History 2010

[lifetimestudent]

for all the time you spent learning esoteric vocabulary and other useless standardized test tricks for the GRE, and otherwise doing everything in your power to coddle and impress anonymous, pointy-headed academics sitting on some stiff admissions committee -- most of whom, let's face it, history will promptly forget -- you could have written two dissertations and made history yourself.

Getting into Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford is far more likely to make you lazy and complacent as you rest on your laurels. To be a great historian, you need to be HUNGRY! Those places will not make you hungry.

Amen!

[StrangeLight]

So, I'm just curious how others are dealing with the general bleakness of the history situation and the funding issues this year.

Do we take what we can get?

Do we try to make it work on no funding for the first year?

Do we go get adjunct work or something else and try to "ride out" the economy until we can apply again in more favorable circumstances?

Should we bother trying next year?

I cannot imagine doing anything else than studying what I love, but this whole process has shattered my (already pessimistic) expectations.

1. do you expect your application to differ greatly if you reapply next year? your GPA will be the same, as will your LORs (probably), but is there any way to improve upon your writing sample, GRE scores, or languages? if yes, then it may be worth turning down your offers and reapplying; if no, then take what you've got.

2. do you know that you'll have no funding? it seems from most people's posts here, wisconsin hasn't decided on funding. maybe you'll be offered a package. just wait for them to get back to you. in your position, with an MA already in hand (if i'm not mistaken), it wouldn't be worth it to fund your own PhD, even for one year. if you don't get funding the second year, will you sink more money into it or move on? i see the logic of paying for an MA, but only so it can secure you a funded offer for a PhD. i would probably recommend improving the application and reapplying, or just moving on, rather than paying my own way, but that's a personal decision.

3. people with PhDs in hand have difficulty finding adjunct positions. i seriously doubt you'll get adjunct work with just an MA. if you work for a year, it will probably have to be out of academia. no one knows when these endowments are going to recover. i'm not sure there is anything to "ride out."

4. i'd definitely recommend trying again next year. be very precise about fit. if the fit isn't immediately obvious, then it's not good enough. apply to top 50 programs, don't limit yourself to the top 10/20. especially if you're working on something other than american or european history, many of the best programs for your subfield will probably be out of the top 10, even the top 20.

last year, michigan wouldn't even spit on me and miami offered me a prestigious university-wide five-year $30,000/yr fellowship with drastically reduced teaching requirements and full benefits. i'd be ecstatic just to get that sort of pay as a professor, never mind as a graduate student. apply to a range of places. you'll find that the top 100 programs are full of professors who have won book prizes and earned their PhDs from top ten schools. you'll get a good education there, and if getting the degree is really what you want, then incorporate some lower-ranked schools into your list next time around.

that's my two cents.

edit: also... a colleague of mine, one of the brightest and most insightful that i know, was rejected across the board for PhDs in british history (he had an MA in hand). he changed his regional focus to something understudied and was promptly met with several fully-funded offers.

i know people are really emotionally invested in what they study, i sure am, but it may be worth it to change regional fields or temporal concentration. some fields are just too saturated.

Edited February 25, 2010 by StrangeLight

[Fifster]

Two comments: First, to suggest that only 2% of applicants can get into a decent Ph.D. program is just patently false. Example: Stanford is the top history department in the country (tied with a couple others), and the most selective, and as to Americanists -- by far the most popular and most competitive field -- they accepted over 3% this year, and wait listed a couple more -- this, in a year where the number of spaces is the smallest ever due to the economy. But that's the MOST rigorous it gets. Further down the line, take a place like BU, whose acceptance rate in the graduate History department as of a couple years ago, was over 40 percent! (Not sure how many of those were offered funding.) Granted, this year things are worse because the money's tight, and the pool is larger than ever. But 2% is pure hyperbole, and you are discouraging many people on this board with such comments.

