Making a switch!

[dynamicspartan]

Hi!

 

New to the forum, but have absolutely loved poring over others' experiences and advice here. I am not sure if my situation is unique or not, but after sifting through threads, I thought I would ask for others' opinion on my specific situation.

 

I graduated with two bachelor's degrees in May '12 from Michigan State University. I graduated with a 3.86 cumulative GPA.

 

As more time has separated me from my undergrad, it has become more clear to me that my interest in history, writing, and research is more than that, and is something I want to pursue in my career. Specifically, I have become more and more interested in the American Civil War era and the history of the American Presidency.

 

My primary undergraduate degree of International Relations was earned from James Madison College at MSU, and is deeply rooted in the history of democracy, political theory, and international foreign policy. Thus, my degree program was not an explicit history program, but offered similar coursework and a rigorous research and writing environment. 

 

I guess my question is - how difficult would it be for me to make the switch into a Phd program for history? What suggestions do you have for me to use my undergrad and experience to gain admittance to top tier grad schools for history?

Edited May 26, 2013 by dynamicspartan

[TMP]

Not unusual at all.  Make sure that your writing sample shows original research and analysis, in historical framework if possible.  Make connections with your undergrad coursework with your desire to pursue history at a graduate level.  

 

While I would be cautious to say that Civil War is well researched, there are certainly some gaps.  Take some time to read up the historiography to help you make a strong case for wanting to study the Civil War period that won't make your readers sigh and roll their eyes.

 

It's not a bad idea ta all to apply to MA programs (with funding if possible) too if you're aiming to apply to PhD programs.

 

Also know that US history is the most competitive in terms of admissions, fellowships, and jobs.  There are simply not enough fellowships and jobs compared to other fields.  Be sure to think long and hard if this path is for you.  

[futurePhD]

TMP has some good advice, and is quite right that this situation is not that unusual. I'll add that this is something to address in the SOP if you so desire, and your letter writers can too. In my opinion the writing sample is probably the most important thing here. If your sample demonstrates that you can construct an original argument from primary sources that engages the relevant historiography, it doesn't matter all that much if you majored in history or advanced underwater basket making. As my undergrad advisor used to say, historians know good history when they see it. 

 

As someone who is in the field (American Civil War Era), feel free to PM me if you have specific questions about programs or people. I might be slow to respond, depending on whether I am using message boards to avoid dissertation writing that day, but I'll try to help. If you haven't already done so, start reading everything by Mark E. Neely, Jr, especially his book on Lincoln and civil liberties. His work is vital for your area of interest.  

[dynamicspartan]

Thank you both for the replies! This initial advice is exactly what I was seeking. Thanks, futurephd, for the specific reading suggestions. Though I am leaning towards American history, I have always had a passion for the history of Europe, specifically that of the influence and politics of the Church. I was able to study in Rome and Florence for the summer, but I do not have the language skill.

I do have a background in Romance languages, as I became pretty proficient in French, though I have let that fall out of practice. I've looked into possibilities such as books like "French for Reading". I honestly have a head for the grammar and vocab of reading/writing a language, and can pick it up quickly, my challenge has always been speaking. What is the expectation for an entering grad student in a European history field in terms of language? Is a proficiency in reading and writing sufficient? How would they look at that?

Again, thank you for the information!

Edited May 28, 2013 by dynamicspartan

[TMP]

That's another animal there.  It does depend what time period you're interested in.  You'd definitely need Italian.  Latin might be useful, especially if you're looking at early modern period.

 

Do your research on finding faculty support for what you want to do and look up program requirements.  For most part, I do think proficiency does depend on A) the faculty adviser you'd work with and the politics of the field in the department.  Sometimes the POI may not care about language proficiency as much as his/her colleagues, figuring that the student's smart enough and will be motivated to get the language up to speed.  Other times, the POI will care A LOT while his/her colleagues might not (and you'd know through communication with other faculty).  For European history, you'd need to pass at least 2 reading exams.  They're not terribly difficult.  Most people do French or German as the second language.

