Just Getting Started...

[historynerd97]

Hello world! 

I guess this will be relatively long, but I'm interested in getting my masters/PhD in history! Currently, I'm a sophomore student at Penn State University in the Schreyer Honors College. My goal is to get into a relatively top tier university for my master's. Specifically, I have been looking at Harvard, Columbia, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, University of Washington, University of Virginia, and a few others. I decided to come here first because I don't know, really, where to start. I know, being a sophomore, I still have some time, but I'd like some input from others. 

Currently, I have a 3.58 GPA with a 3.825 GPA in the history major. I am also majoring in Public Relations/Advertising and minoring in English Literature. I have already completed a 30-page research paper for a 400-level course during my freshman year and received an A for the course. This upcoming semester, I will be continuing this with another 400-level course and plan to take at least 7 senior-level courses before graduation. Between my freshman and sophomore year, I worked for a hotel. However, this year, I am trying to explore more options into history-based internships. I will complete both a thesis for history and a thesis for my public relations major. At this time, I have not participated in research. I do hold a prestigious leadership position within the Honors College and will be joining my schools History Honors Society later this semester and am in two other clubs on campus. I've also gotten to know two professors extremely well and am sure, in the future, they would write me letters of recommendation. 

So, that's a little bit about me. I was wondering if anybody out there had any suggestions as to how I should move forward, what I should focus on, and what I can expect when starting the grad school process. Any help is appreciated, thanks so much!! 

[TMP]

Since you have quite bit of time, you might actually want to start reading older threads and you are definitely not the first college sophomore to post.  Within those threads, you will find numerous feedback.

I do highly recommend that you actually start conversations with your professors, especially those in history about graduate school.

FIrst: Why do you want a MA?

Second: Most MAs are not funded.  Are you willing to shell out thousands of dollars and/or take out loans?

Third: Will you goal help you pay off those loans and any other debts you will incur during graduate school?

(PhD is slightly different story as one usually gets 5 years of funding that includes barely livable stipend.)

[lordtiandao]

What kind of history do you plan on doing?

[VAZ]

Specifically, what geographical region, time period, approach and theme do you want to specialize in, and why? It usually takes a few years to figure out how you have arrived where you are and what your intellectual path is? Moreover, do you have relevant language skills under your belt, especially reading knowledge and early paleography? How can you acquire them in a scholarly fashion? Do you have any field experience in the targeted region/countries? Are you familiar with the local archives and academics? In addition, have you done enough reading in your particular field and well understood the historiographical discourse? Before all these, do you want to really study in History, instead of Art History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, Politics and any kind of Area Studies? Last but the most important, are you committed to become a professional academic and produce valuable scholarship in your life, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death you do part?

Edited December 20, 2017 by VAZ

[lkjpoi]

One way you can get started is to survey the academic field by studying the faculty of the top-tier universities. Literally read every professor's profile and begin to take note of those whose work strikes you as interesting at all. You will begin to get a sense of how the field works, what are the subfields (political, social, cultural history, etc.), what methods of research are popular, what topics are hot. You should do this because, if you're serious about academia, your goal is to get a position like theirs down the road. 

I think one of the biggest mistakes people tend to make on these forums is to fixate too much on their stats. Stats have almost nothing to do with intellectual work. They may show you are hard working and bright, but without real research interests you will not develop into a scholar. And this is what professors are on the look out for in applications, they want to see whether your sense of what research is and how it is done is coherent and interesting and shows potential for real work in the future. So, as others have stressed above, you need to eventually find a focus in the historical field and start taking steps towards becoming an expert. That usually means, first and foremost, getting familiarity with the primary sources and whatever languages you need to read those sources, as well as studying the historical context of the period. Since you still have so much time, it would be great to acquire a breadth of knowledge about various fields, and wait to choose a particular focus by the end of your BA so that you can develop the relevant skills and write relevant research papers during your MA.

That said, you can find good internships and research positions over the summer by talking to professors. The internet can sometimes be a great place for this sort of thing, but in this case, having a conversation with a few different professors about this would actually be much more helpful because they will know what is a prestigious position and also of opportunities that might not be posted publicly, and they can also give you advice or make you think about things you don't know to think about. That's another way of taking a step towards professionalization. 

[khigh]

Languages! Even if you want American history, you need German and likely French. For Europe, it’s German and one (or two or three) more. What do you want to do at the end of it all? Professor, museums, archives?

