CrazyCatLady80

I wouldn't say it is overblown. I know a lot of history PhDs from top institutions that are either working as adjuncts (usually at several institutions) or doing something completely different. I don't know about philosophy, but in history you have around a 50/50 chance of landing a tenured track job. Yes...there are visiting professors and postdocs, but, in the end, they still don't guarentee you a tenure track job. If you want to study history, you need to look at the job placement numbers in history - not philosophy. A top 10 PhD program guarentees you nothing. A member of our junior faculty here at CSUN graudated from Columbia around five years ago. He told me that he felt lucky to have landed a job at CSUN, a third-tier commuter school. He said he knows plenty of Columbia graduates that haven't gotten any jobs at all. The majority of newly minted PhDs in history just want a tenured-track job. It doesn't matter if it is at Harvard or some third-tier school in the middle of nowhere. A top 10 program helps you just a little bit in the job market. One of my advisors told me not to go to UCLA, a top ten school. UCLA seems like a perfect choice for my field. However, he feels that their grad students are just not prepared for the job market. I know several current students there that feel the same way. He also says that a lot of top 10 programs just don't teach you how to teach. This is especially true of the Ivies. Now OSU seems to have an excellent teaching program and a pretty good job placement rate, but it ranks at twenty-four. UW also produces really good teachers and it ranks twenty-six. Remember universities are looking at three things when they hire - research, teaching, and service. Don't get too caught up in the rankings. It doesn't really mean much.

Did the documenation show you have a learning disability? Did it state that you needed extended time? Were you tested. If so, when exactly? I am dyslexic and it shouldn't be a problem getting extended time as long as you follow all their guidelines exactly.

My post cut off. Stupid computer. As I was saying, I do political history, but more social and I focus on African Americans and women. Both those topics are still very hot in regards to the job market. This is largely what I am interested in studying, but there is a small part of me who picked these topics, because there are jobs in this subfield. That being said, historians that study African Americans and women are a dime a dozen these days. Here is the deal with getting a PhD in history - you do it because you love it and won't be happy doing anything else. One of my friends said becoming an historian isn't a career choice, but a calling. When I decided to go for a PhD, I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. I read every scary article from the Chronicle of Higher Education that basically said I had a better shot of becoming the next Lady Gaga than a tenured college professor. I thought about it for three very long years till I made my decision. If you are seriously considering this career path, I highly recommend you pick up a copy of Graduate Study for the 21 Century by Gregory Colon Semenza. He is bluntly honest about what is expected of you as a grad student. If you don't like what he says, you probably should look into something else.

To be fair to CSUN, the History Department got rid of thesis/comps due to a union grievance. The union said professors weren't being paid to supervise thesis/comps so they were told from up above to get rid of them. It does meet the needs of the students better. Most aren't looking to get a PhD, but rather earn their degree and leave. That being said, I do think it dumbs down the program. It is funny how all the professors are trying to sell it as this brand new idea that they created to help students, never mentioning the whole union issue. Of course, my unofficial advisor is a straight shooter and doesn't believe in spinnging. Still haven't decided what to do. I have plenty of time to think about it, which is nice.

OK....I spoke to my unofficial advisor. Turns out that my actual advisor had it wrong. This 25-page paper option is only required for this new class. Since I started my MA a while back I have the choice of doing the thesis or the 25-page paper. Thank god. I just didn't think it is fair for the rules to suddenly change in the middle of the game. As for what I am going to do, I really don't know. A highly polished, publication quality 25-page paper does allow me to focus on producing a good writing sample - not a monster of a document that probably no one will ever read. However, like I said, I am worried how this will play out among the PhD programs. My unofficial advisor said they probably wouldn't care, but I still want to do some research before I make a decision.

I don't know all details. They are getting rid of comps as well. All you need to do is write a highly polished 25-page paper. Those who are graduating this spring can still do a thesis, but I am graduating Spring 2014. I am just starting to do my research. What I am mostly worried about is how this will affect my admission to a PhD program. Will the top programs look down on me for not doing a thesis?

I don't know all details. They are getting rid of comps as well. All you need to do is write a highly polished 25-page paper. Those who are graduating this spring can still do a thesis, but I am graduating Spring 2014. I am just starting to do my research. What I am mostly worried about is how this will affect my admission to a PhD program. Will the top programs look down on me for not doing a thesis?

I just found out that my MA program is no longer letting its grad students to do a thesis. Rather they want us to write a highly polished 25-page paper. I am furious. Personally, I think it dumbs the program down. Do you think this will affect my admission into a top PhD program? In my opinion, what makes a MA is the thesis - not a paper.

I do political history, but more social - not intellectual. I believe one

For the most part, the people in my program are pretty good. However, I have found some of them to be backstabbing and play childish games. Rather not go into detail on here. Just keep your elbows out a tiny bit, but that is a good rule of life in general.

