Graduate School Recommendations

[Nicholas Huzsvai]

Hey guys,

To keep things short, I was hoping people here have recommendations for grad programs (preferably in English or German-speaking countries) with a strong profile in modern European labor history, peasant studies or social history more generally.

I completed my undergraduate studies this last spring, having written my senior thesis on the prominence of völkisch ideology in Gustav Landauer's thinking, and have been taking a gap year in order to work and save money before resuming my studies at the graduate level. In the interim I have been reading more in the fields of social and economic history and would like to branch out from intellectual history into these aforementioned areas. In particular, I want to reintegrate the lived experiences of agrarian workers, craftsmen, domestic servants and white-collar employees (that is, those who weren't consolidated into a solid Social-Democratic support base) into a a more comprehensive theory of labor against which I can test general concepts of class interests, along with adjacent notions of proletarianization, capital accumulation, and so forth. (If this still too vague, I can PM interested parties a copy of my Statement of Academic Purpose.)

So far, the prospective faculty advisors I have researched somewhat approximate my own research interests, but in ver few cases do they closely align. Most of the proficient scholars in the varios related field (Gerhard A. Ritter, Klaus Tenfelde, Robert G. Moeller, Heinrich August Winkler, Jürgen Kocka, F. L. Carsten, Ulrich Linse, Charles Maier, Avner Offer, etc.) are either dead or at an advanced age anyways. If there is a next generation of labor and social historians, I am not sufficiently familiar with their work.

Any suggestions or related advice on applications going forward would be greatly appreciated!

[RevolutionBlues]

This may not be a particularly helpful response as I am not super familiar with German history, but I can speak a little to the field of European labor history more generally. In short, the traditional type of labor and social history of the 1960s and '70s has largely fallen out of favor among historians. One could speculate on several reasons for this, but the effect is that few active historians work directly in that vein and most programs would likely be hesitant to devote resources to what they see as an outdated historiography. However, that being said, I believe there is somewhat of a resurgence in interest in labor history through indirect methods. For example, looking at labor in a colonial context using intersectional analysis of race, class, and gender; environmental history and the materiality of labor as a way to tie into the production of taste; focusing on migrant labor and the construction of identity through mobilities, including those like railway workers or sailors whose labor is movement; and, my personal favorite, using the History of Capitalism as a way to problematize class relations in a way that moves beyond simple proletarianization or photo-industrialization theories into a more robust examination of the role of labor and class within the logic of capitalism.

The only direct recommendation for a program to look at that I know off the top of my head (given that I'm not a Germanist) would UMichigan, where Kathleen Canning and Geof Eley have done similar work. Allison Johnson at Harvard works on Austria, but has some similar interests. Perhaps a more fruitful way to look for potential programs, though, might be to frame yourself as looking at labor through the lens of a field more in vogue these days and then look for somebody that might be sympathetic to that project. It might also be helpful to look for places with faculty working on related themes outside of Germany. For example, if you did, say, go the colonial labor route and found a primary advisor working on German colonialism, you could have on your committee an Americanist who does labor (there are still quite a few of them around) and maybe somebody who does British economic history. It might be helpful, given that straight social history of labor is somewhat out of fashion and you might have a hard time finding a primary advisor who perfectly matches your interests, to think more in terms of what departments could offer a constellation of faculty members not necessarily limited to your geographic interests, but each of whom touches on one element of your project. At any rate, your work sounds interesting; best of luck!

[ExponentialDecay]

I have no answer to this question (except Teodor Shanin), but I wanted to run by and say that I want to read y'all's research. As a dispassionate observer, I'm so glad this is becoming a thing.

[kotov]

Another good labor history program to consider would be Wayne State University in Detroit. However, I think the primary focus there is on American, rather than European labor history. That said, my European labor history professor got his Ph.D. from Wayne State, so it might be a worthwhile place to consider. It's not a big name in the field of history generally, but its labor history program is pretty well regarded.

Also...Huzsvai? Beszel magyarul?

Edited December 8, 2015 by kotov

[SunshineLolipops]

Just a shot in the dark, but you might try searching for current scholars who are citing the authors that you most identify and then finding where they work.  I also would not be afraid to contact those professors for guidance.  Be aware that they may be very busy, so keep your email to a single paragraph and put the most basic aspect of your question in the first sentence as you did in your first post on this thread:

Dear Prof. LAST NAME,

My name is YOUR NAME, and I am writing for guidance on identifying potential advisors and programs for doctoral study in the field of NAME OF FIELD.  