Second, for all the time you spent learning esoteric vocabulary and other useless standardized test tricks for the GRE, and otherwise doing everything in your power to coddle and impress anonymous, pointy-headed academics sitting on some stiff admissions committee -- most of whom, let's face it, history will promptly forget -- you could have written two dissertations and made history yourself.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am just trying to give people some perspective. These adcomms are not the arbiters of your worth and abilities. Where you get your Ph.D. -- and, indeed, whether or not you get your PhD in the first instance -- do not matter. One of our greatest and most respected historians, Joyce Appleby, did not go to a top school. Many others -- David McCullough, Parrington, Ron Chernow -- never wasted time getting a Ph.D. Going even further, one of the greatest and most trenchant thinkers and writers of the 20th century, Eric Hoffer -- who, by the way, taught at Berkeley, received the presidential medal of freedom from Ronald Reagan and was well-respected throughout academia -- never graduated from high school! Hoffer did it with a few library cards.

Getting into Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford is far more likely to make you lazy and complacent as you rest on your laurels. To be a great historian, you need to be HUNGRY! Those places will not make you hungry. I have a friend who got into a tippy-top graduate humanities program and then proceeded to spend the next 6 years of his life doing pretty much nothing, except lusting after undergraduates and (on worse days) cougars who, as far as I can tell, considered him a buffoon. Now his Department's denying him funding and threatening to kick him out. Another friend went to a lesser known school, finished in 4 years, published his dissertation, and is now writing articles on politico.com There is no substitute for hard work -- not Yale, Harvard, or Princeton. The question is not, Where did you go to school?, but rather What have you produced? What have you done? What do you believe? If you have a good idea now, chances are that six years at Harvard are not going to make it any better and might even make it worse. Alternatively, if you don't have a good idea now, Harvard's not going to give you one.

There, I'll shut up now.

Hmm. Interesting perspective, and I think you are partly correct, but you overlook some important things. Here are my thoughts -- keep in mind that I'm not yet in a PhD program, but I have a few years of experience working in academic administration, and discussing these sorts of things with faculty.

First of all, I think that ChibaCityBlues may have been referring to the "2% that make it" into academia -- not that make it into PhD programs. There is a distinction. 2% is probably a lowball guestimate, but just because you get into a PhD program, you are by no means guaranteed of "making it" as an academic, regardless of where you go to school. There are so many filtering processes -- first you have to get into a PhD program, then you have to pass comps, then you have to complete your dissertation, then you have to secure a tenure-track job, and then you have to achieve tenure. And that's the most straightforward route. It's a brutal business, and it's not fair, but it's true.

I agree with you that admissions committee are not passing judgment on your intelligence, on your worth as a scholar, or your potential for success. It often comes down to luck and serendipity. But that doesn't mean that you should continue to plunge ahead if you are unlucky.

As for the historians that you mentioned -- I think that going to "top" schools has become increasingly important in this generation, and that the average PhD student from Claremont Graduate School would not achieve that kind of success. Yes, there are outliers, and Joyce Appleby is one of them. If you are that phenomenally skilled, then it may not matter where you go. But most of us are not that phenomenally skilled -- we are skilled enough to be good teachers and scholars, and probably make waves in our field some day. But we are not geniuses.

Those without PhDs who you mentioned never held permanent academic appointments. They are scholars, and publishers of fine histories (both academic and popular -- and I have absolutely no problem with well-done popular history), but they are not academics. Those of who who want to become academics (which is a particular shade of "scholar" -- and not always the best shade to be!) need PhDs. On this subject, I would really encourage you to read the phenomenal essay "Journeyman" by Alex Pang, a historian of science, available here: http://askpang.typep...eyman_gett.html

I also think that you are unnecessarily disparaging the Ivies here. Certainly, there is no guarantee that attending one of them will "set you up" for life, and an ambitious BU student could go a lot farther than a lazy Harvard one. But I take issue with your statement that those schools are "likely" to make you lazy or complacement.

The fact is, becoming an academic is hard, and it's not for everyone. I don't really yet know if it's for me. I would certainly like to have a scholarly career, but I'm all right if it's not in academia (again, read Alex Pang's essay). Remember that admissions committees are not judging you as a person -- but if you are NOT lucky enough to get into the right schools and do the right things, I think it would be advisable to consider a different path. It doesn't mean you're a failure as a person or a scholar, despite what some academics themselves might think. After all, even those who DO get into top programs, publish a lot, and seem to be "successful" may fail.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Fifster

[outlawesq]

