Fall 2013 Applicants?

[hbeels]

Thanks annieca--I'm coming to realize that I'm a little more wary of going straight into a PhD program... I'd really like to teach and research, but I don't want to become just another attrition statistic. I have a lot more confidence going into a masters program as it gives me the option of leaving with just a masters or changing institutions for my doctorate.

[theregalrenegade]

Thanks annieca--I'm coming to realize that I'm a little more wary of going straight into a PhD program... I'd really like to teach and research, but I don't want to become just another attrition statistic. I have a lot more confidence going into a masters program as it gives me the option of leaving with just a masters or changing institutions for my doctorate.

Even though my story is a bit different, considering I had been out of undergrad for nearly 10 years before I decided I wanted to go to graduate school, I'm glad I chose to start with an MA. Since I only had a broad idea of what I wanted to study and really didn't know how graduate school worked, or if it was for me, the MA enabled me to work through those issues before I tackled the long years toward a PhD. I was able to build a solid foundation of classwork, discover research interests, begin relationships with professors and colleagues, and get a general grip on the grad school experience that I'm not sure I would have had if I went straight into the PhD. It might have held me back if I jumped right into a PhD, since I wouldn't have wanted to move forward until I felt secure and confident in myself as a student and had a better idea of what I wanted to do with my degree.

Just more for you to think about before you make any decisions...

P.S. annieca - Can I sign up for the "live on a beach and pontificate" job?

[Safferz]

I also did my undergraduate degree in Canada...this young lady and I are already well acquainted haha. she is my academic hero at the moment.

Indeed we are

How does one go about cutting a list of 13 schools down to a reasonable number? I have neither the funds nor the time to apply to 13 PhD programs.

what are the most important factors to take into account when deciding on whether to apply to a certain school?

Some schools are already on the 'definitely applying' to list: my undergrad uni (UToronto), my masters uni (LSE), and 2 American dream programs that seem to be a good fit, both in terms of academics and location.

Also, is there a general consensus on contacting professors? I want to...but I also don't want to ruin my chances by saying something stupid.

Sorry, if these questions have already been asked and answered!

I applied to 9 (8 American schools and our alum), which nearly killed me last semester with my full course load and other commitments. It's tempting to say in hindsight that I applied to too many, but I had no idea at the time that I'd receive offers from my top choices and rejections from schools that I didn't really want to go to but applied to anyway thinking they were 'safer' bets than the Ivies. It really is a crapshoot, so my suggestion is to do your research, select programs that are a good intellectual fit for your work (not only in terms of faculty and department strength, but finding a vibrant African studies environment across departments that you'll thrive in), and only apply to programs that you want to attend. Don't apply to X University because you know they have a larger incoming cohort, or because their admissions process seems to be less competitive than X Elite U. I'm not sure I believe "safety schools" exist -- you just have to put together the strongest application possible, and hope that what you have to offer matches up with the needs of the department/subfield for that particular year. This year Harvard wanted a student doing gender in the 20th century Horn, next year they may decide they've had enough of modern Africa and admit someone doing precolonial West Africa.

I don't know too much about history of science programs, but I did notice a large contingent of history of science prospective students at Yale, and a crazy amount of current grad students in the history department at Columbia (including an African history student I met) were doing work related to science or public health. Two history of science prospective students I met at Yale and again at Columbia were both planning to accept Columbia's offer. As you research programs to apply to, you'd want to look closely at how these programs are structured (autonomous or within history departments, whether they integrate faculty across disciplines and institutes at the university interested in the history of science, whether you'll be trained in general historical methods alongside history of science methodologies, etc) and whether there are advantages to enrolling in a 'regular' history PhD program over a specialized history of science PhD, if that's what the program awards.

