Putting Myself in Best Position for Ivy League Acceptance

[breakfast]

but the conventional wisdom where I go is that you want to avoid teaching at an LAC if you can because you will get a 4-4 teaching load and never have time to do the research to move elsewhere. Admittedly, there's a research-university bias to the logic here, and some might be happy at an LAC (although 4-4 sounds terrible to me, personally).

You almost certainly won't have that kind of luxury in discriminating against certain positions if you want to end up with a job. The overwhelming majority of us who actually graduate and are talented enough to snag a TT job will not be teaching at a research university.

I would recommend that everyone read Graduate Study for the Twenty-First Century: How to Build an Academic Career in the Humanities by Greg Colón Semenza. It is a pretty sobering read about the realities of the job market.

Edited February 2, 2011 by breakfast

[gradstudenthistory]

You almost certainly won't have that kind of luxury in discriminating against certain positions if you want to end up with a job. The overwhelming majority of us who actually graduate and are talented enough to snag a TT job will not be teaching at a research university.

I would recommend that everyone read Graduate Study for the Twenty-First Century: How to Build an Academic Career in the Humanities by Greg Colón Semenza. It is a pretty sobering read about the realities of the job market.

Oh, I recognize these realities about the job market. I was merely noting that I think an LAC would be a less desirable academic job (in my view), for someone who is interested in doing research. And I made that point because I was countering the argument that an Ivy education won't help you on the job market. I am really not sure to what degree it would help with an LAC, but I am certain an Ivy degree yields a strong advantage in the rat-race for a non-LAC job.

I think it's important to maintain a good balance between aiming high and maintaining realistic expectation. (And one of those realistic expectations is: if you take an LAC job, there's a good chance you'll be there forever, or until you choose to leave academia.)

Edited February 2, 2011 by gradstudenthistory

[StrangeLight]

certain LACs actually do want their faculty to do research. a student in my program took a job at an LAC last year and he has a huge research budget and a comparatively light teaching load (either 2/2 or 2/3, i don't recall).

i'd like to reiterate that i think it's critical to go to the best possible program that you can. but "best possible program" or even "most prestigious program" doesn't always line up with "ivy league." i know a handful of students at ivy league schools who have no one to function as their primary advisor, so they work with profs from other schools, sometimes hundreds of miles away, and do all their advising through skype. and these aren't "co-advisors" or secondary advisors. these are their primary people. to me, that's sort of cheating the system... getting the ivy league degree AND getting the best possible professor to advise you, because i see it as a trade-off. unless you're lucky enough (or your work is broad enough) to have someone at an ivy with relevant interests to your own, you have to choose between the best professor and the "best" or most prestigious program. maybe other people in larger subfields don't run into that problem as much.

[BadgerHopeful]

Not to mention the fact that of the 8 Ivies, one doesn't even have a PhD program, and two others aren't in the top 10 (one of which isn't even in the top 15) if you look at US News.*

*Which, of course, comes with its many, many flaws.

[gradstudenthistory]

Good point about LAC's with a lighter teaching load. I did mean my comment to be more about LAC's with 4-4 teaching. And I'm not anti-LAC as such: but you do often hear of people getting stuck there, and never having time to do anything other than teach.

Regarding Ivies, it is obviously foolish to apply to an Ivy just because it's an Ivy. Also, I don't think being an official "Ivy" matters. Obviously, Stanford is just as good as Harvard. Other schools fall into the same prestige category. I do think that if you look into, say, the top 10 or 15 programs, most people will find at least one or two with a reasonable match of interests. There are of course exceptions.

But I do think people often have very specific expectations of what they want out of an advisor, which sometimes surprises me. I work on the same region and time period as my advisor, and we both do cultural history, but we work on completely separate questions. I like it better that way. She is very helpful, available, and knowledgeable about the field. But I'm kind of glad I'm not commenting directly on her work: that could be potentially awkward. I know that people have different opinions on this, although broadly speaking, I think American universities have a broader conception of what a reasonable advisor-advisee match would be. In Britain, for example, they want a much closer match. I do think the attitude also varies by subfield. The extremes that I've noticed are on the one hand, the Americanists, who have the luxury of being super picky about what they want in that advisor-advisee relationship, since there are so many Americanist faculty at most universities; and on the other hand, subfields like early modern Europe or a nonwestern part of the world that has one or two faculty members. The latter categories have to have a much broader conception of what works.

But when thinking in terms of what a good match is, I would certainly advise being open minded about advisors. I think it's more important to have 1) A strong department that it is a good intellectual fit; and 2) an approachable, available advisor than to have an advisor whose interests exactly or very nearly match your own.

And keep in mind: your interests might well change! So choosing an advisor for very specific reasons might not end up being that helpful in the long run.

