Your Advice for a Prospective Ph.D

[BC1010]

Longtime lurker on these forums, folks seem to offer a great deal of knowledge and support being shared. Posing a very simple question:

 

What advice would you give to someone who wants to apply for Ph.D in History in the next application cycle?

 

Interested in whatever insight you'd like to offer or lesson learned from your experience.

 

(If you'd like to tailor your advice to me, in particular, I studied European History as an undergrad, hope to switch to American in grad school)

[stillalivetui]

Do I smell a future "2014 Applicants?" page brewing? 

 

Hang tight, my friend, we'll take care for all your needs so enough!

[Andean Pat]

Yeeeeaaaaahhhhhhh another historian!!!!!!! Here's my advice:

 

1. Contact the department. Do not start choosing schools by their reputation, choose them by their department. It is nice to apply to an Ivy League school but if your interests do not match, it is stupid. I wanted to apply to Harvard, besides there is generous funding from my country to go there but my interests did not even come close to those of the department.

 

2. Do your research. This is connected to the one before. Really investigate where you want to go, not only for the academics but also for the place. I did not apply to a place I did not want to live in. Check if your hobbies are available, for example, I checked out for field hockey teams. Ask EVERYTHING to grad students, most are happy to help you and to meet you if they have a chance. Many will advice you one the mood in the department, funding, housing, etc. Furthermore, they know very well the departments rankings/interests focus and thus can advice you to also try elsewhere.

 

3. Take your time to prepare your app. I was working full time so I started in July with the contacting the department/POIs and preparing GRE. I finished my applications in December. Take your time to write your SOP, show it to professors/friends in grad school. Many grad students I had met were happy to read it for me, even though I did not apply to their school. Take time to prepare for GRE. Although it's rubbish, expensive and almost pointless, it is necessary and you cannot fight the system. I had an excellent private teacher who started with the writing section and because I could write logically, I could also read logically. I got excellent results. My advice here is DO prepare it, and choose your course wisely. Work on your letters of recommendation, do not just ask for them. Meet your professors/employers, tell them about your ambitions, be clear on what is expected from them. Your SOP and CV should show the adcomms how great you are and why making you an offer is the best decision they will ever make. Now, I understand that you Northamericans are quite skillful in "decorating" your accomplishments, especially (I envy this a little bit ) because ALL your accomplishments have names. So you won the "Robert Smith Senior essay of the Year on how to dehydrate an amphibian's limb". So, do not put yourself down here.

 

4. Narrow your choices. Many people may not agree with this. I believe you shouldn't apply to more than seven schools. First of all, its loads of money. Second of all, if you did points 1 and 2 thoroughly then you will not be able to apply to more than 6/7. I had an EXCELLENT fit with a program I really really wanted to apply to but the POIs responded my e-mail very late and then he did not answer again. I could have applied, but how much do I want to be accepted in a place where they did not show any interest? Mmmm, I don't know. Another example, I was a great fit with a professor in a program on the west coast. He acknowledged that and was happy to talk about my application, but advised me that there was no funding and it was almost pointless for me to apply. Finally, one professor directly told me he was not taking any students this year. So, communication is basic and although I would have applied to, say, 10 programs, I ended up with 5. Which programs? The ones that are best for you. 

 

5. Be confident. You will have an offer from a place that really really wants you. It doesn't matter how badly you wanted to go into another program. They just don't want there. I mean: be prepared for rejections but be confident that a rejection is not a bummer, it just means you did everything you had to do and the department had to choose. This is difficult because you feel stupid when someone else gets into a top school and you don't. In the end, all that matters is the acceptance, not the rejection. 

 

6. Be realistic. Do not yield to emotional stress and drama. If you get in, great. If you don't, it is not the end of the world. Be an adult in your application, show your real potential as a historian. Be prepared to make decisions. Save money. Have a plan B (a master's elsewhere? Year abroad? You name it). Listen to those who praise you and those who criticize your work. Learn from mistakes. Get yourself published, it's awesome. 

 

Mmmmm I sound to motherly, don't I? You get more or less what I mean right? 

[TMP]

Don't do US history unless  your'e interested in race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.  Those are hot.  Everything else?  Not.  The competition is really insane, a bit more so than European.

[New England Nat]

The time commitment to a well done application is that needed for a graduate level course.  Just the application will consume about a third of your life.  Don't half ass it.

