Should I apply to Graduate School for History?

[kenningsa]

I'd just like to know whether I have a realistic shot at getting in to decent program with funding.

I will be a senior at Penn State University (University Park). I have a 3.6 overall GPA with a 3.9 in my major (which is History). I'm minoring in French.

Unfortunately I will not have an honors degree.

I have yet to take the GRE, but I got a 1330 on the SAT so I imagine I will fall somewhere around there.

My current list of schools includes: McGill, Maryland, Temple, Maine, UC Davis, and maybe a couple schools in England.

What do you think? I'm open to an MA or a PHD program. My areas of focus are French History (post 1789), and Environmental History.

I've also done museum internships, and I help edit a scholarly Comparative Literature journal with a professor at the university.

Edited May 29, 2012 by kenningsa

[New England Nat]

It's really more about PoI than about particular schools. Find someone that fits your work. Off the top of my head I would think about Sara Pritchard at Cornell http://sts.cornell.edu/people/sbp65.cfm or Gabrielle Hecht at UMich http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hechtg/ . Pritchard is more environmental history and Hecht more history of science/technology but both are historians of modern France and the French empire.

Hecht's the Radiance of France is perhaps one of the most amazing pieces of scholarship I've ever read.

The other option is finding a program that has both good French scholars and good environmental history. Given that I would be very careful about Wisconsin at the moment I think it's hard to find a better up and coming place to do environmental history than Davis is at the moment and that department is in better shape than you would think given that they are at the UC schools.

If you are open to a masters to build to a better PhD application there is Rutgers-Newark/NJIT which offers a history of technology, the environment and medicine concentration. Their environmental historian is more 20th century but their historian of technology is somewhere around the low end of your range. Look for the science/techy/enviro people on the NJIT website and the traditional historians at the Rutgers side.

And depending on how you position yourself as an environmental historian I would also consider the history of science programs which tend to be concentrated in the Ivys.

[TMP]

I second on Wisconsin. I would simply not expect funding (only about 15 out of 369 applications received full funding this past cycle)- just focus on putting together the very best application possible. Wisconsin has wonderful French and environmental historians so it's worth applying there at least. Also, I think the department tends to prefer "straight out of undergrad" applicants given that they have a MA/PhD program and don't really grant any kind of MA credits if you do your MA elsewhere. The DGS (Director of Graduate Studies) told me and other recruits that they really do look for "raw" potential and take chances on those people. It's true, I was the only recruit that weekend with a MA and full funding. How I managed to be in that position is still beyond me.

But do focus on finding scholars whose current projects and books really interest you- you'll have much more fun working with those kind of people than someone who just happens to do general French history at some top tier program.

[New England Nat]

TMP,

I've always wondered if Wisconsin really perfers the straight out of undergrad people because they're less likely to know that more funding should be available. Most of the Ivy's are pulling the majority of their classes from masters programs these days. This year was the first one in ages that mine took more than a handful of their applicants from undergrad and they still took a majority with post graduate degrees.

Speaking as an environmental historian, one of the things to really worry about is that the places with good environmental history programs are often at state schools with larger funding issues and not always the shinny name. I hate to tell people this, but the name does matter. The PoI is the most important thing, but a great PoI at a history department ranked somewhere in the 60s nationally is going to be hard to get a job.

[CageFree]

I'm starting at UC Davis this fall. I can tell you that at UCD every person admitted is funded for 5 years, and as NEN said, it's a great place for environmental history... http://history.ucdav...nmental-history. Funding is generally 2 TAships and 1 readership per year, plus there are block funds available once you start your dissertation to be used once a year. That adds up to about 17K/year... which is doable in Davis, especially since you don't really need a car.

Edited May 29, 2012 by CageFree

[TMP]

TMP,

I've always wondered if Wisconsin really perfers the straight out of undergrad people because they're less likely to know that more funding should be available. Most of the Ivy's are pulling the majority of their classes from masters programs these days. This year was the first one in ages that mine took more than a handful of their applicants from undergrad and they still took a majority with post graduate degrees.

It's a bit of a broad generalization. The admits who had other highly competitive offers did a lot asking and pushed for more funding information. The DGS didn't hold himself back. Neither did the graduate students- they were hardly shy about their experiences being (un)funded and searching for additional funding outside of the department. So, we all did end up being pretty nervous about our decisions- were we willing to live with this? Our responses varied, depending on our situations.