Just remember that during the first semester you will think everyone is brilliant and smarter than you. After the second semester, you will realize that most of them are full of hot air. At least that is how it is in my program. Also, be careful when it comes to making friends. Grad school students can be ruthless. People pretending to be your friend and drop you once they got what they are needed is pretty common. In fact, a lot of former grad school students have experienced the same thing or at least that is what they have told me. Most of them are wonderful, but keep your elbows out a little bit.

Yeah....I just wanted to get a variety of opinions, especially with my strange undergrad program with no grades. As for the troll, I just wanted to write down what I told a couple of entering MA students in my program. It is actually kind of fun in a strange way seeing their faces when I go on that rant. One of my professors said he is going to give all his "I want to go for a PhD" students to me, because I do such a good job. Maybe that should be included in my LOR? lol

If you are absolutely serious about getting a PhD, here is what I suggest - take a couple of years off. See the world. If you still want a PhD, go for another B.A. in history. Then apply for a MA and then try to get into a PhD program. Your undergrad grades are so low that you need another B.A. A friend of mine did this and he is now at UCSD. It was A LOT of work, but I know he feels it is worth it. Also, so we are on the same page here, do you know exactly what getting a PhD means? If you are seriously considering a PhD, I recommend you read Graduate Study for the 21st Century by Gregory Colon Semenza. It pretty much lays it out for you. I am currently getting my M.A. I am treating it like I am in a PhD program. I stopped working full time and moved in with my parents who love to torture me about everything. I do school work for 12 hours a day. On weekends, I try to work around five hours a day. That is still not enough time for me to accomplish everything that I want to do. I spend my days writing, reading, and planning. When I am not doing that, I am usually working at some low life job. I also teach at my university, which takes up a huge amount of time. The students are far from perfect. Most would rather spend their time smoking weed, getting drunk, or having sex. Of course, we would all like to do that, but they fail to understand that you can't do only that for the rest of your life. When I graduate with my M.A., I hope to get into a PhD program where it is ten times more work, teaching, and stress. After that, I will TRY to get a tenured track position. Try is the key word since it is super competitive. Less than half of all PhD students get a tenured-track job. If I get that far, I have to work even harder than I worked in graduate school, because I need tenure. If I don't get tenure, I might as well jump off a bridge, because my career is over. All of this work for the awesome amount of 20,000 as a grad student. Salaries for professors range quite a bit. I know my current professors make around 75,000 per year. Now do you really want to do it? If the answer is yes, follow our advice. If not, look at something else.

For the first time in almost ten years, I took a look at my undergrad transcript. It is bad. Here is why: 1. Grades. I failed two English courses and for two semesters I had to withdraw. This was done retroactively when I basically failed all my classes for those two semesters. Some pretty horrible things happened when I was in college. I was raped (sorry if that is too much detail), suffered from major depression, and diagnosed with Endometriosis. The guy that raped me were in those two English classes and it is was easier, emotionally, to just not go to class rather than drop them (I know that doesn't make much sense, but I wasn't dealing with a full deck at the time and PhD programs were not even a thought in my head). In previous applications, I wrote that I had a "major illness" and have been accepted with no problem. Would that work this time? 2. Weird New Agey program. OK....my major is technically in liberal studies. However, it is actually part of this special school within the CSU system. I have called it an honors program in the past, but it is more selective than anything else. All GE classes were taught as these monster 12-unit courses that met three times a week. They were all seminar based. In other words, we read the books, discussed them, and wrote papers. It was kind of like a great books program, but a little bit more hippie like. Now, because all the professors that were in charge of the program were these aging hippies, they were all against grades. Felt grades destroyed the learning process. So basically my entire GE classes are C/NC. Now, for my MA and MLS applications, I have given "as if" grades along with the transcript. They are basically a letter from the department with the grades that I would have earned if I got grades. This has worked perfectly for both applications. However, those programs were super easy getting into. PhD programs are another story. Plus, the courses have strange titles. For one of my classes, I helped found an Endometrosis support group in my area. It literally says on my transcript "Endometriosis Support Group." Another program I took was about entertainment and the role it plays on society. That is called "Entertainment." On a positive note, I do have a wonderful professor who has become a dear friend from that department. He is a serious scholar. Very well published, but in Anthropology. I know he would write an outstanding LOR that would explain the program and acknowledge my "major illness." Should I go that route? Also, keep in mind my GPA for both my MLS and MA are outstanding. My MA will probably be around 3.8 to 3.9. With my MLS, it was 3.7. As I posted before, everything else in my application is strong. Should I worry?

A lot of people in the MA program change their research focus. When I entered the program, I was interested in African Americans in Los Angeles. As I continued with the program, I became more interested in political history. Now my field is 20th century urban political history focusing largely on race - a lot more specific. Also, I know a lot of students that entered the MA program that didn't have a focus at all, except for something super general (i.e. U.S. cultural history). One advantage of the MA program is that you find out what you like before entering a PhD program.

