Fall 2018 Applicants

[jocorac]

15 hours ago, worldpeasplease said:

Hi all, I'm late. I'm the UIUC admit, logging into my account after 2 years to reply! I was originally also mystified by how early the decision was, and now I get it. I'm applying for African History with a focus on South African political movements - the African National Congress, specifically - that were exiled in East Africa during the 1960s and 70s.

@jocorac, I'm teaching high school US history now! Did you teach social studies?

Good luck to everyone!!

I taught Civics and Economics. I did my student teaching US History! Loved both. 

[khigh]

Found out that doing genealogy on ancestry is a good way to kill time during the waiting period.  Also found out, to my frustration, that England kept much better records than any of the regions in Germany. Now, how to break it to my parents that their ancestors fought in the same battle in the Civil War- against each other...

[VAZ]

I'm just wondering how the admission process works, in general. The DGS and the AC read all the applications first and then send them to your POI and other relevant faculty members  (2-3?) for a thorough review? On paper or through email? Do faculty members rank the candidates or leave specific comments (say, I extremely want this student to come; great but does not fit; acceptable; not acceptable)? Then the AC will meet and pick out the top ones based on the feedbacks from the professors? Or, all the faculty members in a geographical field have a meeting together, discuss all pertinent applicants and pick the best ones for the field, and then the AC will make a final cut of the nominees from all of the groups? If the university is currently in its "January term" or something similar and most professors are traveling, how is this process carried out? Are sabbatical faculty assigned to read a certain number of apps and got involved in the admission decision? I know it varies by schools and does not have a single answer , but I am both curious and anxious, and I am trying to figure out "where they are now." 

[Tigla]

20 hours ago, Manuscriptess said:

Has anyone started getting interviews or some form of communication from the dept? I know there is an option to put interview on the results page but I figured I'd ask. It seems like in past years, people were starting to get interviews around this week.

Also, does everyone who will ultimately be admitted usually get an interview? Do they still interview you if you've already talked to your POI? I know that these policies likely vary between departments, but what are the policies on interviews generally? Thanks! 

 

Interviews will start appearing next week and usually trickle out until mid-February. An interview can be given for a lot of reasons; as well as not given. On the one hand, interviews go to strong candidates that the department wants to talk with and engage with. This is important because most programs will have roughly 20-25 students who are ideal fits for their program, however, the program can admit a maximum of 10-15. Therefore, the department needs to cut the pool in half for banal reasons. On the other hand, you may not receive an interview, but be offered admission to the program. However, receiving an interview is a very good sign and should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a guarantee of admission.

[Manuscriptess]

1 hour ago, Tigla said:

 

Interviews will start appearing next week and usually trickle out until mid-February. An interview can be given for a lot of reasons; as well as not given. On the one hand, interviews go to strong candidates that the department wants to talk with and engage with. This is important because most programs will have roughly 20-25 students who are ideal fits for their program, however, the program can admit a maximum of 10-15. Therefore, the department needs to cut the pool in half for banal reasons. On the other hand, you may not receive an interview, but be offered admission to the program. However, receiving an interview is a very good sign and should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a guarantee of admission.

Thank you! That definitely assuaged some anxiety (especially when looking at the results forum and seeing all of those STEM people getting in already).

[Manuscriptess]

7 hours ago, khigh said:

Found out that doing genealogy on ancestry is a good way to kill time during the waiting period.  Also found out, to my frustration, that England kept much better records than any of the regions in Germany. Now, how to break it to my parents that their ancestors fought in the same battle in the Civil War- against each other...

Oh man! That's awesome! I have done some things with ancestry but it's really hard to find information about Jews in eastern Europe during the 19th C. so I can only ever really go as far back as my great grandparents. 

[khigh]

1 hour ago, Manuscriptess said:

Oh man! That's awesome! I have done some things with ancestry but it's really hard to find information about Jews in eastern Europe during the 19th C. so I can only ever really go as far back as my great grandparents. 

I’m working on my maternal lineage. I have my grandma’s direct line through her father all the way back to 1455 now. There are some minor Lords thrown in there, so that helps. We are also related to Anne Hutchinson through her sister and six people from the Mayflower. They were also the same lineage that helped settle Maine and established Rhode Island. My mother’s father’s side and both sides of my dad’s family are harder because they all came from the Rhineland, Hesse, and Prussia in the 1800s. 

[anon1234567]

I can tell you, more or less, how admission works at Ivies. I am now at a top 10 ivy, and got accepted to one more. My supervisor volunteered to tell me how I got accepted. And I was also told by one POI how admission works to explain why I got rejected.

At Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, there are admin committees. Committees are assembled at random and are rotational. These committees are made up of professors culled from different subfields. These are the people, if you get accepted, will remember your application with striking accuracy, and they will make small talk with you during visiting days. I am almost certain the DGS is not on the admin committee. 

Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia get about 400-500 applications each, of those only about 50-75 (sometimes 100) are good ones. Those get ranked by GRE, GPA, etc (such as, grants, awards). Yes GRE verbal matters. It doesn't matter for all committee members, but good students do get rejected for a low verbal score. You don't need a perfect score, but a decent score. MA gpa trumps BA gpa. LORs are very important. And Languages! My cohort,  Americanists included, commands at least two languages, at least! Most have three or four under their belt. You are expected to sit for your language exam in September. 

But it's the SOP that makes or breaks your app. If your SOP is compelling, and fits with the general theme of the history department, your package is sent to your future supervisor (whomever you named in your SOP), and other professors in your sub-interests. You need sub-interests, which signal you can work with a few professors, not just one, who may retire or die or you just don't jive with. Committees know this. Students who have very particular singular interests, and can only work with one single professor, and no one else, tend to get rejected. Even excellent students.  

Your (future) supervisor and other professors (in your secondary field/s of interest) review your app, and approve or reject it. If they approve it, it goes back to the admin committee to be discussed further. At this point, it is up to the whims (and I kid you not WHIMS) of the admin committee to narrow the list of candidates further. Your supervisor and professors in your sub-fields who read your SOP and file, can exert some pressure on the admin committee to get you in. But to an extent, and usually only faculty with endowed chairs. Again, to an extent.

Once you make it to the top 40 or so candidates, and you get rejected or waitlisted, know it is not a reflection of your potential, but the people on the admin committee the year you applied. If they specialize in French or British history, and you have a sub-interest or have background in those regions, you may get accepted. If you have an LOR whom the head of the admin knows because both attend same conferences, and like each other, you may get accepted. 

Also know, committees know students change their interests once they get in. I did, dramatically, and I know other students who did as well. That is why admin committees do not strictly choose students by their professed interests, or the presence of a POI in the department. They choose students with accolades, proven ability to do historical research, and ask critical, and probing questions. Cohorts are themed. It is rather strange but I find that each cohort has students that somehow connect with each other, not directly, but generally. So say, most have an underlying interest in global studies, or transnational history. Someone on this forum mentioned that historians are now more transnational rather than strictly regional. That is true. I notice that it is becoming more and more passé to focus on a single region. It narrows down your job prospects. Committees also choose candidates with an eye to the future. How will those students fair on the job market 6-7 years down the line, with a singular interest?

If you don't get an interview, don't sweat it. Most people are not interviewed, unless specifically indicated on the relevant school website that they will be solicited for an interview! If you get an interview, cool! 

If you want to get into a top-history program and you are not successful in this cycle, don't settle or despair, but apply again next year (of course, if it is within your financial means to do so). Committees change from year to year. Best of Luck! 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by anon1234567

[TheHessianHistorian]

2 hours ago, khigh said:

I’m working on my maternal lineage. I have my grandma’s direct line through her father all the way back to 1455 now. There are some minor Lords thrown in there, so that helps. We are also related to Anne Hutchinson through her sister and six people from the Mayflower. They were also the same lineage that helped settle Maine and established Rhode Island. My mother’s father’s side and both sides of my dad’s family are harder because they all came from the Rhineland, Hesse, and Prussia in the 1800s. 

Actually, I think German ancestry is MUCH easier to research than American ancestry. The Germans meticulously recorded every birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage, and death in each village in a church book. Assuming the village church book hasn't been destroyed in a war or disaster (and surprisingly, most haven't been), you can usually take any given German line of ancestry back to the 1600s (few church books survive from before the Thirty Years' War, but a handful do). You might invest in a subscription to www.Archion.de. They are in the process of putting all the evangelisch (Evangelical, aka Protestant) church books online in digital format. A 1-month subscription is something like 19 Euros, which usually translates to a little over $20. Well worth it for us genealogists!

[khigh]

5 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

Actually, I think German ancestry is MUCH easier to research than American ancestry. The Germans meticulously recorded every birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage, and death in each village in a church book. Assuming the village church book hasn't been destroyed in a war or disaster (and surprisingly, most haven't been), you can usually take any given German line of ancestry back to the 1600s (few church books survive from before the Thirty Years' War, but a handful do). You might invest in a subscription to www.Archion.de. They are in the process of putting all the evangelisch (Evangelical, aka Protestant) church books online in digital format. A 1-month subscription is something like 19 Euros, which usually translates to a little over $20. Well worth it for us genealogists!

