Fall 2018 Applicants

[astroid88]

1 hour ago, Banzailizard said:

Not sure what to think about my current status with Minnesota.  According to the results they sent out acceptance letters.  Also clearly they have sent out some rejection letters as was reported in this thread.  My status still says awaiting decision.  I see two possibilities. 1. I am a possible candidate but not a first pick thus putting me on an informal waiting list. 2. I am so far down the list of possible candidates they are not bothering with sending me a rejection until March.  Not sure if anyone has insight into the process.  I saw the graphs a few pages back so I am guessing the second.

 

Still have Georgetown left (looks like those should be out in a week or two) but thinking I should just start the research process again now.  Probably could have done a better job selecting programs, 3 months doesn't seem to have been enough time.

You are my PhD applications twin. What's your focus?

[TheHessianHistorian]

1 hour ago, Banzailizard said:

Not sure what to think about my current status with Minnesota.  According to the results they sent out acceptance letters.  Also clearly they have sent out some rejection letters as was reported in this thread.  My status still says awaiting decision.  I see two possibilities. 1. I am a possible candidate but not a first pick thus putting me on an informal waiting list. 2. I am so far down the list of possible candidates they are not bothering with sending me a rejection until March.  Not sure if anyone has insight into the process.  I saw the graphs a few pages back so I am guessing the second.

 

Still have Georgetown left (looks like those should be out in a week or two) but thinking I should just start the research process again now.  Probably could have done a better job selecting programs, 3 months doesn't seem to have been enough time.

I am in the exact same boat with University of Illinois-Urbana. According to previous years' results, I should have heard something from them by now, one way or the other. It's weird that I haven't gotten either an acceptance or a rejection now. I would also love some insight into the process.

[Banzailizard]

2 hours ago, astroid88 said:

You are my PhD applications twin. What's your focus?

I would like to do a mashup of economic and environmental history for the early modern world.  Personally I am interested in global and transatlantic but my language (German) limits me somewhat. I liked Minnesota because it has some economic historians (in history departments I mean) and some people working on historical demographics, though outside of the area I am interested in ( Steven Ruggles ,  J. David Hacker,  Stuart McLean ) Since I have an econ background with statistics, I and demographics fall sort of under both economic and environmental history, I figured it might be a good match. What were you trying to focus on?

Edited February 10, 2018 by Banzailizard

[Account6567]

.

 

 

[ANdy1996]

did anyone get a Harvard rejection yet, or did they only send out acceptances?

 

[tommyrj]

8 minutes ago, ANdy1996 said:

did anyone get a Harvard rejection yet, or did they only send out acceptances?

 

If you don't get good news, it's definitely a rej.

[ANdy1996]

6 minutes ago, tommyrj said:

If you don't get good news, it's definitely a rej.

Are all the acceptances out do you think, or do they let them out in phases?

[TheHessianHistorian]

WUSTL is one of the most high quality and prestigious history programs in the Midwest. For such a cozy program, they certainly seem to have little trouble placing their PhDs in Assistant and Associate Professorships: https://history.artsci.wustl.edu/RecentPlacements 

Sure, you could say Arizona MA > WUSTL PhD on the basis that maybe an Arizona MA could be the launch pad to a Harvard/Princeton/Yale PhD, but a look at the biographies of current H/P/Y grad students shows few if any Arizona MAs. In fact, Ivy League PhD students typically came from either other Ivy schools or from foreign schools, so I don't see much wisdom in turning down a WUSTL PhD in the hopes that an Arizona MA is going to pole-vault you into a Top 3 or even Top 10 PhD program.

[anxiety2k18]

23 hours ago, psstein said:

They're unofficial, pending grad school approval. The grad school isn't going to turn you down provided you're not a felon or whatever. 

The official offer should come about a week after you receive the unofficial one.

If I haven't heard from Wisconsin yet, does that mean I'm not getting in? When would you say the bad news "cutoff date" would be? Both of my POIs told me I'm a wonderful fit with the department and I had a good phone call with the more senior professor.