(I didn't find out until about a week later from another student who wasn't on campus who had the same fellowship package as I was being offered and was told not to worry a bit. So for my situation, additional funding would be a non-issue). So, going to Wisconsin in my specific situation was a real option. But I chose not to take it for other reasons.

[kenningsa]

Thank you all for your kind words and advice. It's good to know that I would be a suitable candidate. History is my passion and I really couldn't imagine being anything other than a historian.

[annieca]

There's a professor at South Carolina - I can't remember his name right now - but he does Modern German environmental history. It's a bit of a stretch but you might check him out to see who he cites since he's pretty well published.

[Banstaraí]

No one answered his question at all. You all just danced around it.

1) Are you in the top ten percent of your class? Depending on what honors societies you're in, you can tell. If not, then you don't really have a shot at a PhD program.

2) SAT does not equal GRE. Absolutely not. Take a practice test; ETS' practice test seems to be a good indicator. Depending on the program you apply for there will be a minimum threshold. Graduate school admissions are not undergraduate admissions; a range is not a guarentee. In fact the GRE can do nothing but hurt you, as there are so many applicants that its just used as a way to cut down on what the AdComm has to look at... Some programs require perfect scores in certain subjects; for history focus on the verbal and analytical sections, but don't forget that quantitative analysis is important to historical study, so quantitative DOES count. There is no longer a history GRE subject test, so no worries there.

3) Have you done any real research work? You don't list any, so I'd stay away from the PhD programs. Most bare-minimum PhD applicants that AdComms are willing to look at have research under their belt, ie an honors thesis or undergraduate research.

4) English schools... Good for an MA, bad bad bad for a PhD. I'm dealing with this dilemma myself (focus in Irish history), but Academe is a mess over in Europe and you simply won't get the publication experience or teaching experience. If you ever find yourself in applying for a PhD, don't screw yourself out of a career by doing it in Britain. Now, doing a PostDoc over there is an entirely different story...

5) Have any well-connected professors that know you well? To a certain degree it can come down to who you know, as admissions cycles are fiercely competitive, esp. for a PhD. Now I don't necessarily mean famous professors, but those who perhaps have an academic pedigree from a school you're applying to, or says he knows so-and-so over in that department and you should work with him, blah blah blah.

6) Again there doesn't seem to be enough info to write a basic SOP for a PhD program, which needs to focus on ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

7) This is the one that'll get everyone's knickers in a twist. The AHA did a study not too long ago about the undergraduate origins of PhD students. 25% of all PhD students come from the same 25 schools (think about that math); Penn State is not one of them. You should be fine, as far as school goes, as Penn State is still a fairly decent school, but its good to be aware of these things.

8) Read the Chronicle of Higher Education; under the Advice Tab is a Graduate School section. You and every other PhD aspirant owes it to themselves to read the Thomas H. Benton articles on Why NOT to pursue graduate school in the humanities. It's highly informative and its better to come to terms with the reality now rather than later.

My Verdict: Too green for a PhD. Go for a masters and get some research experience; it'll likely be easier to get into a program you want to be in, with the right POI after that anyways.

[TMP]

New England Nat basically answered most of them for the rest of us. Also, there's so much subjectivity in the process that we simply cannot give straight answers.

No one answered his question at all. You all just danced around it.

1) Are you in the top ten percent of your class? Depending on what honors societies you're in, you can tell. If not, then you don't really have a shot at a PhD program.

That's blatantly wrong. You do need to be a good student but your research interests and work matter much more. If someone with a 3.1 GPA but has a stellar writing sample and research agenda, that person will be admitted over someone with a 3.9 and no idea or doesn't demonstrate original thinking. So honor societies don't really matter... The Phi Alpha Theta chapter my undergrad only required a 3.1 GPA in the major. What stands top students in the major apart from others is the honors seminar, which requires a GPA of 3.5, 3.7 for high honors. Professors will say so in their LORs.

3) Have you done any real research work? You don't list any, so I'd stay away from the PhD programs. Most bare-minimum PhD applicants that AdComms are willing to look at have research under their belt, ie an honors thesis or undergraduate research.

The OP will be a SENIOR. S/he still has a year to pursue a thesis through a honors course or independent study. S/he *should* consider delaying applications for an Fall 2014 entry. The experience of researching and writing for a year will make the difference in deciding if it's worth pursuing graduate school. Also, by reading up literature in the field, s/he will gain knowledge of who's out there and doing what, which will then help him/her create a list of PhD and MA programs.

