Fall 2012 Applicant Chit Chat

[Sigaba]

Entire post.

'iamincontrolhere-haig'

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that getting into the best school you can will help your prospects for a job after you finish. Proximity to sources can be over-rated if one is researching recent events and the choice materials are going to remain unavailable for the time being. (But I'm not bitter.)

Two suggestions. First, if you do more evaluation of archives, do not neglect the think tanks, the historical centers for the armed services, and also the fact that more and more materials are available on line. Second, given the revelations about the growing dimensions of the Ambrose scandal, everything he did may soon be fair game for double checking.

[StrangeLight]

for anyone concerned with the prestige of their prospective schools, may i... um... yeah. whatever. here goes:

ask the directors of grad studies at your prospective programs (once you get in) for a list of recent PhDs, their dissertation titles, where they've found work, and at what level (assistant prof, visiting prof, lecturer, adjunct). especially do this if you're thinking about ivy league/top 10 schools, because you may be surprised at the results. if the DGS won't provide a list, that should be a red flag. back in the early 2000s, before the economic downturn, loss of university endowments, and canceled job searches, the placement rate for PhDs in tenure-track jobs (within 3 years of graduation) in the top 30 history programs was only 42%. yale, UCLA, and another ivy (harvard? princeton?) led the way somewhere in the 70%ile. my own program (which isn't terribly well ranked, although we're strong in a few subfields) recently released our numbers to the faculty and students, and we've been in the 70%ile for placement for the last 10 years. some places will be surprisingly good at getting their students jobs, and some will be surprisingly bad. arm yourself with this information before you say yes to any school, even/especially an ivy league or "top 10" program.

i'd also strongly urge even the most competitive candidates to apply to MA programs and smaller PhD programs as well as their shiny list of the "best" schools out there. the department of education is cutting title VI funding. that means that national resource centers and area studies programs are losing roughly half their funding this year alone and even more in future years. FLAS fellowships weren't canceled this year because the funds had already been distributed before the title VI funding was slashed, but next year (your year) this funding is going to really dry up. many programs rely on title VI funding and FLAS fellowships to pay for some of their admitted students' funding. the loss of this money means fewer admissions spots this year, when the number of spots has already been dropping since 2008/2009. title VI funding usually goes to the best schools in that region (russia/eastern europe, latin america, africa, asia, etc.) so if you're applying to the school with the best russian history program, that is precisely the school that is going to lose funding to support russian history students. awesome, huh?

Edited September 12, 2011 by StrangeLight

[goldielocks]

StrangeLight, those are all good points. Ranking/reputation/placement/prestige are all issues I've been grappling with as I narrow down my list.

[TMP]

Really, Don't overanalyze the whole process, including your GRE scores. ESPECIALLY your GRE scores. Right now it's all a matter of rolling the dice and seeing what happens. Better have Plans B, C, and D ready to go by the end of January. It's hard to believe that you do have to do this but you do given all the slashed funding and everything becomes as my advisors say "dicey."

Just pick the programs and be done with the list. There's always another round.

[goldielocks]

Sigh. Ticklemepink, that is so sad but so true. I shudder at the thought of doing another round... especially after doing this MA to increase my shots at getting into a PhD (I didn't apply to PhD programs last time).

It is difficult to remember that there are other options. But I really, really, REALLY hope it doesn't come to that. At least not this year.

[Sigaba]

for anyone concerned with the prestige of their prospective schools, may i... um... yeah. whatever. here goes:

ask the directors of grad studies at your prospective programs (once you get in) for a list of recent PhDs, their dissertation titles, where they've found work, and at what level (assistant prof, visiting prof, lecturer, adjunct). especially do this if you're thinking about ivy league/top 10 schools, because you may be surprised at the results.

Great guidance, but why wait?

[Sparky]

Great guidance, but why wait?

1. Because it's frelling *terrifying*, and I recall that when I was an applicant, all of my communications with prospective schools felt fraught with eight thousand tons of "how is this going to look." I sure wouldn't have had the confidence to be so bold. (Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It is the case. I suspect I am not alone on this point. And really, who wants to make any part of the app process harder than it is?)

