Decisions, Decisions (for historians)...

[paint]

My view on this has changed dramatically of late.

Predictably, I'd say, you want a bit of both--prestige and advisor fit. But, for most of my academic life, I've thought a good advisor was the more important factor of the two. Now, going through this process (and having lots of "inside" conversations) I've learned a lot of ugly truths, including how often quality professors get seduced away from their departments by offers. So I'm starting to think prestige is, in fact, more important. A top-rate department can weather a major loss, usually replacing a top scholar with another big name within a couple of years with relative ease. Not only that, top scholars are less likely to want to leave a top-shelf program, since they've already climbed to "the top" so to speak. A less-than-elite program can land a famous historian, lose him/her, and then have a hard time getting another one. So our well thought-out search for fit--sometimes with major sacrifice--is often more tenuous and risky than we think.

I would complicate this a bit. The advisor is clearly key -- both in terms of the scholarship the student produces and in terms of connections and networks that produce jobs. That said, the link between advisor and institution certainly matters. But the connection may not hinge on prestige. To take the example of someone in the news today, Bill Cronon has stayed at Wisconsin despite a plethora of offers from other institutions. As he notes in his blog post about the current insanity, were he somehow to lose his position, he could hop over to any number of places and get hired and paid significantly more. He has been turning down offers for years. If you want to study environmental history, get into Wisconsin (and get funded), there's no reason not to go work with him. He's not leaving Madison voluntarily any time soon. Seduction happens, but only to those who want to be seduced. Ferreting out who might be interested or willing to leave would be a wise move before making a decision.

It's true that prestigious and wealthy institutions can fill holes more quickly than others. But in this economic climate, even that is slowing and when it happens, it's hard to predict who the department will hire. Given this, I would suggest that it is the advisor + overall department that matters. As one mentor said to me, "your advisor could get hit by a car tomorrow, are there enough other people to work with that you will be ok." Most schools allow for outside readers on dissertation committees which means that you can replace 1 person with an equal from another institution (provided, of course, you have built a relationship with someone else). This also means that should your advisor pick up and move in 2 years, s/he would usually stay on the committee of his/her students. The real question is who else already in the department will fill out your committee and push you along. Don't go anywhere that lacks a good supporting cast.

[qbtacoma]

I predict a fallow season for Wisconsin on all levels of education for about the next decade, K-12 and up, unless the unions successfully lash back in the next year or so. There's just going to be an outflux of many, many teachers, a corresponding shortage and then a rise in salaries/benefits for them after that. The universities are going to have a hard time attracting really informed students who will consider their working conditions without a union. Of course this analysis is all wrapped up with assumptions that employers will refrain from improving pay/working conditions without the presence of unions, so perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised and Wisconsin will do fine.

I'll definitely agree with paint on the importance of the overall department environment as well. The advisor is extremely important for introducing someone to the historiography, but let me illustrate my own case (as I perceive it now; when I get to school in the fall perhaps I'll be surprised!). I'm going to be advised by a political historian who has only recently started in on medical history. However, two other professors have expressed interest in guiding me as well with my secondary interests, and there may be a strong history of medicine cohort in my year. So I don't feel as though I'm going to be limited even though my advisor and I won't match exactly; the department as a whole is a great fit.

That said, I'm doing the MA first. Maybe this will be fine for the MA, but for the PhD it would really be more appropriate to have closer fit options with my advisor.

[borderlands]

While having an advisor who is known in your field of interest is great it is not necessary. In fact, there are great scholars who did not have faculty in their dissertation committee who are specialists in their fields of study.

Interests change and it is not completely unheard of a graduate student applying interested in something and realizes their second year they are interested in something else. Of course, when applying one looks for ideal advisors in such and such specialty, but one should also look for support even if it's outside of their knowledge.

I have had faculty who is outside my historical subfield supervise my thesis simply because there was no one else doing that kind of work. This can be rewarding as well as frustrating, at certain points, because one can't turn to an advisor for specific questions. But in regards to the historical field the objectives are the same and one can engage with professors outside of one's department to other history departments as well as conferences.

I would look into the department as a whole and ask: if I were to change my research interest would I still go to this university for the next five to seven years? I look for supportive faculty, even those outside my subfield in history, as well as fellow students I can share my work with.