#5, that's all totally out of the OP's control. I cannot emphasize how important it is for applicants to shield themselves from departmental and academic politics. Only to understand that it's not about them. When an applicant realizes that his/her application was perfectly fine but was shut out due to politics, that's very painful. This kind of revelation can make an applicant feel very powerless and discouraged because s/he spent so much time and money applying., and it seems like professors don't even care that. So I'd warn to keep this thought on the horizon but don't obsess over it. Simply go through the motions and show confidence.

6) Again there doesn't seem to be enough info to write a basic SOP for a PhD program, which needs to focus on ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

There never is. There's no one magic formula. Applicants never *quite* know what adcoms and potential advisers are looking for. They do want to see intellectual curiosity. They want to see what kind of questions you have at macro and micro levels. Just don't freaking start the SOP with "I've always loved history and wanted to be a professor ever since..." I had completely forgotten that my new adviser was in beginning stages of writing a book in an area that I'm very interested while I was applying and now I realize that it's hardly a surprise that she's always been so interested in my work. On the surface, we would seem like a mismatch but when people learn of her work, they understand why. So an applicant could write about 19th century German religious politics all s/he want and expect this POI who just wrote a book on that to accept him/her when in fact that POI has just moved onto exploring the social politics in East Germany in the 1960s. Oops. Even if the applicant is asking great questions about 19th century politics.

The SOP is indeed the toughest part and it should be done with care. But the writing sample matters just as much.

7) This is the one that'll get everyone's knickers in a twist. The AHA did a study not too long ago about the undergraduate origins of PhD students. 25% of all PhD students come from the same 25 schools (think about that math); Penn State is not one of them. You should be fine, as far as school goes, as Penn State is still a fairly decent school, but its good to be aware of these things.

What's the point? There was a lot of diversity in my incoming cohorts both at Ohio State and Wisconsin. There was a great mix, yes, even at Wisconsin. Adcoms want the brightest students. Then again, these two are public schools where diversity is greatly emphasized. And of course, no question about it that students coming from schools with PhD programs are at advantage because they're working with professors who have sat on admissions themselves and read hundreds of applications.

8) Read the Chronicle of Higher Education; under the Advice Tab is a Graduate School section. You and every other PhD aspirant owes it to themselves to read the Thomas H. Benton articles on Why NOT to pursue graduate school in the humanities. It's highly informative and its better to come to terms with the reality now rather than later.

He's a resentful idiot, IMHO. Karen Kelsky's site (The Professor Is In) is far better and more realistic with some crowd-sourcing.

[Professor Plum]

You do need to be a good student but your research interests and work matter much more. If someone with a 3.1 GPA but has a stellar writing sample and research agenda, that person will be admitted over someone with a 3.9 and no idea or doesn't demonstrate original thinking.

Both students will likely be passed over for the applicant who has a 3.9 and a stellar writing sample. I say this as someone who sits on the PhD admissions committee at my (thoroughly mediocre) program. We are ranked almost exactly in the middle of doctoral programs nationally, and we receive more than a hundred applicants for six funded slots. That allows us to be amazingly selective--much more than the quality of the program (or the prospects for its graduates) should warrant. An applicant with a 3.1 GPA that isn't from Princeton or isn't carrying Ds in differential equations and organic chemistry from their sopohomore year usually gets a very cursory look from the committee.

There is a lot of encouraging, optimistic advice on these boards, and that's fine. Do not forget that most of it is from grad students and aspiring grad students. I strongly encourage considering graduate work to spend at least as much time over at the boards on the Chronicle website to get perspectives from people who are further along in the process--and dealing with the frustrations of the job search, the prospect of moving to a one-stoplight town in the middle of nowhere or facing a lifetime of low-paid, uncertain work as adjuncts, contending with debt and low savings, the molar-grinding anxiety of the tenure process... It's a useful corrective. Dismissing Benton as a "resentful idiot" is just being willfully ignorant of the realities of the way the humanities work today. (I happen to be a big fan of Kelsky's site, but don't forget how she makes her money, and where her interests lie with regards to encouraging people to pursue graduate school.)

[New England Nat]

Professor Plum is right. The fact is that the process is hard and the market for jobs afterwards is worse. It's one reason I would strongly encourage a college senior to consider a masters program first. 1) it will make you a stronger candidate and let the adcom know that you can handle graduate level work and do original research. 2) it will force YOU to understand what you are getting into. If you are going to burn out you will burn out in a 2 year program rather than a 5-7 year one.