Edited to add that I've been accepted to Minnesota HoS, Illinois, and UC Davis (I do women's medical history)

Edited February 10, 2018 by anxiety2k18

[Guest1101]

Hey everyone, I received an email from my POI saying that they have "a rolling admissions process, and thus candidates just below the cut-off often are approached later than programs that have mass admission notifications". Is this kind of a waiting list? I am so nervous now.

[psstein]

3 hours ago, anxiety2k18 said:

If I haven't heard from Wisconsin yet, does that mean I'm not getting in? When would you say the bad news "cutoff date" would be? Both of my POIs told me I'm a wonderful fit with the department and I had a good phone call with the more senior professor.

I have no idea. Anecdotally, people tend to learn about rejections by the end of the month.

Who are your POIs?

 

[anxiety2k18]

Judy Houck and April Haynes! I really love Wisconsin and would definitely go if accepted, so I am pretty stressed waiting to hear back

[psstein]

5 minutes ago, anxiety2k18 said:

Judy Houck and April Haynes! I really love Wisconsin and would definitely go if accepted, so I am pretty stressed waiting to hear back

Ah, great. Judy Houck is coming off leave and hasn't had a grad student in quite some time. I can't say I know her especially well (I work with someone else). Haynes was just tenured, too. I have to confess that anything official with HoS/Medical History can be a bit like herding cats. Our merger has been anything but seamless. The admins have done an admirable job, as well.

I suspect you'll hear next week; I was told a year ago today.

[anxiety2k18]

Thank you so much--I appreciate your insights! I will sit tight for this week and will post here again if I get good news  

[TandD]

My husband applied to several schools for his PhD in History; Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, NYU, and Yale sent my husband his acceptance letter, visiting day information, and two of the school sent there financial aid package. University of Pennsylvania recommended him for a duel PhD program, so he will have his second interview on Monday morning.  However, we are waiting to hear from Princeton History Department. Has any one hear back from them?

[TandD]

12 hours ago, georgiabee said:

Do ya'll think all Stanford acceptances have gone out?

My husband received his acceptances letter from Standford this week. Hopefully, you will get yours soon

[CBC]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:25 AM, TandD said:

My husband applied to several schools for his PhD in History; Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, NYU, and Yale sent my husband his acceptance letter, visiting day information, and two of the school sent there financial aid package. University of Pennsylvania recommended him for a duel PhD program, so he will have his second interview on Monday morning.  However, we are waiting to hear from Princeton History Department. Has any one hear back from them?

Haven't heard a word from Princeton yet either. Has your husband been accepted to Yale?

[TheHessianHistorian]

Despite their small cohort sizes (as you note), they manage to make plenty of TT placements. US News & World Report ranks WUSTL as 38th best history program in the US and 10th best history program in the Midwest. Business Insider rates WUSTL as 3rd best university (overall) in the Midwest, and Forbes rates WUSTL as 7th best university in the Midwest. It sounds like you don't care for the type of scholarship WUSTL puts out, but that doesn't change the fact that they're a highly regarded program in this part of the country. Your disdain for WUSTL's work also doesn't change how silly it is to call Arizona a "tier above" WUSTL, or to say that it makes more sense to choose Arizona's MA program over WUSTL's PhD program in the hopes that an Arizona MA will somehow vault you into the big leagues.

[psstein]

I would advise not putting too much stock in media rankings. The US News and World Report survey has a notoriously low response rate.

The only metric that matters is placement.

[grubyczarnykot]

@telkanuru is USN a mostly useless ranking? I ask because I’ve been freaking myself out with it. There’s a program I am thinking of attending that is rated -ok- on USN but I’d also not only be in the History department, but also in the interdisciplinary HPS/STS program which seems to consistently place its students well. 

[psstein]

3 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

I'm really not, and to quote USN&WR? Forbes? Really? These sorts of rankings are absolute, total nonsense. You should know that at this point of the game. And even then, 10th best program in the midwest? Is that supposed to be impressive? 

 

Just to support the point that they're nonsense, we're currently rebuilding our Latin America program in Wisconsin. US News and World Report ranks us second overall.

 

5 minutes ago, grubyczarnykot said:

@telkanuru is USN a mostly useless ranking? I ask because I’ve been freaking myself out with it. There’s a program I am thinking of attending that is rated -ok- on USN but I’d also not only be in the History department, but also in the interdisciplinary HPS/STS program which seems to consistently place its students well. 

