mungosabe

Although I am still in the process of choosing what school I will attend in the fall, I find myself in a great situation of choosing between four top-20 programs. I thought I'd start this thread because I would have been thrilled to find such a thread last spring/summer when I began the long process of applying. Hold on to your hats, because this might be a long post -- and I'm hoping other successful applicants will jump in with their tips afterwards
 
Ten Steps to Putting YOUR Best Foot Forward in Ph.D. Applications
 
Step I: Research
This is obvious, but put a lot of time into researching the different programs you are considering. I made a spreadsheet in Google Docs so I could access it from anywhere and add new information as I found it. This spreadsheet included things like POIs, short descriptions of their research, program structure and length, etc. Research all the "big name" departments in your field, but also figure out where scholars whose work you admire are now. Look at the stats of current students -- do you seem competitive? I'm not saying you shouldn't aim high, just that you should aim to construct a realistic list, with some "reach" schools along with some where you think you are around the midline of their statistics.
 
In the course of this research, you will rule out some programs - maybe even the top ones in your field! Maybe Great School A is too focused on theory, while you prefer a different approach. And maybe Great School B is in transition with regards to your specialty -- in the process of hiring some unknown new person. On the other hand, maybe Fantastic School Z, a school that seems out of your reach, is such a perfect fit for you that you really feel that application is the only option. Let me tell you what I find baffling: posts on the results board that are like "Princeton/French/Rejected/Comment: "not a great fit for the program."" Why, oh why, did you apply to Princeton if you weren't a truly great fit? Make sure your list reflects YOUR INTERESTS, not just big fancy names. I got into big fancy name schools -- BECAUSE their programs align with my interests, not DESPITE of divergence in specialty.
 
When you think you've finished your research, contact your undergraduate or master's mentors with your list. They may suggest additional programs to look into. Keep honing your list until, I would say, October or so. Then close the book on it. There has to be a final list sometime!
 
Step II. GREs
I think the GREs are dumb. There, I said it! Nevertheless, I studied hard for them over the summer and took them in June so that if I wasn't happy with my scores, I would have plenty of time to take them again before my MA program began in September. I don't know what kind of impact they have had in all this, but I had good scores. You can too if you plan ahead and study hard!
 
Step III. Transcripts
Order copies of official transcripts for yourself, even if your list isn't finalized. You can scan these and upload them to the various applications when you're applying. It's very handy to have them already scanned. Just do it now!
 
Step IV. Letters of Recommendation
I strategized pretty hardcore here, making sure I had three different people who showed off three different strengths. I didn't use a recommendation from one of my most beloved professors, on his own advice, because he didn't have a big enough name and was nearing retirement. Instead, I chose a well-known person who didn't know me as well because I knew my other two references would be more personal and fully developed in their knowledge of me as a scholar. Even though my MA program is only one year, I had two references from my MA (yes, even though I'd only known them for 3 months by the time applications came due) and one excellent one from undergrad.
 
Step V. SoP
The statement of purpose struck fear into my heart. I shed many tears over it! I felt like I was grappling with a demon that I couldn't see. Here are a couple GREAT articles and websites that I found posted here that helped me hugely:
 
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhurapps.tamu.edu%2Fdownloads%2FPersonal%2520Statement%2520Invitation%2520to%2520Frustration.pdf&ei=CekZU6zrNaSHygGK1ICoAw&usg=AFQjCNGzqZrX6UidMqDVr5uQEkHFZU6Log&sig2=U4F_ftEVqIyOFzVzDo7hcQ&bvm=bv.62578216,d.aWc&cad=rja
https://sites.google.com/site/gradappadvice/application-essays
 
After doing my best to follow the suggestions on those websites, I met with a couple professors to get advice. Here are some golden nuggets of wisdom I received:
1. Don't have a plan for your dissertation project? Me neither. But I said that I did in my SoP and laid it out convincingly. One prof said to me, "I'm not saying you should bullsh*t. But can't you make something up?"
 