[khigh]

And, for internships, honestly look at your local museum. Small museums are always looking for volunteers and it gives you a wider knowledge of history. I volunteered one summer for Museum of the Great Plains. I did archives, where I scanned pictures and looked them up in the newspapers to catalogue them. They were found in a dumpster behind the local newspaper. The collections I worked on were “advertisements” and “murder and crime” and all they had listed were the category and year they were taken. 

I then moved to the archaeology section and worked on inventory for a NAGPRA/BIA inspection. NAGPRA is the Native American Grave Repatriation Act and BIA is the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We were the human remains repository for the region. I first worked on cataloging and categorizing 100,000 beads from Spanish Fort and Longest (site names). The only reference I had was “The Longest Bible” as it is affectionately known, written in the 1960s by RK Harris and Ed Jelks. The beads came from Spain, the Netherlands, England, France, and various regions of Africa and my job was to trace them back using one reference and the Panteone Color Guide, which is what they had used to describe the beads. Then, we had to inventory both human remains and different NA sites. Achy Ulna sticks out for me- he had an arrow point in his Ulna. Did you know that you get to catalogue Bubba Sites? They are usually beer cans, small ammunition, and cigarette butts found in rural regions. They are important because you need to show provenance and they are found over the top of your “real” site. 75 year old jelly does not smell good, even in the jar. 

I worked hard and was hired to be a floor facilitator (formerly known as a docent) for two years until I graduated. I worked with the public, giving information, and manipulating the exhibits. We were an interactive museum that covered the history of the Great Plains from prehistory to the present. I got to teach children and adults about archaeology, General Stores, Land Lotteries, Printing Presses, Native American settlements, tractors and combines, beadwork, chuck wagons, and my FAVORITE, calf roping. We had a training, plastic and wood, lassoing calf that I would spend hours with. 

Now, with that being said, the Great Plains is not my research area. I do not care for American history and do not plan to study it. However, the volunteer positions and job gave me very valuable training and insights. I now know how to archive, look for archaeological sites based on their call numbers, recoginize the little pieces of information, and am able to relate this to the public. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by khigh

[dr. t]

On 12/19/2017 at 11:22 PM, historynerd97 said:

My goal is to get into a relatively top tier university for my master's. Specifically, I have been looking at Harvard, Columbia, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, University of Washington, University of Virginia, and a few others.

Two immediate problems:

1. Harvard doesn't offer an MA in history.
2. UW and UVA are not "top tier universities", even relatively.

[dr. t]

3 hours ago, khigh said:

Languages! Even if you want American history, you need German and likely French. For Europe, it’s German and one (or two or three) more. What do you want to do at the end of it all? Professor, museums, archives?

Nah. Americanists need French, usually, but that's often a superficial requirement. Europeanists usually need French and something else (usually, but not always, German). If you talk to German historians, one of their constant complaints is that very few Americans are conversant in German-language historiography. Similarly, unless it produces academic research or you are specifically applying to public history programs, a museum internship is unlikely to provide a substantial return on the time invested with respect to grad school apps.

I don't know how to say this more nicely, but perhaps you should wait until you get into grad school before offering others advice on how to do so?

[khigh]

51 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

Nah. Americanists need French, usually, but that's often a superficial requirement. Europeanists usually need French and something else (usually, but not always, German). If you talk to German historians, one of their constant complaints is that very few Americans are conversant in German-language historiography. Similarly, unless it produces academic research or you are specifically applying to public history programs, a museum internship is unlikely to provide a substantial return on the time invested with respect to grad school apps.

I don't know how to say this more nicely, but perhaps you should wait until you get into grad school before offering others advice on how to do so?

I don’t know how to say this more nicely, but if your snark is what is produced at ivies, no wonder the profession isn’t attracting more people. Nose bleeds must be a problem high up there in your ivory tower. 

And with that, I will not let you get me down and I will not take the attitude. I will be ignoring you. If it was not for everyone else, I would be leaving. You offer no support nor do you seem to ever look at anything from the perpestive of the person you are replying to. I’m going to chock that up to having never lived outside academia. 

[psstein]

Welcome to the board!

I'm going to say something that's not going to seem gentle, but you need to hear it. If you can see yourself doing anything else, you need to choose a different career path. History PhDs are for the obsessed. I won't speak for others, but I read literature in my field for fun. The academic job market is terrible and realistically speaking, most of us are going to end up in non-academic careers. It's a minimum of five years at minimum wage. You should go in knowing the full picture.