I'm writing to you because I read WHATEVER THEY'VE PUBLISHED THAT YOU LIKE, and I am interested in pursuing a similar approach/topic/whatever.  My interests are KEEP IT TO JUST A FEW SENTENCES .  I know you must be very busy, so thank you for your time.

 

Just keep it very short.  In my experience the reply emails that I have received have all been helpful in some form or fashion regardless of their length.  Have you spoken to your senior thesis advisor about whom you might contact or what programs hold out the most promise?

[ashiepoo72]

I hate to say this, because it's going to be a ton of grueling work, but this is exactly what I did and it really helped me.

I went through this list of U.S. PhD-granting history programs by state (only the regions I would be willing to live): http://secure.historians.org/projects/cge/PhD/StateMap.cfm  Then I pretty much went through each department on each state's list one by one. That means I went to department websites, looked through all the professors, wrote down people who sounded interesting and relevant to my research (temporally, methodologically, geographically, whatever...remember, advisers don't need to match you exactly, just be close enough to guide you), looked at what they've published, tried to read something written by them if I could (or at least a book review and citation check to see who was using their work), typed their names into a spreadsheet, went to the next department on the list, rinse and repeat.

After that I contacted people, saw who responded positively, who suggested I not apply (usually because of department finances or retirements), put asterisks next to people who were enthusiastic about my work and fit my interests really well (I took that as a "major adviser" rather than "committee member" sign, but both were important in my search...you should looking for both). Any program that had less than 3 people who could support my work in some way got nixed. If any of my less-than-3 programs had excited me I might've deviated from the rule, but I'm confident sticking to it is what got me the number of acceptances that I did.

Basically, when I started the process I knew that Madison had a badass modern U.S. program, knew where rockstars in my field worked, but otherwise was pretty ignorant. After doing the legwork outlined above, I know more about many many departments than any human should, but it's useful. The best way to figure out which programs will fit your interests is by doing your research and searching them out. Spreadsheets are your friend.

Good luck!

[mvlchicago]

^^^ That also just sounds useful for knowing where your field is developing and how people have been moving, so it's not like it'll be a one-time investment? 

[meo03]

I completely agree with @ashiepoo72. Her approach is really the best and most thorough way to go.

I struck out in my applications last year. After my rejections came in, I immediately began a project very similar to what she described. I made a spreadsheet, starting with some of the scholars I already knew from my research, and then by painstakingly working my way through history department websites far and wide.

I did limit myself geographically, which helped make this project less daunting, but was also an acknowledgement of my strong desire to remain on the eastern third of the continent (both because my research will take me to France, but also because my family and friends are all on the eastern side of the Mississippi). I encourage others to think seriously about geography as well. 

Doing this research has, I hope, not only made me a better candidate, but it has given me a much better understanding of the scholarly landscape in which I hope to situate my work. I think that it is an absolute necessity for anyone that takes the application process seriously. 

[ashiepoo72]

Exactly, @mvlchicago. It's something we should probably be doing every few years to stay on top of our fields.

Glad it worked for you @meo03!

[meo03]

29 minutes ago, ashiepoo72 said:

Glad it worked for you @meo03!

 

We'll see if it works out in a few months time! 

[pro Augustis]

ashiepoo72 has given some really good advice. I did something similar, though with a few fewer schools. When I first thought of applying, I went and asked my three favorite professors for advice. Two told me to find people I wanted to work with at the top ten—and then proceeded to give me a different list of what those top ten were. The third said that rankings were not as important as having a professor I loved. So I went online, looked at a few top ten lists, and collated all the schools on them into a list of ~20-25 schools. I then went through each of those schools, forgetting for the moment whether they were usually considered number one or whatever and just looking at who taught there and what they had written. Most were quickly eliminated for not having anyone I wanted to work with or similar reasons. Those that remained became my list.

Furthermore, as mlvchicago pointed out, this approach is useful for more than just apps. I am applying this year (doing a post bac this year) and have found that, in all the papers I am writing this semester, those professors I researched and those books I read by them keep coming up. It hugely expanded my understanding of what people are researching right now in ancient history. After all, if a scholar sounds like someone you might want to work with for your phd, then odds are their work is relevant enough to your research that you should spend the time to learn about it in any case. 

Edited December 18, 2015 by pro Augustis

[Neist]

On 12/17/2015 at 2:49 AM, ashiepoo72 said:

I hate to say this, because it's going to be a ton of grueling work, but this is exactly what I did and it really helped me.

