History of Women and Gender Program Recs?

[justnomore.3x5s]

Hi!

I've been a long time lurker on here and have always found the comments from everyone to be extremely helpful, so I decided to post my kind of specific question and see if you guys could possibly help me. I really have two questions I guess. First, are there any programs you think I'm missing from my list below, and second, should I apply to M.A. programs, Ph.D. programs, or both?

So about me: I just graduated in May with a B.A. in history and a B.A. in women's studies. I had a 3.72 overall GPA, a 3.78 GPA in history, and a 3.91 GPA in women's studies. I loved both my programs, but I loved history more. I like the idea of programs that would allow me to specifically focus on the history of women and gender and bring in my background in feminist theory as this is what I was drawn to for research papers and whatnot during undergrad. I've presented papers at my school's women's studies symposium the last two years, one that was a feminist reading of the female characters on Mad Men and another that was my senior thesis in history - a look at sexual politics and the supreme court's decisions on cases concerning the right to sexual privacy (the overarching topic for the senior seminar was legal history). I took the GRE a few weeks ago and was given only ranges: V 600-700 and Q 580-680. Not stellar, but I guess not terrible either.

So far my list of programs I want to apply to includes:

NYU - either the M.A. in History of Women and Gender or the Ph.D. program

Rutgers - New Brunswick

U Penn

Columbia

University of Maryland at College Park

UNC Chapel Hill

Duke

Most of these are Ph.D. programs, so I would really appreciate any suggestions for M.A. programs. Also, any feedback in general would be super helpful.

Thanks!

[modern]

For a PhD, you may also think about Yale:Joanne Meyerowitz (http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/meyerowitz.html) and George Chauncey (http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/chauncey.html) are both great. And the university as a whole has a lot of focus on woman's studies, gender, history of sexuality, etc.

[Sparky]

What are you interested in studying within history of gender? The awesome thing about women's history, after all, is that there have pretty much always been women. Political, legal, intellectual, economic history? What region, what era sets your soul on fire? History academia works according to geographical and occasionally chronological divisions; you don't, typically, get a job in "women's history," but you might get a job in Latin American history, having written your dissertation on women in labor movements in 20th century Guatemala. Graduate programs tend to categorize students and, by extension, applicants, similarly.

The best way to look for programs is to look at recent books and journal articles that resemble the kind of work you want to do, methodologically, in something approximately the time and place in which you plan to specialize. What professors wrote those books and articles? Hit up Google; chances are that at least a handful of them are tenured profs at universities with strong doctoral programs.

Look at programs that are explicitly in History of Gender, but don't be afraid to apply to straight-up history programs. I'm certainly not in a women's/gender studies dept, but the majority of my papers have something to do with gender issues. You learn ways to tailor your class projects to your interests, even if the class at first seems like completely foreign terrain.

As for MA programs, primarily look for places where there are professors who do women's history and which offer funding. There have been several threads in the past about funded MAs that you could browse through. Time-place may be less important as a criterion for master's programs, too, so if you're categorically not ready to pick a subfield yet*, it might be wiser to hold off on PhD apps this cycle.

* Yes, some people switch radically once they're in a PhD program. But if the very thought of narrowing it down makes you go all queasy inside--like it did for me when did my master's apps--it's probably a good idea to consider limiting your applications to master's programs, simply b/c you're probably not 'historically mature' enough for a PhD program.

[Sigaba]

The best way to look for programs is to look at recent books and journal articles that resemble the kind of work you want to do, methodologically, in something approximately the time and place in which you plan to specialize. What professors wrote those books and articles? Hit up Google; chances are that at least a handful of them are tenured profs at universities with strong doctoral programs.

justnomore.3x5s

If you take Sparky's guidance (and, IMO, you should) pay attention to the acknowledgements and the footnotes. If a scholar focusing on gender and women gets useful feedback and support from her peers at her home institution and if those peers focus on different types of history, you may be seeing evidence of a close knit department. In such departments, methodological, philosophical, and political differences are put aside so that historians can help each other write better books.

If you think you will want to continue your focus on contemporary mass popular culture, you might be well served in figuring out how a department over all feels about such a perspective. There are some intense debates going on out there (some of it is behind closed doors). If you're going to swim in those waters find ways to avoid the orca that might bat you around like a tennis ball. (Yes, of course, it is all in good fun. And I'm not bitter.)

[Safferz]

What are you interested in studying within history of gender? The awesome thing about women's history, after all, is that there have pretty much always been women. Political, legal, intellectual, economic history? What region, what era sets your soul on fire? History academia works according to geographical and occasionally chronological divisions; you don't, typically, get a job in "women's history," but you might get a job in Latin American history, having written your dissertation on women in labor movements in 20th century Guatemala. Graduate programs tend to categorize students and, by extension, applicants, similarly.

Agreed. I'm also in History and Women & Gender Studies, but I will be applying to history programs as an Africanist interested in questions of gender.

[StrangeLight]

yes, definitely look at straight-up history programs and write that you want to work on women's history and gender in X place during Y time. also, when applying to programs, take a look at students' comprehensive exam fields. for some schools, you'll see people with one or two regional focuses (i.e. latin american history as the biggie, brazil as a specialized field). occasionally, however, you will find programs that privilege thematic concentrations as exam fields, so you'd see someone with fields in latin american history and gender history/gender theory. the latter sort of program will give you a stronger foundation in gender history within and outside of your regional and temporal focus, and so you may want to pursue those programs.