It's the constant name changes when they arrived here that is what is difficult to track. Most of them arrived in 1848-1852 (which interests me a lot since I have written on the effects of German immigration post-unification on the Jacksonian Era). Since arriving, they have had 5 variations of the surname that I have seen so far and when I get back to Hesse or the Rhineland, the name is completely different. I had a different problem when I was looking into the iconoclasts in my family history on the British side.  They were in Leiden and Rotterdam before coming to the Americas after they left England (very typical), but I know all the church records for the church they would have been baptized in was destroyed in WWII. It's a common problem for many Dutch historians. Rotterdam held the repository for the Dutch Reformed Church in the 16 and 1700s. 

I'm going to look at a sub to archion.  I think it might be fun to delve into.

[TheHessianHistorian]

4 minutes ago, khigh said:

It's the constant name changes when they arrived here that is what is difficult to track. Most of them arrived in 1848-1852 (which interests me a lot since I have written on the effects of German immigration post-unification on the Jacksonian Era). Since arriving, they have had 5 variations of the surname that I have seen so far and when I get back to Hesse or the Rhineland, the name is completely different. I had a different problem when I was looking into the iconoclasts in my family history on the British side.  They were in Leiden and Rotterdam before coming to the Americas after they left England (very typical), but I know all the church records for the church they would have been baptized in was destroyed in WWII. It's a common problem for many Dutch historians. Rotterdam held the repository for the Dutch Reformed Church in the 16 and 1700s. 

I'm going to look at a sub to archion.  I think it might be fun to delve into.

I hear you! German name changes are often pretty logical though, and it was mostly because they just didn't care about spelling back then--pronunciation was far more important. You might have Schmidts who are sometimes recorded under Schmitt or Schmit or Smit, and then when they get to America they might also throw Smith into the mix. Some take a little more thought. Weisleder might become Whiteleather, Zimmermann might be Carpenter, Schneider might become Taylor, König might become King. So, it takes some thinking outside of the box.

[khigh]

3 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

I hear you! German name changes are often pretty logical though, and it was mostly because they just didn't care about spelling back then--pronunciation was far more important. You might have Schmidts who are sometimes recorded under Schmitt or Schmit or Smit, and then when they get to America they might also throw Smith into the mix. Some take a little more thought. Weisleder might become Whiteleather, Zimmermann might be Carpenter, Schneider might become Taylor, König might become King. So, it takes some thinking outside of the box.

It's working, just more challenging that the Brits, which is okay.  There were some Hoffer then Haeffer and then Hooper, with a Haijer (Hayer) thrown in there (they also spent time in the low countries), etc.  

[hats]

Apparently you can trace one line of my family back to the Speedwell—that's the one right after the Mayflower, right? But pish, that's nothing! I haven't done it myself, but my Syrian-American parent did a project tracing their ancestry back to at least the 1400s, and possibly several hundred years earlier than that. (My parent knows more precisely, but I forget.) You gotta have those thorough church records, which the Christian community in Damascus absolutely did. The family story is that our last name appears rather suddenly because that group had been collaborating with some political power that was not popular with some other group of new invaders, which led to a name change, somehow. That part is a bit unclear and perhaps illogical to me, but I haven't really investigated myself. In this political era, I am (weirdly? or justifiably?) proud that the part of my ancestry you can follow far the farthest back is Arab.

[khigh]

You get back 11/12 generations on the British side and you start seeing Lords and Ladies on the list.  I let my boyfriend know that because I come from aristocracy, he needs to treat me as such, haha.  We're also related to Anne Hutchinson. Her sister is in our lineage. It's actually fun to see who you can be related to and track your family's movements through time. One of my mother's lines went from England to the Dutch Republic, landed here at Plymouth, then went to Virginia, Rhode Island, Maine, Alabama, Kansas, and finally Oklahoma. You know you hit the Puritan line when the names are Ichabod, Grace, Prudence, Patience, etc. 

I would eventually like to make a family migration map for my parents. 

[asmhardin]

@anon1234567 I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the process. Somehow knowing what is happening makes the waiting process a bit less anxious, though I'm not sure why. Thanks!

[Manuscriptess]

8 hours ago, anon1234567 said:

Once you make it to the top 40 or so candidates, and you get rejected or waitlisted, know it is not a reflection of your potential, but the people on the admin committee the year you applied.

YIKES! Thanks for though rundown, though.

[ltr317]

@anon1234567  thanks very much for explaining the application review process at the Ivies.  You specifically stated CHP, but does the procedure also apply to Yale, Penn, Cornell and Brown? 

[dr. t]

1 hour ago, ltr317 said:

@anon1234567  thanks very much for explaining the application review process at the Ivies.  You specifically stated CHP, but does the procedure also apply to Yale, Penn, Cornell and Brown? 

Most of the process is the same everywhere. What changes is how much of a intradepartmental political fight the decision process is, and that doesn't correlate with any "tier" of school.