I will point out though that while Professor Plum's experiance is his own and I have no doubt that it is true, it's not universal. My cohort had two people who failed out of college at 19. I was one of them. We both came back as significantly older students with masters degrees.

[Simple Twist of Fate]

2) SAT does not equal GRE. Absolutely not. Take a practice test; ETS' practice test seems to be a good indicator. Depending on the program you apply for there will be a minimum threshold. Graduate school admissions are not undergraduate admissions; a range is not a guarentee. In fact the GRE can do nothing but hurt you, as there are so many applicants that its just used as a way to cut down on what the AdComm has to look at... Some programs require perfect scores in certain subjects; for history focus on the verbal  and analytical sections, but don't forget that quantitative analysis is important to historical study, so quantitative DOES count. There is no longer a history GRE subject test, so no worries there.

Will depend on the program, but I've often heard that not much thought is given to the analytic section. I agree that it shouldn't be - it's really a poor gauge of writing and analytic ability, in my opinion.Also, go ahead and take a practice test (there should be one or two free ones online) to give yourself a baseline. But don't freak out if you don't do well on the first try. I remember the year before I applied, I took a practice test and did so poorly that I started to question whether I could ever be admitted anywhere. But the GRE is very much a test you can study for. I got serious about studying for it and ended up with 99% Verbal, 99% analytic and a respectable quant score (which I can't remember off the top of my head, but it wasn't awful).

There never is. There's no one magic formula. Applicants never *quite* know what adcoms and potential advisers are looking for. They do want to see intellectual curiosity. They want to see what kind of questions you have at macro and micro levels. Just don't freaking start the SOP with "I've always loved history and wanted to be a professor ever since..." I had completely forgotten that my new adviser was in beginning stages of writing a book in an area that I'm very interested while I was applying and now I realize that it's hardly a surprise that she's always been so interested in my work. On the surface, we would seem like a mismatch but when people learn of her work, they understand why. So an applicant could write about 19th century German religious politics all s/he want and expect this POI who just wrote a book on that to accept him/her when in fact that POI has just moved onto exploring the social politics in East Germany in the 1960s. Oops. Even if the applicant is asking great questions about 19th century politics.

I'll add that I had a similar experience. I was told all through this process that it's hugely important to get the closest fit possible with your POI. And that's good advice, but I do want to add that it's sometimes more complex than that. The work that I want to do is basically something that nobody is doing, or has done (which is why it's so exciting to me). Therefore, I didn't have any totally obvious POIs - only some that were loosely related to my research interest or field, with the exception of one Prof who I thought might be a pretty good fit. I applied anyway, and I ended up being admitted to three good schools, and was left as first on the waitlist at one great program. In retrospect, I was pretty lucky. In the process, I found out that one prof said he has "wide interests" and basically just advocates for the most impressive/interesting applicant regardless of whether he's done work in that student's area. Another one indicated pretty much the same approach. My advisor for next year turned out to be writing a book that's related to my work - which I didn't know at first (and I'm not sure how I would have known that if not through direct communication). However, at the program I was wait-listed at, I was told that I was put on the wait list because my interests didn't align as closely with my POI as other applicants. So every professor, adcom and program may have different approaches. And honestly, if I had followed all the advice here exactly, I probably wouldn't have applied to several of the programs that were interested in me. As tmp says, there's no "magic formula" - if you feel like you're ready for a PhD, you just have to do your best to put together the very best application you can, and hope that somebody will see something in you.

[Sigaba]

@YoungHistorian--

Are you sure that "no one answered his question at all" and that we "all just danced around it"? You've been a member of this BB since 31 May. Have you used any of that time using the search function to see what type of guidance has been offered to aspiring history graduate students in general and to the OP in particular?

It is increasingly disturbing how many aspiring graduate students say they want to study history but demonstrate a profound unwillingness to use the (re)search button.

[CageFree]

@YoungHistorian--

Are you sure that "no one answered his question at all" and that we "all just danced around it"? You've been a member of this BB since 31 May. Have you used any of that time using the search function to see what type of guidance has been offered to aspiring history graduate students in general and to the OP in particular?

It is increasingly disturbing how many aspiring graduate students say they want to study history but demonstrate a profound unwillingness to use the (re)search button.

N/M, YoungHistorian changed their name.

Edited June 7, 2012 by CageFree