Unfortunately, there are very few ways to make this academia thing work, and unfortunately whether or not you're on a trajectory towards success in academia begins to be determined even before this grad app process begins. When I was an undergrad I did not do those things required to get into good grad programs. I applied anyway and didn't get in anywhere. After a few years of working I then made the choice to be that 2% that make it. I spent a year studying for the GREs, I went back to school in order to get fresh and better academic recommendations, I worked on my writing sample for six months, and I did not apply to PhD programs next time around. I applied to MA programs which promised to be good stepping stones to better PhD programs. I think the MA step was critical because there is no way someone straight out of undergrad has any idea what the state of their field is, what the important questions are, where the gaps are that you can fill in with your research, etc. Yes, it delayed the process by two years, but it made all the difference because my current application doesn't reflect what I'm interested in studying as a student, but rather what I'm going to contribute to the field as a professional. Though I didn't get into Yale, I have been accepted to the top program in my field and one of the top grad programs in the country. I've interviewed at another top program and got accepted into all my safety schools. All fully funded.

All of this is to say that academia is highly competitive and unless you know that you are doing what it takes to be in the top 2% rather than just hoping, then you are going to have a happier, more fulfilling, more fiscally secure life if you move on elsewhere. Read the forums in the chronicle for higher education is you want proof.

Care to share which MA programs we should look into just in case any of us are doing this again next year?

[JerryLandis]

I don't see how attending a super-competitive top program would make a person complacent. Not me, anyway. I refuse to be mediocre at anything - either I work my ass off on it and do my best, or I don't do it at all. If I ever get lucky enough to be accepted at a top PhD program, I'll be scared shitless. I can't imagine how intimidating it must be, after years of big fish small pond syndrome, to wind up in a cohort of insanely competitive, intelligent, and hard-working people (as I'm assuming you must be to be admitted, generally). I suppose I would either buckle and drop out, or spend every waking moment working my ass off to reclaim my bygone position of "best student in the class."

I think I would be far more likely to rest on my laurels at a less renowned university, because 1) if the place was really bad, I'd be the big fish again and maybe it wouldn't be so challenging and, more importantly, 2) spending a number of years at a lower-ranked institution would instill in me the belief that that I belonged there, and not anywhere better. I think it would damage my confidence a bit, which wouldn't be the best motivator for my studies.

I suppose everyone is different. I guess what this means is that you should attend the lower-ranked program, and leave a spot at the higher-ranked one open for me! Then we'll both be happy...

[africanhistoryphd]

Is the assumption fair that all the Michigan admits got calls last night?

I was kind of expecting another round of calls today, but on the results board: silence.

Too bad, I got very positive responses from two PAs there...

Edited February 26, 2010 by africanhistoryphd

[ChibaCityBlues]

Two comments: First, to suggest that only 2% of applicants can get into a decent Ph.D. program is just patently false. Example: Stanford is the top history department in the country (tied with a couple others), and the most selective, and as to Americanists -- by far the most popular and most competitive field -- they accepted over 3% this year, and wait listed a couple more -- this, in a year where the number of spaces is the smallest ever due to the economy. But that's the MOST rigorous it gets. Further down the line, take a place like BU, whose acceptance rate in the graduate History department as of a couple years ago, was over 40 percent! (Not sure how many of those were offered funding.) Granted, this year things are worse because the money's tight, and the pool is larger than ever. But 2% is pure hyperbole, and you are discouraging many people on this board with such comments.

Second, for all the time you spent learning esoteric vocabulary and other useless standardized test tricks for the GRE, and otherwise doing everything in your power to coddle and impress anonymous, pointy-headed academics sitting on some stiff admissions committee -- most of whom, let's face it, history will promptly forget -- you could have written two dissertations and made history yourself.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am just trying to give people some perspective. These adcomms are not the arbiters of your worth and abilities. Where you get your Ph.D. -- and, indeed, whether or not you get your PhD in the first instance -- do not matter. One of our greatest and most respected historians, Joyce Appleby, did not go to a top school. Many others -- David McCullough, Parrington, Ron Chernow -- never wasted time getting a Ph.D. Going even further, one of the greatest and most trenchant thinkers and writers of the 20th century, Eric Hoffer -- who, by the way, taught at Berkeley, received the presidential medal of freedom from Ronald Reagan and was well-respected throughout academia -- never graduated from high school! Hoffer did it with a few library cards.

