Can I get into a top History PhD program?

[Sigaba]

Definitely, and I am not going to go there if that was the intention of the said post. The OP was simply asking for advice...I'm assuming he gave gender and race as just another piece of information on top of his qualifications. It was a simple introduction. Again, I don't really understand what the point of that post was. Sigaba, if you want to expand upon your statement you could, I am honestly just confused. If I did misinterpret what you message was, I do apologize. I suggested that you might want to take your post down because regardless of what you intended to say, you are hitting the wrong note. I'm assuming this given that multiple people are voting you down. I honestly don't understand what you meant by saying that there would be more traction if I had said "for my own sake." I think it is important to recognize that everyone identifies themselves differently. There really is no need, in my opinion, to question why someone identifies himself or herself the way they do. It really is their personal choice.

ZeeMore21--

A key question that aspiring historians on this BB might ask themselves is: "What are you doing to build your identity as a credible professional academic historian?" Subordinate questions include: "Is your expertise in a field going to be based upon the work you've done or on your gender and skin color?"

If aspiring historians decide to address questions such as these, they will soon realize that they will most likely not receive direct guidance from established professionals on how to answer. Many of you will find that opportunities to receive hands-on / behind closed door mentoring from tenured professors will prove to be the exception than the rule of your coming experiences. Many of you will find that your professors will allowed you to make otherwise avoidable mistakes. They will do so for reasons ranging from teaching philosophy, to disinterest, to dislike, to legitimate ethical reasons, and to the fact that sometimes, older adults like to watch younger adults fumble around looking for the light switch. (Once you find the light switch, you will have the option of telling others where it is or letting them find it for themselves.)

Consequently, much of your professional training will thus require you to pay close attention to how established historians do things. In my experiences, I've not encountered a professional academic historian in any field who uses gender and race as the lead indicators of expertise or as qualifications. These experiences include: undergraduate and graduate coursework, and reading academic journals, monographs, and dissertations. I've also interviewed established historians in support of historiographical research, attended endowed lectures, "book talks," and attended invitation-only "job talks." (These invitations should come as you advance along in a program.) I've also had the good fortune of having excellent mentors (and the misfortune of having one really bad one).

Yes, historians do talk about the overlap between their personal experiences and their professional development, most notably in introductory graduate seminars on historiography, closed door conversations, published interviews, and in autobiographies/memoirs. Even then, such comments do not come anywhere close to being the leading point as they are in the OP.

Insofar as some members of this BB taking umbrage with my perceived tone, I say "How about that." Those members of this BB who make it into a graduate history program will find themselves in an environment of intense debate. They will find themselves in wide-ranging conversations that focus on all aspects of history and historiography. These conversations will include what one studies and why as well as what a historian says and how he says it. (I know of a highly reputable historian who was not offered an endowed professorship in no small part because faculty members of the hiring department took exception with his use of a single word in a presentation.)

Consequently, if a direct question about why someone describes himself a certain way strikes you as too strident, you may want to reconsider your field of study. Otherwise, you might prepare yourself for the possibility that, somewhere along the line, someone is going to ask you a question you dislike, you don't understand, you don't know how to answer, or you don't find relevant. How you address that question (or avoid answering that question) is going to shape how others regard you as a historian.

[ZeeMore21]

Consequently, if a direct question about why someone describes himself a certain way strikes you as too strident, you may want to reconsider your field of study. Otherwise, you might prepare yourself for the possibility that, somewhere along the line, someone is going to ask you a question you dislike, you don't understand, you don't know how to answer, or you don't find relevant. How you address that question (or avoid answering that question) is going to shape how others regard you as a historian.

I actually don't believe I need to rethink what field I am in, I will be just fine. Yes, I do find connections between my identity and what I study, and I also have the academic credentials to establish myself in my field.

Like I said in the post you just quoted, I was curious as to why you felt that race and identity "figured so prominently" in the OP's post...though the OP only mentioned it briefly. I thought your statement was a gross generalization of the OP's post. The main point of the OP's post was to ask for advice about his qualifications, perhaps he used his identity and gender as a simple introduction....I have seen countless posts on this forum where posters new to GradCafe introduce themselves giving basic, personal information.