Now, as for actual information: you shouldn't bother applying to MA programs unless you have serious gaps in your preparation (languages, undergrad marks, etc.). If you're at all qualified, which it seems like you are, a joint MA/PhD is the best route. Most institutions make you take MA credits even if you matriculate with a MA.

Language preparation: ideally, you'll know at least one language going into graduate work. It depends, of course, on your area of interest. Europeanists should know French and German, plus whatever languages they need to access source materials. I'm an early modernist, so I need Latin in addition to French and German.

Area of interest: you haven't yet determined your area of interest!?!? No, it's fine. I changed fields with six weeks to go before applications were do, believe it or not. At this juncture, take some of the books and articles you've found interesting and read more by the same authors. Then, read things in the footnotes, bibliography, etc. That'll give you a better understanding of the field's layout.

Programs: If you're interested in an academic career, there are 10 universities the majority of academic historians graduate from. Go on your faculty website and see where their PhDs are from. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the majority hired in the recent past (2009 and onward) are Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Chicago/top-tier state schools (Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, etc.). The US News and World Report rankings are almost useless. Do not pay them heed. UVA and Univ. of Washington are not programs that produce PhDs in academic jobs. I know of one professor who went to UVA and he was hired as a diplomatic historian after a career in the State Department.

Applications: Nobody cares about your internships/jobs/whatever. Grad school admissions do not operate on being well-rounded. They operate on your potential as a scholar. The critical elements are letters of recommendation (LoR), the statement of purpose (outlining why you want to go to grad school and a rough outline of a research project!), and major GPA, especially in upper-division courses.

@khigh, I think you make some good points, but keep in mind that the perspective from inside graduate programs is very different from the one you have outside graduate programs. Also, don't make assumptions about @telkanuru. He's one of the best posters here (as indicated by his reputation numbers!), but he's also been around quite a bit. I know you're taking a gap year, but you sometimes come off as though you've got it all figured out, as do a lot of undergrads. Grad school dispels that notion very quickly.

[dr. t]

1 hour ago, khigh said:

I’m going to chock that up to having never lived outside academia. 

It's funny because this is the opposite of what my life's actually been, as one can find through a cursory glance at some of the posts stickied in this very subforum. If you too had an academic career spanning fourteen years and five different universities (I failed out of my state-school undergrad... twice), plus six years stocking grocery store shelves, you might obtain a more cynical (I would say more realistic) view of the way things actually are.

But you were saying something about enforcing one's own perspective on other people?

Edited December 20, 2017 by telkanuru

[Assotto]

14 hours ago, historynerd97 said:

At this time, I have not participated in research. 

This is what you should focus on. 

To be a strong PhD applicant you will need research experience, not the professional experience you would get interning at a museum. I would suggest looking into doing an independent study with a History professor at PSU with similar interests as yours for a semester or a summer. There are also summer research programs at external schools that provide funding for undergrads looking to have academic careers in the social sciences/humanities. These allow you to get your feet wet so to speak and try out doing historical research to see if its something you actually like. Exposure to the field at large and increased familiarity subfields/geographic locations/time periods will help narrow your interests over time until you are able to at least develop a somewhat realistic project that you will eventually propose in your PhD application. Expect your interests to constantly be changing.

It is nice to know you are thinking about graduate school so early though. I second @TMP's advice and strongly encourage you to browse old threads like this one:

and also as @psstein suggested familiarize yourself with the abysmal stats of the academic job market for History PhDs here:

You have quite a bit of time between now and the end of your undergrad to decide if a PhD/MA in History is what you really want.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Assotto

[astroid88]

36 minutes ago, psstein said:

Also, don't make assumptions about @telkanuru. He's one of the best posters here (as indicated by his reputation numbers!), but he's also been around quite a bit. I know you're taking a gap year, but you sometimes come off as though you've got it all figured out, as do a lot of undergrads. Grad school dispels that notion very quickly.

Reputation numbers ≠ quality. 

I've noticed the snarky people tend to congregate and support each other. 

And that's no assumption! ;]

Edited December 20, 2017 by astroid88

[dr. t]

49 minutes ago, psstein said:

History PhDs are for the obsessed. I won't speak for others, but I read literature in my field for fun.

This is a construction I see fairly often, and it worries me a bit, since it feeds into the fetish cult of work that dominates academia, and into the idea that if you're "right" for PhD work you should go for it, come what may. 