Getting into Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford is far more likely to make you lazy and complacent as you rest on your laurels. To be a great historian, you need to be HUNGRY! Those places will not make you hungry. I have a friend who got into a tippy-top graduate humanities program and then proceeded to spend the next 6 years of his life doing pretty much nothing, except lusting after undergraduates and (on worse days) cougars who, as far as I can tell, considered him a buffoon. Now his Department's denying him funding and threatening to kick him out. Another friend went to a lesser known school, finished in 4 years, published his dissertation, and is now writing articles on politico.com There is no substitute for hard work -- not Yale, Harvard, or Princeton. The question is not, Where did you go to school?, but rather What have you produced? What have you done? What do you believe? If you have a good idea now, chances are that six years at Harvard are not going to make it any better and might even make it worse. Alternatively, if you don't have a good idea now, Harvard's not going to give you one.

There, I'll shut up now.

The point wasn't to discourage, but to answer the question posed which was essentially now that this application cycle didn't work out as desired, what to do next? If it didn't work out this cycle, the answer isn't to try to do the same thing again in a year and hope it'll work out that time. The admissions scene is only going to get more competitive. The job scene is only going to get more competitive. In preparing for the next round, in this environment, don't be comfortable applying as a top 10% candidate, or a top 5% candidate, or whatever the appropriate number is. Do the hard work of becoming a top 2% candidate, be that hungry, or otherwise save yourself the time, effort, and emotional burden of this whole process and become the next David McCullough or go work for politico.com.

[ChibaCityBlues]

Care to share which MA programs we should look into just in case any of us are doing this again next year?

Apply to MA programs in BIG states universities that need the grad student man power to TA classes even if the TAs aren't PhD students. You'll study under and work for active historians in their fields who undoubtedly know the people you'll want to work with as a PhD student. Honestly, though, I applied in 2007 and started my MA in the Fall of 2008. Things have gotten a lot worse since then. My program no longer funds MA students because of budget considerations.

[Goober]

I just saw a BC rejection on the results board. I also applied there, and was wondering if the person might mind letting me know when the letter was dated? I understand if you don't want to say, but would really appreciate it if you can share (or possibly PM me?). I am located in North Jersey and just wondering if its taking the rejection letter an extra day to reach me or something.

[mushpuddle]

I just saw a BC rejection on the results board. I also applied there, and was wondering if the person might mind letting me know when the letter was dated? I understand if you don't want to say, but would really appreciate it if you can share (or possibly PM me?). I am located in North Jersey and just wondering if its taking the rejection letter an extra day to reach me or something.

yeah, i'm a liiiiiittle curious about this too.

[TMP]

I share some of Nytusse's concerns.

I doubled my list this time from last time. Next time, if it has to happen, I'll double again.

One of the things I'm surprised at about myself is how easy it is to lose focus of what I want. I'm surrounded by academics all the time. It's easy for me to think about being a professor when there is a real reason why I want a history PhD- to be a historian at a public institution. I get mixed feelings about whether I should apply to name-brand schools to get the job, or just pick schools that have scholars that I want regardless of their rankings. Next time, because I'll be sick and tired, I will do whatever I can. By then I will be away from my university where I can focus much more on my applications and myself as a person.

I'm actually inspired by Seahistory's post. If this person can submit the exact same application and get in the next cycle, then so can I.

I do worry about my field of choice. Yes, I am an Americanist but I use U.S. as a model for comparative studies. Two of the non-US areas I am interested are Argentina and Germany. Should I switch out of US? I don't know yet. I haven't worked on my Spanish in several years. It's always difficult to predict "hot" fields AND things can change quite a bit over the next 10 years. Also, we can't predict what departments will need. I do know that this year Michigan will favor early Americanists over 20th century because a number of early Americanists left last year. As people have constantly pointed out to me, what I will end up writing my dissertation can be completely different from my SOP. I can see myself doing that with right language skills. To me, at the moment, the issue is being able to write the SOP that will get me in despite heavy coursework related to US history. For example, I could write about becoming a Latin Americanist, but like I said, I don't know enough about the field. But as Latin Americanist professors have said, just do some reading and I'll come up with something. Well, that could be a project undertaking when not in graduate school.