To add on to what you just said, I also think that how you ask a question is just as important.

Edited August 2, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[CageFree]

For those of us who come from immigrant backgrounds, it is unavoidable that those backgrounds will influence our interests. Why is someone from China or of Chinese background often drawn to study Chinese history? Of course that's not a requirement... I've met African-American professors who taught Tudor England, and German professors who taught the Middle East.

Part of the personal statements I've read asks how you became connected to the area you want to study. Should someone lie and say, "oh, I was just reading about China and randomly thought I would be interested," when they are Chinese? That's unrealistic.

[Sigaba]

I actually don't believe I need to rethink what field I am in, I will be just fine. Yes, I do find connections between my identity and what I study, and I also have the academic credentials to establish myself in my field.

Like I said in the post you just quoted, I was curious as to why you felt that race and identity "figured so prominently" in the OP's post...though the OP only mentioned it briefly. I thought your statement was a gross generalization of the OP's post. The main point of the OP's post was to ask for advice about his qualifications, perhaps he used his identity and gender as a simple introduction....I have seen countless posts on this forum where posters new to GradCafe introduce themselves giving basic, personal information.

To add on to what you just said, I also think that how you ask a question is just as important.

ZeeMore21--

You have, again, misread a post. My comments were directed at those members of this BB who want to study history at the graduate level in a history department. (Hence, my emphasis on the word "history".)

• Why are you offering advice/guidance in a forum for history and in a thread asking about admissions to a doctoral program in history?
  
• Is it your actual experience that getting into a doctoral program in English is the same as getting into one in history?
  
• Do the conventions on an internet BB translate into the 'best practices' of professional academic history?
  

[ZeeMore21]

ZeeMore21--

You have, again, misread a post. My comments were directed at those members of this BB who want to study history at the graduate level in a history department. (Hence, my emphasis on the word "history".)

• Why are you offering advice/guidance in a forum for history and in a thread asking about admissions to a doctoral program in history?
  
• Is it your actual experience that getting into a doctoral program in English is the same as getting into one in history?
  
• Do the conventions on an internet BB translate into the 'best practices' of professional academic history?
  

Given that your last post was headed with "Zeemore," I understood your entire post as directed toward me, my mistake.

Given that this is a public forum, I can give advice anywhere I feel like I am able to. It is because I disagree with you that you now have an issue with me being in a field outside of History...and you have yet to explain why you made such a generalization of the OP's post. Because the OP is studying African American history, and I study this in combination with African American cultural studies, yes, I am qualified to give advice.Because I am familiar with the professors the OP mentioned, again, I thought I could be helpful. And since I have had a successful admissions year, I am very eager to give any tips I can to help others in any way. Obviously, people don't have to take my advice if they don't think it would be helpful, but that doesn't mean I won't give advice in the first place. I actually don't see how my advice is less helpful than yours, if we can even call that your initial post advice in the first place. I responded directly to what the OP was asking. I don't think you would disagree with advice I gave in a previous post to the OP, that one's personal statement and writing sample is important. Whether it is a English graduate program or a History graduate program, this is advice can be helpful.

I am not saying that what is found on this forum is the model for how one should conduct themselves in an academic setting. However, I do understand that this is pretty much an informal setting, and people usually let down their guard here.

Edited August 3, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[qbtacoma]

ZeeMore21--

You have, again, misread a post. My comments were directed at those members of this BB who want to study history at the graduate level in a history department. (Hence, my emphasis on the word "history".)

• Why are you offering advice/guidance in a forum for history and in a thread asking about admissions to a doctoral program in history?
  
• Is it your actual experience that getting into a doctoral program in English is the same as getting into one in history?
  
• Do the conventions on an internet BB translate into the 'best practices' of professional academic history?
  

This is not an exclusive forum, and Zeemore is quite qualified to advise the OP, as she has pointed out, more so than someone who is nominally in a history program (such as myself, or you, since you didn't deign to offer the OP any real advice pertaining to professors in the field). In any case the OP is in a stage where most general information is helpful.

