasize the... unique elements of your situation. That you got into Oxford's medieval history program without (presumably?) minimal experience with Latin, seems to suggest they thought very highly of your potential. If you turn them down this cycle, I don't know if it's necessarily true that you'll get the same option later down the road–I know at least a number of American universities will second-guess an applicant who received admission and turned it down, since spots are so competitive even at the masters level and a rejection from an applicant is a loss on the university's part. That is to say, the Oxford name itself so long as you do well in the program will be a huge boost in your application from this year to next. Of course, you could also gain entry to another top tier masters program, but it'd probably a bit more expensive. I'd recommend waiting next cycle out, and throwing yourself completely in the program, then finding a job when that year is done, and apply for the fall of 2017. Of course, none of us know your life and it may make the most amount of sense to apply immediately, but if you wait it out, it'll give you a couple of years to pick up the languages. And if you apply with Latin + one other language, Oxford Masters, and maybe a couple of conference presentations, I'd be very surprised if you didn't receive at least one Ph.D offer. Those are my three cents.

I have no idea what your field is, but I'm always willing to read through stuff you're willing to send! My expertise is limited to a couple of admissions over two cycles, but yknow, the more people who read something, the better the weighted average of feedback, right? More generally, I forget where this was posted, but someone mentioned on another thread the value of really considering what you want out of the history degree: is it the opportunity to publish? Is it the chance to revolutionize critical theory through genealogy? Is it just to teach undergraduates the ropes when it comes to worthwhile study? These are the sort of questions that ought to be a part of casting your net of Ph.D applications in the future, since if all you want to do is teach, then I doubt you need admission to Harvard if you're willing to teach at respectable private high schools, for example. If you want to publish generally, again your Ph.D just sort of needs to exist. The TT position straight out the gate is really, I think, the only goal where prestige needs to be an element of your calculations. I'm at as much a loss to explain the current admission trends as anyone else caught in the pool, but if other industries are any hint, we're all going to learn how to adapt to the rapidly changing modes of education and getting things done.

I have a friend who studied for the MSt in Classics and Oxford and she loved the experience. One thing to consider is that while you probably will have to foot the bill for the first year, she said that if you do really well within the program, they will most likely find/allocate funding for your second year, if that helps at all!

https://www.freakonomicsexperiments.com/home/faqs you are welcome

In the context of this study? Because it was primarily done with a national aim and national placement within the States. If we're opening our requirements for history positions to all around the globe, I'd have to imagine that the "prestige" consideration is less of a concern since the production of "top 10 schools" (if that's a useful category) is usually concentrated around the places that produce top 10 schools. Basically; I wouldn't imagine many institutions in Kosovo to have a number of "top 10 school" degrees. Of course, that'll probably necessitate much better language skills than anglo-centric places, but yknow, trade-offs exist everywhere.

Perhaps speaking a lil out of turn here, but I'm unsure as to why you would ask for feedback on your rejection if you were going to disregard their comments out of hand. Speaking from experience, the people I had read my SOP were individuals who had gone through the process on either side (as adcom or as successful applicant) in the past seven years and knew my school list well. Also, if we're taking the anecdotes on a number of these threads seriously, then it seems entirely possible that LORs could still be weak and have no bearing on your relationship with the faculty writing them. In any case, it is a good thing to be unconcerned about it at this point!

I think what's important in the letters of recommendation is to find people willing to talk about your prospects as a mature candidate who will finish the program. From what I've heard, one of the bigger questions an adcom has (even for the most qualified candidate) is whether or not the investment the university will make will "pan out" with a PhD who has a reasonable chance with search committees within a reasonable period of time. To this end, any recommendations you can get that will portray you as driven individual who finishes projects that you start will be helpful. That being said, understand you'll be at a disadvantage for admission if you've not a single faculty recommendation. I'd say not so much because they can talk about your qualifications as a student (I think your writing sample, transcript and SoP will speak enough about that) but because faculty sort of act as professional references in your field. The people you want to work with can/will call faculty who are recommending you and say "cut the crap, what's this student about?" and so on. You'll lose that "in" so to speak. Based on that, I'd suggest finding people who know *the current you* best for letters of recommendation. I know some schools have a ~at least one academic reference~ qualifier; if you're applying to any of those I'd suggest emailing the grad admin/faculty for advice. I'd also suggest gently asking the faculty why they won't write letters for you: is it because you're too far out of the system and they don't think they can write anything genuinely meaningful, or is it because they seriously doubt your potential as PhD material? It's a harsh question, but it's also important if you're serious about taking this next step so you can figure out how to best position yourself if this is a move you want to make. Just some thoughts.

I have a preliminary syllabus, a set of primary sources, and even pre-emptive questions for class discussions all set up for my landmark course called "Historiography and Historical Methods in Star Wars." It was inspired by a professor at Chicago who hosts a History class on the works on J.R.R Tolkien every four years. The class would primarily function as a course for advanced undergraduates who are about to embark on thesis research. My experience with such classes has normally been the wide diversity of interests often serves as a hindrance for discussion, since everyone is situated in different sets of primary and secondary sources and no one felt like they could seriously engaged with the projects of other classmates. By using the sources given within a variety of contexts for Star Wars, it would (hopefully) teach how to seriously interrogate primary sources and allow for open discussion given that everyone will be learning within the same specific historical context. Rigorous but enjoyable.

A number of schools *should* have paleography classes. Off the top of my head I know Chicago offered a couple courses, I think Brown, Harvard, basically any school with a decent number of medievalists should be able to offer one if you need it. There are also fellowships offered at a number of institutions on paleography, depending on where you're located. I'd get in touch with your faculty and ask them if they know of any things upcoming and to keep you in the loop if you're serious about it. One of the listhosts I'm on had a recent advertisement for something held in York with full stipend to learn how to deal with English manuscripts from the 13th century as an example.

Post 2008 is a pretty different ballgame in terms of employment and application opportunities, I would think.

I didn't do MAPSS, but I was at Chicago for my undergrad and had a number of friends in the grad programs. If you have any questions about specific history faculty, happiness of students, and/or Hyde Park itself, feel free to shoot me a PM!

^^^ That has basically been everything I've heard. "Teaching experience" is an add-on, not the main course (pedigree of institution and quality of research done during degree.)

UChicago? If you have any questions about the campus/life/environment, feel free to shoot me a PM. Despite its reputation one can actually enjoy their time there .

So there's always barista-esque forms of employment available on campus: while an undergrad I worked about 10-15 hours a week in the library system which pays suprisingly well (I started at 12/hour iirc?) The schedule at the library was also amazingly flexible in terms of what you're doing and how often one needs to come in. But there may be better opportunities on campus for masters students that are not given to undergrads. I think MAPSS is fine, MAPH is the program that sort of has a reputation for being a cashcow for the PhD programs. I know a couple of people who successfully moved from MAPSS to Chicago's PhD program, for example.