2. When you have a draft that isn't a total disaster, print it out with super wide margins. As you read what you have written, jot down in the margins what you are thinking. For example, if you have written "My year studying in Mallorca influenced my decision to focus on Cresques's mappa mundi for my project," perhaps you are thinking, "The first time I heard of that was in this little café talking with so-and-so." It doesn't matter if what you are thinking is smart or polished. Write it down anyway.
 
3. Now, integrate some of what your were thinking back into your SoP. If you're like me, your SoP felt accurate in terms of the project you set out and the indications of your background, but stilted and maybe not that "you." Getting some of your true thoughts back into the polished draft will give it some authenticity.
 
So I did all these things, then I sent it back around to profs and fellow students. Days before I was planning to submit it, I received completely contradictory advice from two sources I valued! One said to make it more personal, while the other said to make it more businesslike. I reflected on these pieces of advice and decided to go with more personal because that is more aligned with who I am as a scholar and a person. You need to make the choice that is more accurate for yourself.
 
Obvious, but not to be forgotten, is to customize each SoP for each school. To be honest, my "customization paragraphs" got a lot less attention than the body of my SoP. But because I had done my research thoroughly, they were accurate and described how I fit into each program. Save each school's version in a separate folder with a header indicating the school name and department.
 
Step VI. CV
Make your CV! Ha! It really is that simple, even though it's tedious. Here is a good post about them. Since I don't have any publications or conferences, I made sure my CV included things like language proficiencies and described the various awards I have received in some detail. I saved different copies of the CV in the different folders with custom headers, like for the SoP.
 
Step VII. Any other weird requirements?
Some schools require a statement of diversity. Prepare that. (Honestly, I loathed such additional requirements and did not spend the time I should have on them.)
 
Step VIII. Contact professors
At all of the schools where I was admitted, I sent emails to the professors I was interested in about a month before the application deadline. Almost all of them wrote back. I found the process very awkward, but suck it up!
 
Here's a sample of an email I sent to a POI with details blurred:
 
Dear Professor Great Guy,
 
My name is xxxx, and I am applying to begin my PhD in Humanities at Ivy League in 2014. I did my undergraduate studies at XXXX University in XXXX, and I am currently taking a Masters at  XXXXX.
  My research has, by and large, focused on two major topics up until now: blahdy blah, and boogidy boog.
  As I researched Ph.D. programs, a few things stood out to me about Ivy League, not least of which was your research in blahdy blah (nb. same blahdy blah as above!). I hope you don't mind me contacting you, but I was wondering if you will be working with any new students in 2014. (this bolded part was specific to a professor who I thought might be nearing retirement. it was my coy attempt to ask him about it -- and it worked!)
  I know this is a busy time of year, and I am grateful for your time!
  Sincerely,
Me
 
Step IX. APPLY!
I set aside a weekend in late October/early November and completed ALL my applications that weekend, well in advance of all deadlines. Because of all my preparation beforehand, I was ready to fill out each application IN FULL as I went through them. Check everything two-three times to make sure there are no typos and that the uploaded documents are in the correct format. If you are going to ask for fee waivers, do so well in advance; otherwise, pony up. Don't try to do it at the last minute: it could result in your application not being reviewed.
 
When I hit submit on my first application, I almost puked! Nevertheless, you have to apply to be admitted.
 
Step X. Wait
As grueling as all that was, I almost think it doesn't compare to the waiting part! But here's the thing: eventually they are going to let you know One way that I kept from losing my head was to dream up a back-up plan in case I didn't get in. I even contacted a beloved former boss about perhaps returning to that job, making it clear that this was dependent on Ph.D. outcomes. Having a safety net helped me stay sane. (Mostly )
 
 
 
TOP THREE TAKEAWAYS
 
1) Be INSANELY organized. Mockably organized. Your peers think you're nuts organized. This is how you will have time to hone your SoP into a finely worked weapon of glory! This is how you ensure you have good GREs! This is how you remember to write those profs! This is how you get excellent LoRs, since the profs have enough time to write them! And maybe most importantly, this is how you will meet all the deadlines!
 
2) Putting all that work into the SoP is worth it. I swear.
 
3) Apply to programs where you are actually a great fit, programs where you could see yourself excelling. Don't apply somewhere just for the name or (another favorite quote from results board) "because it's Berkeley." Would YOU thrive at Berkeley? Would YOUR research be supported?
 