I think it's better to say that a PhD is something you should consider if you find that research is something you genuinely enjoy and continue to do even when not forced to it. This is why I would encourage everyone to take time off from the academic world before applying to PhD programs. But at the same time, it should never be your only possible option. Based on the current status of academia, it is a flat-out bad idea to go to the vast majority of PhD-granting institutions; the neoliberal university - particularly state schools - sees graduate students as a cheap way to cover teaching load and couldn't care less what happens to them after, by and large. There are very specific things that define a good program - a program that produces PhDs ready for the job market - and they are all structural: money, support, and a low teaching load. Every school that has these also has the intellectual chops. 

14 minutes ago, astroid88 said:

I've noticed the snarky people tend to congregate here and support each other. 

This is totally true, and I wouldn't hide behind that sort of system! But it's worth keeping in mind that the 'snarky' people here tend to be the more experienced (and thus more jaded) members of the forum. I myself go back and forth on how best to approach what we might call unwarranted enthusiasm. On one hand, I don't want to step all over an enthusiastic potential colleague, but letting misconceptions go without direct and obvious correction has its own problems. In a personal interaction, it affects only the individual. Here, however, it resonates with those who will read these threads for however long they exist, and so I see silence as the worse choice.

But we have a concrete example before us: a person with little (no) experience has provided information which is flat-out wrong. What would you do?

I'm not saying you have to agree with the approach, but hopefully it makes sense.

Edited December 20, 2017 by telkanuru

[AfricanusCrowther]

53 minutes ago, psstein said:

Programs: If you're interested in an academic career, there are 10 universities the majority of academic historians graduate from. Go on your faculty website and see where their PhDs are from. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the majority hired in the recent past (2009 and onward) are Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Chicago/top-tier state schools (Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, etc.). The US News and World Report rankings are almost useless. Do not pay them heed. UVA and Univ. of Washington are not programs that produce PhDs in academic jobs. I know of one professor who went to UVA and he was hired as a diplomatic historian after a career in the State Department.

Agreed re: UWashington. I think you are perhaps being a little hard on UVA. They're not in the top tier and I probably wouldn't go, but they have had some small success in placements recently. See: Bart Elmore at OSU, Philip Haberkern at BU, etc.

OP didn't way what fields they might be interested in. When you talk to professors about graduate school, @historynerd97 , make sure to ask about the best programs in particular fields. Africanists will want to consider Northwestern, UW-Madison, MSU, etc., when going onto the PhD (I have no clue about the master's level).

Edited December 20, 2017 by AfricanusCrowther

[Assotto]

57 minutes ago, psstein said:

@khigh, I think you make some good points, but keep in mind that the perspective from inside graduate programs is very different from the one you have outside graduate programs. Also, don't make assumptions about @telkanuru. He's one of the best posters here (as indicated by his reputation numbers!), but he's also been around quite a bit. I know you're taking a gap year, but you sometimes come off as though you've got it all figured out, as do a lot of undergrads. Grad school dispels that notion very quickly.

I will add and say that @telkanuru has many insightful posts that have given me insight into the graduate school/application process before I applied, accepted, and began my program. It may be to the benefit of @historynerd97 to browse through some of those for perspective. Even now as a doctoral student I still refer to some of their posts. @Sigaba also has also made helpful contributions to the History thread.

I'm not sure if this is unique to the History thread but it seems many of the new applicants are always hostile toward some of the more experienced posters. Last year's applicant thread was a trainwreck because of this. Somehow, genuine advice is perceived as snark or some sort of 'ivory tower elitism.' The perspective and advice given by folks who are currently in the PhD process is super valuable and, to be frank, they are not obligated to help anyone. Start with the assumption that the more experienced users just really want to help new applicants. 

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Assotto

[khigh]

49 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

It's funny because this is the opposite of what my life's actually been, as one can find through a cursory glance at some of the posts stickied in this very subforum. If you too had an academic career spanning fourteen years and five different universities (I failed out of my state-school undergrad... twice), plus six years stocking grocery store shelves, you might obtain a more cynical (I would say more realistic) view of the way things actually are.

But you were saying something about enforcing one's own perspective on other people?

You sound like my exhusband. He too had an answer for everything and thought his way was the only way. 

[astroid88]

12 minutes ago, khigh said:

You sound like my exhusband. He too had an answer for everything and thought his way was the only way. 

@historynerd97 See what you started! And the future you are in for!? /s

[hats]

This is something like my third handle on this forum, because the first couple—when I was an applicant—involved some embarrassing posts. I think one of my more embarrassing threads from when I applied, years ago, involved me getting jumped all over by a couple people, possibly including @telkanuru.