[StrangeLight]

i don't think it's important to have an advisor whose interests totally match your own. i DO think it's important to have an advisor who says "i can advise you on this." some individuals are more flexible than others with regards to advising outside of their expertise. when i applied to PhD programs two years ago (or three? i don't even know anymore), several potential advisors i contacted told me that they wouldn't be able to advise my sub-region. and they were right. it was like asking a british historian to advise on hungary just because it was a "top 10" program.

as for the top 10...

harvard is ranked 9th for latin american history. THEY DON'T HAVE A LATIN AMERICANIST HISTORIAN. they have someone that does the US southwest and occasionally talks about borderlands and they have someone that works on the colonial (anglophone) caribbean. that's it. according to some latin americanists, the borderlands and the english caribbean don't even count as part of latin america. a colleague of mine got into harvard to study the caribbean and they classified her as a US historian, told her that her coursework and comps field would be US history, so she turned them down. and that's the 9th best program in the country? harvard has a history of producing great latin americanist historians, but those students graduated 10-15 years ago and their potential advisor (someone willing to work far outside his region, time period, and thematic interest, which is rare) retired.

there are a lot of programs surviving in the top 10 based on their past laurels.

[gradstudenthistory]

harvard is ranked 9th for latin american history. THEY DON'T HAVE A LATIN AMERICANIST HISTORIAN. they have someone that does the US southwest and occasionally talks about borderlands and they have someone that works on the colonial (anglophone) caribbean. that's it. according to some latin americanists, the borderlands and the english caribbean don't even count as part of latin america. a colleague of mine got into harvard to study the caribbean and they classified her as a US historian, told her that her coursework and comps field would be US history, so she turned them down. and that's the 9th best program in the country? harvard has a history of producing great latin americanist historians, but those students graduated 10-15 years ago and their potential advisor (someone willing to work far outside his region, time period, and thematic interest, which is rare) retired.

there are a lot of programs surviving in the top 10 based on their past laurels.

The retired advisor in question retired only 2 years ago I think. He still has grad students finishing, so that ranking might not be completely crazy. But it is crazy -- I agree -- for anyone applying now.

I also believe the only Caribbean historian at Harvard left.

[Jeppe]

The retired advisor in question retired only 2 years ago I think. He still has grad students finishing, so that ranking might not be completely crazy. But it is crazy -- I agree -- for anyone applying now.

I also believe the only Caribbean historian at Harvard left.

Do you mean Vincent Brown? As far as I know, he is on leave in 2010-2011, but I do believe he is returning afterwards.

[StrangeLight]

yeah, i think i just saw that vincent brown is somewhere else now.

and yeah, for sure, harvard's latin americanists did really well before the retirement. but it doesn't make sense for people to apply there now, and the rankings don't reflect that. berkeley and UCLA have also lost important people from recent retirement. yale's youngest latin americanist moved to florida and the two who are left, while still actively working and taking on graduate students, are getting close to retirement age.

i guess my only point is that the "top 10" rankings are really problematic because they're outdated. so, depending on your subfield, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to apply to half the schools in the top 10.

[ChibaCityBlues]

Do you mean Vincent Brown? As far as I know, he is on leave in 2010-2011, but I do believe he is returning afterwards.

He ain't going back. He's at Duke now.

[gradstudenthistory]

Yeah, Vince Brown is gone. (And for sure his own research interests would explain why a Caribbeanist applicant would be classified as an Americanist.) Harvard also tried unsuccessfully to poach Rebecca Scott. I don't think Harvard as much in the way of immediate prospects for a future in Latin American history.

It's a perfectly valid point that people with less-studied subfields aren't going to find a lot of matches in the top 10. Applying because they are top 10 is of course nonsense.

The big reasons I made some of the points I made above, though, was because it seemed to me that the consensus on this thread had gone too far in the direction of rank being a lesser factor for consideration. Rank cannot make up for big deficiencies such as lack of advising or lack of specialty coverage, but we shouldn't undersell the importance of rank, nonetheless. Unfortunately, I think that's idealism gone a bit too far. It seemed to me that the OP was chastised a bit for wanting to aim for the Ivies. In my view, a cautionary "make sure it's actually a good fit" is more on the order of good, realistic advice than the suggestion that maybe Ivy League is not all that important.*

*And I do use Ivy loosely. I really mean Top 10, or even Top 15, schools.

[Jeppe]

He ain't going back. He's at Duke now.

Well that sucks ... Thanks for the information though.

[StrangeLight]

unc was also trying to poach rebecca scott, so there was some fear that lou perez was leaving, but it looks like they just hired cynthia radding instead.

if you're using "ivy" to mean "top 10/15," then i take your point about rank being an important factor provided there are no other major deficiencies (like advising or regional coverage). but i took the OP as meaning "ivy league" like harvard/princeton/yale with no real consideration of his/her own research interests. it seemed more like "i want to tell people i go to harvard," rather than "i want to get into the best possible program for what i want to study."

[BadgerHopeful]

*And I do use Ivy loosely. I really mean Top 10, or even Top 15, schools.

I think it's amusing how sensitive a lot of Ivy Leaguers are to this subject. A lot of people use "Ivy League" to mean any prestigious, elite, school, but some of these Ivy Leaguers get very upset when this happens.