 

And I'd make an arguement that religion and the environment are also hot.

Edited March 5, 2013 by New England Nat

[Simple Twist of Fate]

Don't do US history unless  your'e interested in race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.  Those are hot.  Everything else?  Not.  The competition is really insane, a bit more so than European.

Well that's a bit of an exaggeration, I think. The competition is very intense, sure. But there are lots of fields or approaches that are doing well besides those four. Actually, some schools are really into other things. While I would say it's impossible to avoid those categories for many topics, it's not as if writing one of those words on your SOP is a golden ticket. In fact, I was talking to a member of the adcom at my school, and he said that it seems like everyone who applies is doing race and gender -- they were looking for a project that stood out as particularly interesting and promising.

 

Another member of the adcom told me that what he really looked for in separating the good applicants is a certain "fire in the belly" -- that is, a determination that will help students slog through the tough times of grad school. And make no mistake, it is extremely difficult. It should be clear from your application that you're committed to this path, and that it's no passing fancy or way to avoid a bad job market. 

[simone von c]

I'd say, thoughtfully read through the essays on this web site, http://100rsns.blogspot.ca/, and if you still want to go to graduate school in history, consider an MA first rather than the direct admit route.

Edited March 5, 2013 by simone von c

[LeatherElbows]

A few things off the top of my head ...

 

1. Start during the summer. Since you will still have plenty of time, you can go about things leisurely without stress. Pour over school info on the internet, polish up with GRE prep books, start making lists ... it will all feel better than it would in the fall.

 

2. Plan to take the GRE more than once. You may like your score the first time or you may not. But if you are taking the GRE for the first time in October or so, there will be a lot more pressure than if it was June or July.

 

3. Have someone you trust read all of your application writing before you send it. This could be an advisor, a grad student, a friend who writes very well, or all of them. It is extremely difficult to be objective in critiquing a personal statement you wrote. Since scholarly writing is peer-reviewed, best to get a head start with the application.

 

Also, I do not have the links anymore, but I remember Columbia's career center had a lot of very useful information and USC's history dept had links to good statement-writing guides.

Edited March 5, 2013 by LeatherElbows

[lafayette]

Don't do US history unless  your'e interested in race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.  Those are hot.  Everything else?  Not.  The competition is really insane, a bit more so than European.

Eh, I'd ignore this advice save for the implied idea in it that you should be up to date on current conversations in your field and not to suggest a project that's been done a million times before. But I think that one should tailor their interests to whatever is 'hot' and ignore the rest is a little silly -- and hasn't gender been 'hot' for decades?

Edited March 5, 2013 by lafayette

[CrazyCatLady80]

Don't do US history unless  your'e interested in race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.  Those are hot.  Everything else?  Not.  The competition is really insane, a bit more so than European.

 

TMP has a point in that with job market a lot of schools are looking for people who specialize in those areas. However, that being said, pick a field that you love instead of what is hot. You are going to be studying this for seven years of your life. You better like your field or you will go nuts. Luckily, race and gender are two of my fields and I love them both although some of the writings on gender can get annoying. 

[vtstevie]

yeah, I know TMP is basically tenured faculty around here (and I say that with all due love and admiration) whereas I'm a lowly adjunct with one acceptance, but I sorta disagree with that advice. Those have been "The Three Hot Topics" for so long now that to say they're the only path to a PhD in 2013 seems sort of hyperbolic. I'm studying none of those three explicitly and I got an acceptance, and I'm sure others can attest to the same.

 

Like, if you're studying one of those I'd say you have a leg up surely, but if you're NOT I wouldn't say abandon all hope or give up studying US history.

 

I think a better, broader point is know the realities of your field and expect the worst. Getting into a PhD program in history is difficult, and more get rejected than accepted. If you love what you do and have a talent for it (and if you are getting recommendations, you probably do), then go for it, but have no illusions about what a mess the system is.

[TMP]

To put in perspective- my program accepted less than 5 US historians out of dozens of applications.

 

True, you should pick your topic that you love, not for the job.  That said, be sure that you can be comfortable with the idea of doing this PhD out of sheer love and you're willing to spend 6-7 years of your life (not to mention accept financial and emotional tolls that they take on you).

 

As you're thinking through what you're interested in, be prepared to be questioned by others why you didn't include certain "hot" topics.  To say that you're "not interested" can send off dirty looks unless you can convince people why this or that topic don't belong in your story.