And I think you should answer the question about why you thought one sentence in an informal post was the OP defining every aspect of his work in terms of his race and gender. Do you not hear the rest of us who say that is an exaggeration?

Also your implication that people who object to your tone just can't handle the "intense" debate culture of academia also is a bit off-base. It is possible to be both passionate and respectful, and your posts are generally not the latter. I find your elaboration, even parts I disagree with, interesting and worthwhile, but that doesn't excuse the fact that you hijacked a thread with a personal attack and then told one of the discussants with practical experience in the subject that she wasn't worthy to take part in the conversation because she is in a different field. Rude and unacceptable.

[ZeeMore21]

This is not an exclusive forum, and Zeemore is quite qualified to advise the OP, as she has pointed out, more so than someone who is nominally in a history program (such as myself, or you, since you didn't deign to offer the OP any real advice pertaining to professors in the field). In any case the OP is in a stage where most general information is helpful.

And I think you should answer the question about why you thought one sentence in an informal post was the OP defining every aspect of his work in terms of his race and gender. Do you not hear the rest of us who say that is an exaggeration?

Also your implication that people who object to your tone just can't handle the "intense" debate culture of academia also is a bit off-base. It is possible to be both passionate and respectful, and your posts are generally not the latter. I find your elaboration, even parts I disagree with, interesting and worthwhile, but that doesn't excuse the fact that you hijacked a thread with a personal attack and then told one of the discussants with practical experience in the subject that she wasn't worthy to take part in the conversation because she is in a different field. Rude and unacceptable.

I really appreciate this qbtacoma, thank you.

[qbtacoma]

I really appreciate this qbtacoma, thank you.

Of course! Keep being awesome.

[StrangeLight]

And Strangelight, I definitely do understand what you are trying to say...I just think that Sigaba came off very rude. Race and gender actually took up one short line in the OP's initial post...there was no reason to accuse the OP of filling up his entire post with his identity. That clearly isn't true. If Sigaba was actually curious about why the OP introduced himself the way he did, there could have been a non-accusatory way of asking a question...and I am sure the OP could have provided an explanation if he wanted to.

the thing is, sigaba did not accuse the OP of filling up his entire post with his identity. he simply asked why he chose to include that information, and to make it first.

and while you definitely had a successful admissions year, you didn't get in everywhere, right? there are multiple reasons for that, but including a statement in your SOP that is controversial is bound to alienate someone on an adcom. they're best to avoid, unless you're intentionally being provocative for personal or political reasons. i'm just saying that including this information IS controversial and that people should be aware of that before they do so in their SOP. i'm not saying they should or shouldn't do it, simply that they should be aware that they are making a particular philosophical and political statement (knowingly or otherwise) by thinking it's important to mention their identity. you also risk essentializing that identity, which is a no-no in cultural history.

[qbtacoma]

the thing is, sigaba did not accuse the OP of filling up his entire post with his identity. he simply asked why he chose to include that information, and to make it first.

and while you definitely had a successful admissions year, you didn't get in everywhere, right? there are multiple reasons for that, but including a statement in your SOP that is controversial is bound to alienate someone on an adcom. they're best to avoid, unless you're intentionally being provocative for personal or political reasons. i'm just saying that including this information IS controversial and that people should be aware of that before they do so in their SOP. i'm not saying they should or shouldn't do it, simply that they should be aware that they are making a particular philosophical and political statement (knowingly or otherwise) by thinking it's important to mention their identity. you also risk essentializing that identity, which is a no-no in cultural history.

Now, if only Sigaba had said it like that from the start.

It is interesting to think about why one person can read the statement "I am [race][gender]" and think "This is supplementary information about someone" and another person can read the same thing and think "Why is this person so insistent on sharing this?" I had an "aha" moment in high school psychology when my teacher told us about the tendency of white people and men, when asked to describe themselves, to list personal traits first, while non-whites and women tend to mention their race and gender before all else. (Obviously that data comes from the US context.) It just really drove home to me how people in positions of privilege don't see it, don't even incorporate it into their sense of self. Actively being aware of one's own body is evidence of receiving negative reactions from others based on having that body.

