Fall 2018 Applicants

[VAZ]

10 hours ago, Banzailizard said:

2. Assuming I get to graduate school, publish like crazy. He had 26 papers published by the time he defended his dissertation.

This is/was insane, maybe he did his PhD in history of economics in the economics department which worked in the way of (social) science? .....I have never seen any History ABDs or APs have done that (at this day). In average, by the time of job hunting, one should have under his belt a couple articles on well-known, peer-reviewed journals or book chapters edited by renowned scholars, probably mixed with a number of book reviews or encyclopaedia entries. I even saw someone who got her tenure-track job with zero publication. Most history professors would speak against crazy publishing as a grad student. A fabulous dissertation and a prestigious background are telling enough. As people have already agreed on, quality over quantity. 

10 hours ago, Banzailizard said:

History of the Czech Republic (while abroad),

Just curious, is that a course on contemporary history? Since "the Czech Republic" never existed before 1993, or technically speaking, 1969 (if counting Česká socialistická republika), and no serious historian has used that term for the time before, both in Czech and English historiography (please disregard William Mahoney, who has little scholarly contribution and whose book on that name has not received any attention in the field).

 

Speaking to your concerns, I would say that the quantitative methods have engulfed the world of Social Sciences, and are annexing the territory of Humanities. The problem is not on the methodology itself, but on the intentionality: what do you use computation for? You have to raise essential humanistic questions on the subject matter before "conducting your own experiment." The number does not mean anything unless it can serve the purpose of historians. For example, Roberto Lopez advocated for the medieval commercial revolution, John Munro had a keen interest on pre-modern money and commodities (textiles), Jan de Vries studies the interactions between people and space, and Anne McCants looks at the relations between infrastructure and living conditions. Unlike medieval and early modern historians who specialize in economic and x history (they usually have broader interests than economics per se) and take a quantitative methodology, economists or historians of economics, however, may have very different research mentalities and points of departure.

Edited July 8, 2017 by VAZ

[Banzailizard]

21 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Why do you want a PhD in history, and no longer want one in economics? Be explicit.

That is not an easy question, and it is one I have been wrestling with. I am not sure I have as strong of an answer as I would like, but I will give what answer I can.

Well it would disingenuous to say I would not want a PhD in econ, but it would also be fair to say I would prefer one in history.  Like I said I selected econ because I figured I could study the same historical subject matter, but have a financially sound fall back if I could not find secure work in academia. I am somewhat risk adverse and always like to have a plan B. If I cannot have the intellectual freedom an academic career allows, I would rather have a job that pays well enough that I can take the free time to indulge myself outside of work. In having spoken with professors, and done additional research, modern economics is just not as interested in many historical questions from before industrialization. That is not so say there are none, just that they are niche.

The other reason I originally approached econ was as I said, I am more familiar with my economics staff.  I am extremely asocial, so unless someone goes out of their way to contact me, I probably will not contact them. The econ department was more active in getting students and professors engaged by hosting events, and other forms of extracurricular activities. I am better able to keep in touch with the econ staff since there are multiple alumni events each year so I can usually attend one.  This all made getting letters of recommendation and having a close advisor easier.

That really does not answer why history however.  I am going to be more explicit about some of the sort of questions that interest me in response to VAZ below.  I will say up here that it is a mixture of inclination and skill set. I did take time in May to think about which courses I spent more time effort and energy on due to enjoyment.  Pretty much all of them were in history rather than econ.

I also have eclectic interests which, while consistent over the long term, tend to be less so in the short term.  In short, I am a flake.  I tend to become obsessively interested in a topic, then put it aside to pick up a new unrelated one.  I do come back to old projects routinely just not immediately. History is generally a broad enough field that I think I can comfortably have 3-4 projects at once and never feel stuck.

In terms of skill set, I also routinely did better in my history classes in history vs econ. I got the 169 on the GRE without studying whereas I studied extensively for the 162 in quantitative. Admittedly these are not perfect measures by any means.  Grades could be accounted to differences in grading styles, and the GRE as a fluke that resulted in above average performance for me that day. Neither has much to do with the work of professional historians. However when taken in conjuncture with the above, and the fact that modern economics (outside of behavioral fields) can often resemble little more then applied math, history is probably the better fit. 