If I put myself into those shoes again, @khigh, I think what you're going through is structural. You've only gotten advice from basically the one professor for years and years; he's extremely respected, but he hasn't worked with very many students. Even if he has, a LOT of senior professors don't keep up with what gets students hired these days. (The second link is, although harsh, true for graduate school; don't take this as an attack on your undergraduate advisor's background or style.)

Then you come here. You post. Suddenly, a firehose of new information explodes in your direction, from too many sources to possibly handle right now! So many people are talking, and nobody is defending you! Everybody shares a very different consensus than you had been getting from the comforting graybeard who says, "there's always good jobs for good people"! So you get defensive and push back on the advice, on the one hand, and you also go around giving too much advice, because after the ego drubbing you just received, you want to feel like the authority and like you know something. Maybe I'm projecting onto you, and that's not what you're doing, but I know I have done literally exactly that.

None of us want to dampen your enthusiasm. But this is a moment when the advice you give is going to be structurally limited by your position: your advice on "obviously" German first is one example. As telkanuru says, this may be annoying for Germanists, but American Europeanists studying Italy or Portugal probably just aren't that good at German. There are fields where German comes first, but all of Europe, in all time periods, is painting with too broad a brush. I advise you to sit with the advice you've gotten for a while and recognize that you just won't be able to give informed advice about some of these choices until after you've started seeing their consequences in practice, i.e., after you get to graduate school. You're obviously very capable, but some of your priors are wrong, in the way that many of our priors, including mine, were wrong when we started applying to graduate school. I get that it feels like you're one person being ganged up on—that's what led to my defensive flame-outs in my first couple tries on this forum—because a lot of people are correcting a lot of things you're saying. That's the result of coming to a forum where there are a lot of experienced graduate students who want to help you. Maybe try imagining that you're having each of these conversations one on one. I get that it's too much to take in at once, but that doesn't mean anyone is being snarky, or mean, or dismissive. We want you to succeed.

PS On the museum thing: I've worked in a special collections library/museum kind of place. If you need money and the museum job pays as much as the cafeteria job, @historynerd97, that kind of thing may be great experience for graduate school. It's not really helpful getting in, though (unless you want to do public history, a separate field), it's that it might expose you to a collection or idea that will inform your project, which is what decides whether you get in or not. If tutoring pays better or whatever, don't worry about it.

[psstein]

47 minutes ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

Agreed re: UWashington. I think you are perhaps being a little hard on UVA. They're not in the top tier and I probably wouldn't go, but they have had some small success in placements recently. See: Bart Elmore at OSU, Philip Haberkern at BU, etc.

OP didn't way what fields they might be interested in. When you talk to professors about graduate school, @historynerd97 , make sure to ask about the best programs in particular fields. Africanists will want to consider Northwestern, UW-Madison, MSU, etc., when going onto the PhD (I have no clue about the master's level).

I might be a bit hard on UVA, though I went to undergrad at its academic rival! 

It's not a bad place, but there are far better. I think the placement record speaks for itself, though. Success in TT placement is usually a good sign for a program.

[dr. t]

34 minutes ago, khigh said:

You sound like my exhusband. He too had an answer for everything and thought his way was the only way. 

[psstein]

56 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

This is a construction I see fairly often, and it worries me a bit, since it feeds into the fetish cult of work that dominates academia, and into the idea that if you're "right" for PhD work you should go for it, come what may. 

I think it's better to say that a PhD is something you should consider if you find that research is something you genuinely enjoy and continue to do even when not forced to it. This is why I would encourage everyone to take time off from the academic world before applying to PhD programs. But at the same time, it should never be your only possible option. Based on the current status of academia, it is a flat-out bad idea to go to the vast majority of PhD-granting institutions; the neoliberal university - particularly state schools - sees graduate students as a cheap way to cover teaching load and couldn't care less what happens to them after, by and large. There are very specific things that define a good program - a program that produces PhDs ready for the job market - and they are all structural: money, support, and a low teaching load. Every school that has these also has the intellectual chops.

I think obsessed was a bit too strong a word, you're right. Dedicated would be more apt.

People who are good candidates for history PhDs often spend time reading and thinking about the subject when they're not involved.

59 minutes ago, Assotto said:

I'm not sure if this is unique to the History thread but it seems many of the new applicants are always hostile toward some of the more experienced posters. Last year's applicant thread was a trainwreck because of this. Somehow, genuine advice is perceived as snark or some sort of 'ivory tower elitism.' The perspective and advice given by folks who are currently in the PhD process is super valuable and, to be frank, they are not obligated to help anyone. Start with the assumption that the more experienced users just really want to help new applicants.

