Question

[wumblebee]

Hello,

I'm a rising senior who is looking to apply to graduate programs in History this fall. My dream is to get into a doctoral program, but if I have to do MA first, that's completely fine.

My problem is that my undergrad History track has been sort of all over the place. I took several courses in European history, a few ancient classes, and a couple of Middle East ones. Oddly enough, after doing a research assistantship this summer, I'm now hoping to study American history as a grad, preferably on the topic of immigration. The problem is that I never took a course in American history in college, so are my hopes even feasible??

Thanks in advance.

[Derfasciti]

Hmmm I think so, sure. But there might be some problems. Firstly, as a general rule where possible it's good to have letters of recommendation from history profs within your preferred field. They will not only be better suited to talk about your talents in the LOR but will also be in a better position to show you the ropes of what an Americanist needs and point you in the direction of particular schools/potential advisors, which would fit your interests. I don't know how huge of a deal it is, but it might be a significant obstacle for you.

You need to demonstrate why you're moving to American history in your statement of purpose. I would also strongly advise that your writing sample is an American history paper, even if it's one you gotta start from scratch. Talk to the Americanists in your department asap so they can advise you and you can start building that relationship that will be essential for a good letter of recommendation.

That's my two cents. Good luck!

Edited August 10, 2011 by Derfasciti

[barricades]

It's not that big a deal if you can make a case for some area. Professors know students change their mind, and in fact many do so IN grad school.

I applied as a modern French historian. Well, I didnt have a single specific French history course under my belt. And I still got accepted into very competitive programs. I did have some French literature, which was my minor (an intro to modern French lit, 19th cent French lit, and French resistance lit). But on the history side I had some European intellectual history courses and some thematic courses (urban history, history of traveling, genocide, etc).

I did my honors thesis on a specific site in France during a specific period. I know quite a bit about that. But I know very little about general French historiography, including important dates and people. But those things, I believe, are the less important set of skills/knowledge they are looking for. After all, you'll get all that when studying for generals.

I did make a point, in my statement of purpose, of showcasing how I think literature and intellectual history inform the methodology I wish to develop.

Hope this helps.

[qbtacoma]

For an applicant like you, emphasizing your thematic interests will be key. Yes, you should absolutely say how you came to the conclusion that US history is for you, but you can present yourself more cohesively if you focus on theoretical threads running throughout your undergrad interests. Immigration is nice because, obviously, it is inherently about reconciling regional changes. But if you look at your background again you might find other commonalities which drew you to each course. Try to remember what made you think each class would be interesting to take or what you wrote papers about. Remember, though, that at the end of the day the SOP is about where you want to go in the future with your academic interests, so not as much weight should rest on what you have already done. Good luck.

[Sigaba]

MOO, qptacoma's guidance is useful not only to aspiring applicants but also to history graduate students who are looking to define their specific research interests during their first year of coursework. (And the guidance may also help when reviewing a collection of essays.)