What say ye, other successful applicants? Let's give back to this community
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Oh Jesus.

I've got a theory. To anyone who cares to read it. Some on this forum have heard me talk about this before, in person that is.
Nobody gets into academia, suffers through the extended period of poverty, a life on hold, the general tedious and tenuous existence of a grad student without a deep emotional need that is being satisfied, or a brainwashing sort of cult thing, but someone already wrote that theory.
Now on some level, we pursue this path to do something worthwhile with our lives, something that is deeply enjoyable, something with some eventual financial security, and, more than anything, something that allows us to achieve a significant measure of prestige. It seems to me, from my armchair, that doing something worthwhile as a future goal, doesn't quite sustain one through the travails of the moment, particularly when that consummation is so distant, possibly decades in the future. And as fun as the game is, there is much of it that isn't fun, and there are also plenty of careers which are equally as fun, if not more fun. (And I don't believe anyone does anything strictly for money.)
It is the last that seems to me most suspicious. There is so much intellectual prestige to go along with the PhD. So much, 'I am not dumb, see I am a doctor,' to assuage the insecure ego, so much ethos to appease all our little insecurity homunculi, which so many of us seem to have in abundance.
What other visceral, persistent, and pervasive motivation can there be to sustain folks through the arduousness of the PhD and job placement journey?
So, looking inward, I see my purpose and I see my pride, and I think, humility should be my constant concern. Then I look around and see folks in my game, and think that this might be good advice for lots of people.
Clearly the other motivations for our path(s) are more than worthy, and hopefully, ultimately why we are doing this, but those egos of ours, too often close to the surface, surely do have sharp sharp edges on 'em.
Humbly for your consideration.

My first cycle as a PhD applicant hasn't gone well (rejected from 2/3 places I applied to and am awaiting the 3rd), but I've certainly learned some lessons so I thought I would share. 
 
I'm going to echo mvlchicago and say that if you're applying to a Latin American/Asian/Atlantic World/etc. program but have yet to step foot in your proposed country of interest you're going to have to be spectacular in all other aspects of your application. I was forewarned by my adviser and one of my POIs that it would be difficult to be accepted without this experience. Aside from not having done archival research in these countries, there is also a fear that students have a romantic or idealized view of what these areas will be like and when it doesn't live up to that expectation they will drop out of the program. (I'm speaking in terms of Africa here but I'm sure it applies most everywhere.)
 
Archival research. One of my LOR writers told me that I would struggle because I did not have archival research experience. Although others told me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal, I'm realizing now that it actually is. If your university is like mine and doesn't really have archives you will need to find a way to get to the archives that are relevant for your topic. Apply for funding, couch surf, whatever it takes.
 
Making your SOP too personal. I talked with one of my LOR about my personal reasons for pursuing history and my path to getting where I am today. He suggested I include it in my SOP and I'm no regretting my decision. I should have focused more on academics and only talked about my personal life when it came time to explain a two year gap between undergrad and my graduate program. 
 
Choosing a sample that showcases your foreign language ability. My paper used primary sources but they were all in English, (which was relevant to the topic) I should have chosen one that showed I could read another language. Also, submitting a sample unrelated to your field or area of interest. I should have submitted my prospectus or a chapter from my unfinished thesis. No, I haven't passed my defense but if I want to study something on the Atlantic world, I should probably not submit something on the Japanese empire. I didn't follow this advice because I didn't want to I didn't want to submit something I felt was "incomplete."
 
If you cannot avoid this, say you are switching topics, make sure your sample shows your strengths as a researcher. (Neither of the above are my topics but just examples.) One of my LOR did this, he switched from studying something like Ozark folk music to the emergence of radio in the Mexican revolution. He was able to do this because he had a strong writing sample that showed his skills in archival research, but also because he built a relationship with his potential department. Additionally, he took a chance on an up and coming Latin American department and it worked out extremely well for him. (He has 2 articles just published, a book coming out next year and another in the works. Additionally he procured a TT position right out of his program.) 
 
