L13

I can't think of any evidence to indicate that knowledge of "five+ languages" is prerequisite to admission to a PhD program in medieval history. French, Latin and German are the standard languages you'll need to know by the time you finish your coursework, and based on my conversations with people at graduate departments I think professors really, really like it if you already know these three when you apply. However, in my desperation I've looked at the CVs of some grad students at a number of institutions, including some very reputable ones, and some of those people seem to have begun their graduate studies with only Latin and French, or Latin and German. I suppose if you're doing Byzantine stuff, Greek will also be obligatory for you. Other languages, like Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Russian, etc., can be useful depending on your research focus, but can also not be. What I'm saying is that I don't think knowing Korean, or Spanish, is in itself an advantage, let alone a requirement, in grad school admissions in medieval history. Latin and German seems fine to me.

I have to say the professor I contacted gave me advice similar to CageFree's post above, and moreover made the surprising (for me) point that if a POI won't make time for you as a prospective student, he/she isn't likely to be much more attentive as an advisor.

Edit: Never mind, I misread a post.

Ha, thanks! That's the response I was afraid of when I asked my question. I really wanted to write to a professor I'm interested in working with because his books practically shaped my research interests and I wanted to know if he was still advising people on topics he'd covered a long time ago. Maybe I shouldn't have contacted him since I didn't *really* have anything new or insightful to say to him, and only meant to express my admiration and ask a slightly redundant question, but I did, and he responded very generously, by answering my question and many more besides, talking about his department, giving me a long list of colleagues who work in similar fields, talking to me about the difficulty of the admission process, giving me some general advice, and implying he'd have more to say to me later. I'm sure he did that because he's a decent person, which accounts for the fact he responded at all, and he's used to being contacted by people like me, so he more or less has this spiel memorized, but I still felt overwhelmed by the helpfulness of his response. I genuinely hope I didn't impose on him, but I can't say I regret contacting him. I will definitely be more cautious about contacting other professors, though, especially ones whose work I'm not as familiar with. Thanks to both of you for weighing in!

Sorry to resurrect my own thread like this, but I now have another question (!) about sending emails and I figured it would be less annoying to put it in this thread than to start a new one. What's the consensus on contacting POIs in advance? I'd like to email a professor I'm interested in working with and ask him if he's planning on taking on new students and if my interests match up with his current ones. Is this considered inappropriate in history? I know it's the norm in some other disciplines.

It is my impression that you usually need some prior training in the relevant languages (Latin, French, German--in your case you may have to learn some form of Old English/Norse as well?) before embarking on a PhD in medieval history. You don't have to be fluent, and maybe you can get away with picking up a language or two in grad school, but language skills count for a lot in medieval history. A lot. Unfortunately, I don't think your Spanish will be a big selling point as it bears no relevance, as far as I can tell, to your intended areas of study. Given that you don't have a solid history background either, I think a master's degree makes a lot of sense for you. You'll be able to work on your languages and get experience in history, thus addressing two vulnerabilities in your application.

Yes, that makes sense. I assumed Brown wasn't taking on new students, to be honest (and imagine what a student you'd have to be to make the cut anyway), but that's news about Noble. He's not that old in academic years.

The above is very good advice. I'll just caution that Peter Brown, albeit possibly one of the most distinguished historians working in any field today, is almost 80 and may be cautious about taking on new graduate students. That's one thing to ask (tactfully) if you contact him, or other academics at a similar age. I myself am looking at two of the people on telkanuru's list as prospective faculty of interest, and they don't really do northern Europe. Christopher Loveluck seems like a very good fit based on the specifications in the OP, though. Albrecht Diem as well, since your interests are adjacent to his, temporally, but Syracuse admits on its website that it's quite stingy with funding--none for MA students and limited funding for PhD students--which is worth noting. I suppose that's the case at Nottingham as well, of course, since it's in the UK and as an overseas student you wouldn't qualify for AHRC funding. As a fellow applicant, I don't profess to have all the answers, but I'm building my list by looking at the people whose work made me decide on my research interests in the first place. If you care about pre-Christian Northern Europe, you must have read some books or articles on the subject. Who wrote them? That's a good starting point, in my experience.

Honestly, I'd say they are very far from interchangeable, and any historian worth his or her salt would be able to name several very good reasons for studying history rather than literature or some sort of area/cultural studies. I've noticed that some undergraduates pick history because they don't know what they want to study, or because they think their general interests--often in literature, contemporary politics, social commentary, journalistic writing, etc.--would be best served by a well-established, versatile degree. Such reasoning often makes for mediocre work. I doubt it would get you far in graduate school, though you could always try. OP, I think if you want to get a history PhD you should get a master's in history first. I'm not an expert on grad school admissions by any means--I haven't even gone through the process yet--but many of the history departments whose webpages I've explored advise that PhD applicants should have extensive training in history, if not a history degree. It seems like a pretty basic requirement you'd struggle to get around. I suspect an inspired statement of purpose that makes a good case for the switch from literature to history, on sound methodological rather than practical grounds, could compensate for the lack of experience, to an extent. But I think you'd have better chances with a history degree.