So what is the best way to "pick up" a language? I know I only need reading knowledge, but do most people take a basic class? I believe UCLA has an immersion class in the summer through extended ed, but I doubt I will have the time to take it.

The main thing to remember is not to read every single word. Read for key points. Generally speaking, if a book is well constructed, the thesis is in the introduction or first chapter. The other chapters are usually on a topic, which is addressed in the first paragraph of that section. The conclusions sums it all up. Of course, you probably already know this information, but I always read these parts if I am pressed for time. Another good idea is to read book reviews. Read them after you are finished with the book so it won't interfere with your own ideas. If the book is poorly written and you find yourself playing hide and go seek with the thesis, go straight to the book review.

@TMP - How did you know?!?! I don't know about Kevin Boyle, but Matt Lassiter is my dream advisor. It really is an ideal fit. In fact, one of his recent student's thesis really inspired my recent research interest in suburban liberalism. I don't know if that is a good or bad this as far as admissions go. If I got either him or Thomas Sugrue, I would be extremely happy.

Medicine is fun. I love diseases and subjects that are gross. This is what you get when you are born on Halloween.

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. @New England Nat - I am looking at Princeton. My main concern with some of the Ivies is would I truly be happy there. As an archivist, I worked at Columbia and I often felt I was on another planet. When I visited Princeton, I felt even more that way. However, I know those are the good schools and they have good job placement records so I may just have to get over it. @thedig13 - By various ethnic groups, I am mostly referring to African Americans, but also some Latinos. I know only a little bit of high school French. I am thinking of taking some Spanish courses at my local community college to show that I am in the process of learning. Do you think that would be a good idea? Like Riotbeard said, language isn't as important with U.S. urban. @Riotbeard - Penn is on my list (I know I just contradicted my statement above about the Ivies by saying this). They have a really strong urban history program. I would love to work with Thomas Sugrue. His book The Origins of the Urban Crisis is amazing and probably one of the most important urban history books in the past twenty years. I am also looking at Harvard (once again, contradicting myself...lol). I have read Lisa McGirr's work. I actually talked to via email to Lizabeth Cohen back in my archivist days. She was looking for some oral histories and I knew where they were located. Doubt she remembers me. Seemed super sweet. The more I think about it, my work as an archivist is a nice feather in my cap. One of my main concerns at the moment is that my M.A. program hasn't placed a lot of people in top graduate programs or at least to my knowledge. The only top ten they seem to have gotten anyone into has been UCLA and that seems to be no more, because of inter-department politics. The only other schools I know about are Texas A&M, University of New Mexico, UCSD, UC Riverside, UCSB, University of Texas at Austin, and Brandeis. None of these program are strong in urban political history.

I won't be applying for PhD programs till next year. However, I am going to spy on you guys to get a better feel what I should do when the time comes. Currently, I am completing my M.A. in U.S. History (specializing in 20th century urban political) at a CSU in Los Angeles. I am also a former archivist/librarian so if any of you have any questions about archives and MLS programs, please feel free to contact me.

I am currently finishing up my second year in my MA program. I am taking a bit longer, because I had to work full time my first year. After three long years of thinking it through, I decided to go for a PhD and quit working full time to focus on my studies. I am dirt poor, but enjoying every single second of it. Next year, I will be enrolling in PhD programs. I plan on specializing in 20th century urban political history, in particular various ethnic groups and women. I just recently started doing some research on potential grad schools. As of right now, my first choices are University of Michigan or UPenn. Both have professors that I would, hopefully, enjoy working with during my grad school career. The schools I am considering include: Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, UCLA, UNC, Rutgers, OSU, Univ. of Washington, University of MD, Georgetown, UCSB, Boston, Univ. of CT, Case Western, and Albany. No....I will not be applying to all of them. Does anyone have any useful information regarding these schools or the application process, in general? As far as my stats go, I will have anywhere between a 3.8 to a 3.9 GPA when I apply. My GPA for my undergrad is 3.0. I did attend a program during my undergrad years that did not have grades for GE courses, but I can get "as if" grades from my professors. So far it has worked for my other two grad school degrees, but I am worried about PhD programs. After I earned my B.A., I completed my MLS with additional certification in archives and records management. My GPA for my MLS was 3.7. For around five years, I worked as an archivist at some pretty major research institutions in NYC and Los Angeles. As for the GRE, I am NOT a good test taker. I am sure I will do well on the verbal, but the math score will be horrible. I am guessing my GRE scores will be the weakest part of my application. I have earned several awards in my MA program and have made several presentations at conferences. I would like to have a paper published or at least under serious consideration in time for next year. I am starting my thesis this semester and it is a pretty interesting topic (of course, I am biased:)). I am sure my LOR, SOP, and writing sample will all be very strong.