JD to PhD. I have no idea how to do this.

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

First, thank you for reading and providing whatever information you can. 

My conundrum: Undergrad is in Engineering (mediocre GPA) but I realized that wasn't for me so I went to law school to get into Patent Law. Graduated from a low ranked law school Magna Cum Laude and on Law Review and all that. History has been a passion of mine for most of my life. In fact, when applying for law review I chose a topic that combined history and the law. I would like to become a History/Law professor and academic. I have about 3-5 years (I will be working in the legal field and attempting to get some Instructor work at local community colleges) before I start applying to programs and I want to take advantage of the next few years to prepare as much as I can so that I can submit the most solid application package possible. 

I'm totally unfamiliar with the grad school application process. I've tried to go through this forum to get a better idea of the process but I'm concerned about my lack of experience in history. I would like to go to the best school possible (hopefully) and I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to bridge the gap between law and history for my future applications. I have great relationships with a few of my professors who would be happy to mentor me through getting legal articles published. Would an application with published articles connecting law and history be better than some sort of work experience teaching history? Should I attempt a Master's program prior to the PhD? Do admissions committees care about this stuff? 

I'm trying to get my bearings here and I appreciate any help ya'll can provide. 

[historygeek]

From what I've seen, a degree in history isn't necessarily a requirement, but they prefer if you have a solid background in history classes. 

You say that you want to be a history and law professor/academic. Do you have a specific research project in mind? History of law is broad: are you interested in American patent law? British civil law? The implementation of law in imperial China? Saying "I want to study the history of law" isn't going to help you out when you're looking for potential advisors or schools that are a good fit, and just putting that you're interested in the history of law probably won't help you out on your SOPs. 

I think a good way to prepare is to first find a topic that you're interested in, and do as much reading as you possibly can on your topic to give yourself a good footing. Good luck!

Edited August 3, 2018 by historygeek

[OHSP]

14 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

I'm concerned about my lack of experience in history. I would like to go to the best school possible (hopefully) and I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to bridge the gap between law and history for my future applications. I have great relationships with a few of my professors who would be happy to mentor me through getting legal articles published. Would an application with published articles connecting law and history be better than some sort of work experience teaching history? Should I attempt a Master's program prior to the PhD? Do admissions committees care about this stuff? 

I'm trying to get my bearings here and I appreciate any help ya'll can provide. 

Hi! I am in a history PhD program and also went to law school, so I have a bit of insight--though I also did my BA in history. My first piece of advice would be to talk to historians and current history grad students about your interests--sometimes people who are passionate about history find that academic history is different/not at all what they imagined it would be. What attracts you to this discipline exactly, and could you do the kind of work you want to do by going down an academic legal path? Legal articles are good but they're very, very different to history journal articles and the latter will weigh far more when you're applying to history programs. I don't want to say that articles are "better" than teaching but they speak to your ability to do academic research/to go through the process of peer-review etc, and that can be more relevant than teaching experience to the question of whether you're going to be a successful doctoral candidate. Admissions committees do care about this stuff--given that you don't have an academic history background, they'll need to see evidence that you know what it means to be an academic historian and that you've taken some steps towards working towards that career, even if that just means doing some independent research. In your position I'd strongly recommend an MA program, especially if you can find one that's funded. Aside from giving you the opportunity to create a solid writing sample, publish journal articles, and get to know your field, an MA will give you a sense of whether academic history is actually for you. 

[Sigaba]

1 hour ago, OHSP said:

[A]n MA will give you a sense of whether academic history is actually for you. 

This exploration may be especially important if you "think like an engineer."

[gsc]

4 hours ago, OHSP said:

Sometimes people who are passionate about history find that academic history is different/not at all what they imagined it would be.  [...] Aside from giving you the opportunity to create a solid writing sample, publish journal articles, and get to know your field, an MA will give you a sense of whether academic history is actually for you. 