 

Getting in is not the toughest part.  It's tough but it only gets worse.  You do have to come up with an "interesting" project that catches any committee's attention- in your department, in other departments, within the Graduate School, AND external people.  It's a lot of people "to wow."

 

I agree- do some reading and find some "state of the field" articles to see what's been done recently and still needs to be worked on.

[Katzenmusik]

Here's my advice:

• Read the anti-grad school arguments: Pannapacker/Benton, Cebula, Burke, this guy's blog, Bérubé, the 100 Reasons site mentioned above, ad infinitum.  Make sure you have a realistic, un-romanticized view of what grad school and life beyond will be like before you start down this path.
• This may be controversial advice, but the prestige of your PhD institution matters when it comes to tenure-track hiring.  (Some research has been done on this re: political science, and it seems like history is similar.)  Of course, there will always be exceptional people who break through no matter where they did their PhD.  But personally, I figured if I couldn't get into a department ranked in the top 20, it wasn't meant to be, and I limited my applications accordingly.  (I'm open to non-academic careers as well, but I wanted to open as many doors as possible with my degree.)
• If you're unsure of your chances, you can also throw a few applications to funded MA programs into the mix.  For the MA, prestige is not such an issue.  The important thing is to avoid taking out loans.
• If you're drawn to US history, you should go for it without worrying about what history topics are trending now.  They might not be hot in 10 years, and there's no sense in pursuing a PhD in a field you aren't passionate about.  If you're still interested in Europe, you might look into Atlantic World or some other form of transnational history as a field or subfield -- that way you can combine both.
• Apply to programs where you'd be happy to work with a few different professors.  Best not to depend on one single advisor who could leave, retire, die, or not get along well with you for whatever reason.
• Have a polished draft of your SOP ready by early fall so that you have time to ask a couple of your LOR writers to look it over and give suggestions for improvement.  (I waited until the last minute to write my SOP, which I regret.)

I feel like I could keep going forever, but I'll leave it at that for now.  Best of luck to you!

[vtstevie]

TMP, I'd like to clarify by saying I agree with virtually everything you're saying, I just rankle at big sweeping statements like "always do this" and "never do that" - your advice is all spot on though, based on my experience.

 

I'd like more opinions on the top programs vs. lesser known but still quality programs. I did not get into a top 20, big name program but it's fairly well regarded in my field and houses that field's main academic journal. I want to get my PhD and am well aware of the actualities, but has anyone else taken an all or nothing approach like katzenmusik? I'd love to hear your rationale on either side of that fence.

[Katzenmusik]

Hmm, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms with my comment. 

 

The other side of the argument, I think, is that having a well-connected advisor or attending a program that is highly respected in a certain area of history can make up for the overall prestige issue. 

 

My own professors warned me against this thinking, because people on hiring committees might not be aware of the subtleties within your subfield.  I had been planning to apply to a few other universities way down the rankings ladder but was counseled not to.

 

For the record, I think prestige-discrimination is silly and wrong.  There are insightful, talented scholars at all sorts of institutions.  But this does appear to be an unfortunate reality in TT hiring.

 

Anyway, I'll take a step back now and let someone disagree with me.  

[TMP]

vtstevie,

 

I stuck to top 30 and chose based on adviser.  I'm in a subfield that combines US and European history and it's about who you work with and your accomplishments.  If you get into a top program, then great.  In any case, your adviser better to do a damn good job of training you.  (it's no wonder why my adviser's freaking out over my candidacy exam list. )

 

Unfortunately, you do need to learn to set limits, even as you go through the program.  You do not want to be one of those people who graduated from a so-so program with a "meh" adviser and go into $100K in debt.  It's very easy to get trapped in academia and can be difficult to leave.  So students who know that they should cut their losses early on but just wimp out because they don't know what else to do with their lives.  I was actually told by 2 PhDs from this particular low-ranked program that only this particular professor gets his students jobs- nobody else does.  Katzenmusik just chose to set his/her limits early on.

[CrazyCatLady80]

• This may be controversial advice, but the prestige of your PhD institution matters when it comes to tenure-track hiring.  (Some research has been done on this re: political science, and it seems like history is similar.)  Of course, there will always be exceptional people who break through no matter where they did their PhD.  But personally, I figured if I couldn't get into a department ranked in the top 20, it wasn't meant to be, and I limited my applications accordingly.  (I'm open to non-academic careers as well, but I wanted to open as many doors as possible with my degree.)