[justnomore.3x5s]

Thank you so much for all the feedback and sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you guys... family stuff.

I'm mainly interested more American history, probably in the twentieth century, but I would do what most of you have suggested and have the majority of my work related to questions of gender. Beyond that things get a little fuzzy for me. I'm thinking I will take Sparky's advice and focus more on MA programs, because of that very issue. I mean, is it even enough that I know that I want to do twentieth century American history, or is it necessary that I be even more specific beyond that? I know that I'm interested in legal history as well as some political history, leaning more towards the later half of the century.

I guess I get tripped up when looking at programs' websites and they encourage you to apply right out of undergrad, saying you would get all the training of a master's program en route to a PhD. Is what I have enough or should I stick to MA programs. I'm aware that I'm competing with applicants who have a much more developed idea of what they want to study, especially if they've already completed their MA.

[StrangeLight]

you need to be more specific than "20th century american history" for PhD applications. you need to be more specific than "gender and 20th century american history." you need to say something like, "i want to look at women's labour movements in the garment industry in new york" or something. no one is going to hold you to that project, but the SOP is supposed to show that you can conceive of an interesting and doable research topic. if you can even name some sources you would use for your project, all the better. if you can't come up with a topic, then focus your applications on MA programs.

[maeisenb]

I'm mainly interested more American history, probably in the twentieth century, but I would do what most of you have suggested and have the majority of my work related to questions of gender. Beyond that things get a little fuzzy for me. I'm thinking I will take Sparky's advice and focus more on MA programs, because of that very issue. I mean, is it even enough that I know that I want to do twentieth century American history, or is it necessary that I be even more specific beyond that? I know that I'm interested in legal history as well as some political history, leaning more towards the later half of the century.

I guess I get tripped up when looking at programs' websites and they encourage you to apply right out of undergrad, saying you would get all the training of a master's program en route to a PhD. Is what I have enough or should I stick to MA programs. I'm aware that I'm competing with applicants who have a much more developed idea of what they want to study, especially if they've already completed their MA.

They do say that, but you have to really know what you want to do to come straight out of undergrad, which is quite different than it used to be 20 years ago or so (from what I've heard from current professors). Because all of academia is far more structured and bureaucratic (for better and worse I should add) than it used to be you will come across someone, as Strangelight noted, who will have that specific focus whereas you do not. They will have known since their freshman and sophomore year - cf people on this blog who ask questions about preparation then - the general area they want to work on, have done junior seminar work, and be doing a senior thesis so they will know the field inside out and be prepared to pitch a specific idea in a SOP.

Some people, and maybe this includes yourself, either weren't exposed to a specific enough project or simply took more time to get to an area they liked so they require more preparation and specification in an MA program. The problem for you might be that if 200 people apply to a program and they accept 20, then they have to figure out a way to narrow down the field and one of the surest ways of doing so is to eliminate those people who seem less prepared for graduate work and are unable to pitch them specific ideas. After all, everyone has a good GPA, decent enough GRE (assuming some lapse in the quant section which they generally don't care about), and fairly solid LORs. There has to be some way of differentiating people and, unfortunately, that's one of the key ways of doing it.

If you can figure out a solid topic, at least on the specificity level Strangelight suggested, but, actually, even more so with figuring out the way your project would plug a gap in current historiography - e.g. role of African American women in the garment industry labor movement, which has largely been overlooked because, etc. (I made that up just fyi). To do that, you have to know the literature inside and out, which unless, as I said earlier, you took a class or wrote a paper on it, would be tough to know from just a survey type class.

If you can do that, then send out some PhD applications, since, if you don't get in, you can always try again. Obviously this doesn't address issues of application costs and MA program costs...

[Sigaba]

Thank you so much for all the feedback and sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you guys... family stuff.

I'm mainly interested more American history, probably in the twentieth century, but I would do what most of you have suggested and have the majority of my work related to questions of gender. Beyond that things get a little fuzzy for me. I'm thinking I will take Sparky's advice and focus more on MA programs, because of that very issue. I mean, is it even enough that I know that I want to do twentieth century American history, or is it necessary that I be even more specific beyond that? I know that I'm interested in legal history as well as some political history, leaning more towards the later half of the century.

I guess I get tripped up when looking at programs' websites and they encourage you to apply right out of undergrad, saying you would get all the training of a master's program en route to a PhD. Is what I have enough or should I stick to MA programs. I'm aware that I'm competing with applicants who have a much more developed idea of what they want to study, especially if they've already completed their MA.

If I were I in your shoes, I'd be swinging for the fences. If I were an aspiring graduate student and applying to the same programs on your list, I'd be worried about how I measured up against you.

In regards to the guidance you've received from Sparky and SL, I'll offer a contrasting POV. While you may not have defined as narrowly your area of specialization and topics of interest as some UG history majors, based upon your posts, you have a relatively strong background in theory. IMO, this background is a huge advantage. Here's why. As a graduate student, one seeks to meet two basic objectives. The first is identifying a dissertation topic. The second is developing a usable set of tools to collect, to view, and to interpret primary source materials.

While Sparky and SL correctly point out that your candidacy would be well served if you could identify topics of interest sooner rather than later, do not sell your self short. You have already demonstrated the ability to pick topics of interest. And you have already developed and used a "lens" to view those topics.

In regards to maeisneb's description of your "competition," a small correction is necessary. Undergraduate history majors, even those who have been working towards grad school since they were in junior high, do not know their fields of interest "inside and out." Instead, they are allowed to think that they do. (This perception is shattered when one starts graduate school.)