This is really good advice. Academic history is very much its own thing and it's difficult to know what it's like without already being in it.

If you're near a university with a history MA program, you might also be able to take a graduate class there as a non-degree student. I was recently in an evening seminar with several lawyers interested in transitioning to PhD programs. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by gsc

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

9 hours ago, historygeek said:

From what I've seen, a degree in history isn't necessarily a requirement, but they prefer if you have a solid background in history classes. 

You say that you want to be a history and law professor/academic. Do you have a specific research project in mind? History of law is broad: are you interested in American patent law? British civil law? The implementation of law in imperial China? Saying "I want to study the history of law" isn't going to help you out when you're looking for potential advisors or schools that are a good fit, and just putting that you're interested in the history of law probably won't help you out on your SOPs. 

I think a good way to prepare is to first find a topic that you're interested in, and do as much reading as you possibly can on your topic to give yourself a good footing. Good luck!

Thank you for responding to my post!

So the paper I wrote for law review was history of medicine/medical technology and the law (inspired by the Henrietta Lacks story). I enjoyed it but I'm not sure that I want to focus on medicine in a PhD program. I've been thinking that a history of the law focusing on oppressed people in some regard (food justice, housing discrimination, environmental discrimination) is really where my heart lies. The laws regarding helots in Sparta all the way to the current laws that negatively impact access to grocery stores on Native American lands have run through my mind. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by JDtoPhDmaybe

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

8 hours ago, OHSP said:

What attracts you to this discipline exactly, and could you do the kind of work you want to do by going down an academic legal path?

Thank you for responding! 

I would like to teach history on a collegiate level because I feel that the ability to teach more specialized areas of history would help provide a perspective of history that most folks don't see and to me that is one of the reasons why most folks disregard the study of history. And even if I was to teach a general history course I wouldn't mind. Most Americans are so undereducated about history that I would really like to do my little part to help change that. On a scholarly note I would like to connect the dots on historical points and present well researched historical theories or just my take on the subject. I'm not hyped up to be the scholar who discovers that Alexander the Great was really a woman or anything like that. I just like history. I like to share history with others. I think I would like to write about history. 

Does that sound stupid or misguided?

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

7 hours ago, Sigaba said:

This exploration may be especially important if you "think like an engineer."

Thanks for responding!

I'm a good problem solver but I seem to be a much better lawyer than engineer. And I enjoy research and writing way more than designing circuits. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by JDtoPhDmaybe

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

4 hours ago, gsc said:

This is really good advice. Academic history is very much its own thing and it's difficult to know what it's like without already being in it.

If you're near a university with a history MA program, you might also be able to take a graduate class there as a non-degree student. I was recently in an evening seminar with several lawyers interested in transitioning to PhD programs. 

Thanks for responding!

And this is a great idea. I'm in Houston so I'm optimistic that I could find a class somewhere around here. 

[AfricanusCrowther]

6 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

Thank you for responding to my post!

So the paper I wrote for law review was history of medicine/medical technology and the law (inspired by the Henrietta Lacks story). I enjoyed it but I'm not sure that I want to focus on medicine in a PhD program. I've been thinking that a history of the law focusing on oppressed people in some regard (food justice, housing discrimination, environmental discrimination) is really where my heart lies. The laws regarding helots in Sparta all the way to the current laws that negatively impact access to grocery stores on Native American lands have run through my mind. 

In case you didn’t know, the lack of specificity of this response and the previous one would be inappropriate for an application essay. You need a much more focused set of interests, with at least a clearly defined period, region, theme, and set of historical questions. I would suggest getting your hands on some successful application essays or just  (as OHSP suggested) taking to current graduate students about what they proposed to do in their applications. 

[VAZ]

6 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

I'm not hyped up to be the scholar who discovers that Alexander the Great was really a woman or anything like that. I just like history. I like to share history with others. I think I would like to write about history. 

This does not really sound like academic history in the present day. Archaeology or public history might be more relevant. 