There's something charmingly nonsensical about the assumption that university tuition is higher in two English-speaking countries than it is elsewhere because they are English-speaking. Do German autobahns not have speed limits because Germans speak German?

Wow, more opinions! Thanks to everyone who's responded. Riotbeard, I did actually seek out the advice of my professors after starting this thread; I was in a momentary state of panic when I made it, and wanted to canvass the widest possible range of opinion, but I know the value of talking to your own professors. I haven't made formal recommendation requests yet because, like thedig13, I think these things should happen in person unless it's absolutely necessary to make arrangements remotely. However, I have been in contact with my prospective advisor and he's been incredibly forthcoming with grad school advice. He's also talked about helping me work on my application and mentioned being one of the faculty members I would depend on during the process, which leads me to believe it won't be too difficult to get him to agree to the proposal made in this thread. He is in fact spending the summer and part of next year at one of the universities I intend to apply to, and has extensive connections at another, which I was not aware of originally; he mentioned it in his emails. All in all, his openness to helping me has reassured me, and I think my original question--how am I going to find a third recommendation letter--has been answered. DCguy, as I said, I will be applying to some master's programs. I will also, however, be applying to PhD programs. We'll see what, if anything, comes of it. thedig13, I would have liked to start work on my thesis early, but my school does not allow that. Nevertheless, as I said, my prospective advisor brought up graduate school and mentorship without my prompting, which frankly bowled me over. I have a really good feeling about our working relationship, which I hope will translate to a good thesis project. Ideally, I'll have enough of it done to pull together a writing sample that demonstrates the current level of my work, but if not, another one of my letter writers has agreed to help me work on a writing sample with him, and I have some essays I'm not too ashamed of. I hope I'll have something to show for my time in college even if I'm not done with my thesis by the time I apply. Thanks again, y'all!

Thanks to both of you for your advice! It's very helpful. Both of you seem to think there's nothing wrong with approaching my advisor with a preliminary request that he'll fulfill based on my thesis work if he deems it good enough. That's great to hear, since this is the approach I was hoping to take, but I was afraid it would be seen as pushy or rude. I have to say I find it very difficult to approach professors with recommendation requests, personally, so I am always second-guessing my conduct and wondering if I'm being too forward. It's reassuring to hear the approach I need to take here is not considered impolite. I also understand your misgivings about applying to graduate school as a senior in college, and share them to an extent. That being said, applying as a senior is a relatively common practice at my college, so there is a support network in place, and I've already familiarized myself with the main historiographical currents in my field of study and narrowed down my interests a lot. These things happened last year, which I spent studying history and languages exclusively (a treat given my college's broad distribution requirements). ashiepoo72, I will also be applying to master's programs! In fact three of the first five choices on my current list are master's programs. I'm originally from Europe and would like to return there for grad school, but going straight for the doctorate is practically impossible in most European countries. I will, however, be applying to some PhD programs in America as well. I don't have a strong preference between the two, really. Also, in response to your remark about knowing one's professors well, I'd like to just clarify that I attend a small liberal arts college and have gotten very well acquainted with several professors here. It's just that some of them do not teach history. To be honest, I don't mesh very well with the history department as a whole, in terms of areas of interest and faculty dynamics, and have so far stuck to a small number of history profs whom I like, rather than making sure everyone in the department knows me and can speak to my ability as a student. Spending an entire year away from campus did not help either. I don't regret the choices I've made on the whole, but in times like this they are limiting. Anyway. Thanks again for the advice to both of you! I do realize applying next year is going to be difficult, and to be honest am having a lot of anxiety about it. The points you brought up are well taken.

