Your Advice for a Prospective Ph.D

[BC1010]

Very pleased with the response to this topic. I feel ready to ask for a little more personal advice. I was very committed to this route as an undergraduate, but got a bit sidetracked by the promise of a career in K-12 education. I'm now poised to begin a masters program in education (I've already done some graduate work in the field), and I'm simply dreading it. I'm eager to return to History, but I've been away from it for a few years, so maybe someone can point me in the right direction in terms of refining my focus and/or exploring programs.

 

My primary interests are history of education, history of science, religion and urban history. My undergraduate work focused mostly on European intellectual history, which I haven't lost interest in, but don't want to commit to as specialization. I'm also very keen on interdisciplinary work. 

 

I love teaching and want to make it a focus in my career.

[New England Nat]

There are only a handful of places where you can do graduate work in the history of science, but some of the most exciting books in the field in the last few years have been about public science, science education, and the like.  What century are you interested in?

[BC1010]

There are only a handful of places where you can do graduate work in the history of science, but some of the most exciting books in the field in the last few years have been about public science, science education, and the like.  What century are you interested in?

 

Primarily mid-19th to WWII. From a history of science standpoint, from the proliferation of Darwinian theory to the development of modern psychology. However, I've done fairly substancial work (albeit as an undergrad) on Enlightenment science.

 

In term of "hot" fields, I do have a strong interest in Gender (and sexuality), and Race, but primarily from the history of science perspective. I can explain that in greater depth if anyone's actually interested. 

[hdunlop]

Thanks both czesc and cat lady.

 

I don't think MA is the right direction for me, at least not as a terminal degree, as I definitely want to teach at the collegiate level -- just not necessarily, and not even not primarily, at a research university type of institution. I went to a LA school for undergrad and really appreciated the experience and inspiration it gave me, and would cherish the opportunity to be part of that sort of thing again, this time hopefully giving back.

 

Czesc I appreciate the points you raised, especially the note that the think tank world is looking for something very different than teaching. To be honest, that's not necessarily a long-term goal in the sense that I would be upset if I didn't accomplish it, so much as it's a door I would very much like to keep open. Thinking about the balance in doing all that will be important as I conceive of what I really want as a scholar going forward.

 

As a few of you probably know, I applied unsuccesfully this cycle. I have been working professionally for six years since my undergrad and I was a bit torn last year between a potential job opportunity and grad school, and was exceptionally nervous about fully committing to a dream that most of the people surrounding me think is insane, and so I think I really shorted myself in the application process, and it clearly cost me. But I intend to do it right this time, knowing that it will make me a better prepared, stronger candidate, and I look forward to bugging you all more over the next year about how to do it the right way! 

[CrazyCatLady80]

The other good piece of advice I received about going for a PhD is only do it if you can't imagine doing anything else with your life. In my previous life, I was an archivist. I worked with a lot of PhDs on this public history project and they first put the idea in my head. I still was unsure so I decided to go for a MA. At that point, I was unemployed and my archivist career really never took off. After a lot of thinking, I decided to do it. Despite having a rough time the past month with an advisor from hell, I can't say I regret the decision. 

[TMP]

BC1010 and hdunlop- check your PMs.

[CrazyCatLady80]

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. 

 

A well connected advisor is a good idea, but make sure it is someone that you work with while completing your MA. Make sure he/she likes working with students. My MA advisor is very well connected, but working with him has been a nightmare. He is more concerned with his own work than helping his students. The professor that I find the most helpful in my department is someone that has published hardly anything mostly because he is so dedicated to teaching. He has been an ideal mentor and has gotten students into PhD programs more than my well connected advisor. Sadly, I can't have him as my official advisor since he is not in my field nor can take on any additional students due to health problems. 

[New England Nat]

Primarily mid-19th to WWII. From a history of science standpoint, from the proliferation of Darwinian theory to the development of modern psychology. However, I've done fairly substancial work (albeit as an undergrad) on Enlightenment science.

 

You should get a hold of a copy of Secor, Victorian Sensation.  It's about pre-darwinian evolutionary theory in public discourse through a book called the Vestages of Natural Creation.  One of the coolest books i've read this year full of neat things.  

 

If you want to talk about history of science programs with me throw me a PM.

[hdunlop]

The other good piece of advice I received about going for a PhD is only do it if you can't imagine doing anything else with your life. 

While we came to that realization in different ways, I think this is the key point animinating my decision to reapply this fall. I was torn between two worlds this year and it showed. While my professional career honed my research interests enough that I believed I could do this, it took the disappointment of rejection to realize how much I really want and kinda think I need to do this -- which brought confidence that this is way more than a "what if" scheme to keep doors open (unlike the thinktank idea I mentioned above!) 