As for my MA's worth, it's been hard to swallow to think that way. The last year and half have been extremely productive and eye-opening experiences for me. I learned a lot about myself. But it's interdisciplinary, not history, so I can do a bit more with it than a straight-up history MA.

Still, it is a terrible time to be leaving graduate school into the workforce and that's what I'm down about.

[Nytusse]

I share some of Nytusse's concerns.

I doubled my list this time from last time. Next time, if it has to happen, I'll double again.

One of the things I'm surprised at about myself is how easy it is to lose focus of what I want. I'm surrounded by academics all the time. It's easy for me to think about being a professor when there is a real reason why I want a history PhD- to be a historian at a public institution. I get mixed feelings about whether I should apply to name-brand schools to get the job, or just pick schools that have scholars that I want regardless of their rankings. Next time, because I'll be sick and tired, I will do whatever I can. By then I will be away from my university where I can focus much more on my applications and myself as a person.

I'm actually inspired by Seahistory's post. If this person can submit the exact same application and get in the next cycle, then so can I.

I do worry about my field of choice. Yes, I am an Americanist but I use U.S. as a model for comparative studies. Two of the non-US areas I am interested are Argentina and Germany. Should I switch out of US? I don't know yet. I haven't worked on my Spanish in several years. It's always difficult to predict "hot" fields AND things can change quite a bit over the next 10 years. Also, we can't predict what departments will need. I do know that this year Michigan will favor early Americanists over 20th century because a number of early Americanists left last year. As people have constantly pointed out to me, what I will end up writing my dissertation can be completely different from my SOP. I can see myself doing that with right language skills. To me, at the moment, the issue is being able to write the SOP that will get me in despite heavy coursework related to US history. For example, I could write about becoming a Latin Americanist, but like I said, I don't know enough about the field. But as Latin Americanist professors have said, just do some reading and I'll come up with something. Well, that could be a project undertaking when not in graduate school.

As for my MA's worth, it's been hard to swallow to think that way. The last year and half have been extremely productive and eye-opening experiences for me. I learned a lot about myself. But it's interdisciplinary, not history, so I can do a bit more with it than a straight-up history MA.

Still, it is a terrible time to be leaving graduate school into the workforce and that's what I'm down about.

YES. I also fear that I have lost sight of what I want. My undergrad was tiny and not known for much of anything, and I went there after dropping out of high school. Well, the little no-name university changed my life and gave me professors who I can go and hug and really talk to. They gave me the confidence to pursue bigger things.

My Master's degree is with some of the most accomplished people I've ever met, but I have not felt the "love" nearly in the same way as my other school. Yet, I now find myself worrying about how I look to my peers, professors, and my family who has absolutely no idea how competitive academia is.

It was my dream to become a professor because I love to learn and my own professors were such wonderful, happy people. It took going to a uber-competitive school to realize how much of an aberration my undergrad institution was. But now, I've turned into a bit of a snob about the "names," and I worry that my judgment isn't even sound due to all this confusion.

[limeinthecoconut]

I'm actually inspired by Seahistory's post. If this person can submit the exact same application and get in the next cycle, then so can I.

I personally wouldn't suggest this approach, though (despite the fact that this was the approach I took). I was simply too burnt out by the previous season (and life in general) to do anything about it. But I made the point to suggest that part of the process is random, and applying to more schools is a great approach. There are random factors at play, e.g. people applying for the some fields as you, department politics. These are things that none of us applicants can control. The best we can do is to minimize the random factor.

[TMP]

I personally wouldn't suggest this approach, though (despite the fact that this was the approach I took). I was simply too burnt out by the previous season (and life in general) to do anything about it. But I made the point to suggest that part of the process is random, and applying to more schools is a great approach. There are random factors at play, e.g. people applying for the some fields as you, department politics. These are things that none of us applicants can control. The best we can do is to minimize the random factor.

Oh no, I wouldn't send in exactly same application next year. I'm still revising my MA thesis so it'll be more polished and publishable by the next cycle. SOP... well, we'll wait and see on that.

[limeinthecoconut]

Oh no, I wouldn't send in exactly same application next year. I'm still revising my MA thesis so it'll be more polished and publishable by the next cycle. SOP... well, we'll wait and see on that.