Lastly, don't be discouraged by a bad cycle. There are always things you can do to better yourself. Apply for funding so you can complete research in your field. If your university doesn't offer these or you find out too late, apply for Fulbright's program to teach English. I didn't find out about a middle eastern studies grant offered by my university until last semester. Instead of defending over the summer I've decided to defend in the fall so that I can be eligible for the grant. If this doesn't happen I'm considering applying for a Fulbright (it will be the first year we have one up and running at my current school). The point is that if you really want this, you should constantly be working towards it. Don't take the year off as a vacation, take the year off as an opportunity to put all available effort into bettering your application, and building a relationship with your prospective departments by going to conferences and reaching out. As I said, I haven't had a good cycle but I've learned a lot. Academia is tough and rejection is a natural part of it, you just have to grow thick skin and keep on going. 

If funding is not an issue than an MA might be the way to go. That said, I am living proof that your undergrad institution is much less a factor than most people think, including Sigaba (IMHO).

I started at a community college and finished at a four-year city-based regional, commuter college and now I'm doing my PhD at Yale. I worried about my undergrad institution hurting me initially, but, in fact, three people from my undergrad history department got into Yale (2) and one to Princeton. One got into Michigan and another to KU, and the year before one got into Harvard. All funded PhDs, not MAs.

My sense is that Ivy League-type schools welcome candidates from outside the usual suspects especially as a means of diversifying cohorts. That said, the majority of my cohort here are from top undergrads (Stanford, Berkely, Columbia, etc...). Nevertheless, your undergrad institution's reputation will not take away from the quality of your work, which is why your writing sample and SOP need to be as strong as possible.

All this is not to say that pedigree plays no role. It does, though I think that it is diminishing. Either way, the doors to top PhD programs are absolutely NOT closed to worthy candidates from mid, lower, or even unranked public colleges and universities.

I'm not sure I see why it's unrealistic for you to get into a Ph.D program. Your GPA is still competitive, and some schools (like mine) don't even have an honours thesis option. That has not gotten in the way of graduates from my institution getting into top Ph.D programs.

I was told GPA is irrelevant. As long as you don't receive anything below an A- then you're fine. 

Wait, are we talking about are or should?  Because the OP is phrased as are, and you all are talking about should.

By the time you get to the PhD level, grades are not the most important thing anymore, not by a long shot. Actually, it can be frowned upon, for reasons such as your "panic attack" after getting an A-. The programs generally don't give a crap about your grades as long as you don't get put on academic probation. They want you to be focused on research, and if you are the type of student who is freaking out about an A-, then you may wind up taking time away from your research to strive for A's, and honestly, programs do NOT want that. Probably the type of lesson your prof who wouldn't budge on the half a point from a A was trying to give you.

I think the grade-obsession is a very immature approach to grade school.You say your grades dropped this year because you took too much on, but do you expect less from grad school? If you are looking for a funded PhD, not only will you have the full load of classes, but you will probably be TA-ing and doing research too. The average work week in grad school is 6 days a week, and anywhere from 50-70 hours depending on the advisor.

And as you can tell from the reputation value this post has given you (in case you don't know what it is, the red number at the bottom right hand corner of your post), I think you REALLY need an adjustment in your priorities. This post came off as a narcissist who is being insecure and seeking validation from everyone that you are still wonderful. I am sure you are a great student and you didn't mean it that way, but still, that is how you are coming off to your peers, and could in the future to professors and other grad students. You need to build networking and relationships in your field, and honestly no one is going to want to listen to stuff like this.

So pretty much the overall message of my post is chill out! Get over the grade-obsession, because it's not going to get you anywhere in life. Re-taking the GRE's is not going to help you any more if you are already in 90th percentiles, A-'s are not going to kill you. The best thing you can do for yourself is chill out, and focus more on research in your MA, get more publications, and really make sure your recommendations and SOP are awesome. I am sure you will get in, just think you need to see the big picture more instead of obsessing on a 4.0.

To put it in perspective, in my undergrad I had a 3.65 GPA, 75-80th percentile GRE's, and I got into and am attending the #9 ranked program in my field, and an Ivy. What got me in was my 3+ years of academic and industrial experience, and stellar recommendations. So RELAX!