Contacting professors is useful for determining whether a prof will be on leave, retiring soon or just not taking on students for one reason or another, but I don't think it's necessary and it certainly won't give you an edge during the application process. I was accepted to schools where I didn't contact professors at all or had my emails ignored completely (including the school I'm heading to), and rejected from schools with POIs I contacted ahead of time, including one that I've met in person. You just don't know what the department is looking for that year, or what the applicant pool you're competing against has to offer. Your focus as an applicant should be what's in your control, which is putting together a great application.

[pugsley87]

Indeed we are

I applied to 9 (8 American schools and our alum), which nearly killed me last semester with my full course load and other commitments. It's tempting to say in hindsight that I applied to too many, but I had no idea at the time that I'd receive offers from my top choices and rejections from schools that I didn't really want to go to but applied to anyway thinking they were 'safer' bets than the Ivies. It really is a crapshoot, so my suggestion is to do your research, select programs that are a good intellectual fit for your work (not only in terms of faculty and department strength, but finding a vibrant African studies environment across departments that you'll thrive in), and only apply to programs that you want to attend. Don't apply to X University because you know they have a larger incoming cohort, or because their admissions process seems to be less competitive than X Elite U. I'm not sure I believe "safety schools" exist -- you just have to put together the strongest application possible, and hope that what you have to offer matches up with the needs of the department/subfield for that particular year. This year Harvard wanted a student doing gender in the 20th century Horn, next year they may decide they've had enough of modern Africa and admit someone doing precolonial West Africa.

I don't know too much about history of science programs, but I did notice a large contingent of history of science prospective students at Yale, and a crazy amount of current grad students in the history department at Columbia (including an African history student I met) were doing work related to science or public health. Two history of science prospective students I met at Yale and again at Columbia were both planning to accept Columbia's offer. As you research programs to apply to, you'd want to look closely at how these programs are structured (autonomous or within history departments, whether they integrate faculty across disciplines and institutes at the university interested in the history of science, whether you'll be trained in general historical methods alongside history of science methodologies, etc) and whether there are advantages to enrolling in a 'regular' history PhD program over a specialized history of science PhD, if that's what the program awards.

Contacting professors is useful for determining whether a prof will be on leave, retiring soon or just not taking on students for one reason or another, but I don't think it's necessary and it certainly won't give you an edge during the application process. I was accepted to schools where I didn't contact professors at all or had my emails ignored completely (including the school I'm heading to), and rejected from schools with POIs I contacted ahead of time, including one that I've met in person. You just don't know what the department is looking for that year, or what the applicant pool you're competing against has to offer. Your focus as an applicant should be what's in your control, which is putting together a great application.

I completely agree with Safferz's guess that there are no safety schools when applying to PhD programs. Some schools might look easier to get into on paper, but their admissions process is just as rigorous, and they might not admit you because they'll see where else you apply and think, o, she's a far better fit for Univ X, and will prob go there (personal experience, got wait listed for similar reasons).

For anyone considering UPenn and Stanford, feel free to IM me

Edited April 13, 2012 by pugsley87

[oseirus]

For anyone considering UPenn and Stanford, feel free to IM me

For anyone considering the School of Hard Knocks and Bovine University (do any of you Millennials even get Simpsons jokes at this stage?) contact me

[jogatoronto]

Hey Safferz,

I was planning on PMing you with these questions but you beat me to it. Thanks for the advice! My list has actually jumped from 13 to 16 but this is just a list of schools I've made without doing any research on the department culture. I definitely need to pay attention to the methodological focuses of the departments and the number/quality of Africanists at the university in general.

After attending LSE I realize that we are a bit spoiled at our undergraduate university with the number of quality Africanists in many of the humanities and social science departments. Also, the library resources at our undergrad are amazing...I cannot stress how much I miss those resources (I still use the digitized books through my friend's login credentials).

For now I think I will apply to History of Science programs, as long as the departments offer both history and history of science methodologies. I also want to be able to work with faculty members in the 'regular History Department.' So, those are two big points that will help me cut my list down to a reasonable number. Thanks again! Congrats on being done with classes! Hopefully you don't have any exams haha.