 

I think it depends on what you want out of your PhD. If you want to end up at a major research institution, you should aim for a top twenty program. If you want to focus mostly on teaching, it isn't as important. My grad school is a large CSU in the LA area. Though they hire people from top programs, they are more concerned about the quality of teaching than research and where you got your PhD. One of the recent hires is from some school in El Paso that doesn't even rank in the top 100, but has an excellent programs in borderlands (another super hot area). 

[vtstevie]

I think it depends on what you want out of your PhD. If you want to end up at a major research institution, you should aim for a top twenty program. If you want to focus mostly on teaching, it isn't as important. My grad school is a large CSU in the LA area. Though they hire people from top programs, they are more concerned about the quality of teaching than research and where you got your PhD. One of the recent hires is from some school in El Paso that doesn't even rank in the top 100, but has an excellent programs in borderlands (another super hot area). 

 

This is the impression I've received as well. And I'm sure I don't need to explain this here, but not all of us are dead set against teaching at a small LA college and my advisors have told me this is totally attainable with a good advisor and, more importantly, good work done, at a non-top 20 institution. This does not speak to a lack of ambition, more of a flexibility in outcomes (not a knock against people like katzenmusik by any means). I guess the point is that while a great advisor at an OK school can't get you into the upper echelons of academia necessarily, it can get you into academia, which may not be an option for some people otherwise.

[fossilchick]

I agree with most of the advice here, especially becoming very familiar with the reality of graduate school and doing your homework first. (Full disclosure:  I study American history, no ethnic, gender, or sexuality component.  Send me good thoughts and wishes.)

 

I would add that you should try to speak to a number of graduate students at varying stages of their program, if possible.  The advice you get from people in the application cycle is different than the advice you get from someone in coursework, or someone dissertating, or someone about to go on the market.  Fortunately there are a bunch of people like me still hanging around the fora and I'm happy to talk about the long view of graduate school now that I'm closer to the end than the start, but I think that when making a decision that will immediately impact your next 5-7 years and then set you on a career track (or not), the more live people you can talk to, the better.

 

Also:  contact the professors you're interested in working with, and ask them directly if they are taking on new students before you spend the money to apply.  My adviser got overburdened, decided not to take students for the next two years, and still the applications poured in.  Those people just didn't have a chance and it was so avoidable.

[JosephineB]

Hmm, I hope I haven't opened a can of worms with my comment. 

 

The other side of the argument, I think, is that having a well-connected advisor or attending a program that is highly respected in a certain area of history can make up for the overall prestige issue. 

 

My own professors warned me against this thinking, because people on hiring committees might not be aware of the subtleties within your subfield.  I had been planning to apply to a few other universities way down the rankings ladder but was counseled not to.

 

For the record, I think prestige-discrimination is silly and wrong.  There are insightful, talented scholars at all sorts of institutions.  But this does appear to be an unfortunate reality in TT hiring.

 

Anyway, I'll take a step back now and let someone disagree with me.  

 

You give good advice. I think that especially at the MA level a well-connected advisor is key. I chose a fully funded MA program at a school that is respected, but not Ivy caliber. I chose this school specifically to work with my advisor. She is a HUGE up and coming superstar who literally knows everyone, and is on track to become one of the biggest names in our field. I highly recommend this route. 

Edited March 6, 2013 by JosephineBeuys

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I'd like more opinions on the top programs vs. lesser known but still quality programs. I did not get into a top 20, big name program but it's fairly well regarded in my field and houses that field's main academic journal. I want to get my PhD and am well aware of the actualities, but has anyone else taken an all or nothing approach like katzenmusik? I'd love to hear your rationale on either side of that fence.

Temple's very well respected in early American circles. As you say, the JER is there, there are some great historians there, and you have access to the entire Philadelphia early American establishment. So those are advantages that can potentially make up for a lack of "name" prestige. 

 

So yes, reputation does vary by field. My only caution is that no everyone knows the intricacies of each field, and chances are you'll be hired (or not hired) by people who come from outside your field. 