I suspect that when people check back with themselves and ask "would I ever describe myself in this way?" their answer to that question feeds into the initial response to the "I am [race][gender]" statement.

[Safferz]

Now, if only Sigaba had said it like that from the start.

It is interesting to think about why one person can read the statement "I am [race][gender]" and think "This is supplementary information about someone" and another person can read the same thing and think "Why is this person so insistent on sharing this?" I had an "aha" moment in high school psychology when my teacher told us about the tendency of white people and men, when asked to describe themselves, to list personal traits first, while non-whites and women tend to mention their race and gender before all else. (Obviously that data comes from the US context.) It just really drove home to me how people in positions of privilege don't see it, don't even incorporate it into their sense of self. Actively being aware of one's own body is evidence of receiving negative reactions from others based on having that body.

I suspect that when people check back with themselves and ask "would I ever describe myself in this way?" their answer to that question feeds into the initial response to the "I am [race][gender]" statement.

Great point.

[ZeeMore21]

re

the thing is, sigaba did not accuse the OP of filling up his entire post with his identity. he simply asked why he chose to include that information, and to make it first.

and while you definitely had a successful admissions year, you didn't get in everywhere, right? there are multiple reasons for that, but including a statement in your SOP that is controversial is bound to alienate someone on an adcom. they're best to avoid, unless you're intentionally being provocative or political reasons. i'm just saying that including this information IS controversial and that people should be aware of that before they do so in their SOP. i'm not saying they should or shouldn't do it, simply that they should be aware that they are making a particular philosophical and political statement (knowingly or otherwise) by thinking it's important to mention their identity. you also risk essentializing that identity, which is a no-no in cultural history.

Not trying to come off rude, but because you weren't on any of the admissions committee that rejected me, I don't think you can assume that it must have been my inclusion of my heritage that was the root cause....i am hinting that you are trying to imply that. If so, I kind of take offense to you using my rejections as a way to prove that identity must be hidden in a application. If I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say, then I do apologize.

This issue definitely makes me think of racial privilege in this country...anyone who doesn't fit the white/male mold always has to hide who they are just to make the privileged group feel "more comfortable." And again, I really don't understand why, because someone mentions their race/gender, they are trying to be controversial or trying to make a political statement. What about someone including their identity because they are proud of it? What about someone including their identity because they are trying to be truthful to themselves and those around them? I think it is those that automatically feel uncomfortable and accusatory when issues or gender or race arise that need to do some introspection.

Like I said in my post, my background was definitely a foundation for my intellectual and academic development....my background as a child of West African immigrants did spur my decision to study black migration studies. That is definitely not anything that has to be hidden to make someone else feel better about themselves.

Edited August 4, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[ZeeMore21]

Now, if only Sigaba had said it like that from the start.

It is interesting to think about why one person can read the statement "I am [race][gender]" and think "This is supplementary information about someone" and another person can read the same thing and think "Why is this person so insistent on sharing this?" I had an "aha" moment in high school psychology when my teacher told us about the tendency of white people and men, when asked to describe themselves, to list personal traits first, while non-whites and women tend to mention their race and gender before all else. (Obviously that data comes from the US context.) It just really drove home to me how people in positions of privilege don't see it, don't even incorporate it into their sense of self. Actively being aware of one's own body is evidence of receiving negative reactions from others based on having that body.

I suspect that when people check back with themselves and ask "would I ever describe myself in this way?" their answer to that question feeds into the initial response to the "I am [race][gender]" statement.

Ran out of +1s today but great post!

[StrangeLight]

re

Not trying to come off rude, but because you weren't on any of the admissions committee that rejected me, I don't think you can assume that it must have been my inclusion of my heritage that was the root cause....i am hinting that you are trying to imply that. If so, I kind of take offense to you using my rejections as a way to prove that identity must be hidden in a application. If I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say, then I do apologize.