2. Because for all practical purposes, the only years that matter are 2009+, so if you have another year of data it should give you a better picture. This is especially important if the dept doesn't graduate someone in every subfield every year.

This data *should*, of course, be public knowledge, and I believe the suggestion is raised every time the AHA evaluates history graduate education. But it makes Important Programs look bad, so of course it won't be.

[sandyvanb]

There aren't a ton of schools that offer a major in my field so I'm pretty much applying to all of them. *sigh*

[crater21]

I'd hate to be the negative nelly on this thread, but this is a place to vent, so here goes: everyone always says that you shouldn't worry about GRE scores, etc too much. But when you look at the people who get into the top programs, they almost always have high scores. It's not a coincidence, is it? Certainly, there are the odd exceptions, but the trends are clear.

This process is so ridiculously competitive for the top programs. Call me a pessimist, but when you have 300 or 400 applicants (all of whom have good letters and statements and GPAs), and only maybe two dozen people can get in, surely they are going to look for any reason to reject you. Any slight blemish on your application probably puts you over into the "No" pile. Of course, nobody will actually admit this. Everyone will say, "No, no, it's all about the right fit, etc." But, I have a hard time believing that. I think they genuinely seek out the most academically brilliant candidates as demonstrated by grades, scores, etc.

So, yes, I am stressed and worried. I am worried that my GRE quant is not going to be high enough. I am worried that my GPA is not perfect. I am worried that my writing sample does not have primary sources in one of the languages that I'm listing. To name just a few...

Phew... rant over. Thanks for listening!

[Sigaba]

1. Because it's frelling *terrifying*, and I recall that when I was an applicant, all of my communications with prospective schools felt fraught with eight thousand tons of "how is this going to look." I sure wouldn't have had the confidence to be so bold. (Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It is the case. I suspect I am not alone on this point. And really, who wants to make any part of the app process harder than it is?)

Okay, but there are other ways to get this information. As an undergraduate, one can have a classmate/pal make the inquiry. Or one can get a physical copy of the AHA's directory or use the AHA's digital directory of history dissertations to develop a list of recently minted Ph.Ds and then see where they ended up. One can also look at the faculty listings for specific schools and see what schools the current professors attended.

2. Because for all practical purposes, the only years that matter are 2009+, so if you have another year of data it should give you a better picture. This is especially important if the dept doesn't graduate someone in every subfield every year.

I would push the date back to get a bigger sample (that is, do a five year or a ten year range). YMMV.

This data *should*, of course, be public knowledge, and I believe the suggestion is raised every time the AHA evaluates history graduate education. But it makes Important Programs look bad, so of course it won't be.

While the data may not be readily accessible, I think it would not be too difficult to collect the information from what is publicly available.

[Sparky]

Okay, but there are other ways to get this information.

...

While the data may not be readily accessible, I think it would not be too difficult to collect the information from what is publicly available.

Apparently I erred in putting the most important sentence of my post in parantheses--who wants to make any part of the app process harder than it is?

As far as making this post actually relevant to the thread topic, advice and random chitchat for this cycle's applicants:

The problem with the method that Sigaba suggested is that it leaves one gaping hole--PhD completion rate. A program's 90% "tenure-track placement" doesn't mean as much if only 20% of students who start the program ever get their degrees, and the other 80 drop out when they can't get a job or are still hanging around, ABD. (Incidentally, that's why I'm advocating only the last few years' of data--people who go on the academic market ABD and aren't successful the first year often push back their defense date in order to have a "fresher" degree for the market the next year.)

And also, a general warning--departments are not always faithful about keeping their websites up to date! Current faculty, current/past grad students, program requirements, admissions procedures...

