Chances of Entry?

[Baron1160]

Hello all, 

I suppose this is overdone but I am hoping for honest feedback on chances for acceptances since I tend to oscillate between high hopes and serious doubts about my chances with applying to PhD programs in the coming months. I am especially interested in your experiences and feedback as I am not a History major in my undergraduate studies (or even technically a student that will graduate with a BA) and I'm rather unsure of how I may stack up in general and compared to History BA applicants. To get right down to it, the requisite stats:

Cornell University undergrad in Industrial and Labor Relations (technically a BS but I hope that won't detract too much)/ History Minor (I assume that doesn't count for much)

3.88 Cumulative GPA/3.99 History (28 History Credits) 

GRE:     V:  168, Q: 155, Wr: 6.0              (Contemplating retaking to get the Quant. up but I'm unsure if I could actually improve since I'm not too strong in Math)                                                                                   

I've had one History Seminar course in which I wrote a paper for presentation to a small panel at the National Defense University which will serve as my writing sample, and I am to hear back from a Committee on approval for an Honors Thesis proposal this week for my ILR degree. The history seminar professor will serve as a LoR and I'm hoping for a strong letter from him. In terms of internships, I worked for the National Labor Relations Board for a summer as a student Field Agent with a small caseload, but that had more of a legal slant than anything. I'm contemplating using one of the LoR I have from this but I'm also unsure if that would be wise or if I should just try to stick to academic.  

My interest would be mostly centered on 19th century Europe (Britain primarily) in the spheres of war mobilization and military history (an odd pivot from labor I suppose). Right now, I'm looking at programs more in metropolitan areas due to my SO's career aspirations and I'm looking at programs like Columbia/Harvard/Penn as optimistic/reach programs and looking at BU, BC, NYU, University College London, and King's College London as well. Frankly I'm not even sure what "tier" programs I should be looking at or if I should just focus in on Masters programs first, I don't really know how to value my application. Any guidance or advice would definitely be most appreciated, and thank you for your time.  

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by fink1160

[TsarandProphet]

We really wouldn't know. As far as technical details like GRE and GPA go, you seem fine, but the process depends so much on your written materials that we really can't help.

[TMP]

Talk to your history professors.  See what they think and follow their advice.  They do go through the PhD admissions themselves after all....

[OHSP]

I agree with what others have said but also would advise you to get rid of the notion of reach and safety schools—NYU is not a “back up” if you don’t get into the others (said as someone who chose a “lower ranked” school over UPenn). If you’re assuming that NYU and BU (not in the same category) will be easier to get into because they’re not ivies then you don’t have the best sense of how graduate programs operate. 

[dr. t]

49 minutes ago, OHSP said:

I agree with what others have said but also would advise you to get rid of the notion of reach and safety schools—NYU is not a “back up” if you don’t get into the others (said as someone who chose a “lower ranked” school over UPenn). If you’re assuming that NYU and BU (not in the same category) will be easier to get into because they’re not ivies then you don’t have the best sense of how graduate programs operate. 

Agreed. There are two basic types of PhD program: those with a 5-7% acceptance rate, and those you shouldn't go to. UCL and KCL will probably be happy to take your money, but getting a funded offer from them will actually be harder than getting into Harvard. NYU is just as competitive as an Ivy, and neither BU nor BC are very good options either in terms of funding or job placements.

[Baron1160]

Thank you to you all! I appreciate the feedback and the honesty, with supportive family and friends I felt that I needed to seek out some more objective views to help reorient things in reality.

I just wanted to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean that NYU was not a great, very competitive program, just that it was outside of the Top 20 on US News and World Report (which I know can be seen as rather dubious in its utility, but still a way to help compartmentalize...one professor gave the top 20 as a rough cut-off for solid employment odds in academia). I was under the impression that BU was a suitably generous location with fully funded PhD's but I suppose I shall revisit that. My predominant concern is where to commit my money, more towards Masters programs with whatever funding I may be able to find or PhD programs where that is not as often an issue depending on the institution. I think I have my answer, but I shall definitely follow up with professors here to glean their opinions and advice as well. 

Good luck to you all in your endeavors!     

[OHSP]

The US news rankings are garbage and NYU has better placements than schools ranked higher on that list. Look at actual placements not meaningless rankings charts—some of the schools in the top 20 on that list are not good options given their funding and/or placement situations and they're higher on the list because of perceived prestige etc. Really this isn’t about offending people who are at the schools you’re calling safeties, it’s about picking schools that place people in your academic field. BU and NYU are not comparable because of placements (they are a world apart because of placements). And I can't stress how important it is to look at placements in your actual, specific subfield.   

Edited September 4, 2018 by OHSP

[AfricanusCrowther]

I think BU has always been strong in African history. They certainly have some heavyweights and I remember coming across BU graduates in some tenure track positions in that field.

The USNWR rankings are useless because they cannot account for two important factors: placement within subfield (the USNWR subfield rankings are even worse) and placement by advisor (when Ira Berlin was active, the University of Maryland was a good place to do 19th century US). If the professor who works in your field told you that the top 20 was a good metric for program strength, maybe that happens to be the case in his or her subfield.

But this is a distraction from your actual question, for which the answer is, your chance of acceptance depends almost entirely on the strength of your written materials and your ability to excite potential advisors who want to reproduce themselves through you.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by AfricanusCrowther

[psstein]

2 hours ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

The USNWR rankings are useless because they cannot account for two important factors: placement within subfield (the USNWR subfield rankings are even worse) and placement by advisor (when Ira Berlin was active, the University of Maryland was a good place to do 19th century US). If the professor who works in your field told you that the top 20 was a good metric for program strength, maybe that happens to be the case in his or her subfield.

The subfield rankings are useless. There's a world of difference between medieval European history and modern European, but you can't tell from the USNWR rankings.  They rank my department's Latin American program very highly, when the reality is that three major professors have retired/left in the last three or so years.

[Sigaba]

On 9/3/2018 at 11:45 AM, Baron1160 said:

My interest would be mostly centered on around 19th century Europe (Britain primarily) in the spheres of war mobilization and military history (an odd pivot from labor I suppose).

I think that you would greatly benefit from refining how you talk about your interests. Are you a Europeanist who focuses on nineteenth century labor history as it relates to wars or to military affairs? Are you a military historian who focuses on the changing nature of warfare in Europe during the nineteenth century? Are you a labor historian examining the impact of the rise of "command economies" on labor relations?

Once you've refined your interests, I recommend that you take a long hard look at the faculty members at your preferred programs. Will you able to talking about the past in ways that make sense to them? As an example, will a social historian give you a quizzical look and wonder "why labor history and not working class history?"

At present, the way you frame your past, present, and future, you strike me as a person committed to your SO and somewhat dedicated to the House of Klio. What can you do to shift that balance to the point where established professionals are willing to select you over applicants who have centered their academic, intellectual, and personal lives around history?