This issue definitely makes me think of racial privilege in this country...anyone who doesn't fit the white/male mold always has to hide who they are just to make the privileged group feel "more comfortable." And again, I really don't understand why, because someone mentions their race/gender, they are trying to be controversial or trying to make a political statement. What about someone including their identity because they are proud of it? What about someone including their identity because they are trying to be truthful to themselves and those around them? I think it is those that automatically feel uncomfortable and accusatory when issues or gender or race arise that need to do some introspection.

Like I said in my post, my background was definitely a foundation for my intellectual and academic development....my background as a child of West African immigrants did spur my decision to study black migration studies. That is definitely not anything that has to be hidden to make someone else feel better about themselves.

you have misread my post, perhaps intentionally. you can fight a strawman if you want to, i won't stop you.

[ZeeMore21]

you have misread my post, perhaps intentionally. you can fight a strawman if you want to, i won't stop you.

If I have misread your post, I do apologize. If you could clarify your statement, that would be helpful. I don't know how I am misreading your post intentionally, I genuinely was confused by it. Like I said it seemed as though you were trying to draw some connection between my rejections and the argument at hand and I was looking for some clarification. The reason why I brought up my admissions season in the first place was not to point out that my success proves that it is okay to include racial/gender identity in one's personal statement....I was only suggesting that I could be of help to the OP despite not being in a History doctoral program. With this in mind, I was really confused by what you were trying to suggest by bringing up my school rejections.

If you look back at my post, I said that if I misinterpreted your text, than I do apologize. But again, it looked like you were trying to make a connection between my school rejections to the fact that an incorporation of my heritage may have alienated someone on the admissions committee.

Edited August 4, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[SecondBlackPrez]

I mentioned my race because that was what attracted me to my research. I am a product of a strong Black woman who is a descendent of of a lineage of other strong Black woman that have had their voices muted in history. That is my connection to my research. To simply wish this connection away is doing an injustice to the work I want to study. If a program rejects me for it, then I know that program wasn't the best for me. The reason why I want to study this work in a History department instead of an African American studies dept. is because I want to interact with members of the academic community that haven't been exposed to this type of work. I will get into a great History PhD program and this research will impact the world. I was really hesitant to be this forthright, but the forum was taking a turn n a direction that was unhealthy. The reactions from some of you has reassured me that this research is needed. It has also proven to me that the personal connection researchers have with their work shouldn't be shunned, but applauded. It is this connection that keeps us motivated to do more in the face of resistance. Thank you everyone for your support.

[KTLady]

I don't know how telling this forum really is in the need for more research... conversations not face-to-face can (obviously) lead to false assumptions and misunderstandings. For example, Sigiba simply asking about the OP's mentioning of race/sex in the very first line (one can argue, a prominent position in a post) can be interpreted differently. It may have been meant to offend, or it may have just been a curious observation; only Sigiba truly knows. And Sigiba never said OP shouldn't mention his race and sex in his SoP, so that argument was misplaced.

I have a feeling that if I started a post with "I'm a white female" that some people might wonder about it. It's totally my prerogative and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but I know that it might strike some people as an unusual opening sentence (unusual, however, doesn't mean "bad"!) My left-handedness is a defining characteristic I think is pretty cool, and I know if I mention it as an opening on here that people will ask... fine with me : ) I'll reply. Like ZeeMore said, I, like everyone else, have the right to identify myself any way I'd like.

Just as Zeemore has the right to post on this history forum, though not a history grad student, Sigiba can ask a question and shouldn't be pressured to remove it simply because others may have misunderstood it.

And any passionate scholar, including white males, can contribute important work in the study of African American women (though personal connections ARE awesome, I agree).

Good luck on applications : )

[ZeeMore21]

I don't know how telling this forum really is in the need for more research... conversations not face-to-face can (obviously) lead to false assumptions and misunderstandings. For example, Sigiba simply asking about the OP's mentioning of race/sex in the very first line (one can argue, a prominent position in a post) can be interpreted differently. It may have been meant to offend, or it may have just been a curious observation; only Sigiba truly knows. And Sigiba never said OP shouldn't mention his race and sex in his SoP, so that argument was misplaced.