Yes, it is totally worthless. The response rate is around 20 percent and requires department chairs to make assumptions that aren't in a position to know about. UCLA is not a top 10 program. It's not a bad program, but not top 10. William and Mary is, by placement, not a top 30 program in history.

The only metric that matters is jobs.

[TheHessianHistorian]

17 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

I'm really not, and to quote USN&WR? Forbes? Really? These sorts of rankings are absolute, total nonsense. You should know that at this point of the game. And even then, 10th best program in the midwest? Is that supposed to be impressive? 

 

Are the rankings perfect? Of course not. But rankings by major media outlets aren't just pulled out of thin air or based on the whims of some editorialist. They are based on data regarding degree completion rates, assessment by peer institutions, faculty, financial resources, admissions selectivity, graduate performance, etc. You keep repeating that WUSTL is a low quality school because you don't like the way they do their scholarship. What I keep trying to say is, you're entitled to your opinion, and heck--you may even be right--but the popular perception is against you here in the Midwest: WUSTL is generally acknowledged as an excellent institution with a strong history program. So far, the only evidence you've provided to claim otherwise are your own insults of WUSTL grad students. And you certainly haven't provided any evidence for your very strange assertion that Arizona is "a tier above" WUSTL and that Arizona's Master's program somehow shows promise as a launching pad to a top-tier PhD program.

Edited February 10, 2018 by TheHessianHistorian

[TheHessianHistorian]

7 minutes ago, psstein said:

The only metric that matters is jobs.

The ability to immediately get into a TT job matters more now and less later. It also really matters what kind of preparation and training the program provides you with. Coming out of an Ivy PhD program can give you that boost into an assistant professorship, but if you produce unambitious scholarship or fail to produce scholarship you are going to have an unsuccessful career. The great thing about Ivy league PhD programs is that they generally DO provide that excellent training, and that is why their reputations remain high. However, there are institutions outside of the traditionally recognized "Top 10" that provide excellent training in history, even if their immediate TT placement rate isn't on par with Harvard and Princeton.

[psstein]

39 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

The ability to immediately get into a TT job matters more now and less later. It also really matters what kind of preparation and training the program provides you with. Coming out of an Ivy PhD program can give you that boost into an assistant professorship, but if you produce unambitious scholarship or fail to produce scholarship you are going to have an unsuccessful career. The great thing about Ivy league PhD programs is that they generally DO provide that excellent training, and that is why their reputations remain high. However, there are institutions outside of the traditionally recognized "Top 10" that provide excellent training in history, even if their immediate TT placement rate isn't on par with Harvard and Princeton.

Two things here:

1. Not all Ivy league programs are created equal. Michigan/Berkeley/Wisconsin do better in placement than Penn/Cornell/Brown. It's not that the programs provide excellent training, though some of them do. The programs have access to resources that most of us could only dream of. Harvard/Princeton are wealthier than God. That means that they can afford to bring in visiting scholars on a weekly or biweekly basis (we do it about once a month here in Wisconsin). That means less teaching, which often leads to faster dissertation completion. It means access to rare books on campus, rather than going to research libraries like the Newberry. It means money for expenses that other universities wouldn't dream of covering. Hopkins HoS told me that they'd give me a yearly sum just for books and conference travel; I had to use it all in one year, because it didn't roll over to the next.

2. Yes, to some degree. People with a Harvard PhD are allowed to screw up a lot more than people with a UVA PhD. One scholar with a Berkeley PhD was notoriously difficult to get along with and arrogant. He produced a technically sloppy work that was well received for its analysis of a famous scientist's social networks, then engaged in a vicious debate with a reviewer. He received tenure at Harvard, but by the end of his time there (he now teaches on the W. Coast), he had managed to alienate a significant proportion of the field. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by psstein

[dr. t]

40 minutes ago, TheHessianHistorian said:

But rankings by major media outlets aren't just pulled out of thin air or based on the whims of some editorialist.

They really, really are.

I understand you like the program, but you're telling me I've said a lot of stuff I really haven't. At this point, it doesn't seem particularly productive to respond.