I went through this list of U.S. PhD-granting history programs by state (only the regions I would be willing to live): http://secure.historians.org/projects/cge/PhD/StateMap.cfm  Then I pretty much went through each department on each state's list one by one. That means I went to department websites, looked through all the professors, wrote down people who sounded interesting and relevant to my research (temporally, methodologically, geographically, whatever...remember, advisers don't need to match you exactly, just be close enough to guide you), looked at what they've published, tried to read something written by them if I could (or at least a book review and citation check to see who was using their work), typed their names into a spreadsheet, went to the next department on the list, rinse and repeat.

After that I contacted people, saw who responded positively, who suggested I not apply (usually because of department finances or retirements), put asterisks next to people who were enthusiastic about my work and fit my interests really well (I took that as a "major adviser" rather than "committee member" sign, but both were important in my search...you should looking for both). Any program that had less than 3 people who could support my work in some way got nixed. If any of my less-than-3 programs had excited me I might've deviated from the rule, but I'm confident sticking to it is what got me the number of acceptances that I did.

Basically, when I started the process I knew that Madison had a badass modern U.S. program, knew where rockstars in my field worked, but otherwise was pretty ignorant. After doing the legwork outlined above, I know more about many many departments than any human should, but it's useful. The best way to figure out which programs will fit your interests is by doing your research and searching them out. Spreadsheets are your friend.

Good luck!

This is exactly what I did, and I completely agree with your comments.

I'm actually applying to several programs that I would have not known existed if I did not spend the effort comprehensively surveying all graduate school, and it highlights a lot of non-academic facets of programs as well (such as cost of living). I've looked into several prestigious programs and ruled them out because it would simply be far too expensive to attend, despite any stipend or waiver.

[stillalivetui]

5 hours ago, Neist said:

This is exactly what I did, and I completely agree with your comments.

I'm actually applying to several programs that I would have not known existed if I did not spend the effort comprehensively surveying all graduate school, and it highlights a lot of non-academic facets of programs as well (such as cost of living). I've looked into several prestigious programs and ruled them out because it would simply be far too expensive to attend, despite any stipend or waiver.

Yeah cost of living should definitely be a factor, but I wouldn't let this deter you from applying to said "prestigious programs."

Edited December 18, 2015 by stillalivetui

[Neist]

22 minutes ago, stillalivetui said:

I'm confused about the last comment. Do you mean cost of living?

Indeed!

Harvard has pretty decent acceptance rates in the history of science (probably because their department is huge), but I can't imagine living in Cambridge. It's an insanely expensive place to live, especially for someone like myself. I'm married with a kid. For the same reason I immediately excluded every program in NYC. I could commute into NYC, but that would eat up more time than I would prefer. I really want to live to campus so I can maximize my effort.

My badly-worded point is that there are lot of factors that affect what programs are the best fit for you, and many of these details aren't immediately apparently until you diligently research potential programs. As an example, I want to live closer to campus, and that's not necessarily possible given my situations or preferences. For others, maybe a school looks great on paper, but the departmental community is horrid. Or maybe the person you want to chair your eventual committee is intolerable. Or maybe every email you sent to departmental contacts is ignored, a potential red flag. Or maybe you're just scared of current events in the state's educational system (Mad-Wis, I'm looking at you).

At least for myself, trying to figure out which programs I wanted to apply to was as complicated as attempting to discover one's spouse via spreadsheets. It's a pretty big decision, and it's not an easy one. I've probably looked into a hundred programs, and I've only found ~7-8 that I felt were good fits, for me.

Edit: Since you edited your post, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying that anyone necessarily should exclude certain programs on specific criteria, unless of course it matters to them personally. I'm certainly not going to take on an extra 50k in debt arbitrarily, and certainly not given the current state of the PhD job market (especially in history). Again, people should carefully consider what's right for them, given their interests and career path.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Neist

[ashiepoo72]

When I applied, I chose programs based on fit. When I was actually in the position to choose a program, rank and funding became way more important. I would've happily attended the lowest-ranked program on my list, but once I got into more "prestigious" places that offered me more money, those became more important--the dream is to get a TT job, but I would've settled for having a really cool intellectual journey at a lower-ranked place if I didn't get in anywhere else.

Also, some of the lower-ranked programs funded me fully and even gave me sweet perks like summer funding, but I was wait listed for funding at two more highly ranked programs. Bottom line, focus on fit first, worry about the rest when you actually have options. Right now, the 2016ers are courting programs. When they're courting you is the time to be more cold-hearted about money and rank IMO. 

[AfricanusCrowther]

Unless you have no interest in going to a lower ranked program.

Edited December 19, 2015 by AfricanusCrowther

[ashiepoo72]

Well, duh.