 

Wait to apply until you are absolutely sure of what you want to study and have adequate preparation in terms of language and background.  Whatever you do and choose your topic for your dissertation, it's something that you can imagine yourself loving every single hour of your time in the PhD.  Sure, there will be times you will be fantasizing about doing another field or topic but the love has to be there to get through those tough and wayward moments.

[Riotbeard]

I would also suggest reading Drew Gilpin Faust This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War.  It is an astounding book, and will push you to think about the Civil War in new ways.  Also just in case you havent read anything by James McPherson or Gary Gilmore, these are the leaders of the field and essential reading.  These might be too obvious, but you never know...

 

I think in terms of transitioning from the interdisciplinary undergrad degree to history: it shouldn't be problem.  I will say presidential history (and arguably, it is not even really a discipline) is probably the most difficult field to enter with any hope of success.  It is incredibly overcrowded, so finding new things to say can be very difficult.  I think Civil War history has many interesting angles for cultural and social history but the high political angle might be better left to people with huge cache like Eric Foner.  In general, high politics (which seem to be your interests, correct me if I am wrong) are very hard to study and produce novel ideas on with success, especially in a very saturated field like the Civil War. 

[lafayette]

Is it truly easier for a Europeanist to get a employment / fellowship than an Americanist? I haven't really gotten a sense of this at all. (Or maybe the sense is that it's just really hard, all around).

[CageFree]

Is it truly easier for a Europeanist to get a employment / fellowship than an Americanist? I haven't really gotten a sense of this at all. (Or maybe the sense is that it's just really hard, all around).

 

Based on what I've seen/heard, some departments are cutting Europeanists or failing to replace those who retire... more so than with Americanists. Your thematic specialization and time period are probably huge factors (not to mention, who you're working for).

Edited May 30, 2013 by CageFree

[TMP]

Fellowships depends on what part of Europe.  A French historian in my department lamented how Fulbright for France is much more difficult to get than Germany because Fulbright is subsidized by governments and everyone wants to go to Paris (and it's not a cheap city!).  She's encouraging her graduate students to go "transnational" with Africa to expand their list of fellowships to apply to.  Central and Eastern Europeanists  and Russianists, basd on my own interactions, have had great success with fellowships because there seems to be plenty of support such as FLAS, DAAD, and fellowships from those countries (like Poland and Ukraine).  Those regions prioritize scholarly research as part of post-1989 national reconstruction efforts to reclaim the past that's been lost in the Second World War.

 

Jobs?  It's a bit of a mixed bag.  I've seen a good number for France and Eastern Europe this past year but they are still very, very far and few.  Focusing on a category of analysis (like race or gender) or transnational seems to be the strategy for my department's Europeanists to make oneself marketable.  

 

The real issue for academic jobs is the higher ups in the university.  The College governing the History Department isn't interested in Europe; the higher ups want to "globalize" the university by bringing in scholars specializing in non-Western regions.  So if the Department wants to get more faculty and money, it's quite literally at the mercy of the University's higher ups' goals and wishes. Of course, this means that Romance language departments have to do their best to demonstrate the importance of learning European languages to remain relevant and avoid cuts in budgets and future faculty hirings.

[dynamicspartan]

I would also suggest reading Drew Gilpin Faust This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. It is an astounding book, and will push you to think about the Civil War in new ways. Also just in case you havent read anything by James McPherson or Gary Gilmore, these are the leaders of the field and essential reading. These might be too obvious, but you never know...

I think in terms of transitioning from the interdisciplinary undergrad degree to history: it shouldn't be problem. I will say presidential history (and arguably, it is not even really a discipline) is probably the most difficult field to enter with any hope of success. It is incredibly overcrowded, so finding new things to say can be very difficult. I think Civil War history has many interesting angles for cultural and social history but the high political angle might be better left to people with huge cache like Eric Foner. In general, high politics (which seem to be your interests, correct me if I am wrong) are very hard to study and produce novel ideas on with success, especially in a very saturated field like the Civil War.

Thanks for the info and suggestions. That Faust piece looks very interesting. For how long I've been interested in the Civil War, I've never truly been able to wrap my head around the sheer immensity of the death that took place. A sadness that can be often Cooley overlooked.

Also, were you referring to Gary Gallagher? I have definitely picked up on both of those names and plan to read them presently. I am commencing a boot camp of required reading over the next year and those are at the top.