 

19 hours ago, VAZ said:

This is/was insane, maybe he did his PhD in history of economics in the economics department which worked in the way of (social) science? .....I have never seen any History ABDs or APs have done that (at this day). In average, by the time of job hunting, one should have under his belt a couple articles on well-known, peer-reviewed journals or book chapters edited by renowned scholars, probably mixed with a number of book reviews or encyclopaedia entries. I even saw someone who got her tenure-track job with zero publication. Most history professors would speak against crazy publishing as a grad student. A fabulous dissertation and a prestigious background are telling enough. As people have already agreed on, quality over quantity.

No he was definitely in history. Russian Medieval Economic History to be specific.  I went though his CV just now, and counted 21 Articles, 2 encyclopedia entries,  2 book reviews, and 5 journal article reviews from before he received his PhD. Some where published in Russian only in Russian journals. A little more then half (12) the journal articles were co-published with his advisor.  Your point on quality vs quantity is noted.

 

19 hours ago, VAZ said:

Just curious, is that a course on contemporary history? Since "the Czech Republic" never existed before 1993, or technically speaking, 1969 (if counting Česká socialistická republika), and no serious historian has used that term for the time before, both in Czech and English historiography (please disregard William Mahoney, who has little scholarly contribution and whose book on that name has not received any attention in the field).

This probably not the name for the course, and any laziness in the accuracy of the naming is my own. The actual name is on the transcript from the exchange school, which is buried somewhere. It covered from the Přemyslid dynasty to the present, mostly focusing on political and architectural history.  It was not a terribly rigorous course.

19 hours ago, VAZ said:

Speaking to your concerns, I would say that the quantitative methods have engulfed the world of Social Sciences, and are annexing the territory of Humanities. The problem is not on the methodology itself, but on the intentionality: what do you use computation for? You have to raise essential humanistic questions on the subject matter before "conducting your own experiment." The number does not mean anything unless it can serve the purpose of historians. For example, Roberto Lopez advocated for the medieval commercial revolution, John Munro had a keen interest on pre-modern money and commodities (textiles), Jan de Vries studies the interactions between people and space, and Anne McCants looks at the relations between infrastructure and living conditions. Unlike medieval and early modern historians who specialize in economic and x history (they usually have broader interests than economics per se) and take a quantitative methodology, economists or historians of economics, however, may have very different research mentalities and points of departure.

I certainly was not suggesting quantification for its own sake, and not at the expense  of primary sources.  My goal is to approach history with as many tools as possible and see what sticks . As such I do want to borrow theoretical approaches from sociology and economics however. I am especially interested in networks, both social and economic and how they change over time. I am also interested in cross cultural studies to see what sort of structures are common as a whole to humanity rather then specific to time and place. I am a fan of the idea of big history, and of abstracting history to some extent.  I am also aware of the charges of intellectual imperialism that might bring.

I am going to list general sort of questions I am interested in exploring.  Its not meant to be exhaustive only illustrative. Most of these might have been covered by historians already, and all I am sure are too broad and basic.  I do not mind asking questions from ignorance, and this is part of the reason I asked for the reading list. 

For example, as previously semi-autonomous areas became more interconnected due to European exploration, how much did different characteristics of these networks (the emergent norms, ethics, and practices) mesh? Which characteristics subsumed which? How were new trade goods (especially from the Columbia exchange) defused through existing commercial networks. Did trade flows change and how significantly?

Is there a pastern to the distribution of urban centers in a given time and place, for example fractal or logarithmic similar to Zipf's law (1 city of size x, 2 cities of size 0.5x, 4 cities of size 0.25x, etc).  If there is a pastern, how big of a network of cities does it hold true for?  What determines the size of that network? Are these pasterns primary for physical and path dependent reasons (geography, consistency and size of food surplus, climatological) or cultural/political reasons. Can those be disentangled?