[GuitarSlayer]

Be honest with yourself with where you want to go in life.  Do you really want to be up front lecturing for the next 30-50 years?  Do you want to be writing or researching?  Make sure what you want really does require a PhD. 

 

Location location location.  I've been told by a few faculty that American hiring committees aren't fans of the three-year British PhD -- if you went that route, would you be willing to be stuck in UK/Europe for good?  (This mentally might be changing -- I'll let you know in three years!)  Also, if you go anywhere that is not your ideal, can you stick it out for 5 to 7 years? 

 

Money.  Make some, save some, and start early.  I'm starting now to go in September, and I probably should have started this during PhD apps themselves.  Don't wait, just do. 

 

If you have any insiders in your field, ask about reputation.  Alternatively, look at publications that your person has published in or been reviewed for -- is it highly praised?  Is that person liked by his or her peers?  Remember, if someone's only info about you is that you're X's student, you better hope X has a good rep!

[Riotbeard]

Primarily mid-19th to WWII. From a history of science standpoint, from the proliferation of Darwinian theory to the development of modern psychology. However, I've done fairly substancial work (albeit as an undergrad) on Enlightenment science.

 

In term of "hot" fields, I do have a strong interest in Gender (and sexuality), and Race, but primarily from the history of science perspective. I can explain that in greater depth if anyone's actually interested. 

 

 

Honestly if you are an Americanist or Europeanist, sci-tech-med is a good route, because sets you apart from a lot of other applicants and makes you applicable to another subset of jobs. 

 

Responding to TMP: I think Enivronmental history of the U.S. is pretty hot right now, as is a variety of "transnational" approaches to U.S. including borderlands and Atlantic, although both are primarily old histories dressed up in new clothes (as is a lot of transnational stuff).  I would also say cultural history is still a pretty big thing still.  But yes, race, gender, etc. are always going to be big, as they are important to the development of American society and culture.

 

On the ranking/prestige issue:  Getting a good job derives from a whole matrix of factors.  Does having a PhD from Harvard help your chances?  Of course, but at the end of the day, it will still come down to good work and networking that's gets your foot in the door, followed by good personal skills that actually get you hired.  If you do bad work at a prestigious school or are an asshole, you will find it as difficult to get a job as anybody else.

[CrazyCatLady80]

On the ranking/prestige issue:  Getting a good job derives from a whole matrix of factors.  Does having a PhD from Harvard help your chances?  Of course, but at the end of the day, it will still come down to good work and networking that's gets your foot in the door, followed by good personal skills that actually get you hired.  If you do bad work at a prestigious school or are an asshole, you will find it as difficult to get a job as anybody else.

 

Another key factor is personality. One of my advisors says that a lot of the people he has interviewed come from outstanding Ivy League schools, but simply don't know how to teach or even have the personality to do a good job. I know two brothers. Both study Japanese History. The younger one is a lot better academically than the older one. He went to better schools and his research is far superior. The older one got the tenure-track job, because the younger one has the personality of a wet paper towel. 

[BC1010]

How do folk feel about stand-alone departments in specialized fields? For my purposes, theres a small number of programs specifically in the history of education, but I hesitate to pursue them because I don't want to hem myself in too much. 

 

Otherwise, I'd love tips on how to identify programs that will work well with my interests (education, science, religion, urban history, interdisciplinary work). Right now, all I'm doing is buying books on Amazon and finding out where their authors teach, which feels a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Of course, if anyone actually works on any of those topics, I am more than happy to receive recommendations...

[Sigaba]

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?

 

Thanks all.

 

You might do well to keep your career goals under your hat if you want to end up outside of the Ivory Tower, especially if you want to work in anything related to national security affairs.

 

As you develop your interest in the "political angle" of US military history during the Cold War, you would greatly benefit from being clearer about what you mean. The politics of command, the roles domestic and international politics play in the formulation of policy and grand strategy, political wranginlg between the executive and legislative branches over presidential war power, the politics of conflict termination, the political wrangling among the armed services as well as the branches within each service, and the politics of civil-military affairs are some of the political angles one might study.

 

(You would also benefit from answering the question: Do you want to be a military historian who specializes on the Cold War or do you want to be a historian of the Cold War who focuses on the military aspects of that interval of time?)

 

IRT the question of finding departments, give some thought to spending time with physical copies of the last several editions of the AHA's annual directory of history departments. Look at every department, every faculty member, and every graduate student listed. Over time, you may start to notice that the faculty members of history departments can fit together in synergystic ways that create good "fits" for graduate students specializing in X even though there's no professor who focuses on X. You may also notice that many professors studying field Y went to Happyland State and that while Happyland State doesn't rate high in general rankings, that institution may actually be The Place to Be for field Y. (E.g. Ohio State University for military history.) You may also want to use the interlibrary loan service to get copies of dissertations of prospective POIs as well as those of graduate students they've supervised. You might want to put together files on key academics whose works you'll be encountering again and again over the years.