If there was something really different about my application, I guess it was an additional letter writer. This very enthusiastic and energetic letter writer basically got the rest of my letter writers together, and strategized about who writes what. So that was the only thing that was different about my application. But parts of the application that were within my control remained the same.

[BCHistory]

I just saw a BC rejection on the results board. I also applied there, and was wondering if the person might mind letting me know when the letter was dated? I understand if you don't want to say, but would really appreciate it if you can share (or possibly PM me?). I am located in North Jersey and just wondering if its taking the rejection letter an extra day to reach me or something.

I've been wondering about BC, as well. So far, I've still heard nothing.

[deuterides]

I just saw a BC rejection on the results board. I also applied there, and was wondering if the person might mind letting me know when the letter was dated? I understand if you don't want to say, but would really appreciate it if you can share (or possibly PM me?). I am located in North Jersey and just wondering if its taking the rejection letter an extra day to reach me or something.

I'm in upstate New York all of four hours from Boston and I haven't heard a peep since I submitted to BC. Maybe they are doing it by rounds or something?

[MsScarlet]

Apply to MA programs in BIG states universities that need the grad student man power to TA classes even if the TAs aren't PhD students. You'll study under and work for active historians in their fields who undoubtedly know the people you'll want to work with as a PhD student. Honestly, though, I applied in 2007 and started my MA in the Fall of 2008. Things have gotten a lot worse since then. My program no longer funds MA students because of budget considerations.

My exceptionally large state university has had to cut the budget, and the first thing they decided to cut was TA lines and we don't even have MA students, just PhD students. They're having larger classes and fewer TAs to save money and eliminating the possibility of continued financial support of any kind from any part of the university past the 5th year. Money is tight these days and it seems like it's only getting worse. The DGS asked if he could give me a hug when I said, "I'd like to finish early and transfer classes so I can take prelims earlier than anticipated" because I wanted to be done as quickly as possible.

Edited February 26, 2010 by MsScarlet

[RockEater]

Well, just got the rejection notification from OSU. I've been screwed over because of the economy again (like many of us). That leaves Columbia, and I'm expecting a rejecting from them shortly, Harvard, and NYU - both will probably be rejects as well.

So now I'm holding out on getting off the Brandeis waitlist.

RockEater has hit rockbottom.

[Kai210]

Well, just got the rejection notification from OSU. I've been screwed over because of the economy again (like many of us). That leaves Columbia, and I'm expecting a rejecting from them shortly, Harvard, and NYU - both will probably be rejects as well.

So now I'm holding out on getting off the Brandeis waitlist.

RockEater has hit rockbottom.

I know it's tough but keep your head up. Things will work themselves out, and you will do great work in the academy.

[Nytusse]

Well, just got the rejection notification from OSU. I've been screwed over because of the economy again (like many of us). That leaves Columbia, and I'm expecting a rejecting from them shortly, Harvard, and NYU - both will probably be rejects as well.

So now I'm holding out on getting off the Brandeis waitlist.

RockEater has hit rockbottom.

I'm so very sorry to hear that. This is just the worst year to be trying to get into grad school.

You know what this thread reminds me of lately? The band that played together during the sinking of the Titanic. "It has been a pleasure playing with you all."

[Goober]

Just thought I'd update everyone who is interested in the BC situation. I gave in to my curiosity (and impatience) and called the admin there. She told me that they are still reviewing the applications and are not done accepting people yet. So we have a little hope, BC people!

[mushpuddle]

Just thought I'd update everyone who is interested in the BC situation. I gave in to my curiosity (and impatience) and called the admin there. She told me that they are still reviewing the applications and are not done accepting people yet. So we have a little hope, BC people!

Oh sank you berry much! That was v. nice of you to share

[RockEater]

I'm so very sorry to hear that. This is just the worst year to be trying to get into grad school.

You know what this thread reminds me of lately? The band that played together during the sinking of the Titanic. "It has been a pleasure playing with you all."

Glub, glub.

[soleprovider14]

Thanks for the update on BC, I'm still hoping that out of the three PhD programs I applied to (two of which I am positive will reject me since others were already informed of admission) BC will be the one to offer admission.