I heard a theory (I have not looked into it in more detail) suggesting as Western Europe become more specialized in manufacturing, parts of Eastern Europe began to specialize in agricultural output for export to support the growing non-agricultural class.  If that is true how did changes in agricultural practices for more intensive farming affect existing economic networks? For example if more intensive cultivation allows you to effectively use marginal land, did Western European nations (or rather the actors in their agricultural markets) then "on-shore" agricultural production due to transportation costs, or let the already agriculturally specialized areas intensify production further?

How and why do revolutionary changes (political, economic, militarily, or otherwise) happen?  Are there consistent patterns such as cascades? Do the growth of specialized and manufacturing industries happen gradually or all at once?  Do they happen the same way or is each instance different?

In all instances can we graph, map, model, and diagram to learn anything from looking at historical events that way?

I am also going to start looking into the work of all of the people you listed because all of those sound interesting topics. (Probably in descending order of interest Roberto Lopez, Anne McCants, John Munro, Jan de Vries).

Edited July 8, 2017 by Banzailizard

[TMP]

2 hours ago, Banzailizard said:

I am going to list general sort of questions I am interested in exploring.  Its not meant to be exhaustive only illustrative. Most of these might have been covered by historians already, and all I am sure are too broad and basic.  I do not mind asking questions from ignorance, and this is part of the reason I asked for the reading list. 

For example, as previously semi-autonomous areas became more interconnected due to European exploration, how much did different characteristics of these networks (the emergent norms, ethics, and practices) mesh? Which characteristics subsumed which? How were new trade goods (especially from the Columbia exchange) defused through existing commercial networks. Did trade flows change and how significantly?

Is there a pastern to the distribution of urban centers in a given time and place, for example fractal or logarithmic similar to Zipf's law (1 city of size x, 2 cities of size 0.5x, 4 cities of size 0.25x, etc).  If there is a pastern, how big of a network of cities does it hold true for?  What determines the size of that network? Are these pasterns primary for physical and path dependent reasons (geography, consistency and size of food surplus, climatological) or cultural/political reasons. Can those be disentangled?

I heard a theory (I have not looked into it in more detail) suggesting as Western Europe become more specialized in manufacturing, parts of Eastern Europe began to specialize in agricultural output for export to support the growing non-agricultural class.  If that is true how did changes in agricultural practices for more intensive farming affect existing economic networks? For example if more intensive cultivation allows you to effectively use marginal land, did Western European nations (or rather the actors in their agricultural markets) then "on-shore" agricultural production due to transportation costs, or let the already agriculturally specialized areas intensify production further?

How and why do revolutionary changes (political, economic, militarily, or otherwise) happen?  Are there consistent patterns such as cascades? Do the growth of specialized and manufacturing industries happen gradually or all at once?  Do they happen the same way or is each instance different?

In all instances can we graph, map, model, and diagram to learn anything from looking at historical events that way?

I am also going to start looking into the work of all of the people you listed because all of those sound interesting topics. (Probably in descending order of interest Roberto Lopez, Anne McCants, John Munro, Jan de Vries).

Focusing in your intellectual questions here, @Banzailizard, have you considered looking into environmental history programs?  It seems to be you're interested in the economics of how humans managed the environment around them (may it be urban or rural).  While environmental historians tend to lean towards the sciences, they also engage with social scientific methodologies to make sense of how human beings interact with their surroundings.

As for getting some sense of a reading list for Early Modern Europe, you might want to consult this guide from University of Chicago's Constantin Fasol. (now retired) http://home.uchicago.edu/~icon/teach/  She has multiple links to her PDFs.  I used her guide to get a basic sense of early modern European history for my own exams (as well as her tips for oral exams!).  Very helpful!  You'll want to be sure to browse through American Historial Review, Environmental History, and other journals if you can get access to them, to get a sense of what topics people are working on.

[a.n.d]

On 7/7/2017 at 8:31 AM, Banzailizard said:

1. I know the emphasis placed on good LOR.  I was closer to the econ faculty at my school and had 3 LOR from them for the econ applications. My history professor offered a LOR, I might have one other I could ask for a LOR but I only had one class with him.  I am not sure if it is better to ask two of my econ professors again and then have my history professor be my third or try to get a letter from a history professor who does not know me as well.