I appreciate the guidance on the crowded field. Assuming I have the chops to cut it, is there hope of being accepted/be successful in the field currently?

Edited May 31, 2013 by dynamicspartan

[jamc8383]

Hi!

 

New to the forum, but have absolutely loved poring over others' experiences and advice here. I am not sure if my situation is unique or not, but after sifting through threads, I thought I would ask for others' opinion on my specific situation.

 

I graduated with two bachelor's degrees in May '12 from Michigan State University. I graduated with a 3.86 cumulative GPA.

 

As more time has separated me from my undergrad, it has become more clear to me that my interest in history, writing, and research is more than that, and is something I want to pursue in my career. Specifically, I have become more and more interested in the American Civil War era and the history of the American Presidency.

 

My primary undergraduate degree of International Relations was earned from James Madison College at MSU, and is deeply rooted in the history of democracy, political theory, and international foreign policy. Thus, my degree program was not an explicit history program, but offered similar coursework and a rigorous research and writing environment. 

 

I guess my question is - how difficult would it be for me to make the switch into a Phd program for history? What suggestions do you have for me to use my undergrad and experience to gain admittance to top tier grad schools for history?

 

Hey!  I read the other replies and don't disagree but thought I'd step in here.  I did an undergraduate degree at OSU in International Business with a minor in Italian (graduated in 2005).  I also, belatedly, discovered a love of history and research.  Though I read extensively on my own I have to confess that I was not an ideal candidate for a phD program directly from undergrad (I say directly, though I took about six years off to work in the private sector).  

 

That being said, I took some history courses through an extended learning program at an area university, proved proficiency in the field and used those professors as my LORs to get into the MA program.  It is not simply that I have gained a greater understanding of the discipline and my place within the historiography of my specialization--which is huge--but I have also had the opportunity to pad my CV--President of PAT history honors society, President and international conference planner for the History Students Association, Managing Editor of the university's history journal, etc.  Entering the field through an MA program has made me a far stronger candidate for phD programs (and funding!) than I would have been otherwise.  Coming from outside of the field, I would recommend that you investigate pursuing a similar point of entry. 

[Riotbeard]

Thanks for the info and suggestions. That Faust piece looks very interesting. For how long I've been interested in the Civil War, I've never truly been able to wrap my head around the sheer immensity of the death that took place. A sadness that can be often Cooley overlooked.

Also, were you referring to Gary Gallagher? I have definitely picked up on both of those names and plan to read them presently. I am commencing a boot camp of required reading over the next year and those are at the top.

I appreciate the guidance on the crowded field. Assuming I have the chops to cut it, is there hope of being accepted/be successful in the field currently?

 

In general yes!  And I am not trying to shoot you down or discourage you from pursuing history generally, but as someone else who is politically minded, it is worth considering the fact that traditional political histories are out of fashion and very difficult to produce with success by young scholars unless it is temporally very recent stuff.  The Faust book definitely brings home the death toll!  I do think Civil War is still a vibrant topic broadly thinking, but you might have to come at it from a different angle than high politics.

[futurePhD]

In general yes!  And I am not trying to shoot you down or discourage you from pursuing history generally, but as someone else who is politically minded, it is worth considering the fact that traditional political histories are out of fashion and very difficult to produce with success by young scholars unless it is temporally very recent stuff.  The Faust book definitely brings home the death toll!  I do think Civil War is still a vibrant topic broadly thinking, but you might have to come at it from a different angle than high politics.

 

Riotbeard is correct that traditional political history is more or less dead. This is not a phenomenon limited to the U.S. Civil War Era, by the way, and while we can debate whether it is good or bad, it is a fact. But there is still lots of good work to be done in the U.S. Civil War field. One of the best ways to get a sense of where the field is going is to look at the last five to ten years of publications such as the Journal of Civil War History or the newer Journal of the Civil War Era.  The most recent edition of the latter has a very good historiographical  essay about the current state of Civil War scholarship, which uses the Faust book as a prominent example. Word of warning: if you partake, I'd recommend a glass of bourbon or whatever your drink of choice is while reading the Faust book. While excellent, it is not exactly a feel good story.