 

For myself, I chose to take "name" into consideration with my applications, but to apply to lower ranked schools as well with particularly well-known advisors or with institutional supports that other schools don't have. I would say that for next year's applicants, if you find a program outside of the top 20 or 30 or so with a rockstar advisor, great fit, or potentially something special like access to archives or pertinent journals, then you should consider applying anyway. 

[CrazyCatLady80]

This is the impression I've received as well. And I'm sure I don't need to explain this here, but not all of us are dead set against teaching at a small LA college and my advisors have told me this is totally attainable with a good advisor and, more importantly, good work done, at a non-top 20 institution. 

 

My dream job would be teaching at a CSU. I like the idea of helping that first generation college student or that person who had it difficult in school getting their college degree. Yes...I know that means dealing with people who don't know how to write or actually think the Berlin Wall was in Japan to keep the communists out (yes....that was a response to one of the exams I graded), but I would rather deal with those kind of people than rich white kids at some of these more elite schools. 

[hdunlop]

This is the impression I've received as well. And I'm sure I don't need to explain this here, but not all of us are dead set against teaching at a small LA college and my advisors have told me this is totally attainable with a good advisor and, more importantly, good work done, at a non-top 20 institution. This does not speak to a lack of ambition, more of a flexibility in outcomes (not a knock against people like katzenmusik by any means). I guess the point is that while a great advisor at an OK school can't get you into the upper echelons of academia necessarily, it can get you into academia, which may not be an option for some people otherwise.

 

What if all I want to do is teach at a small LA college? I've always wanted to teach, and while I want to do something great and wonderful with research I am not super into it being my focus. I taken all the talk about how competition is so fierce to imply that it was top-tier (tho not top 20) or bust, but perhaps (hopefully) that's wrong?

 

My long-term goal would actually be outside academia -- what I would like to pursue in a PHD program is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history, which I think could eventually lead me to the policymaking/thinktank world. Is it OK to admit a potential interest beyond academia in applications, or is that dirty secret better kept close? Also, is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history entirely too vanilla to sell to an adcom?

 

What's the best way to find programs that provide a great 'fit,' other than dustjacket author bios on books I love or the more advanced literature reviews followed by author bios? How early is it to reach out to graduate students? Do people really not mind? Is it better to reach out to grad students before POIs, I'd think?

 

I applied to a handful of schools this cycle and think I did a poor job explaining my motivation for going, my capacity for doing the work, and my fire in the belly for seeing through a program. I know I also overvalued the importance of a strong GRE, and did a spectacularly poor job in outreach to programs. Finally, I found this forum way too late, which I regret, and am determined not to make the same mistakes next year!

 

Thanks all.

Edited March 6, 2013 by hdunlop

[CrazyCatLady80]

My long-term goal would actually be outside academia -- what I would like to pursue in a PHD program is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history, which I think could eventually lead me to the policymaking/thinktank world. Is it OK to admit a potential interest beyond academia in applications, or is that dirty secret better kept close? Also, is a political angle on US Cold War-era military history entirely too vanilla to sell to an adcom?

 

Have you just thought about going for a MA? The professors at my school always tell students to only go for a PhD if you are interested in teaching at the college level. That doesn't often end up being the case with the competitive job market, but that should be your main goal for going for a PhD. 

[czesc]

 

 

1. Go to the best school possible, considering both prestige and your interests. Small liberal arts colleges don't only look to lower level schools for hiring purposes. They would prefer the Harvard grad or rockstar advisor's choice, too.

 

2. Is all you want to do teach at a LAC or go into the policy world? The former is heavy on teaching and the latter on research. You won't be able to transition to a thinktank as easily with the heavy teaching load a LAC requires, because you won't be completing as many books or papers. I think this is an important question you need to think about and answer for yourself first. 

 

3. Personally, I wouldn't mention you have an interest in employment outside academia unless you're going for an MA program in public history or something like that. There still seems to be a lot of bias against this, even if departments pay lip service to alternative careers. If you find a professor with a lot of policy world connections, you may want to mention to him/her privately that you are interested in this...but best to leave it for after you're admitted.

 

4. I would maybe wait to reach out. You want these people to remember you during the process. You'll also encounter varying responses when you reach out to people. Be prepared for some people to be very receptive and others to be hostile. As far as fit, research online and, if you can, talk to an advisor you've had in your field, or ask to speak with a professor you may have had in undergrad. POIs you contact may point you to other people as well.

Edited March 6, 2013 by czesc