[OHSP]

14 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

Thank you for responding! 

I would like to teach history on a collegiate level because I feel that the ability to teach more specialized areas of history would help provide a perspective of history that most folks don't see and to me that is one of the reasons why most folks disregard the study of history. And even if I was to teach a general history course I wouldn't mind. Most Americans are so undereducated about history that I would really like to do my little part to help change that. On a scholarly note I would like to connect the dots on historical points and present well researched historical theories or just my take on the subject. I'm not hyped up to be the scholar who discovers that Alexander the Great was really a woman or anything like that. I just like history. I like to share history with others. I think I would like to write about history. 

Does that sound stupid or misguided?

I don't think many academic historians would be excited to discover that Alexander the Great was "really x"--that's not what we do. History's not so much about "discovering facts" or even coming up with theories that explain the past. The paragraph you wrote is quite non-specific, so that's something to work on. What do you mean by "more specialized areas of history"? In any history department 99% of people are very specialized. Also the "...or just my take on the subject" part is worrying to me--history is largely about working very closely with primary sources, and thinking about how changing the contexts in which we read evidence might complicate prevailing historical narratives. We're not just writing down our various takes on various topics. But really you also need to have a sense of which historical narratives you take issue with and why--I'd strongly recommend talking to some historians who work in academia. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by OHSP

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

10 hours ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

In case you didn’t know, the lack of specificity of this response and the previous one would be inappropriate for an application essay. You need a much more focused set of interests, with at least a clearly defined period, region, theme, and set of historical questions. I would suggest getting your hands on some successful application essays or just  (as OHSP suggested) taking to current graduate students about what they proposed to do in their applications. 

Oh yes, I'm well aware that I need to get more specific. I'm just not there yet so I gave the best answer that I could. I'm still exploring these areas to figure out where I would really like to concentrate. Can I ask how you discovered your specific focus area? Did you just know or did it take you a while to figure out?

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

10 hours ago, VAZ said:

This does not really sound like academic history in the present day. Archaeology or public history might be more relevant. 

I'm honestly not sure what this means. I'm just starting to delve into graduate school/academia so I'm not super familiar with the various distinctions, terms, phrases, and the like. 

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

2 hours ago, OHSP said:

I don't think many academic historians would be excited to discover that Alexander the Great was "really x"--that's not what we do. History's not so much about "discovering facts" or even coming up with theories that explain the past. The paragraph you wrote is quite non-specific, so that's something to work on. What do you mean by "more specialized areas of history"? In any history department 99% of people are very specialized. Also the "...or just my take on the subject" part is worrying to me--history is largely about working very closely with primary sources, and thinking about how changing the contexts in which we read evidence might complicate prevailing historical narratives. We're not just writing down our various takes on various topics. But really you also need to have a sense of which historical narratives you take issue with and why--I'd strongly recommend talking to some historians who work in academia. 

Yes, I agree with you. As I said in a previous post I'm aware that for a proper PhD application I need to be pretty specific about a more narrow topic that I would like to study. I'm just not there yet so I can only speak in generalities and with the context I understand at this point. As I get more familiar with PhD programs and Academic History I can speak more eloquently about these topics. And when I said "my take on the subject" I just meant that we all bring something unique to ourselves when we present information so even if I'm explaining a widely agreed upon theory I'm filtering it through my brain and my connection to it. I'm not sounding super knowledgable here - because I'm not super knowledgable - but I understand more than I can explain well at this point. 

[OHSP]

Cool, the thing that you really need to do then is talk to professors, start to get your head around what history means in academic terms—this means deep diving into historiography, and perhaps start looking into MA programs. 

[AfricanusCrowther]

13 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

Oh yes, I'm well aware that I need to get more specific. I'm just not there yet so I gave the best answer that I could. I'm still exploring these areas to figure out where I would really like to concentrate. Can I ask how you discovered your specific focus area? Did you just know or did it take you a while to figure out?