[cyborges]

@borderlands:

Thanks for the thorough, thoughtful response. It's helpful to get the inside track from someone with experience there. The things you've said about resources and public-university bureaucracy (bolded above) definitely resonate with me. As an undergraduate, I spent time at a wealthy, prestigious institution as well as a well-regarded, public university. The contrast was definitely stark and difficult-to-swallow at times. It's helpful to know that I would be dealing with similar issues at Berkeley. Though my sense is that the graduate school goes to great lengths to insulate grad students from this larger experience, I don't know that they're that successful at it.

@cyborges:

Thanks for the thoughtful and informative input. This seems to be a common complaint, if not the consensus, about Cambridge/Boston. It doesn't seem as bad as New Haven, Philadelphia, or Princeton, but less interesting than, say, a New York. I'd be coming from the Los Angeles Area--in my view, one of the most diverse, resource-rich regions of the world. So, Boston (which I've spent time in in the past) would definitely be a downgrade. But, to be frank, I see the Bay Area as a downgrade too (though certainly a lot less so). That's just SoCal bias talking, though. Is it that you don't like the New England "vibe" at large, or do you feel that Boston and Cambridge is just exceptionally lifeless and stale? I couldn't agree more about the Harvard vibe. It's a rare thing, palpable at only a few American institutions, in my opinion.

That's a fair criticism (bolded above). I kept specifics about professors and interests out of the initial post because I didn't want to overwhelm readers with details. In brief (though broadly speaking), I'm an Americanist interested in matters of racial and ethnic identity; language and ideologies; and transnational, comparative notions of race. My period--to extent that it will be necessary--is likely the late nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries, though there are some interesting underpinnings in early America. At this point, you could just as easily put me in the U.S. Intellectual History category as the U.S. Social History one. Needless to say, these interests may shift over time.

As of now, the scholars break down like this--though this could change with shifting interests, departures, or new hires. (Note that, as an Americanist, there are several people at each school with whom I could work. I'm therefore thinking in "committee" terms.)

Harvard: Jill Lepore, Walter Johnson, Lisa McGirr, Sven Beckert

Berkeley: Brian DeLay, Waldo Martin, Kerwin Klein, Mark Brilliant (more of a focus on the Southwest, borderlands)

There are certainly brilliant (and potentially pertinent) scholars left out of that list. Richard Candida Smith, Robin Einhorn, and Rebecca McLennan at Berkeley are all well-regarded scholars that could "switch out" for the people I've listed above, as things evolve. At Harvard, Lizabeth Cohen, James Kloppenberg, and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham could do the same. I'm not lying--or repeating some statement-of-purpose talking points--when I say that both places have a faculty replete with people with whom I could address these intellectual concerns.

Does this clear up the picture at all? Do you recommend Berkeley strictly based on your preference(s) about location?

I pm'd you

[sidiosquiere]

I am still undecided between two schools. School A has an excellent fit, but the library sucks, the school is not THAT prestigious in terms of History, the school does not offer language instruction for what I need, and I only received four years of funding (two year fellowship and two year TA-ship). I would have to try to fund my own way for summer language learning opportunities. There is no doubt though that I can get the best training in the historiography of my field at this school. To make things more complicated, I did my BA at school A. Having done my MA elsewhere, I wonder how it would would look like to people who hire if I did my PhD at the same place I did my BA at.

School B is a very prestigious program for History. It has excellent language resources, the library is pretty damn amazing, and the money they offered me was amazing. On top of that, they have excellent language learning resources, and they even offer one time summer stipend to fund language training abroad. Here's what sucks - the fit. On top of that, the main adviser I'd be working with did not even let me know that he was not going to be in town when I visited the school. I had to e-mail him when I saw that he was not on my itinerary. We've talked on the phone, and he seems nice. None of this would be so much of a concern if there was a better supporting cast, but there is not. It makes me wonder why I applied here in the first place.

Quite frankly, I do not know what to do.