Though my POI have mentioned some of the things they liked in my application, I find it difficult to conduct a post-mortem on my season. For privacy's sake, I'm hesitant to specify the programs I applied to, but I was accepted at three of the five schools I applied to (and every program I applied to was in the top 15, regardless of what ranking you use). I'm inclined to think that this fortune is the result of sheer dumb luck or the inane superstitious things I did to get me through February (I started seeing signs in the crossword puzzles I did to relax). But here are the things I think helped my case:
 
1) I started the process by skimming every essay I wrote for my history classes in college. I took some time off after college, so this helped remind me of who I am as a historian and my academic trajectory. I know that being able to articulate the evolution of my academic interests (both within history and without) was key to one of my acceptances. For those of us with manifold and divergent interests, knowing who you are and being able to tie this interests together to construct an image of yourself as a complex and dynamic scholar is very important. I suspect one of my rejections was in part a result of waffling about where I fell temporally. (I also used this as a chance to reflect on my potential as a scholar. With one eye on my grades, undergrad institution, and GRE score,  I asked myself honestly how competitive I would be. I guessed that I'd pass the first raw numbers cut, and took my chance applying to only top programs.) Furthermore, returning to your own essays allows you to systematically create a list of scholars you want to work with.
 
2) To create my initial list of programs, I went back through all of the important readings I did in college, compiling names from footnotes. I thought about whose work was important in my field, who was everyone talking about/citing. I looked at journals in my field. All of this legwork was helpful when contextualizing my own work in the field as it stand right now. Especially for people with only a BA, like me, you have less of an opportunity to think about trends in history and historiography so you have to do that legwork on your own. With those 25-30 names I found out what schools they worked at. I also looked at various rankings and added those schools for good measure. Most importantly, I talked to my advisors, one of whom was a relatively recent graduate in my exact area of interest. Their suggestions ultimately proved the most useful. After eliminating schools without graduate programs and schools in Europe, my list was about 20-25 school long.
 
3) I don't think I really understood fit until I started anticipating rejections and acceptances. The schools I was most nervous/excited about were not necessarily the schools with the highest ranked program or biggest name, but schools were there were a plethora of people working on projects I found very interesting. I made the mistake of not underestimating how narrow fit can be, especially in a well-established subfield. The way I see it is that there are four types of fit: temporal (do you study the same time period?), geographic (are you focused on the same country/region?), type of history (social, cultural, political, military, religious, intellectual, etc), and their individual interests/perspective (the topics they find interesting and they way they think about those topics). You need to find a POI who fits at least three of these forms of fit. There also have to be two or more POI at that school who satisfy at least two other categories of fit each (including the missing category from the primary POI). Determining fit is the hardest part of this process and the area where we're most in the dark. I poured over professors' webpages, I skimmed multiple articles and introductions to their books (if not the entire book), and I looked at the classes they teach. Sometimes a professor's interests develop or are not explored in their published work. I ended up only applying to places where I thought professors there in my field were asking similar questions to those I want to ask and where there were 2+ professors I was eager to work with. My two rejections were schools that were a good fit on paper (with two of the biggest names in my field), but my POIs there only satisfied 2-2.5 forms of fit. The programs I got accepted to were the schools I was most excited about. 
 