Indeed we are

I applied to 9 (8 American schools and our alum), which nearly killed me last semester with my full course load and other commitments. It's tempting to say in hindsight that I applied to too many, but I had no idea at the time that I'd receive offers from my top choices and rejections from schools that I didn't really want to go to but applied to anyway thinking they were 'safer' bets than the Ivies. It really is a crapshoot, so my suggestion is to do your research, select programs that are a good intellectual fit for your work (not only in terms of faculty and department strength, but finding a vibrant African studies environment across departments that you'll thrive in), and only apply to programs that you want to attend. Don't apply to X University because you know they have a larger incoming cohort, or because their admissions process seems to be less competitive than X Elite U. I'm not sure I believe "safety schools" exist -- you just have to put together the strongest application possible, and hope that what you have to offer matches up with the needs of the department/subfield for that particular year. This year Harvard wanted a student doing gender in the 20th century Horn, next year they may decide they've had enough of modern Africa and admit someone doing precolonial West Africa.

I don't know too much about history of science programs, but I did notice a large contingent of history of science prospective students at Yale, and a crazy amount of current grad students in the history department at Columbia (including an African history student I met) were doing work related to science or public health. Two history of science prospective students I met at Yale and again at Columbia were both planning to accept Columbia's offer. As you research programs to apply to, you'd want to look closely at how these programs are structured (autonomous or within history departments, whether they integrate faculty across disciplines and institutes at the university interested in the history of science, whether you'll be trained in general historical methods alongside history of science methodologies, etc) and whether there are advantages to enrolling in a 'regular' history PhD program over a specialized history of science PhD, if that's what the program awards.

Contacting professors is useful for determining whether a prof will be on leave, retiring soon or just not taking on students for one reason or another, but I don't think it's necessary and it certainly won't give you an edge during the application process. I was accepted to schools where I didn't contact professors at all or had my emails ignored completely (including the school I'm heading to), and rejected from schools with POIs I contacted ahead of time, including one that I've met in person. You just don't know what the department is looking for that year, or what the applicant pool you're competing against has to offer. Your focus as an applicant should be what's in your control, which is putting together a great application.

[annieca]

Bahumbug.

I've been trying to find statistics on grad school's success rate after graduation - what percent are employed within six months of graduation? A year? Where are they employed? And I'm not getting anywhere.

Anyone else know where I can find this?

As another point of annoying research into the schools themselves, perhaps someone can explain Maryland's incredibly confusing policy about admissions.

So, I'm applying to their HiLS (History and Library Science) and here is what they say:

HiLS applicants need to submit only one graduate school application online and should send all transcripts and hard copy materials to:

University of Maryland, College Park

Enrollment Services Operations

Application for Graduate Admission

Rm 0130 Mitchell Building

College Park, MD 20742

HiLS applicants must meet the application requirements of both the iSchool and the Department of History. To confirm what materials are needed for the application, applicants should consult the graduate admission pages of both the iSchool and the History department. Please note that only one set of recommendation letters needs to be submitted. Also, the GRE waiver option for MLS applicants is not available to HiLS applicants, as the Department of History requires the GRE for all of its graduate applicants.

HiLS applications are reviewed for admission separately by the iSchool and the History department. To be admitted to the HiLS program, the applicant must receive an admit decision to both graduate programs. These admissions decisions are made independently of each other, so it is possible to be admitted to one program, but not the other. For example, if an applicant is admitted to the MLS program but not to the MA in History, that applicant is then welcome to attend the University of Maryland as an MLS student.

Does this mean I'm required to send my application twice? Or my GRE scores twice? The decision is separate but there's one application? I am thoroughly confused.

Anyone care to help out?

[Safferz]

Bahumbug.

I've been trying to find statistics on grad school's success rate after graduation - what percent are employed within six months of graduation? A year? Where are they employed? And I'm not getting anywhere.

Anyone else know where I can find this?