[StrangeLight]

school B.

you do not need someone who does exactly what you do in order to advise you. what you need is a critical eye, someone that will push you in your work and keep you on schedule and challenge you. YOU can figure out the historiography yourself. and frankly, you should. as professors, we will have to learn entire subfields on our own if our work takes us that way. given your current background, you should already know some of the major texts in your subject. look at their footnotes, see which books they ALL cite, move from there.

school B sounds in every way better than school A. the prestige, the money, the library, the appearance/image on the job market. the only shortcomings are not getting to meet your advisor and not having a strong enough supporting cast. and does this lack of a supporting cast mean there aren't others who study modern mexico (for example) or aren't others who study latin america? if it's the former, i'd say this is a non-issue. if it's the latter, then it would be a legitimate concern. even then, in the pros and cons list, this aren't enough reasons to pick school A over school B.

that said, the fact that this seems to be a difficult decision AT ALL for you means that, really, you'd rather be at school A. don't feel bad for making a "bad decision" on paper (picking school A) if it's where your heart really is, but recognize that this is more a decision of the heart than a dispassionate weighing of pros and cons. if school A wasn't your undergrad school, but some other institution, would the choice between A and B be this difficult?

[sankd]

school B.

you do not need someone who does exactly what you do in order to advise you. what you need is a critical eye, someone that will push you in your work and keep you on schedule and challenge you. YOU can figure out the historiography yourself. and frankly, you should. as professors, we will have to learn entire subfields on our own if our work takes us that way. given your current background, you should already know some of the major texts in your subject. look at their footnotes, see which books they ALL cite, move from there.

I don't think it should just be whether they can construct a prelims reading list of appropriate breadth. Frankly, you should have an advisor that will actually care about what you are doing. "Fit" often helps, but it doesn't necessarily mean that having the same exact research areas will motivate the professor to make time to read over your work, suggest research directions, make office time available for you, direct you to workshops/conferences, help with networking, and so on.

While that may sound like a whole load of hand-holding, I think mentoring still involves the little things like just showing up for your student's presentation. Letting your student know you got a fellowship to study abroad for a semester (and then Skyping if necessary). I know a lot of graduate students and a lot of professors, and some professors are just terrible advisors.

EDIT: I am lucky that I actually do have an advisor that cares about my work and career. They have fought for me publicly and privately. Which is why choosing to leave was not as easy as it would seem on paper.

Edited April 10, 2011 by sankd

[borderlands]

@sidiosquiere

First, you should not be upset at the fact that your potential advisor was not there for the recruitment day for the program. I was similarly unable to meet a few professors whom I was interested in working with because they were on paid leave doing research out of the country. The issue at hand seems, I believe, to be structure of the program (funding and resources) vs. "fit" (faculty support).

These are questions that are difficult and I went with the former. I think it's best to have all the resources you need to successfully complete graduate study than having a professor or two who can advise you through your interests in whatever subfield of history they may be in. A graduate student needs strong and supportive faculty who will look out for you. However this relationship can be, and is, built once you are in the graduate program. Go with School B

I personally went with the graduate program that offered me the most resources over particular fit-- but this is a decision only you can make; knowing how you work--under what conditions.

[hist07]

I registered just to reply to this comment! As a current grad student, I think your relationship to your adviser is crucial to your success and happiness in the program. I have a wonderful adviser who is very excited about my project. Her advisees get more jobs, publish more frequently, etc. than many other students in my program, in large part because she is an exceptional adviser and teacher, and knows how to work with graduate students effectively. You *could* train yourself in the historiography of your field (which, from your account, is very strong at school A and weak at school B ), but why would you want to, when you could take seminars with fellow students and a core faculty? Another factor to consider is your cohort -- will you be able to work alongside students in your field? I am able to talk through my ideas almost daily with a group of fellow students who know the literature as well as I do -- it has made my experience infinitely more pleasant, and I am a better scholar because my ideas are (constructively) challenged all the time. I disagree with the previous poster -- it is concerning that your potential adviser did not even contact you to let you know that you could not meet during recruitment weekend. It's understandable if they had to be away for research, but you are making a large commitment to work with them for several years, and they should take that commitment seriously. But I agree with borderlands on the last point: you need to know the conditions under which you will thrive, and figure out which program provides those conditions.