[StrangeLight]

look, almost any program is going to have a high rate of incompletion. with maybe the exception of yale, which is known for being a PhD factory. they just churn 'em out. there are really two schools of thought: 1) work your students hard so only the most dedicated actually finish, or 2) get everyone through as quickly and easily as possible, so you don't have a high drop-out rate. yale subscribes to the latter, but i'd say the overall trend is the former: weed 'em out. the job market is already saturated enough.

so of course when you see that X program has a 75% tenure placement rate (no one will have something in the 80s or 90s for tenure-track positions. no one), that's 75% of the people that finished, and the people that finished are probably under 50% of the people that enrolled. in my own program, we admit 8-10 students a year and graduate 1-3 PhDs. even though people take different time to completion, those other 7 PhD students still have to go somewhere, and the reality is that they leave.

you're all working hard now to get into PhD programs, and i guarantee that at some point over the next 5-8 years, you'll ask yourself at least once, "why the hell am i doing this?" this work isn't glamorous. if you don't make it in at the end of this cycle, don't panic. you might be ABD and decide you just don't want this like you thought you did. that's okay. there's no shame (and a lot of sense) in not being an academic.

[Sparky]

Of course completion rates are low. But there's a difference between "hovering around average" b/c PhD work sucks at times (am I not the person who referred to the first year of her PhD as "an entirely different universe of pain"?), and "inordinately low b/c the program pressure on its students who are basically finished not to defend if they don't have job potential." Sorry for not making that clear, and for making it seem like I think anyone who doesn't finish a PhD is a loser.

[Sigaba]

Apparently I erred in putting the most important sentence of my post in parantheses--who wants to make any part of the app process harder than it is?

As far as making this post actually relevant to the thread topic, advice and random chitchat for this cycle's applicants:

The problem with the method that Sigaba suggested is that it leaves one gaping hole--PhD completion rate. A program's 90% "tenure-track placement" doesn't mean as much if only 20% of students who start the program ever get their degrees, and the other 80 drop out when they can't get a job or are still hanging around, ABD. (Incidentally, that's why I'm advocating only the last few years' of data--people who go on the academic market ABD and aren't successful the first year often push back their defense date in order to have a "fresher" degree for the market the next year.)

And also, a general warning--departments are not always faithful about keeping their websites up to date! Current faculty, current/past grad students, program requirements, admissions procedures...

IMO, Sparky's lucid post raises two points that merit additional emphasis. First, there's the task of determining a program's completion rate and understanding how that rate may apply to you as an aspiring applicant. One of the most closely guarded secrets that a history department can have is if it has a professor who has established a pattern of not supporting his or her students through the pipeline. While one can understand why other professors might be reluctant to disclose this type of information, it can be a rather disillusioning experience when you and your fellow ABDs figure out the dynamic. (But I'm not bitter.)

Second, one should be wary of the information one gets on the internet. Departments/professors/professional associations have varying degrees of savvy when it comes to the digital world. There's much to be gained by picking up a phone or writing a letter or going to a library and verifying one's initial research.

[cooperstreet]

Hi all, I too am applying for a Phd in History with a focus on US relations in the cold war, specifically with the Middle East. I'm applying to: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, GWU, Temple, Cornell, Chicago, Michigan, UVA, Utexas, Emory and Vanderbilt. I may shave one or two of them off.

I have good grades, gres, pubs, conferences, but never went to a big name school and kinda bombed a couple years of undergrad. We'll see.

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

Hi all, I too am applying for a Phd in History with a focus on US relations in the cold war, specifically with the Middle East. I'm applying to: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, GWU, Temple, Cornell, Chicago, Michigan, UVA, Utexas, Emory and Vanderbilt. I may shave one or two of them off.

I have good grades, gres, pubs, conferences, but never went to a big name school and kinda bombed a couple years of undergrad. We'll see.

I haven't looked at all the programs you're applying to, but regarding the ones I'm aware of, who at Cornell, Princeton, Temple, and Chicago teaches and researches on US involvement in the Middle East? Unfortunately--and I think this is starting to change--the subfield you're interested in seems somewhat cloistered within the greater field of US foreign relations and Cold War studies. Perhaps this is due to US policy with regard to the ME being governed by a somewhat different dynamic than, say, US policy toward Vietnam (in that the main American goal was to preserve "stability" for the sake of Israel's security and the region's oil exports instead of containing communism, which was arguably the predominant American foreign policy goal elsewhere--how much the three objectives were intertwined is open to debate). Then again, maybe it's because scholars of the Cold War simply tended to overlook the Middle East until 9/11.

