Euro Intellectual History PhD applicant, chances?

[perseusR]

Hi all,

I understand that interdisciplinary programs like intellectual history often get short shrift compared to more "traditionally" defined disciplines, and that low admissions rates tend to reflect this status -- I wonder, nonetheless, what you all think my general prospects are for a top-20 program with an emphasis in modern euro. intellectual history are and whether you have any advice in overcoming the interdisciplinary stigma?

Relevant stats: My undergrad was done at a top-20 public university, BAs in Math and History minor: Classical studies, cum undergrad gpa 3.8, GRE 740V/800Q/6.0A, MA in Math, MS in History/Philosophy done at a low-tier school, though my graduate gpa in both programs is a 4.0, strong lor's, fairly extensive teaching/lecturing experience.

Thanks!

[catilina]

Most people applying to any kind of history or liberal arts program will not have that kind of quantitative ability. You should try to frame your research interests to highlight that as a special, unique skill.

[Sparky]

whether you have any advice in overcoming the interdisciplinary stigma?

The SOP is what matters. Sell yourself to the specific department.

Is the application for a history program? Then you probably want to suggest a historical topic for possible dissertation work. Is the application for a program in a philosophy department (even if the subfield is "history of philosophy")? Then stress the philosophical angle. Like, for philosophy, something about the ways in which the crappy abridged English translation of Le Deuxieme Sexe fundamentally changes the philosophical insights of the original. For history, how second wave feminist theory and feminist praxis differed based on the theorists reading the original LDS and the (American) activist leaders reading a crappy abridged English translation. (Except pick a topic with, you know, actual merit).

I have one SOP for the programs in "history of religion" that are located in religion departments, and another, fairly different one for "religious history" in history departments. My general research interest is the same, but I'm proposing different questions about it.

If the school has strong faculty support for intellectual history, I don't see why there would be much of a stigma. At the top schools, the magic word seems to be "fit"--do your interests fit in well with one or more of the faculty members there. Your scores and record are excellent--you know that already, but I'll grant you the ego-stroking anyway b/c goodness knows I understand the need --so it's just a matter of "all of these people will make outstanding scholars; who will make the best scholar here."

My turn for a question: where did you find the acceptance rates for the intellectual history subfield? Or is this just one of those "things people know"?

[ChibaCityBlues]

The way doctoral plans of study are generally structured, geographic fields take precedence over topical fields such as intellectual history. And since the geographic field is determined by your research topic, it makes sense that doctoral programs place greater weight on how prospective students frame their research interests in terms of a geographic field. This is changing though. African Diaspora is an example of a topical field that is being treated like a primary field by more and more departments.

I majored in Comp Sci before moving to History at the grad level. Having the Comp Sci background has been nothing but beneficial and if I have any advice for people who want to do graduate studies in the humanities, it's to double major in Comp Sci as an undergraduate.

[Sparky]

The way doctoral plans of study are generally structured, geographic fields take precedence over topical fields such as intellectual history. And since the geographic field is determined by your research topic, it makes sense that doctoral programs place greater weight on how prospective students frame their research interests in terms of a geographic field.

Right...I guess I should rephrase my question.

Assuming the OP frames his/her interest in studying history as "I am fascinated by late nineteenth-century Europe," is there a stigma attached to, within that time/space, focusing on intellectual history as opposed to, say, political or economic history?

[StrangeLight]

so what, an intellectual history of the 20th century caribbean would make less sense than one of 19th century europe?

....

edit: and i think political and economic history both tend to carry less weight right now than they used to. it's more social and cultural history at the moment, and intellectual history can potentially slide right into that.

Edited December 2, 2009 by StrangeLight

[Sparky]

so what, an intellectual history of the 20th century caribbean would make less sense than one of 19th century europe?

Um...what? The OP specifically said "modern euro. intellectual history." Last time I checked, the Caribbean wasn't in Europe.

it's more social and cultural history at the moment, and intellectual history can potentially slide right into that.

I agree. There are actually a lot of profs who list "cultural and intellectual history" as a single area on their bios, especially medievalists. I tend to see intellectual history as sort of a subfield of cultural.