Edited April 11, 2011 by hist07

[tapshoes]

I am leaning toward a decision, but still have reservations about making it official. So, here goes:

School 1

A very large department with lots of faculty, in a public university with some budget issues, though I have five years of guaranteed funding which I'm told will not be effected by any potential cuts that should occur in the future. My two prospective advisors are huge in the areas I want to focus on--one is a senior faculty member, the other is about 10 years out of her PhD (that's a guess!). They both publish a lot, and have gotten offers from the most prestigious schools in the US, but have opted to stay at this institution. I've met both of them, have talked with them numerous times over email/phone, and get the sense that they will be genuinely supportive of my project--and I have been very open about the fact that I see a few different directions in which I might want to take my work. Their current students/co-advisees have said great things about them both, and that they are an amazing team. One first year student already has a publication in the pipeline, which his advisor helped him secure. Plus, their students are regularly placed in tenure-track jobs. The biggest downsides are the distance from where I currently live (and thus distance from my partner and family), the overall ranking of the program (bottom end of top 20, though most profs/grad students I've spoken to think this is an amazing department, despite the rankings...), and the funding ultimately pales in comparison to what I'm being offered from the other school I'm considering.

School 2

Moderately sized department but a VERY small graduate program (think 6-8 students in the entire cohort, and I'd be the only one doing US History), in a prestigious private university that has no budget issues to speak of. Five years of guaranteed funding that, frankly, is beyond generous (almost twice as much per year as some of my other offers). My prospective advisors are very supportive and seem to genuinely want me to come, though their work differs quite a bit from my own (one or two have the same general subfield, but we differ markedly in thematic/geographical/chronological focus). That said, I am not intimidated by having to figure things out on my own, working independently, etc. With THAT said, some of the current students seem a bit isolated, perhaps because the cohort size is so small and winters can be long and harsh (I hear seasonal depression is common). Some students are also unhappy about the lack of course offerings in the graduate program. Many students end up taking some undergrad courses with advanced readings on top in order to fulfill their seminar requirements. (No students at School 1 complained about the intellectual environment/structure of the program.) This school is about a four hour drive and is thus, in theory, closer to where I live. But it's not necessarily easy to get to this place via mass transportation.

I think it's pretty clear which program I'm leaning toward...ultimately, what still makes this a difficult decision is 1) the great funding and 2) perceived prestige of School 2. I'd appreciate any thoughts/tips, here or in PM!

[sidiosquiere]

After much thinking, I have come to the decision that I will turn down the big name school and go with the lesser ranked program because the fit is much better. I asked myself - who do I REALLY want to work with, and why. I kept coming to the lesser ranked program. The fit is just incredibly perfect, and I get along great with the potential advisers. I really believe that I will write a strong dissertation if I go to this lesser ranked program. I will be losing out on some language learning opportunities, but hopefully I am successful in my bids for national fellowships that fund language study. I have not yet made the decision, but I think I will be making it official tomorrow morning. The only thing I hope and pray for is that I do not regret this decision five years down the line when it comes to applying for jobs. I keep coming back to the question, does name really matter?

[Bukharan]

After much thinking, I have come to the decision that I will turn down the big name school and go with the lesser ranked program because the fit is much better. I asked myself - who do I REALLY want to work with, and why. I kept coming to the lesser ranked program. The fit is just incredibly perfect, and I get along great with the potential advisers. I really believe that I will write a strong dissertation if I go to this lesser ranked program. I will be losing out on some language learning opportunities, but hopefully I am successful in my bids for national fellowships that fund language study. I have not yet made the decision, but I think I will be making it official tomorrow morning. The only thing I hope and pray for is that I do not regret this decision five years down the line when it comes to applying for jobs. I keep coming back to the question, does name really matter?

Congratulations on making the decision! I can only commend you for following your heart and choosing a school (and excellent one; so don't even think about the rating) which will help you become a better historian and let you work with the people who do exactly what you want to do!

[borderlands]

@sidiosquiere

Congrats on making a decision! Unfortunately, rankings do matter however there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it and that is the reality. Some programs have greater strenghts in some areas than others but more importantly its about knowing where you will be most productive in what kind of program. Smaller graduate programs seem so much more committed to their graduate students than well established programs. Wish you nothing but the best! borderlands

[knigis]

I'm not sure what to do about my graduate school situation, I've been admitted to TCU but wait-listed for funding, and I've been admitted to Texas State, which unfortunately has no funding to give out this year. I was accepted to two other schools, but I pretty much ruled them out due to lack of funding as well. Because I'm a Texas resident, Texas State is about $6,000 a year. Is it worth it to go into debt for my Masters? I've saved enough money for one year, but not the other.

[borderlands]

Why rankings matter? I found this article this morning and I thought about our discussion: if and when rankings matter. This article, although five years old, is quite revealing of aspects of top ranking history programs. Simply food for thought.

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2005/0510/0510new2.cfm