[DGrayson]

1 hour ago, ltr317 said:

@anon1234567  thanks very much for explaining the application review process at the Ivies.  You specifically stated CHP, but does the procedure also apply to Yale, Penn, Cornell and Brown? 

From what I've been told, applications are reviewed by the faculty of the potential student's sub discipline at Yale. Early Modernists, for example, will read the applications for the early modernists, and they will rank their top students and then meet to see how the lists match up. That being said, as @telkanuru stated it's still crazy political. Sometimes a student will not be accepted simply because his or her potential adviser got a student last year. 

[ltr317]

2 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Most of the process is the same everywhere. What changes is how much of a intradepartmental political fight the decision process is, and that doesn't correlate with any "tier" of school.

That is certainly true.  At the CUNY Grad Center, every field will fight for their own candidates.  After all, each cohort can't all be Americanists or Europeanists or some other field.  I would also add that the CUNY admin committee includes a few current doctoral students.  I'm wondering if this is a rarity or more common than I know?

Edited January 13, 2018 by ltr317

[AP]

On 1/12/2018 at 1:56 AM, VAZ said:

I'm just wondering how the admission process works, in general. The DGS and the AC read all the applications first and then send them to your POI and other relevant faculty members  (2-3?) for a thorough review? On paper or through email? Do faculty members rank the candidates or leave specific comments (say, I extremely want this student to come; great but does not fit; acceptable; not acceptable)? Then the AC will meet and pick out the top ones based on the feedbacks from the professors? Or, all the faculty members in a geographical field have a meeting together, discuss all pertinent applicants and pick the best ones for the field, and then the AC will make a final cut of the nominees from all of the groups? If the university is currently in its "January term" or something similar and most professors are traveling, how is this process carried out? Are sabbatical faculty assigned to read a certain number of apps and got involved in the admission decision? I know it varies by schools and does not have a single answer , but I am both curious and anxious, and I am trying to figure out "where they are now." 

In other places besides what @anon1234567 mentioned, with half the applications, things work slightly different. Typically, the AdComm receives the application packages and they discard whatever they agreed on would be the minimum requirements (GRE scores or GPA or whatever). They also pay attention to degrees (some faculty admit students ONLY with an MA in hand) and sometimes they pay attention to international applications separately (I don't have an MA and was admitted anyway because my first degree was about 6 years long). 

Once the AdComm selects a good pool, they derive applications to caucuses and there they decide which candidates to interview on Skype. Based on the interviews, each faculty writes a report on the candidate that is read by a faculty from another caucus and they decide based on the reports who to make the offer to. 

After that, based on budget, previous years admissions, faculty leaves/retirement/etc, the AdComm suggests X number to the Grad School and the School makes the offer to you. 

[Manuscriptess]

19 hours ago, DGrayson said:

That being said, as @telkanuru stated it's still crazy political. Sometimes a student will not be accepted simply because his or her potential adviser got a student last year. 

Can confirm. There were two potential POIs who told me not to apply because there was no way their respective schools would be taking an early modernist/ late medievalist for exactly that reason. 

[anon1234567]

23 hours ago, ltr317 said:

@anon1234567  thanks very much for explaining the application review process at the Ivies.  You specifically stated CHP, but does the procedure also apply to Yale, Penn, Cornell and Brown? 

I would think so. Most schools probably have the same process, more or less, I am only familiar with ones I've singled out. If memory serves me correctly, Penn interviews. Friends applied there. Brown, Cornell, and Yale, I am not sure. 

Also, while I've contacted a few profs at all the schools I applied to, and some emailed back, during visiting day, I was approached by professors I didn't even think to contact and was told by them that they were the ones who had pushed for my acceptance, in its last stages. Those profs were the ones I had shared and still do share secondary interests with. And they were not adcomm members. Visiting days are rather strange but also fun. Seldom, if ever again, do graduate students get such a reception. The programs do everything they can to recruit you. Enjoy them!

[anon1234567]

22 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Most of the process is the same everywhere. What changes is how much of a intradepartmental political fight the decision process is, and that doesn't correlate with any "tier" of school.

Oh for sure! There is interdepartmental squabbles and professors can certainty and do put pressure to get their students accepted. I befriended a spouse of a recently hired tenure-track faculty member, and we all met up over coffee, and just so happens at the time I was in the midst of choosing from whom to get a letter for a grant app, between two senior profs. And I was told point blank so-and-so has a stronger voice in the department, with adcomm and even with the dean, and their letters carry more weight in grant applications, jobs, and so on.

As an applicant, it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to know these things. But that's the reality of academic departments, and it makes acceptance, rejection, or waitlist not easy to predict based on numbers or even accolades.

[anon1234567]

And if your POI is on sabbatical, they will still read your app, it is emailed to them by the adcomm.