I can, of course, only speak to my own experience, but I do have something to offer here:

I come from a fine arts background, with only a minor in history. I only had one history professor I felt comfortable asking a LOR from. The other two were from my adviser, who taught Digital Media, but whom I was extremely close with and could therefore write easily about my passion for history, my German professor, who likewise knew me fairly well, and an English professor who had known me all four years of undergrad, and who also knew me well enough to speak on my writing abilities as well as my interests in history and general disposition. 

I would go with people who you have a history with who could write you excellent letters about your abilities/disposition/aptitude for graduate study rather than someone in the field who doesn't know you as well.

Edited July 9, 2017 by a.n.d

[Banzailizard]

On 7/8/2017 at 4:54 PM, TMP said:

Focusing in your intellectual questions here, @Banzailizard, have you considered looking into environmental history programs?  It seems to be you're interested in the economics of how humans managed the environment around them (may it be urban or rural).  While environmental historians tend to lean towards the sciences, they also engage with social scientific methodologies to make sense of how human beings interact with their surroundings.

As for getting some sense of a reading list for Early Modern Europe, you might want to consult this guide from University of Chicago's Constantin Fasol. (now retired) http://home.uchicago.edu/~icon/teach/  She has multiple links to her PDFs.  I used her guide to get a basic sense of early modern European history for my own exams (as well as her tips for oral exams!).  Very helpful!  You'll want to be sure to browse through American Historial Review, Environmental History, and other journals if you can get access to them, to get a sense of what topics people are working on.

Actually no I had not considered environmental history. I have not had much exposure to the field other then Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (not exactly environmental history but thematically close), which is one of my favorite books, and a book on the medieval warm period. I ordered a bunch of the general histories on Constantin Fasol's list and pulled off my shelf another environmental history book, Pan's Travail, that I bought but have never gotten around to reading.  The interdisciplinary methods actually sound really neat, and I think this is going to be a fruitful line of research so thank you for the suggestion!

17 hours ago, a.n.d said:

I can, of course, only speak to my own experience, but I do have something to offer here:

I come from a fine arts background, with only a minor in history. I only had one history professor I felt comfortable asking a LOR from. The other two were from my adviser, who taught Digital Media, but whom I was extremely close with and could therefore write easily about my passion for history, my German professor, who likewise knew me fairly well, and an English professor who had known me all four years of undergrad, and who also knew me well enough to speak on my writing abilities as well as my interests in history and general disposition. 

I would go with people who you have a history with who could write you excellent letters about your abilities/disposition/aptitude for graduate study rather than someone in the field who doesn't know you as well.

Somehow I figured that this would be the case, but I was not sure.  Pulling from my experience researching econ applications, that is a very hierarchical discipline. While nothing is guaranteed in these application processes, apparently there the quality of your professor writing the letter, such as if they are a known researcher, can count for or against you.  As such I have seen advice to take LOR from more prestigious professors who do not know you as well, and to take letters from outside the field as a last resort.

I think now I just need to settle in, read, and consider what I really want to study.

[laleph]

On 7/3/2017 at 11:41 AM, lordtiandao said:

Wow, thanks for all the recommendations! Yes I realize medieval is more of a European history characterization, so Mid-Imperial is correct. I'm studying the Song-Yuan-Ming transition, maybe more political/fiscal than political/economic. For Harvard, Szonyi seems to be doing late Imperial and Modern. I was thinking of applying to Peter Bol, who is actually the adviser of my adviser here in Hong Kong. Yes, Chicago is probably going to be dropped from my list, unless Pomeranz is willing to take students who do Mid-Imperial history.

Christopher Atwood and Christian de Pee are definitely both on my list.Mark Edward Lewis (he might be too early yes) and von Glahn I am not sure right now, I would have to discuss it with my advisers first. I know von Glahn studies this period but I'm very disinclined to apply to him. I'm considering R. Bin Wong instead. It's a shame Nicola di Cosmo isn't taking any students. My adviser highly recommends him.