4) I'm a procrastinator so I didn't get nearly as much feedback on my essays as I would have liked to. I've come up with probably about 10 different ways to write my SOP over the past four years, all of which perfectly encapsulated my intellectual interests and trajectory at that time and which I forgot when it came time to write my essay. Thus, I was quite blocked with trying to write my SOP. All of the perfectly crafted sentences I wrote in my head while walking to class had vanished. Consequently, I wrote and wrote. Most of it was crap. I wrote whole essays that never made it into anything I submitted. (Plan ahead for this!) But all of that intellectual work was key to getting my brain in the place where it needed to be to write my SOP. Every iteration of my SOP started with an image of me engaging in historical inquiry. It felt forced and hokey, but I guess it worked. I jumped straight into the action and maintained a sustained focus on the types of questions I ask, how I read sources, and the research I've done in the past. When I mentioned my post-collegiate work, I folded it into an intellectual narrative. I let me CV and GPA speak for themselves and used the SOP as an opportunity to let them peak inside my head and see what ideas and questions get me excited. FWIW, one of my POI commented that my application stood out for it's excitement, curiosity, and energy. I struggled to be specific and concrete in earlier iterations of my SOP. Actually, I thought I was plenty specific, but my professors told me to suggest possible avenues for exploring the ideas and questions that interested me. I hinted at possible projects and ways I would research those projects. (I had one interview and in that interview I was asked what sources I might use. I didn't talk about my future project at length in my SOP, but I had given it a lot of thought. I knew what kind of debates it would speak to and what my basic game plan would be for approaching it. Of course, all of this will shift and mature as I learn more, but I did the best I could based on where I was.)
 
5) I got really obsessive and strategic when tailoring my SOP to fit each school. I googled the f*ck out of this website, the chronicle's forums, and the rest of the internet to glean any insight into how programs make their decisions. I don't know if any of it helped, but it calmed my nerves. I did my best to figure out who was on the admissions committees at each school, and when I couldn't really figure that out, I wrote my SOP in a way that would appeal to as many professors as possible while still maintaining my focus in my field. In the end, my SOP had to convince me that I should definitely go to that school. If you can't convince yourself it's a perfect fit, how will you be able to convince the professors who read it?
 
6) In terms of writing POIs and other forms of contact, I didn't do it for every school but I did it for every school I was accepted to (but not all my POIs). I stressed over these emails and sent them later than I should have (October, November, and in some cases December), but they didn't really help me either way, I think. Everyone I spoke to was super encouraging, but they hadn't seen my credentials at that point and their encouragement shouldn't be taken as a sign that you're a viable candidate or that you should even apply. I got some useful info about fellowship funding from one school, but otherwise, I don't think these emails made a difference either way. That said, one the professors writing me a recommendation knows two of the professors at one of the schools where I was accepted and another professor at a second school were I was accepted well. He's not a big name (yet), but he's a wonderful guy and I think those connections did benefit my application. Applicants can't do anything about this, but academia is a small community and I'm convinced that these networks make an impact in this process. Nevertheless, I also got into a school where I had no connections.
 
7) If you have an interview, reread your application and the work you've done that influences your thinking. Otherwise, DO NOT REREAD YOUR SOP. I forgot a period at the end of a paragraph amongst the various errors I made (including mistaking the location of one of my programs). Somehow, I still got in but rereading my SOP added greatly to my stress level.
 
YMMV.
 
Here's some of the insight I've gotten from professors at specific programs during this process:
1) USE PRIMARY SOURCES IN YOUR WRITING SAMPLE. This really should just be a baseline, but apparently, not all applicants do it.
2) Taking time off from school is a good thing, especially if you can use it to reflect thoughtfully on why you want to go back to school.
3) Princeton's PhD is very quick and they are looking for applicants who can "hit the ground running."
 
 
Ultimately, you do all you can do but a lot of the results come down to chance. This process requires you to both be obsessive in your research and learn to let go. Remember that neither acceptances nor rejections are referendum on your value as a human being. And most importantly, get some lucky shampoo.
 
Just my two cents.

I don't think anybody in my PhD program has maintained a 4.0, but I also don't know anyone who has gotten below an A- in an course. I think my GPA is like a ~3.9, but most people I know don't put their GPA on their C/Vs or anything. I think your undergrad GPA matters, but that is more from, does your GPA imply a low quality level of work/work ethic as an undergrad, which a 3.7 pretty much says the same thing as a 4.0, if your total application package shows you do good work, and have serious interests that match up with program.

A- is not a red flag necessarily. Make sure you have a really good writing sample that shows your ability to do research and write about it.

Doesn't matter. It all depends on the rest of your package. Your GPA shouldn't be a red flag which 3.7 isn't, so I wouldn't worry. Obviously try to do well, but not in the name of turning a 3.7 into a 3.8.

Thank you so much MastersHoping, I'm sorry this is super belated but it's been really helpful. This, and Victor Cha's assurances have me pretty much sold.
 