As another point of annoying research into the schools themselves, perhaps someone can explain Maryland's incredibly confusing policy about admissions.

So, I'm applying to their HiLS (History and Library Science) and here is what they say:

Does this mean I'm required to send my application twice? Or my GRE scores twice? The decision is separate but there's one application? I am thoroughly confused.

Anyone care to help out?

It looks like they have one centralized online application, with hard copy materials mailed in based on the requirements of the iSchool and History department. You'll have to check the websites for each program to find out what they need you to mail in, since the two programs may have different application requirements.

Placement rates are usually found on the program website, but if the information isn't available online, you can always ask.

[TMP]

I've been trying to find statistics on grad school's success rate after graduation - what percent are employed within six months of graduation? A year? Where are they employed? And I'm not getting anywhere.

Anyone else know where I can find this?

Maryland is a big pain. I've applied there twice. I can't stand its system.

Anyway, most departments are reluctant to admit the full truth of their placement given that not everyone gets an academic job. But for YOU, you're interested in finding out if people get jobs with the kind of degree you're looking for. And that's exactly the kind of question you need to e-mail the DGS (Director of Graduate Studies). Be that specific as you're not looking for an academic job afterward (which they will say 50% for their PhDs on average).

But you can use PhDs.org, which uses the latest NRC data and get a sense of its placement but that's for its doctoral program, not the master's program.

So, go for it. Be specific with your placement question.

[unforth]

Alrighty, then, I've caught up on this thread and I guess that means it'stime to open my mouth.

Hi everyone! I decided officially to go for my PhD in US History in February. I earned my undergrad from SUNY Binghamton in 2004 in Asian hisogry, earned a Masters of Library Science in 2007 from IU Bloomington, and since then I've been working as a grant writer and grant evaluator for professnal development programs for New York City public school teachers. However, I've grown increasingly unhappy with my job, and at the same time it's helped me realize that history is my first love. I'm aiming for my PhD in 19th century US history, with a focus on military history (didn't study this in undergrad because I chose my college without thinking things through and then didn't want to change).

I'm a native New Yorker, I disagree that the west coast is better, and y'all can keep your Red Sox and Yankees, it's all about the Mets (and how much we suck! But love is love, no one will ever call my a fair-weather fan...)

I've been pretty active in prep, though now I'm basically done with most of what I can do in advance. Last month I went on a road trip and visited my top four out of seven choices, and met faculty at three of them, and got some tips. I also wandered around the campuses and the towns, to see what they were like. This was super handy and resulted in not only some good information and some face/name recognition at the schools, but it also resulted in my changing my order of preference. Furthermore, the two professors in my field I spoke to confirmed that I was looking at the best programs in my field, which was reassuring. I'm looking at UNC, UVA, Penn State, and Ohio State as my main choices. (my other three, two are in Kansas, and the last one is Texas A&M, but I've visited College Station enough to know I hate it so I'm probably not going to apply there). I've also been fishing through my old undergrad papers (very worried about this, I'm a much better writer than I was 8 years ago, last time I wrote a history paper...)...considering my recommendations (i was not a stand-out student in undergrad but I work with some history professors NOW who I'm going to speak to)...getting my transcripts (my gpas are both better and worse than I remember...was very distressed to discover that my history gpa is actually LOWER than my overall gpa as an undergrad)...and today I took the GRE, since my old scores are expired.

A friend of mine told me about this site on Wednesday, and it seems spiffy.

Am I scared? Hell. Yes. The professors I've spoken to all agreed that at their schools they're getting roughly 80 applicants for two spots in my field. That's TERRIFYING. I think I've got some strengths - I test well, I write well, I'm a woman interested in military history, I'm knowledgeable because I've read heavily in my field over the past five years cause I love it and read it for fun, and I've been out of school long enough to be able to demonstrate that I'm doing this because I really want, I'll be giving up a lucrative career to pursue one that will likely never earn me as much. But...my gpa isn't that strong, I didn't study my field of choice as an undergrad (though I've been told by the profs that this is irrelevant) and what if I don't get in some where? Then what will I do? I'll have already left my job by then...