I don't do Chinese history, but I had the chance to chat with Tobie Meyer-Fong at Hopkins when I was considering the school. She's whip-smart and hilarious – great sense of humor, very approachable, frank. Her work is in Late Imperial China – not sure if that'd work for you – but she might have recommendations.

[lordtiandao]

36 minutes ago, laleph said:

I don't do Chinese history, but I had the chance to chat with Tobie Meyer-Fong at Hopkins when I was considering the school. She's whip-smart and hilarious – great sense of humor, very approachable, frank. Her work is in Late Imperial China – not sure if that'd work for you – but she might have recommendations.

Thanks for the recommendation! I checked out her profile and unfortunately it seems her research area doesn't really fit what I'm doing/planning to do.

[DGrayson]

@Banzailizard You're pretty much in the same situation that I found myself in about a year ago. I got my masters in Econ and then attempted to apply for a Phd in early modern European history, but my lack of language skills and focus kept me from being admitted. With what i've read of your statistics so far, I wouldn't consider applying for the 2018 cycle until you've managed to really narrow down your interests. If you are interested in Middle Ages, I would contact Anne McCants at MIT. She was extremely helpful when I was considering switching fields and I'm sure she would be happy to talk to you. If you would like to DM me I'd be happy to continue talking!  

Edited July 16, 2017 by DGrayson

[dr. t]

12 hours ago, DGrayson said:

With what i've read of your statistics so far, I wouldn't consider applying for the 2018 cycle until you've managed to really narrow down your interests.

This is the correct advice.

[VAZ]

16 hours ago, DGrayson said:

I wouldn't consider applying for the 2018 cycle until you've managed to really narrow down your interests

So the question comes: how narrow should it be, Early Modern France? The French Revolution? Women in the French Revolution? And how do you tailor your interest to fit each school and each POI, proposing to do A with Professor X and B with Professor Y?

Some fields (Modern America?) are extremely populous so you can find the right persons who work in the exact region/decade/theme as you do, but some fields (Africa?) are small enough that both faculty and students have to make some compromise I believe.

There is always a conflict between being flexible and being concentrated. 

 

[dr. t]

There are no right answers, but a lot of wrong ones. And "history stuff, I think?" is a wrong one.

[TMP]

@VAZ  Welcome to one of the most challenging aspects of writing the statement of purpose!

In fact, your last choice "women of French Revolution" is narrow enough but still broad.  Why?  Because Within that subject itself, you can still ask multiple questions using a variety of methodologies and theories such as class, religion, race, upbringing, location, statistics, etc.  By asking those kind of questions, you are showing yourself that you might be willing to take courses and read books on women's roles in other time periods (WWI) or in another continent (Chinese Revolution of 1927) in addition to learning most of early modern/modern French/European history.  You should be able to drop a few historians' names/works who have influenced you to reach this decision.

To say you want to do a dissertation specifically on women of La Havre during the French Revolution without reading broad historical questions will raise doubts among professors.  They'll ask, "Will this person be willing to do a comparative study with women in Toulouse and Marseilles?  Might this person be willing to look at a longer history of women in La Havre and how their lives change from Ancien Regime to the Third Republic?  Has this person read Mary Louise Robert's What Soldiers Do and looked at her bibliography for women in La Havre?"  

Professors are seriously thinking creatures and want to be able to impart their knowledge to open minded graduate students who have a good focus but need support to refine their dissertation topics further.

[VAZ]

@TMP @telkanuru Yes that's doable. Lay your question in depth, say women's role in public sphere in late 18th-century France. It seems terrific for a POI of social history of the French Revolution. But maybe you also apply to another professor of Early Modern France in another school, and his speciality is cross-cultural interactions in the 16th and 17th centuries. He cares less about the late 18th-century stuff. Would you just start over and construct a thoughtful SoP on Orientalism, and specifically, the origin of French-Turkish coffee trade? And then a third professor is a Late Medieval and Early Modern intellectual historian, so would you once again write something else, for example, on history of emotions in Jean Bodin's De la démonomanie des sorciers? As your field of interest is cultural history of Early Modern France, you are comfortable, capable and excited to work with any of the above themes, women, space, coffee, trade, demon, and emotion. So you just give yourself a few possible directions and would decide later which road to head down after the admission results come out. Or, would you just play the "Revolution Woman Card" for every single school and professor you apply regardless the POI's particular interest (or willingness to supervise) and the departmental strength?