I guess I'll be seeing you on campus in September! I haven't formally accepted yet, but I'm pretty sure I will. Hoping others here will also join me
 
I went along to a SAIS offerholders event last week and told them I was undecided because of a full tuition offer from Georgetown. The SAIS alumni just sighed and nodded and told me to go Hoya... haha.

My undergrad GPA was relatively low (3.3) and this got pointed out to me on grad school visits and on my first NSF application. Senior year I managed rise 3.45 by the time I graduated, not sure how much better that is.
 
For me, grad school has been a lot easier than undergrad. I have a 3.93 right now and between both of those GPAs, I was told I had a "stellar academic record" on my NSF reviews this year. Considering I don't think I've gotten much smarter in the past two years, I think the whole system is bull.
 
Moreover, I'm a bit upset because there are some interesting classes I want to take, but my adviser is telling me to protect my GPA - I thought it doesn't matter anymore! I just want to learn...

The most common take I've heard is this: "If you're getting As, you're spending too much time on classes and not enough time on research."

Then again, make sure to fulfill all the requirements.

I think I'll throw myself into this mix, now that the dust has settled and I'm off to make my decision between two excellent schools very shortly. Long story short, I have quite the non-traditional background coming into being a historian, so I'm happy to share.
 
I finished my undergraduate as an English literature student. But my thesis work was far from just literary--I got travel grants to do archival work across the Pacific, and while I had wanted to dig up early literatures of the American occupation of the Philippines, it led me to learn all about migration and labour history in the long 20th century. Got more funding to learn ethnography and oral history on a beautiful Pacific island.
 
My first round of applications was just not meant to be. I tried to fit in what I felt was an eclectic but exciting set of interests in to English and American Studies, but I didn't have a strong enough application to do so. But just before I graduated, a dear mentor (and an accomplished historian and high-level academic at my school) directly took my under his wing and introduced me to a new research centre under the history department. I got to know a historian of empire and slowly, through a series of not unfortunate events, was introduced to the biggest names of the subfield in which I currently work. I finally found the words for what I had stumbled upon as a bumbling English lit student, and all these sets of words end with "history."
 
This second round, I applied to three schools (Harvard, University of Washington, and University of Toronto), and got into the latter two. I had planned to work in an application to Brown and NYU, but simply could not afford them. International application fees were the death of me, and not to mention that just a couple of weeks before I geared up to compile applications, I had to get a new phone.
 
All that verbosity aside, here are my pieces of advice:
 
1. Write your SOP as professionally as possible. Especially for folks with less-than-stellar backgrounds in undergraduate or masters history (or, for that matter, neither an undergrad nor a masters in history), you want to make up for these check-box deficiencies by showing exactly how you can conduct yourself in the field. Lay out your project with sharp, clear prose, allude to previous literatures if necessary, and really piece together a narrative that makes you as irresistible as possible. I applied to Harvard "just to see," but also because a there was a scholar there who really wanted to work with me. Unfortunately, the overall narrative didn't pan out as well as it could have with Washington and Toronto.
 
2. Leverage as many connections as possible. My current advisors and mentors are quite connected, to the point where a POI in both schools into which I got accepted are dear friends. One recommended the other, and they speak highly of each other all the time. Furthermore, you never know what kinds of political battles are behind the scenes. From the little sprinklings I've been told, at one of my schools, the decisions were made very difficult because of my nontraditional background. But once again, connections helped everything along.
 
3. Don't be afraid to write a totally new writing sample. I used my undergraduate thesis (in English lit) for one application, because it was strong in cultural analysis, and my POIs worked in those kinds of methods anyway. For my other application, I audited a course in the precise topic I wanted to pursue, and used that class to write a second sample from scratch. I echo what others have said above: use primary sources, and flex your language skills. I deployed both Tagalog and Spanish in that particular writing sample, on both primary and non-English secondary sources. 
 
4. Numbers only matter as much as you let them. My senior year undergrad GPA was a 4.0, but I never took a single course in history all my life. My GRE scores were not anything spectacular, either. The things I could control much better--writing samples, statement of purpose, and good choices for LoRs--really, I think, shaped the meat and potatoes of the application.
 