Looking forward to getting to know you all as we navigate this crazy process...

Edited April 21, 2012 by unforth

[unforth]

@annieca - I don't know what Maryland means in that quote, but I applied to and was admitted to that program, and don't remember the application being all that difficult to get done, so I'm sure that we can figure it out using our collective brains. Also, I know you've mentioned IU Bloomington. I went there for my MLS. As to their MLS program, basically anyone who meets the minimum qualifications gets in there. Its a good program, though, and I'm glad I went, the skills are surprisingly generally applicable. The MIS/MLS joint program is a bit harder to get in to. I didn't apply to their history department until after I was already attending as a Library Sci student, and as far as I can tell my admission was basically automatic. I didn't end up earning my Hist MA then just cause, well, let's just say it was a philosophical mismatch for me and move on.

[theregalrenegade]

Looking forward to getting to know you all as we navigate this crazy process...

Welcome!

I like your style. You want this...bad. I'm sure you'll be a great addition to this thread. We'll need inspired minds like yours to help get us all through this.

I'd like to hear about your experience with the GRE. I took it a while back (a year and a half ago?) and bombed so bad that I didn't even record my scores. I didn't need them to get into my MA, but I thought I would take it to see what it was like. Ugh. Now this was the old GRE. How did you fare? You said you test well. I'm not so fortunate in that realm, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the new test.

P.S. Five years isn't all that long to be out of academia. Especially with your passion for your field at heart!

Again, welcome!

[unforth]

Hey there! Thanks for the welcome. It feels a little bit like going backwards to go back to school, so I was really reassured when I read about you and the other person on here (still learning usernames so I'm not sure who it was) who are also coming back a bit older after some time at another career. I'm really glad to have found a supportive group, cause I can already tell just how stressful this will be - I found applying for my MLS stressful but this sounds like its going to be much, much worse.

Okay, GRE. Background: I took the GRE older style test in fall, 2004 before I apples to Library Science programs. At that time, I had been in school continuously my whole life, but I hadn't studied math since high school. I didn't study then - I took a single practice test, refreshed on what I'd gotten wrong, and then went and took the test; I got 720 (98%) verbal, 720 (some much lower percent I don't remember, like in the mid 70s) math, and a 5.0 in the writing.

I took the new GRE yesterday. I took a practice test a couple months ago to see what was different and what my baseline was. Based on that, I bought a book and started practicing and studying a week ago. I read the book cover to cover (more or less) and did most of the practice questions on it. Then, I took another practice test and did noticeably better. For both practice tests I did the whole thing, even writing the essays, just to get a sense. Again, I reviewed what I got wrong. Definitely struggled with math more than before, since I still haven't studied math since I was in high school. My reported scores after the test were a 165 verbal and a 157 math; I won't know my percentages or essay score for two weeks.

In terms of what I thought about it...hmm...for the most part, I found it pretty similar to how I remembered things being before. I don't think I had as clear an idea of what the essays were asking for - so that's important. (though I don't know yet if that understanding paid off ). The big difference I noticed was the adaptability. In the old test, you could kinda tell how you were doing by how hard the questions got. The new test is less adaptive - so within a section, the questions are all set, but when you get to the second set of verbal or math questions, you can really tell - like, my second set of verbal questions were WAY harder than the first set. Other than that, though, I didn't see that it was all that different, so if you had some trouble, you'll likely run in to the same or similar issues - but you're more prepared this time. Over in the GRE thread there were some different approaches that people took to studying, based on their strengths, I thought it was handy info.

Does this help? I'll think some more if anything was different...that was 8 years ago, though.