Edited July 17, 2017 by VAZ

[TMP]

@VAZ  I would not stretch myself out so far like that.  This is where you have to name other professors who you can feasibly work with.   For example, the 16/17th century prof working in cross-cultural history will want to know, "which of our gender/women's history scholars would you like to work with?"  You might want to identify another Western Europeanist working in 18/19th century to round out your potential committee.  For, the Late Medieval/Early Modern intellectual historian, the person will similarly ask, do you have someone on our faculty working on gender whom you would like to work with?  I don't do France but I do Britain.  I might suggest co-advising with that French historian over there...." 

Professors also want to know who else you want to work with so that you know  you're coming into a program with plenty of support.

Another caveat to keep in mind: Exam reading lists.  Your adviser will dictate most of the books. All of the books your adviser gives you (as well as other profs on your exam committee) are those they have read and think are important for you to be familiar with.  They generally won't assign too many books they haven't read (but you want to read them).  One of my colleagues refused to work with one French history professor because she had zero interest in colonialism and went with another who didn't care much for the French empire and she got away without having anything relating to the French empire on her reading list.  I had an early modern intellectual historian (and I am a social/political historian) by default and I was stuck reading books he *thought* was important, which I didn't.  So it was a real drag to get through those particular books.  Looking back 2-3 years on, I would have definitely not bothered with a couple of those books but perhaps keep one or two.

[laleph]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:46 AM, VAZ said:

Or, would you just play the "Revolution Woman Card" for every single school and professor you apply regardless the POI's particular interest (or willingness to supervise) and the departmental strength?

In my experience, the advisors who push you intellectually are those whose students aren't cookie cutters of themselves. It follows that tailoring your application to fit the exact interests of the advisors you're considering might not be the best idea if your goal is to break new ground in the field. If you applied with any of the topics you listed above, a social/cultural historian of France who studies the period you're interested in (give or take a few decades) will be able to advise you. No one expects that the project you propose in your application will end up being your dissertation topic (though that does happen sometimes). One of the highest compliments I heard a graduate student give about my advisor is that she explicitly seeks out students whose interests "ven diagram" with her own. When I spoke with her, she echoed the sentiment: "I want my students to teach me something. It's boring otherwise." A very high bar to clear, indeed! But personally I'd rather try to get up to that bar than spend my graduate career as a disciple. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by laleph

[VAZ]

31 minutes ago, laleph said:

If you applied with any of the topics you listed above, a social/cultural historian of France who studies the period you're interested in (give or take a few decades) will be able to advise you.

Well, of course, no doubt. I would even call that 100% fit. But this isn't always the case. Not every school has a social/cultural historian of early modern France, not every school has a historian of early modern France, and for some fields, not every school has a historian of France (I'm just using France as an example, and "not every" here could mean "only a few'). I'm in a very thin field and some of my forerunners even do sandwiching --- working on the intersections of two professors (say, a modern French historian + an early modern British historian), but neither of them is really an expert on the exact time period + region. But I think that may work, if everyone is happy. Otherwise, compromise has to be made on my part. 

 

On 7/17/2017 at 2:07 PM, TMP said:

 For, the Late Medieval/Early Modern intellectual historian, the person will similarly ask, do you have someone on our faculty working on gender whom you would like to work with?  I don't do France but I do Britain.  I might suggest co-advising with that French historian over there...."

What if he says "I don't do France but I do Britain. I'm not interested or specialized in cultural history or women history but solely intellectual history. I don't think you should apply me." The end of game?

I don't mind stretching myself. I have a few different projects in mind, which are similar in spirit. It's just a matter of which you would delve into first and use as a possible dissertation topic. Maybe having some flexibilities and offering the POIs a couple customized directions would lead to a better chance to win?