I'm trying to say, apply where you want to apply. You might be surprised at who funds you well. I mentioned the lower-ranked programs because, despite having less money to give grad students than most places in the top tier, I got great funding at those, so assuming a place won't fund you enough and not applying there because of it is self-rejecting before having all the details. If they really want you, they will fund you, maybe more than you think--that definitely happened to me at multiple schools, even places known for mediocre funding. Worry about fit when you're applying, then when you have actual offers, choose whatever program will best suit your needs. If you have multiple offers in hand, there's a good chance you can get some bennies from the program you truly want to attend by telling them X program gave you summer funds and you would accept Y program's offer if they do, too. Obviously, don't do this unless you actually intend to accept Y program's offer if they follow through.

[nevermind]

On 12/18/2015 at 3:29 PM, Neist said:

Indeed!

Harvard has pretty decent acceptance rates in the history of science (probably because their department is huge), but I can't imagine living in Cambridge. It's an insanely expensive place to live, especially for someone like myself. I'm married with a kid. For the same reason I immediately excluded every program in NYC. I could commute into NYC, but that would eat up more time than I would prefer. I really want to live to campus so I can maximize my effort.

Neist, how do you know that their acceptance rates are decent? It's probably my #1 program (hoping I don't jinx myself) and nothing on their website says anything about acceptance rates. Petersons.com has a pretty high listing (at 38%), but I wasn't sure how accurate those stats are. The professor I've been in contact with seemed pretty positive about my application, but I've read too many stories of people planning work with a POI only not to get accepted. 

[ashiepoo72]

Petersons stats are outdated by a few years, give or take. At least for my program, which in the past few years accepted around half of what Petersons says and hasn't had incoming cohorts that break double digits. I don't know what that means for Harvard, if anything.

I know this is hard to truly accept, and I certainly didn't when I was playing the waiting game last year, but it's the god's honest truth--the acceptance rate doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, a mythical program that accepts 80% gives you better odds, but statistics are essentially meaningless in this situation (so my friend in engineering tells me) because even if I say there's a 92% chance you'll get in, even if you don't, I'll still be right (that 8% is a killer, I know).

Basically what I'm saying is, be confident in the application you submitted, in your fit with the program and POIs, and try not to turn your brains to mush calculating acceptance rates. I swear, I did more algebra during my application season than any time since freshmen year of high school, so I'm speaking from experience.

[Neist]

On 1/6/2016 at 0:34 AM, nevermind said:

Neist, how do you know that their acceptance rates are decent? It's probably my #1 program (hoping I don't jinx myself) and nothing on their website says anything about acceptance rates. Petersons.com has a pretty high listing (at 38%), but I wasn't sure how accurate those stats are. The professor I've been in contact with seemed pretty positive about my application, but I've read too many stories of people planning work with a POI only not to get accepted. 

Petersons as well as my general knowledge of History of Science departments, although admittedly some of the latter is based on gut feeling. Harvard's department is gigantic. They currently have 46 graduate students. Yale only has half that, and Princeton has significantly less (at least those who state history of science or technology as a stated area of interest. U. Penn and Johns Hopkins also fall into this lower range, as does Madison Wisconsin. 

I could go on, but my point is that it's a very large department that can support a very large number of graduate students. At the same hand, there's nothing that I know of that makes Harvard especially better than the other programs I've listed either, so I doubt they are pulling a larger pool of applicants than say Yale or Princeton (those names probably do pull some weight, but I'm not sure one pulls necessarily more than another). If their department can support 50 grad students versus 12, and applicant pools are somewhat similar in somewhat similar quality programs, Harvard can matriculate more per application pool.

Like I said, this partially an assumption based on my knowledge of the department I'm in and other programs via discussions with those within my department. I could certainly be wrong!

On 1/6/2016 at 1:26 AM, ashiepoo72 said:

Petersons stats are outdated by a few years, give or take. At least for my program, which in the past few years accepted around half of what Petersons says and hasn't had incoming cohorts that break double digits. I don't know what that means for Harvard, if anything.

I know this is hard to truly accept, and I certainly didn't when I was playing the waiting game last year, but it's the god's honest truth--the acceptance rate doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, a mythical program that accepts 80% gives you better odds, but statistics are essentially meaningless in this situation (so my friend in engineering tells me) because even if I say there's a 92% chance you'll get in, even if you don't, I'll still be right (that 8% is a killer, I know).

Basically what I'm saying is, be confident in the application you submitted, in your fit with the program and POIs, and try not to turn your brains to mush calculating acceptance rates. I swear, I did more algebra during my application season than any time since freshmen year of high school, so I'm speaking from experience.

I completely agree, but I would still stick to my assumption, however squishy it might be.

I probably have better odds of getting into Harvard than some of the programs, but I didn't apply there because the fit isn't as solid as other programs.