Edited April 21, 2012 by unforth

[runaway]

@unforth Hell yeah, Mets! I was at Citi at least once or twice a week last season... maybe we crossed paths at some point

I keep going back and forth on whether to take the GRE again. I broke 700 in both sections (old GRE) so those scores are fine, but I only got a 4 on analytical. I know my writing sample can make up for that, but I'm already worried as it is about my writing sample being good enough! Maybe re-taking the GRE would be worth it just for confidence's sake?

[Safferz]

I keep going back and forth on whether to take the GRE again. I broke 700 in both sections (old GRE) so those scores are fine, but I only got a 4 on analytical. I know my writing sample can make up for that, but I'm already worried as it is about my writing sample being good enough! Maybe re-taking the GRE would be worth it just for confidence's sake?

I had a 4 AW. I think your time and energy is better spent on producing an engaging, well-written writing sample and statement of purpose, because ultimately those are the parts of your application that get you admitted, not your GRE score (although a really low score can certainly keep you out).

[runaway]

I had a 4 AW. I think your time and energy is better spent on producing an engaging, well-written writing sample and statement of purpose, because ultimately those are the parts of your application that get you admitted, not your GRE score (although a really low score can certainly keep you out).

Thanks Safferz! That makes me feel a lot better, especially knowing your record. I guess a part of me is worried that the 4 was below some cutoff, given the percentile, at least. But I had a lot of trouble preparing for that section of the GRE and definitely wouldn't look forward to doing it again. I just can't revert back to writing 5 paragraph essays.

[edgirl]

My reported scores after the test were a 165 verbal and a 157 math; I won't know my percentages or essay score for two weeks.

V 165 = 690 old scale = 96th %ile

Q 157 = 730 old scale = 77th %ile

concordance and percentiles from ETS: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/understand/

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I don't think many people really take the AW score that seriously - especially in terms of admissions. I think it's well known that the AW doesn't really reflect a writer's ability. The writing sample does that. However, I think that having great numbers, including the AW score, really does help in securing funding and additional funding. I know that when one school nominated me for an internal fellowship (in addition to their normal funding package), they said that my GRE scores (which were good, and included a 6.0 AW) would make me very competitive for this award. So while I agree with what Safferz says about prioritizing other things if you have good/decent GRE scores, keep in mind that GRE scores are really one of the only ways for a graduate school (read: not the history department itself) to compare you with applicants across departments.

[theregalrenegade]

Wow, unforth et al...great insights and information regarding the GRE. I'll be able to formulate a much better study schedule and strategy plan after reading all this.

[annieca]

Just got back from my first conference today. It was definitely an eye-opener for me.

There was some serious networking going on. Not to mention the historical discussion and the "Oh, it's you! I haven't seen you since two years ago in Tuscola!" And the informality! Even as a Master's student I would never dream of calling a professor/professional I didn't know "James" but here people are, calling them by their first name. Maybe it's just because it was Public History and we're a really weird bunch of people. *shrug*

[unforth]

What conference was it?

I've got my first in the second week of May (or rather, my first not for work or for my novel writing hobby...) - Society of Military Historians. OAH was this weekend in Milwaukee but I didn't find that out til after I'd paid for my GRE...

What are people's thoughts on conferences? Are the contacts helpful? Does the info help you demonstrate that you know what's new in your sub-field?

[unforth]

Oh dear...so, since I'm new here I've been slowly reading through the archives as I get a chance. And by archives I mean things written three days ago. Anyway, I just read about peoples views on writing samples and I've got to admit, I'm seriously alarmed. I've known for a bit that writing sample is a big problem for me. I took three seminars as an undergrad and wrote three 20 page seminar papers. One of them was on historiography, and I wrote a paper about the Nihongi (a 7th century ad history of the origin of Japan) which I read cover to cover and wrote about. Problem with this paper is that it's not very good. Then, I wrote a paper about State Shinto in Japan and how it developed. Problem with this paper is that, while it's not terrible, I clearly - to my eye - was exhausted and beat when I wrote it. That's because I wrote it less than two days after writing the only paper I think might be good enough, which is about Japanese piracy in China during the 16th and 17th centuries. It's an okay paper, but it's got a few problems: it reads a bit more like a book report than a thesis paper (though I DID have a thesis not directly out of my sources, it just doesn't read that way...); it's only 20 pages; and it's not the in the field I intend to pursue for a PhD.