Edited July 18, 2017 by VAZ

[laleph]

@VAZ, if you're in a "thin field," then your options for programs to apply to will be thin too. (I'm aware I'm not saying anything mind-blowing here.) My point is that you should apply only to the programs that have at least 2 people willing to "sandwich" you, as you put it -- or 1 person who works specifically on the "thin field" you're referring to. 

I guess I'm struggling to understand how you are both in a "thin field" AND interested in so many different topics that you feel it might be necessary to tailor your application to each and every prof you're interested in working with. 

Taking the example of a social/cultural historian of early modern France: if that's the "thin field" you want to work in, then apply only to schools that have someone who works on that. You'll have a lot of options. (I'd even argue that most wouldn't consider the social/cultural history of early modern France to be such a thin field...) Perhaps you'd have to consider folks who are more interested in economic or political history, or who are experts on the French Revolution but not so much on the 17th and early 18th centuries -- but those people could potentially be fine advisors. 

If, however, your "thin field" is sixteenth-century Ireland, you're going to have a harder time finding experts on this side of the Atlantic. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by laleph

[VAZ]

51 minutes ago, laleph said:

@VAZ, if you're in a "thin field," then your options for programs to apply to will be thin too. (I'm aware I'm not saying anything mind-blowing here.) My point is that you should apply only to the programs that have at least 2 people willing to "sandwich" you, as you put it -- or 1 person who works specifically on the "thin field" you're referring to. 

I guess I'm struggling to understand how you are both in a "thin field" AND interested in so many different topics that you feel it might be necessary to tailor your application to each and every prof you're interested in working with. 

Taking the example of a social/cultural historian of early modern France: if that's the "thin field" you want to work in, then apply only to schools who have someone who works on that. You'll have a lot of options. (I'd even argue that most wouldn't consider the social/cultural history of early modern France to be such a thin field...) Perhaps you'd have to consider folks who are more interested in economic or political history, or who are experts on the French Revolution but not so much on the 17th and early 18th centuries -- but those people could potentially be fine advisors. 

If, however, your "thin field" is sixteenth-century Ireland, you're going to have a harder time finding experts on this side of the Atlantic. 

By "thin field," I do not mean "small in scope" (Rhode Island or D.C.), but "low population density" (think about Alaska, Montana, or Northwest Territories in Canada), where only 2 to 30 historians scatteredly dwell in, depending on how large "territory" I want to include (how stretchable I am) (If counting the "must go to the Top 20 programs," it only leaves 6-8 options.) And thus I have to go to each professor's tribe and build a (long)house next to him, otherwise I would lose myself in the middle of nowhere. Maybe "thin" is not a good choice of word, but "barely deserted"? LOL, my long-term goal is really to revive and rebuild the entire sub-field in North American academia.

Edited July 19, 2017 by VAZ

[hats]

@VAZ You may want to PM me. I don't quite understand the spatial metaphor with the population density, but I am also in a weird field such that very few universities could've supported my work, and I have ambitions about improving that whole unsatisfactory situation. On the other hand, maybe you don't need to do that—6-8 options sounds like a pretty good number of schools to apply to? Especially for a weird interest: I applied to 6 programs, but because I was applying to both anthropology programs and some more interdisciplinary things, that was only stretched across 4 actual universities. If those 6-8 programs have enough professors to Venn diagram you adequate support, it sounds like your list of universities to apply to is nearly finished.

[TMP]

@VAZ I'm not following you at all here.  If you want to be specific with  your research interests and thoughts on different programs, just PM me.

But if you have 6-8 schools you can see yourself at, you're in good shape.  Just contact the POIs and see how they respond.

Even so, PhD admissions are very competitive no matter the rank of the history program.  Always be prepared to not get in the first time around.

[laleph]

@VAZ Perhaps my examples (France and Ireland) confused things. I picked the first example that came to mind of a field with few historians in the States working on it. But I could have chosen a much wider geographical territory -- let's say Europe -- but a more specific topic, such as folklore in the early Renaissance. In both cases, your options for advisors are going to be limited. 