EDIT: Let me preface the wall of text below with the warning that this thread solicits advice. It only occurred to me after posting that laying out one's personal story in some detail and expecting people to opine on what one should do next is not common practice in this subforum. I'm sorry if this thread violates the history subforum's posting etiquette/wastes people's time/whatever. Maybe there's a better place for my question? ANYWAY. On to the issue: I'm a rising senior in college, I intend to apply to programs in history in the fall, and I'm looking for advice on whom to approach for a letter of recommendation. I know most history programs in the US require three letters, and I think I've got the first two writers locked down. They're both professors who have known me since I was a freshman, and I've done well in their classes. I haven't asked either of them for a letter yet, but given that they have acted as mentors to me in different capacities, and have shown real interest in my academic development, I think/hope they will readily agree to write on my behalf--and may in fact be expecting me to ask. I'm waiting until the beginning of the year before I make the request because I want to do it in person. If I talk to them at the end of August, they will have a little over three months to write their letters, which I think is reasonable enough. (However, if any of you think I should email them right now, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. Be aware that one of these professors, while very dear to me, is not particularly good at answering her email over the summer, which is partly why I want to talk to her face to face.) Now. It is the third letter that's giving me trouble. I spent my junior year studying abroad, and as a result I'm not really a familiar face in my home department. While I developed some very rewarding academic relationships with instructors at the institution I was visiting last year, those people are all unsuitable letter writers for one reason or another. So I am left with very little choice for my third letter writer. I have come up with two possible solutions: Ask one of the two history professors at my school with whom I've taken one class, or ask my senior thesis advisor. Re. the first option, these are professors who have known me for one semester, and only in a very narrow context. I did well in both classes--in fact I think I did exceptionally well in one of them--but I did not really develop close personal relationships with the professors or talk to either of them about my personal and professional goals. Frankly, I don't know what either of them would be able to say about me. Re. the second option, I have been in touch with a professor I'm interested in working with as a senior, and have procured his tentative agreement to advise my senior thesis. We don't know each other, but I'm excited about learning from him, and about my project more generally. I hope I'll be able to do some good work under his guidance, and make a good enough impression on him that he'll agree to write me a recommendation letter. I think this is a good choice in theory; at my college it's more or less assumed that if you're applying to grad school, your thesis advisor will be one of your letter writers. The problem for me is that I have no pre-existing relationship with my advisor and he'll need to see and evaluate my work for himself before agreeing to write me a letter. In other words, I fear if I wait until, say, November to ask for a letter I will leave him with insufficient time--but I cannot reasonably expect him to recommend me to grad schools any earlier. As you can see, I'm in a bit of a pickle here. What should I do, o wise denizens of Grad Café? This recommendation letter business has got me beat.

Regardless of what the GRE is 'supposed' to measure, it does not measure your natural intelligence or personal worth, and you can study for it. Stop freaking out and start studying. Once you're thinking about the application process in a constructive way and making tangible progress you should calm down a little bit.

With all due respect, any claim that historians of antiquity must restrict themselves to the use of manuscripts from the period they are studying, no matter whether it comes from an investment banker or a history professor, automatically renders the speaker unqualified to make demands of ancient historians. I understand the reflexive urge to defer to perceived authority and assume the OP, being a lowly, confused master's student, must have misunderstood the professor's request, but the OP reports having taken ancient history classes in the past. Anyone with a background in that historical method, no matter how rudimentary, knows enough about what 'primary source' means in classical studies to realize they're being asked to do something preposterous when someone tells them they can only write about Tacitus if they can get their hands, literally, on a first-century Tacitus manuscript. (Hint: There are none!) I suggested the Wikipedia article on palaeography because the professor in the OP's anecdote has demonstrated ignorance of some very basic truths about textual transmission from ancient history to modernity, which a cursory scan of any online-based reference text can reveal. That is to say, I understand what you're saying about observing the established academic etiquette even if your advisor is a little out of touch, but in this case we're not talking about a student wanting to use trendy theory her professor doesn't like/understand or a student whose research has led him to know more than his advisor about the niche topic of his dissertation; we're talking about a request that betrays both fundamental ignorance of how ancient history works and the arrogance of assuming it works exactly like the professor's own historical period. Yes, I am fuming... ETA: All that being said, at most universities ancient history is either taught in the classics department or in close partnership with it. The reason, I suppose, is that otherwise conflicts like the one of the OP with her professor arise. Historians of later periods very often use completely different research methods from ancient historians. Unless the former consult with the latter extensively and/or have the self-awareness/conscientiousness to familiarize themselves with the field on their own, they cannot supervise ancient history students effectively.

That's absolutely ridiculous. If all classicists followed your professor's arbitrary postulates, there would be no field of classical studies at all. It sounds like she is unfamiliar with the research and analytical methods of subfields of history other than her own, which is to an extent excusable, but her refusal to consider the constraints of ancient and medieval studies like a reasonable human being is not. You should try to introduce her to the Wikipedia article on palaeography in my opinion.

Two corrections to the above post: The majority of DPhil students in history at Oxford get teaching experience. An Oxford doctorate would serve you very well on the American job market.