I've spoken to a couple professors at schools I'm interested in, and been told that the length isn't an issue, and that I shouldn't worry too much about the field jump, but I'm still worried about the writing quality, the complete lack of primary documents (because where was I supposed to find original resources on Japanese piracy at SUNY Binghamton? And even if I could all the primary docs on that topic are in Chinese, which I don't speak - not in Japanese, which I could have translated...), and the fact that it doesn't come off as a thesis paper. If I DO want to use this paper, I've been meaning to dig out my original research notes (which should be in a box somewhere in my apartment) and take a stab at substantially re-writing it from my original research. Is that considered kosher?

Alternatively, I've been thinking about trying to find the time NOW to use some primary docs available in my area to write some articles in my field (okay, one good article in my field, even) and try to get it published - since I can't write in a school setting. Or, I've been thinking about trying to take a summer course non-matriculated in my field, and get a suitable paper out of that. Problem there is money and time - I have a job and all that jazz. But, I write much better and work much harder than I did back in the day.

Thoughts?

Edited April 22, 2012 by unforth

[StrangeLight]

you should absolutely rewrite your writing sample. if any of your professors tell you otherwise, they are doing you a huge disservice. everybody should go over their writing sample with a fine tooth comb, edit it over and over, get several profs to read it, put it through multiple drafts. there is absolutely no obligation that your writing sample be a paper you wrote for a class. anyone is free to write one from scratch on their own. and it NEEDS to include primary sources. if you submit a writing sample that doesn't demonstrate your ability to analyze primary sources, you may as well not bother with the application. the purpose of the sample is to demonstrate to your future professors that you can actually do historical analysis. if you don't have a paper that does this, or one that does it well, then take the summer to work on one. you have more than enough time. but whatever you submit, make sure it includes primary documents and is the absolute best of your ability. again, it doesn't need to be something you write for a class.

it would be even better if the primary sources of the paper are in a foreign language. this will demonstrate to admissions committees that you really do know the languages that you claim to know. this goes a LONG way for admissions. foreign language ability is HUGE. the paper doesn't need to be in your area of interest. it's better, i believe, to show that you can work with primary sources than it is to write on a topic similar to the one you plan to pursue in grad school. your statement of purpose can convince them that you're interested in your subfield. the writing sample should just convince them that you can do historical research.

and applying for grad school is very time consuming, particularly if you do a good job on your application. start working on this stuff now, if you can, if you're worried about having time for it in the fall. if you want a shot at getting into a school, you need to put time and energy into your writing sample and your statement of purpose. again, if you can't do that, save yourself the application fees.

i hope that helps. short answer: yes to rewriting a paper or starting a new one from scratch, yes to using original sources (especially in a foreign language). no to needing to submit a paper that was connected to a class you took. no to needing to take a summer course to write a paper.

[unforth]

It does help. Thanks tons.

Do you think it matters that the language I know (Japanese) bears absolutely no relationship to my chosen field whatsoever? Like, that Japanaese language skill will in no way at all help my ability to study about the US Civil War military history? (it's not like I intend to study what 19th century Meiji Revolution Japan thought about the US Civil War...though now that I think about it, that might be kinda interesting...)

[oseirus]

It does help. Thanks tons.

Do you think it matters that the language I know (Japanese) bears absolutely no relationship to my chosen field whatsoever? Like, that Japanaese language skill will in no way at all help my ability to study about the US Civil War military history? (it's not like I intend to study what 19th century Meiji Revolution Japan thought about the US Civil War...though now that I think about it, that might be kinda interesting...)

Can I assume you're you going for a PhD in US Civil War history?