I was applying last year and remember that thread all too well. There was one poster who was especially aggressive, especially after she was rejected by several universities. I remember threats to people's funding as well. Several useful contributors ended up deleting their accounts over it, which was very unfortunate.

19 minutes ago, hats said:

Even if he has, a LOT of senior professors don't keep up with what gets students hired these days. (The second link is, although harsh, true for graduate school; don't take this as an attack on your undergraduate advisor's background or style.)

This is definitely true. I interviewed at a very well-known program in HoS and was told that the department doesn't bother to prepare students for non-academic careers. A very well-known professor in my program (actually one of the reasons I chose Wisconsin) told me that he doesn't pay much attention to the job market anymore. His last PhD student has spent two years looking for a job and is on the verge of giving up.

[khigh]

16 minutes ago, hats said:

This is something like my third handle on this forum, because the first couple—when I was an applicant—involved some embarrassing posts. I think one of my more embarrassing threads from when I applied, years ago, involved me getting jumped all over by a couple people, possibly including @telkanuru.

If I put myself into those shoes again, @khigh, I think what you're going through is structural. You've only gotten advice from basically the one professor for years and years; he's extremely respected, but he hasn't worked with very many students. Even if he has, a LOT of senior professors don't keep up with what gets students hired these days. (The second link is, although harsh, true for graduate school; don't take this as an attack on your undergraduate advisor's background or style.)

Then you come here. You post. Suddenly, a firehose of new information explodes in your direction, from too many sources to possibly handle right now! So many people are talking, and nobody is defending you! Everybody shares a very different consensus than you had been getting from the comforting graybeard who says, "there's always good jobs for good people"! So you get defensive and push back on the advice, on the one hand, and you also go around giving too much advice, because after the ego drubbing you just received, you want to feel like the authority and like you know something. Maybe I'm projecting onto you, and that's not what you're doing, but I know I have done literally exactly that.

None of us want to dampen your enthusiasm. But this is a moment when the advice you give is going to be structurally limited by your position: your advice on "obviously" German first is one example. As telkanuru says, this may be annoying for Germanists, but American Europeanists studying Italy or Portugal probably just aren't that good at German. There are fields where German comes first, but all of Europe, in all time periods, is painting with too broad a brush. I advise you to sit with the advice you've gotten for a while and recognize that you just won't be able to give informed advice about some of these choices until after you've started seeing their consequences in practice, i.e., after you get to graduate school. You're obviously very capable, but some of your priors are wrong, in the way that many of our priors, including mine, were wrong when we started applying to graduate school. I get that it feels like you're one person being ganged up on—that's what led to my defensive flame-outs in my first couple tries on this forum—because a lot of people are correcting a lot of things you're saying. That's the result of coming to a forum where there are a lot of experienced graduate students who want to help you. Maybe try imagining that you're having each of these conversations one on one. I get that it's too much to take in at once, but that doesn't mean anyone is being snarky, or mean, or dismissive. We want you to succeed.

PS On the museum thing: I've worked in a special collections library/museum kind of place. If you need money and the museum job pays as much as the cafeteria job, @historynerd97, that kind of thing may be great experience for graduate school. It's not really helpful getting in, though (unless you want to do public history, a separate field), it's that it might expose you to a collection or idea that will inform your project, which is what decides whether you get in or not. If tutoring pays better or whatever, don't worry about it.

This is good. No, really, thank you. I’m upset. Of course I’m upset and defensive. I WAS excited for graduate school. Now, I’m not sure. I’ve been working for this for 13 years. I will go. I will do what I need. I will succeed. 

 And then to be overwhelmed and ganged up on is not a good feeling at all. Most people have given good advice and I have been listening to everyone, but some have also been very discouraging. 

[psstein]

6 minutes ago, khigh said:

This is good. No, really, thank you. I’m upset. Of course I’m upset and defensive. I WAS excited for graduate school. Now, I’m not sure. I’ve been working for this for 13 years. I will go. I will do what I need. I will succeed. 

 And then to be overwhelmed and ganged up on is not a good feeling at all. Most people have given good advice and I have been listening to everyone, but some have also been very discouraging. 

You should be excited for graduate school. It's lovely to be paid (even minimally) for working in a field you like. On the other hand, you need to be aware of the realities of the job market and post-PhD life.

You may love the field you're interested in, but from what you've said, it doesn't look like a vibrant field in the US. Finding a job will, as a result, be more difficult.