I took a lot of history courses in college and my research interests came out of my BA thesis, so I might not be much help. In general, I've always come to topics through trying to understand primary sources -- and one place for you to start might be an unusual or anomalous aspect of case law.

FWIW, I just went to a conference where historians complained about the lack of scholarship on medicine and the law, particularly outside the United States and issues of patents.

[historygeek]

21 hours ago, JDtoPhDmaybe said:

 Can I ask how you discovered your specific focus area? Did you just know or did it take you a while to figure out?

If I could give some input in this:

In the first few years of my undergrad, I literally had no idea what I wanted to focus on. Modern American history? Medieval Russian history? Classical Rome? The Prague Spring? I changed my major about seven times (always keeping history, though), so much so that the Arts & Sciences advising office at my school pretty much gives me a "add/drop major" sheet every time I walk in. During my second year of undergrad, I studied abroad for a year in Rome and took a 19th and 20th Century Italy class. When I got back to the US, I went to my favorite neighborhood in St. Louis and read a book about it. I realized that the history of Italy and Italian-America were incredibly diverged from each other, and I wanted to figure out why. I started an internship at this small museum in the neighborhood, and decided to write an honors thesis about how the neighborhood kept its identity. In my primary source research and listening to the stories told by the women in the neighborhood, I became interested in the female immigrant experience beyond labor. Being the descendant of immigrant women, I decided to apply my research to the immigrant experiences that I grew up with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Sometimes your experiences are key in informing your research interests! 

[TsarandProphet]

2 hours ago, historygeek said:

If I could give some input in this:

In the first few years of my undergrad, I literally had no idea what I wanted to focus on. Modern American history? Medieval Russian history? Classical Rome? The Prague Spring? I changed my major about seven times (always keeping history, though), so much so that the Arts & Sciences advising office at my school pretty much gives me a "add/drop major" sheet every time I walk in. During my second year of undergrad, I studied abroad for a year in Rome and took a 19th and 20th Century Italy class. When I got back to the US, I went to my favorite neighborhood in St. Louis and read a book about it. I realized that the history of Italy and Italian-America were incredibly diverged from each other, and I wanted to figure out why. I started an internship at this small museum in the neighborhood, and decided to write an honors thesis about how the neighborhood kept its identity. In my primary source research and listening to the stories told by the women in the neighborhood, I became interested in the female immigrant experience beyond labor. Being the descendant of immigrant women, I decided to apply my research to the immigrant experiences that I grew up with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 Sometimes your experiences are key in informing your research interests! 

I agree! I began as a late-antiquity-early-Islam major, moved to Early Modern Europe, and settled on Russia and the history of knowledge in Russia following a deeper study of my own family history.

[TMP]

@JDtoPhDmaybe, Newsflash: You will be teaching first-year law courses or survey history classes for a while when you become a professor.  As a TA in a PhD program, you're likely to teach survey courses.  The only times you will get to be in your specialized areas are your upper-level undergraduate and graduate seminars, your candidacy exam readings, and your research.  Also, be sure to research the job market to obtain a realistic sense of your chances.

[JDtoPhDmaybe]

6 minutes ago, TMP said:

@JDtoPhDmaybe, Newsflash: You will be teaching first-year law courses or survey history classes for a while when you become a professor.  As a TA in a PhD program, you're likely to teach survey courses.  The only times you will get to be in your specialized areas are your upper-level undergraduate and graduate seminars, your candidacy exam readings, and your research.  Also, be sure to research the job market to obtain a realistic sense of your chances.

Thanks, I’m not expecting to come out of the gate teaching a specialized course in whatever my little heart desires. Thankfully, I’ve worked under high level college administrators so I know that there are dues to be paid and red tape to be cut through. Luckily, I’ll be able to practice law on the side to keep me busy when things get tough or boring. I know the job market isn’t great but I’m an optimist and willing to work my way through difficulties.