The more I look at it, the more I think GWU would be a great place to study the Cold War. It has so much breadth in terms of faculty expertise--not to mention its proximity to Archives II and the Library of Congress! Also, if you're still looking for programs to add to your list, check out OSU and UCSB. Both have specialists whose primary field is US-ME relations.

I have the same problem as you. Hopefully admissions committees will overlook or at least outweigh a thoroughly lackluster freshman year if it comes before three great years!

Edited September 24, 2011 by iamincontrolhere-haig

[cliopatra]

Friends, I'm feeling pretty crappy right now. I sent out about 6 inquiries to potential supervisors at different schools this week, and so far I haven't heard back from anyone. sigh.

I know I'm probably worrying too much and it's only been a week. It's also a crazy time of year.

This is only the beginning how am I going to handle 6-8 more months of this!

[cooperstreet]

I haven't looked at all the programs you're applying to, but regarding the ones I'm aware of, who at Cornell, Princeton, Temple, and Chicago teaches and researches on US involvement in the Middle East?

No one. But aside from Temple, all of those schools have near/middle eastern studies centers, and very rubst ones too. Its very common--nearly universal-- for professors of US diplomatic history to have graduate students who don't specialize in the same region. Mark Bradley doesn't only mentor students interested in US-Vietnam relations.

[cooperstreet]

iamincontrolhere

Were you at SHAFR? I probably met you.

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

No one. But aside from Temple, all of those schools have near/middle eastern studies centers, and very rubst ones too. Its very common--nearly universal-- for professors of US diplomatic history to have graduate students who don't specialize in the same region. Mark Bradley doesn't only mentor students interested in US-Vietnam relations.

Good point. To continue with your example, Bradley might be cautious about advising a student focused on multiarchival research in diplomatic history if he had no or limited knowledge of the archives, sources, and languages that said student wanted to study. But I guess the area studies programs present a way around that (and have their own advantages in terms of collaboration/interdisciplinarity)!

Were you at SHAFR? I probably met you.

Unfortunately not. I had graduated already and there was no way I was going to pay my own way from the west coast! It sounds like we might be encountering each other there in the years to come, though.

[cooperstreet]

For example, I know that Gaddis has supervised at least two people who have done US-Middle East relations in the cold war. But I see your point.

And really, theres' only two relevant archives in the Middle East: everything Israel has and Egypt's national archives. And the way that my research (and I think most diplomatic history is conducted) is by basically constructing your argument, framework, and literature field based on your knowledge of the US, and then supplementing that with foreign sources.

[maeisenb]

Friends, I'm feeling pretty crappy right now. I sent out about 6 inquiries to potential supervisors at different schools this week, and so far I haven't heard back from anyone. sigh.

I know I'm probably worrying too much and it's only been a week. It's also a crazy time of year.

This is only the beginning how am I going to handle 6-8 more months of this!

Cheer up! They are probably just running around with the start of classes or maybe off at a conference or something. Plus depending on how they respond to stuff or whatever, they might be slow. (Do all admin stuff on weekends or something.) Probably a mix of all of them really so you're on the right track. After all it looks like you have 1 application done already, so I'm sure you're way ahead in other stuff!

[Safferz]

Just a heads up -- I got an email from the director of graduate studies at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and she said that they've decided to suspend admissions for one year, because they had twice as many students accept their offer last year than anticipated. They won't review any applications for fall 2012, but their joint programs (with classical studies, women and gender studies, and anthropology) will.

[goldielocks]

Safferz, I just noticed that on the website today. I wasn't really interested in the program there (not a great fit for me), but I was on their campus a few times recently, doing some research in one of their collections. And I have to say, I thought Ann Arbor was adorable. I loved the campus and the neighborhood. It'd be a nice place to study, I think.

Well, folks... I take the GRE Monday. I have to say: I feel grossly under-prepared. But between a myriad of health problems, two conferences, coursework, the thesis, and the rest of the application business... I just want to get it over with.

Anyone else taking the exam soon?

[TMP]

Just a heads up -- I got an email from the director of graduate studies at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and she said that they've decided to suspend admissions for one year, because they had twice as many students accept their offer last year than anticipated. They won't review any applications for fall 2012, but their joint programs (with classical studies, women and gender studies, and anthropology) will.

And they were so cautious with their offers for Fall 2010...