I have a feeling that if I started a post with "I'm a white female" that some people might wonder about it. It's totally my prerogative and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but I know that it might strike some people as an unusual opening sentence (unusual, however, doesn't mean "bad"!) My left-handedness is a defining characteristic I think is pretty cool, and I know if I mention it as an opening on here that people will ask... fine with me : ) I'll reply. Like ZeeMore said, I, like everyone else, have the right to identify myself any way I'd like.

Just as Zeemore has the right to post on this history forum, though not a history grad student, Sigiba can ask a question and shouldn't be pressured to remove it simply because others may have misunderstood it.

And any passionate scholar, including white males, can contribute important work in the study of African American women (though personal connections ARE awesome, I agree).

Good luck on applications : )

Sigaba may not have said directly that race/gender should not be mentioned in the personal statement, but I think the OP is responding to other posters on the thread that actually have made this argument...there has been some suggestion that the inclusion of one's background doesn't belong in something so formal as the personal statement or the academic talk. Some have even pointed to the inclusion of one's identity as controversial and over the top. So, I disagree that the OP's argument was misplaced.

I also don't think the OP was suggesting that someone like a white male couldn't study African American history....the OP was only stating that his research interest is strongly linked to his personal background, and that he has a personal stake in what he is studying. However, I do agree that anyone can study this field and anyone can have the passion for it.

Edited August 8, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[ZeeMore21]

I mentioned my race because that was what attracted me to my research. I am a product of a strong Black woman who is a descendent of of a lineage of other strong Black woman that have had their voices muted in history. That is my connection to my research. To simply wish this connection away is doing an injustice to the work I want to study. If a program rejects me for it, then I know that program wasn't the best for me. The reason why I want to study this work in a History department instead of an African American studies dept. is because I want to interact with members of the academic community that haven't been exposed to this type of work. I will get into a great History PhD program and this research will impact the world. I was really hesitant to be this forthright, but the forum was taking a turn n a direction that was unhealthy. The reactions from some of you has reassured me that this research is needed. It has also proven to me that the personal connection researchers have with their work shouldn't be shunned, but applauded. It is this connection that keeps us motivated to do more in the face of resistance. Thank you everyone for your support.

Forgot to say something about your post, secondblackprez, but I really liked it. I wish you all the best in the future application season, and let me know if I can help in any way. I am not in a History program, but I do deal heavily with African American history in my research.

[KTLady]

Sigaba may not have said directly that race/gender should not be mentioned in the personal statement, but I think the OP is responding to other posters on the thread that actually have made this argument...there has been some suggestion that the inclusion of one's background doesn't belong in something so formal as the personal statement or the academic talk. Some have even pointed to the inclusion of one's identity as controversial and over the top. So, I disagree that the OP's argument was misplaced.

I also don't think the OP was suggesting that someone like a white male couldn't study African American history....the OP was only stating that his research interest is strongly linked to his personal background, and that he has a personal stake in what he is studying. However, I do agree that anyone can study this field and anyone can have the passion for it.

ok, gotcha. I didn't say the OP's argument was misplaced, but the heated discussion born out of the mere assumption over Sigiba's post. Sigiba was told he/she should remove the post, and that request was as provocative and controversial, I think, as Sigiba's original statement.

I actually applaud the OP's goals and posts and don't disagree with his original post. I'm actually responding to the arguments that, again, are based on assumptions and misunderstandings.

[ZeeMore21]

ok, gotcha. I didn't say the OP's argument was misplaced, but the heated discussion born out of the mere assumption over Sigiba's post. Sigiba was told he/she should remove the post, and that request was as provocative and controversial, I think, as Sigiba's original statement.

I actually applaud the OP's goals and posts and don't disagree with his original post. I'm actually responding to the arguments that, again, are based on assumptions and misunderstandings.

Understood, definitely. I was one of the posters who did have a problem with Sigaba's post, given that it did nothing to help the OP in my opinion. I did see his/her post as going on an assumption that the OP was somehow trying to use his race/gender as an additional qualification rather than just assuming that the OP was just trying to give basic information.