I'd love to take something along the lines of, say, The Ideology of Comparative, Global and Transnational Approaches to History, minus the clunky name. I am interested in comparative history, which has fallen out of favour with the historical profession in recent years because it is generally seen to promote a teleological view of human development and to facilitate normative judgements about culture. As some recent works of scholarship show, it is possible to write comparative history that is non-judgemental, or at least no more judgemental than any other kind of history. (I'm thinking of works like Kenneth Pomeranz's highly acclaimed The Great Divergence (2000), which looks at the reasons Western Europe became industrialised before China.) I'd be really interested in taking a class that investigates the extent to which comparative history is inherently supportive of a belief in valuated cultural difference and teleology, as well as the ways in which it can be made to serve other ideological ends, like the promotion of cultural relativism. Pomeranz's book, for example, combines comparative with global history, which seems to temper the comparative edge somewhat. Additionally, the more popular global and transnational approaches also come with their own political baggage (which is true of every analytical method I can think of, of course). I think that baggage is worth investigating, as well as the relationship between historical analysis/modes of historical thought and ideology more generally. How exactly does the way we do history promote or invalidate our political and philosophical beliefs, independently of the actual historical conclusions we reach? Can historical approaches that have outlived their political usefulness be repurposed in subsequent decades and even centuries? What is the purpose of history as an academic field? Why should or shouldn't it promote a teleological view of human development? Why should or shouldn't it pass judgement on its research subjects? I think in order to work well, such a class would have to cover different examples of comparative/global/transnational historical scholarship, but also maybe have a unified theme, as in a region or period that all works on the syllabus relate to. Such a syllabus would be very hard to put together, now that I think about it, because it would have to have enough historical 'meat' in the form of facts and names and primary sources. That's a problem for someone else, however! I'd only have to take the class

I question the attitude of contempt for 'boring' classes outside one's area of specialisation that engenders such behaviour, to be honest. Sure, work hard on your own research and areas of interest--but work hard on everything else as well! Breadth requirements exist for a reason, namely to make you into a good philosopher, as opposed to a good metaphysicist/ethicist/epistemologist/whatever. Being a well-rounded philosopher should matter for two reasons: one, for its own sake, and two, because the majority of academic jobs you're likely to compete for once you graduate will involve teaching classes outside of your direct area of specialisation. You don't want to fail your future employers and students, or to limit your career prospects through negligence. But really, I'm a perfectionist and I like learning things, so I can't imagine taking a class and not trying to master the material to the best of your ability. I recognise this may come across as an impractical attitude, but I believe it is the correct one. Edit: This is a rant on the subject of narrow specialisation more than a direct response to you, Narziss, since your second post added nuance to your view that I acknowledge and respect.

The existence of this thread is stressing me out immensely, but I guess I might as well post on the first page. I am going to be a college senior next year and am thinking of applying to history programs in the US and Europe. Good luck to everyone!

Two points, based on my experience as an history undergraduate at a liberal arts college that does extremely well in graduate school admissions, including in philosophy: My school has a very strong philosophy department, but it is by no means an NYU or a Rutgers. Yet graduate schools trust its recommendation letters and accept its students. (I think by one reckoning my school is the LAC with the best acceptance track record at philosophy grad schools, in fact—and one of the few Leiter deigns to mention on the PGR website.) It seems to me that people on this board may sometimes overestimate the importance of having a recommendation letter from a big-name philosopher. Sure, having letters from reputable philosophers/departments whose background and achievements the adcom can quickly look at is important, but the actual content of the letters is surely weighted far more heavily. Which is not to deny the existence of an unfair prejudice against faculty from departments which aren’t “on the map,” because I’m sure that has worked against many an applicant in the past. But as long as you come from a recognizable department at least, I think the names of your letter writers are less important than the actual letters themselves. I suspect there may be a slight bias at play here; because applicants don’t, for the most part, read their recommendation letters, but they do know who wrote them and where those people stand in academia, when looking for reasons they were rejected, applicants assume the deciding factor was the one they are familiar with, rather than acknowledging the possibility that their letters were simply not that convincing. (Or, which is more likely, that their application was perfectly good, but admissions were so competitive that good applications were denied and only stand-out applicants got in.) Do let me know if you think I’m underestimating the unpleasantness of philosophy grad school admissions. As someone with an interest in philosophy and many friends in the phil department at my school, I have been following this website, Leiter Reports, and other philosophy blogs for a long time, but of course that is no substitute for living through the actual experience of applying. 2. I get the sense philosophy grad school admissions are more competitive than history grad school admissions. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a single person applying to history grad schools from my school getting completely shut out. In all fairness, I haven’t heard of that happening to a philosophy student either, but looking at this board makes it seem like it is a very common occurrence. Good luck to all who are still waiting to hear back from schools or hoping to get off the waitlist somewhere! And sorry for invading your space on Grad Café! I have been following your fortunes with interest and trepidation (in no small part because I'll be applying to grad school this year myself) and could not stop myself from commenting, but I will understand if you find my interjection unwelcome.

A friend of mine just announced she's been accepted to this program on Facebook, but I think she got the news a couple of days ago. Just in case anyone is still looking at this thread/waiting to hear from Yale.