As others have said, 6-8 schools is already a good list. That seems to be the average number of schools people apply to.

[VAZ]

@laleph Actually, my general research field is medieval and early modern East-Central Europe, which seems extremely broad time-wise and region-wise in the Western European/American history standard, but in fact it only has less than 20 active historians in North America, or roughly 40 in Anglophone academia. I'm not even talking about the specific century or country, not to mention approach and theme. And each of them has a distinctive era/approach and language/source coverage. That's why I may have to stretch myself, within this sparse field, or I can find two out-of-the-field supervisors and do the sandwich thing. A third alternative is to follow Norman Davies's education path, doing a PhD in Eastern Europe. But I prefer to stay in North America for a better-off general history training.

Edited July 19, 2017 by VAZ

[narple]

Hi all, 

This is my second time through the process. I am finishing up my thesis (due Friday..YIKES) at UChicago's version of the History MA (MAPSS)--if anyone has questions feel free to pm me.

Broadly, my current research focuses on World War II France and Korea. I find the comparison between these countries interesting and worth pursuing, but not really an easy pitch to give to POIs and schools who usually focus on one region or the other. I do find Koreanists slightly more interested in this type of comparative work though. Which brings me to my question...

I am curious about people's opinions on History vs. EALC (or similar regional programs). I am completely sure that I want to do History, but am having trouble finding POIs in Korean History. I find many more in the EALC programs, but I would rather be affiliated with History to do more on the French side.

Suggestions? Possible POI's I am overlooking?

 

[VAZ]

3 hours ago, narple said:

I am curious about people's opinions on History vs. EALC (or similar regional programs). I am completely sure that I want to do History, but am having trouble finding POIs in Korean History. I find many more in the EALC programs, but I would rather be affiliated with History to do more on the French side.

Suggestions? Possible POI's I am overlooking?

I believe you already have Charles Armstrong (Columbia), Kyu Hyun Kim (UC Davis), Todd Henry (UCSD), Charles Kim (Wisconsin), Yumi Moon (Stanford), Eugene Park (Penn) (He does supervise History PhDs) and Bruce Cumings (why not stay?) on your list. All of them have a pan-East Asian or global perspective/training.

For those who reside in EALC, you can manage to find a way, by co-advising, i.e. a Modern East Asian Professor in History + a Korean History Specialist in EALC. For example, R. Bin Wong + Namhee Lee (UCLA), Scott O'Bryan + Michael Robinson (Indiana), and Sheldon Garon + Steven Chung (Princeton).

Or, you can head north. Have you checked out Steven Hugh Lee (UBC) and Carl F. Young (UWO)? They are very Korean and also very international. 

Generally speaking, as you have said, you can always do East Asia in History, but you cannot do global history in EALC. And people nowadays would prefer a disciplined training background to a regional studies PhD. Unless you do literature and culture (and film), regional studies should not be your first consideration. 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by VAZ

[kyjin]

8 hours ago, narple said:

I am curious about people's opinions on History vs. EALC (or similar regional programs). I am completely sure that I want to do History, but am having trouble finding POIs in Korean History. I find many more in the EALC programs, but I would rather be affiliated with History to do more on the French side.

This is a quandary a lot of Asianists have. My MA advisor put it simply to me when I was applying to programs: "With a History degree, a History department will take you seriously. With an EALC degree? Less so." Basically, it comes down to the job market: where do you want to end up at the end of the day? Would you like to be in a History dept? If so, it might be safer to apply in History. If you're more excited to work in an East Asian specific dept, then you can go with either. (Similar quandary also for those who do Asian Religions in choosing between Religion or EALC.) In my cycle, I ended up applying to three History programs and one EALC. 

One thing to keep in mind: you can still use people from both departments in your quals and dissertation committees. In my case, I'm in a History department, but half of my dissertation committee is actually in EALC. I also am a member of the grad student association for EALC, and am heavily involved in both departments. It's a great balance because I get colleagues who specialize in History, but also colleagues who focus on my area (Japan) in a number of fields and topics. You can talk to POIs at the schools you're interested in about how much you might be able to work with both departments.