5. Most importantly: surround yourself with positive energy and wonderful people. This has been the most stressful time of my life so far. And so, I made time to check in with my closest friends for coffee, beers, and long walks in our big city. I've made sure to do some physical activity. My girlfriend was--and remains--nothing short of incredible, for all the love and support she gave me to pull me through this time. When I got my acceptances, rest assured that she was the first person I freaked out to. 
 
I am now deciding between two amazing Direct-Entry PhD programs. I've been told by many mentors and friends (and Jiminy Cricket) that neither decision is a wrong one. I am deciding between two very correct, but distinctly correct choices. It's a wonderful place to be in, and I really wish for the best for everyone else. Abbracci!

Anyone involved in modern Chinese history want to share their recommendations?

One almost wonders why academics bother writing books and not simply introduction/conclusions with some long supporting foot/endnotes, which is essentially the way most academic books are read (the meat being optional).

Does anyone know how the reginal studies programs at SFS (MAAS, MASIA, MAGES, etc) are viewed in comparison to the thematic programs (MSFS, SSP)?  Is there a notable difference in the reputation of these programs or the possibilities of job prospects post-graduation, or are all of the degrees offered at SFS seen as being highly sought after in the realm of international relations?  It seems that most applicants aim for MSFS, but is this due to a lack of language skills for the regional programs, or a difference in reputation?
 
I've noticed there there seems to be a considerable amount of overlap as you can seek a Thematic degree at MSFS but choose a regional specialization, or you can choose a Regional Studies program and choose a concentration in something more thematic.  
 
Any advice comparing the two different pathways at SFS? 

Got into Georgetown for their Masters in Asian Studies and plan to go!  

Nothing to add but this:
 
Ya'll are going to be heading to some of the best schools in the world in a few months. Let's all just be happy. No need to raise anyone's blood pressure over perceived notions of academic superiority. 

Yes

Make sure your subject heading is straight and to-the-point, e.g. "Interested in Graduate Study"

Ask if they are taking students for the app year you're interested in. Mention your relevant background, and how it would be a good match with continuing that prof's work. The idea is to display that you're familiar with their interests, but you don't have to quote specific works or anything like that. Kind of treat the email like a mini- cover letter.

There's varying opinions here on attaching your CV or not. I attached a .pdf version of mine, which really helped (my now-advisor looked at it right away and later told me it impelled him to respond). But others have commented that some university servers might automatically junk or spam an incoming email with an attachment, so the prof would never have even seen the email.

Don't take it personally if you don't hear back, or get lukewarm response. Cast your net wide so you don't get too fixated on one possibility. Profs may not have funding lined up, or have an impending sabbatical, or 8 other (maybe more qualified) candidates they are talking to, or engaged in negotiations/arguments with their peers as to who gets how many students next year, or just be really, really bad at keeping up with email. Also, I know of two cases where faculty webpages were woefully out of date, reflecting a prof as seemingly active in research when he really wasn't, and another where applications kept coming in tailored to one particular prof who was known internally to be a horrible advisor. If anything seems really "off" about someone's response, or you get none, seriously reconsider applying there.

Also, check out this - a science professor's blog post about her perspective on cold contact emails, and what she responds most favorably to. Aim to be a "Type 3," and you've already got an edge.

Writing To Me

All of my LOR have advised me to contact professors, but I haven't. Although I had questions, I didn't see them as relevant to the application, and I didn't want to run the risk of looking stupid.

And, I do have one anecdotal evidence of knowing someone who should not have gotten in to a really hard school to get into because he did not meet the qualifications by any means but he got in due to a correspondence he had with someone on the adcomm.

Well I am not applying in English, so perhaps its a difference in field. But I know several History professors who have strongly encouraged me to email potential professors, and said that they themselves as graduate committee members are highly dubious of any student who hasn't contacted them - because it suggests they aren't seriously interested in the program.

That was where my advice was coming from - but if this practice is taboo in English programs, I don't know what to tell you. It's a lot less likely that this professor on leave will read your application.