 

I also recommend that you pick between three and five journals that are critical to your area of interest and go through every issue over a ten year period (or longer). (For you, I'd suggest the Journal of Military History, Armed Forces & Society, the Naval War College Review, Diplomatic History, the Journal of Cold War Studies, International Security, the Journal of Strategic Studies, the Cold War International History Project Bulliten, and Studies in Intelligence. This review is on top of the review you should do of JAH, AHR, and Reviews in American History.)  I recommend you do this journal-based research the old fashioned way--not on line--so that you can get a very good sense of trends and trajectories in your field. In addition to featured articles, pay particular attention to who is writing short reviews and if those individuals move up in the food chain over time. Also pay attention to the advertisements and the listing of books received.

 

[You might also run--not walk--to the CIA's electronic FOIA reading room and start downloading everything you can while you can.]

 

Circling back to your potential career path in policy, you are going to want to start looking at job listings at various think tanks so you can identify the skill sets you will need to be a competitive applicant. You will also have to decide if you can square your philosophy of history with what think tanks do -- produce studies that have clear policy implications. Also, you should bear in mind that men and women who have seen multiple deployments abroad are going to be your competition in the job market for years to come. As a person with a background in academia, you are going to need to develop the skills and sensibilities to interact with veterans--especially BTDTs in the SOF community--who may have pronounced views about the Ivory Tower, civilians in general, politicians in particular, and about GWOT.

[getitlow]

I would like to contribute to one aspect of the application process- that is the potential adviser. Make sure when you choose where to apply, balance between applying to your favorite schools/departments and to schools where your potential advisers are located. Of course, it is an ideal situation when these two aforementioned factors happen to converge. From my personal experience, I tend to prioritize advisers that match my specific field of interest over the schools/departments so in the last application season, I was very careful about where to apply and I spent almost the whole summer digging profiles of history departments and professors there (probably partly because I have a very specific field of study and a peculiar research interest that not many schools have professors for me to work with) 

 

In addition to this, I read this post as my guidance when I apply for a PhD in history. Hopefully, you will find it useful. Good luck! 

 

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~stone/GradSchoolGuide.html

Edited July 23, 2013 by getitlow

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

 

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?

 

Read everything Sigaba wrote above carefully. He knows of what he speaks. I have two points of my own to add, but given my relatively meager experience they should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

First, it seems to me that the career path you envision is much more common among people who receive their PhDs in political science than history. Policymaking, like political science, is often based on prediction and prescription. Historians tend to be wary of those words. Likewise political scientists tend to have more connections to the policy world than do historians. While US foreign relations historians are off interviewing old Foreign Service hands, political scientists are milling about the Council on Foreign Relations. (I imagine the overlap between the policy and political science worlds has narrowed as political science continues on its latest quantitative turn, but I also imagine that institutional stickiness continues to hold the two worlds together.) Are you so wedded to the historian's methodology that you are willing to sacrifice your career goals? 

 

(Note here that there is a middle ground: you can decide to be the theory-minded person in a history department or a history-minded person in a political science department. Many schools will allow you to have a political scientist on your history committee or a historian on your political science committee.)

 

Second, if you decide that there is no question about your commitment to pursuing a doctorate in history, I would urge you to refine your description of your research interests. Cold War political and military history is an absolutely gargantuan field. In my limited experience, advisors want their applicants to write a clear statement of what they intend to research. So rather than say you want to research Cold War-era U.S. military history from a political standpoint, suggest a more specific project, narrower in its geographic, temporal, and thematic scope. Your statement of purpose almost certainly won't predict your dissertation, but it will show the admissions committee that you can ask new and interesting questions.

 

(Note here that thinking smaller isn't the same as thinking small.)

[hdunlop]

Thanks for all the thoughts, particularly with regard to tracking down schools. I've built a pretty good list in the intervening months but it looks like it would be a good idea to spend some more time at it.

 

I've also narrowed myself significantly from "Cold War politics" as I've spent the last six months basically completely rewriting my writing sample, which has led to all kinds of insights. I've always been most focused on nukes and so I'm thinking a PHD focused on the impact of domestic politics on nuclear policy, in particular arms control treaties.

 

Regarding political science, I have less than no interest in heading in that direction. I am interested in ending up in a think tank but I am focused on researching and teaching, and I want to study and teach history. Perhaps there will be an element of political science in that but certainly not as a focal point. I'm toying with the idea of going for a joint JD in international law, to tie into the treaty thing.