While I did initially come off strong, and perhaps did get a bit too passionate, I did ask in another post if Sigaba could clarify his/her initial statement and apologized if I did misinterpret it. However, instead of clarifying, he/she sought to argue that I didn't belong on this thread since I am not in a History program, as if none of my advice or expertise was valuable. That Sigaba couldn't simply just clarify and continued to have an accusatory tone ( and also even proceeded to argue that anyone who does have a problem with the tone of his/her posts wasn't cut out for academia) just confirmed for me that he/she intended to be inflammatory with the initial post. I do agree with you that one shouldn't assume things about a poster from his/her comments, but Sigaba's comment was way too brief and blunt...and it left people wondering what the poster was trying to get at with that kind of statement and tone...especially when someone seems to be asking for genuine advice.

I am the last person who has a problem talking about issues of race/gender/identity...I go into these issues on a regular basis as a minority and one who does research in African American studies. However, I just don't think that the OP intended to have this discussion focused on him being a black male. He was asking about his qualifications and went on to talk about possible professors he could work with. I came upon this post because of the OP's research topic, and I was actually looking forward to reading the discussions about the field of African American history in this thread.

But to end my rambling, talking about race and gender can be a touchy subject, and again, while we shouldn't quickly make assumptions based on someone's post, I do think posters do have the responsibility to be as clear as possible when commenting on such touchy subjects so such misinterpretations can be avoided. And I do apologize for initially getting on the defense with Sigaba's post. As other posters mentioned, there is a reason why minorities do have their identities at the forefront, I did understand what the poster was doing on a personal level. I do hope that there does come a time that mentioning one's race/gender/sexuality doesn't always have to be seen as controversial, provocative, or politically motivated. The OP simply was proud of his background and wasn't afraid to let that be known.

Edited August 8, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Sigaba]

@SBP Ironically, you are beginning to remind me of Carter G. Woodson. Maybe you should better familiarize yourself better with its historiography before you set out on your personal crusade to rescue African American history from the neglect of Americanists such as Steven Hahn and Stephanie McCurry. (Is there a reason why Penn isn't on your short list?) You may be surprised to find that a lot of good research is pouring out.

FWIW, in 2000, the late Ron Dellums did a interview with Harry Kreisler for Cal's Institute of International Studies' "Conversations with History." In that discussion, Dellums offered some advice that you may find useful.

@ZeeMore21. Perhaps without your realizing it, you are positioning yourself at the cross roads of more than half a century of an increasingly intense debate about the boundaries of history relative to other fields of endeavor. This debate is shaping decisions on who gets into grad school, who gets funded, who gets hired, who gets published, and who gets tenure.

As someone who is not going to be a historian, you are at liberty to take what ever approach to this debate that you please--you have no skin in the game. However, those who are going to do the work to become professional academic historians may not have that luxury.

Like it or not, aspiring graduate students in history are going to be viewed not only by the merits of their applications, but also based upon how professors think they will or will not fit into this debate. In this environment, applicants such as SBP may benefit from knowing that they are not only competing against other students, but they are also being sized up as potential colleagues, allies, and adversaries down the line.

It may well be that SBP is going to be the titan of historical research he believes himself to be. It may that he's a 'chosen one' for whom the ball will always bounce favorably. Or it may be that he's going to be just another guy in the mix. (That is, one qualified applicant among many.)

In the likelihood that SBP falls in the third category, should he deliberately do things that are going to make him either (1) the guy a graduate program needs or (2) that guy that a program doesn't want (but maybe admits anyways)?

If option (1) is preferred over option (2), should SBP get guidance from those who have successfully earned admission into graduate history programs, have played their parts in separating the wheat from the chaff, and have spent years studying the ups and downs of the historical profession? Or should SBP rely on those who, although accomplished in their own right, do not have that expertise?

Certainly, these questions are rhetorical. You will keep giving advice as you see fit. You will continue to use these threads as your playground. And SBP will decide for himself which guidance, if any, he wants to use.

But let there be no mistake about our differing agendas. My objective in this thread and others like it, is to offer useful guidance to applicants seeking admission into history programs.

Academic history is in serious decline. In certain circles inside and outside of the Ivory Tower, academic history is reviled. This decline will continue until academic historians do a better job of working together when it comes to the teaching and in the practice of their craft.