[Jeppe]

I think it's amusing how sensitive a lot of Ivy Leaguers are to this subject. A lot of people use "Ivy League" to mean any prestigious, elite, school, but some of these Ivy Leaguers get very upset when this happens.

Really? I don't know anyone at my school who are sensitive in this manner, but it might be more widespread among the undergraduate population. After all, a lot of the graduate students come from other schools and have a slightly wider perspective on this sort of stuff.

[pudewen]

I think it's amusing how sensitive a lot of Ivy Leaguers are to this subject. A lot of people use "Ivy League" to mean any prestigious, elite, school, but some of these Ivy Leaguers get very upset when this happens.

As someone who did my undergrad at an Ivy, I'd say none of my classmates would get "upset" about someone using the term Ivy League to refer to any prestigious school, we just thought it was silly (and I still do) because the Ivy League is a collegiate sports conference with a specific membership that has nothing to do with those 8 schools being the best 8 in the country academically (they obviously aren't and never have been, particularly since the term "Ivy League" was invented).

[BadgerHopeful]

As someone who did my undergrad at an Ivy, I'd say none of my classmates would get "upset" about someone using the term Ivy League to refer to any prestigious school, we just thought it was silly (and I still do) because the Ivy League is a collegiate sports conference with a specific membership that has nothing to do with those 8 schools being the best 8 in the country academically (they obviously aren't and never have been, particularly since the term "Ivy League" was invented).

Really? I also did my undergrad at an Ivy - I guess we just had different experiences / encountered different people.

[qbtacoma]

As someone who did my undergrad at an Ivy, I'd say none of my classmates would get "upset" about someone using the term Ivy League to refer to any prestigious school, we just thought it was silly (and I still do) because the Ivy League is a collegiate sports conference with a specific membership that has nothing to do with those 8 schools being the best 8 in the country academically (they obviously aren't and never have been, particularly since the term "Ivy League" was invented).

Tell that to the rest of the world. No one hears the term "Ivy League" without associating it with excellent (read: blueblood) academics.

[sarahBsarah]

kdavid,

You have a great goal, and you've taken some good steps towards achieving it.

Before I say anything, I'd like to say this:

The #1 most important part of your Chinese history phd application is to have a proven record of extensive research in the field of Chinese history, utilizing target-language primary sources.

I have walked a similar road as you, and I think there are a few things that I can help you with. The first few points could be called a rather harsh "reality check."

First: A masters in history at a Chinese university (even at Beida, the Harvard of China) is of little value, especially if the person earning the masters is a foreigner. This is not my personal opinion. This is straight out of the mouth of a well-known Princeton professor. What it will do for you is show that you have above-average Chinese language ability. What it will NOT do is make up for your lack of an undergrad Chinese history major. I would have to go into a lot of detail to prove this point, but in a nutshell: Chinese graduate school is very poor quality (although this is beginning to change in the areas of science and technology). I am serious when I say that top-10 Chinese history profs will view a masters from a Chinese university as a cop-out.

Second: Your English teaching experience, extensive though it may be, is also of little value. All 5-6 years of it is worth no more than a 1-sentence mention in your SoP. This is because teaching English is completely unrelated to the field of Chinese history. If you were applying to TESOL masters programs, you'd be set. But no history professor is going to be impressed by English teaching (and let's admit it, foreigners teaching English in China, even at a "professional" level, are a dime a dozen).

Third: At this point you may stop reading. But do continue on: I've had to learn all these things the hard way, and I'd rather you not have to. Here's the last "reality check" I have for you, before I start listing your 优点。I know exactly what it feels like to be a foreigner in China, especially a foreigner who speaks good Chinese. It feels really good. We get respect, compliments, friendships, job offers out the wazoo. After months or years of this, we start to believe that we really are spectacular -- unique -- even brilliant. (I'm sure you've been called a language 天赋 many times. Haven't we all.) And then when we come home to the US, people fawn all over us all over again. Wow, you've lived in China! Wow, you speak Chinese! You must be brilliant! So, to the average Chinese, and the average American, we are obviously Ivy League material. But the Ivy league profs and admissions committees, they can see through all the fluff and gloss. I'm not saying that you're NOT brilliant. I don't know you, I have no idea. But your plan for applying to an Ivy League PhD i can say with some assurance will not get you in.

Here's the good news.

First: Your preparations are quite likely to get you into an Ivy League masters program. Once there, you can 弥补 your research 不足, and apply to PhD programs again, this time with a great deal of confidence.

Second:I have spent years in China. I understand your drive (as perhaps normal Americans do not) to attend a 名校. And I completely support you in that. In the threads above, no one mentioned the fact that humanities PhDs are in oversupply. Even grads from top-tier schools have difficulty finding jobs. Advice given to me by a Yale prof: If you can't attend a top-10 program (I don't mean Ivy League-- I mean top 10 in CHinese history), don't attend at all.

Third: Cheers to your language prep! To round out your language skills, I'd definitely work on Japanese and Classical Chinese.

I hope that was helpful. Good luck! (And if you do get into an Ivy phd program, I'll be thrilled to death).

-- b

Edited August 30, 2011 by ailinna