IMO, among the first steps in the journey is for aspiring historians to make informed decisions about their professional identities. In making these choices, I believe they should understand the potential consequences of how they draw boundaries between the personal and the professional. These choices will have consequences--for better, worse, and other--not only for the scholar, but his or her field of study, and the broader profession as well.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Sigaba

[ZeeMore21]

Certainly, these questions are rhetorical. You will keep giving advice as you see fit. You will continue to use these threads as your playground. And SBP will decide for himself which guidance, if any, he wants to use.

But let there be no mistake about our differing agendas. My objective in this thread and others like it, is to offer useful guidance to applicants seeking admission into history programs.

@Sigaba: I too offer useful guidance, and no, I don't see these threads as a "playground"....I find that remark insulting to my aim to help others and my expertise/experience. You are not the only one with an agenda to help others. Like I had said earlier, I actually came across this thread by entering African American studies into the search forum...and luckily I spotted SBP's thread. I actually never posted on the History sub-forum, but I figured I could help SBP out given that I do study African American history. Fields are not as rigid as you think they are....yes, I am in English, but I could never understand African American literature without being grounded in African American history. Again, you can continue to state the obvious that I am not in History....however, I am sure I have as much to offer as someone who did specialize in History as an undergraduate and continues to study African American history at the graduate level. If you took the time to read my posts carefully and see where I am coming from,instead of automatically discounting what I am saying, you wouldn't have overlooked my background.

@ SBP...I will be rooting for you, glad to see that you will stick to your principles.

[Sigaba]

This is not an exclusive forum, and Zeemore is quite qualified to advise the OP, as she has pointed out, more so than someone who is nominally in a history program (such as myself, or you, since you didn't deign to offer the OP any real advice pertaining to professors in the field). In any case the OP is in a stage where most general information is helpful.

And I think you should answer the question about why you thought one sentence in an informal post was the OP defining every aspect of his work in terms of his race and gender. Do you not hear the rest of us who say that is an exaggeration?

Also your implication that people who object to your tone just can't handle the "intense" debate culture of academia also is a bit off-base. It is possible to be both passionate and respectful, and your posts are generally not the latter. I find your elaboration, even parts I disagree with, interesting and worthwhile, but that doesn't excuse the fact that you hijacked a thread with a personal attack and then told one of the discussants with practical experience in the subject that she wasn't worthy to take part in the conversation because she is in a different field. Rude and unacceptable.

You are assuming that your inferences and interpretation accurately reflect my intentions and my tone. I am addressing members of this BB with the types of questions I've asked classmates and professors and in the same tone. And, as it happens, the types of questions I've been asked as well.

It is your prerogative to interpret direct questions about why someone wrote something as a "personal attack." However, your doing so is putting words in my mouth.

For you to conclude that my post is "rude and unacceptable" is nothing more than an overt attempt at censorship. Do you think this approach will work when you don't care for what is being said and how it is being said in a seminar? Or when a classmate asks you "What's the point?" Or when you get back a draft for an essay that a reader has thoroughly dismantled? Or when a professor drolly asks "So what?"

[ZeeMore21]

You are assuming that your inferences and interpretation accurately reflect my intentions and my tone. I am addressing members of this BB with the types of questions I've asked classmates and professors and in the same tone. And, as it happens, the types of questions I've been asked as well.

It is your prerogative to interpret direct questions about why someone wrote something as a "personal attack." However, your doing so is putting words in my mouth.

For you to conclude that my post is "rude and unacceptable" is nothing more than an overt attempt at censorship. Do you think this approach will work when you don't care for what is being said and how it is being said in a seminar? Or when a classmate asks you "What's the point?" Or when you get back a draft for an essay that a reader has thoroughly dismantled? Or when a professor drolly asks "So what?"

I think it is important to be aware that you are using a computer to relay your messages...I am not sure why you wouldn't consider how your messages could me misinterpreted. Asking certain questions in person to members of your department is certainly different from asking such questions anonymously on an online forum.

However, how could one misconstrue you stating that I, personally, shouldn't be giving any advice as someone who isn't in History? Isn't that a form of censorship?