<p>Howdy all. I am a senior this year at the University of Washington, applying next year to history grad MA/PHD programs. I was hoping people who have been through the process or who have experience that might be useful for some comparative analysis on my part could chime in on my odds of getting in somewhere as I am realizing just how extremely competitive this is as the deadline approaches. </p>
<p>I am looking to get into a US History program, with an emphasis on social/labor history. I am going to apply to a cluster**** of schools, probably 10 of the top 25, and 3-5 backups. </p>
<p>I am in the Honors Program, 3.67 overall, 3.79 History. Solid letters of recommendations from people I have done relevant research with. Haven't taken the GRE's yet but I am in a prep course for it now and from practice tests have every reason to expect I will do ok on it. </p>
<p>Anyway it would be really helpful if anyone had insights, experience, or other advice they could share.</p>
<p>Sorry to bust your bubble but VERY slim chance, especially 20th century America. For example, Penn only took in 3 Americanists out of 300 applicants (of different fields). Columbia is probably around the same but only out of 500 applicants.</p>
<p>15 applications do seem a little excessive if you're going to be "I MUST GET IN SOMEWHERE!" kind of person. Even a "safety" like Brandeis which is ranked in the 30s is still quite competitive. What you DO need to do to make your SOP for EACH program very strong is demonstrate how your interests match well of the department's. I.E. Create a dissertation committee of 3-5 professors whose interests align with yours and can support your project. If you can't do it, then don't apply there. Top programs look beyond the GRE and GPA and strive for "perfect" match between the applicant, the grad students, and the faculty. Lower ranked programs are more about GPA and GRE (from my past understanding).</p>
<p>You may also STRONGLY consider taking time off if you do not want to pursue your MA. More and more programs are taking on "older" students who have taken time off to do other things or pursued their MA in a relevant field (sociology, American Studies, etc) to strengthen their application. For example, many grad students at the University of Michigan came in with a MA, very few straight out of undergrad. I was turned down by my programs just simply because I didn't have the MA (and coursework to prove it) although my LORs and CV were killers. But do NOT apply to history MA programs if the PhD is your end goal as my former advisor told me.</p>
<p>What do you want to do with your PhD? If you have other ideas besides the university, like government, archives, museums, you can certainly look into those kind of programs for your first graduate degree to make you a more favorable applicant (because you have additional degree should you not find a job as a TT professor down the road, or if you drop out).</p>
<p>I was planning on personalizing the SOP to the individual schools, I figure social history of the US is something that most schools have quite a few professors that could align with that interest, plus if my odds are as slim as you describe, I might as well apply as many places as possible. </p>
<p>I am aware of the fierce competitiveness for Grad programs, but I had a rosier image in my head than the one you describe. I want to teach at a university,and yes my goal is a PHD, and as you mentioned its not advised to go into terminal History MA programs. I currently work in an archive and if I did this full time I would shoot myself. </p>
<p>Anyway good feedback, I feel all the more determined to apply to A LOT of schools, any other specific advice you could spare would be helpful.</p>
<p>If the OP does go the law school route, they better make sure they graduate within the top ten percent in their class to even receive consideration for a law professor position.</p>
<p>Yes, it does matter on their goals. If their objective is to teach at a top 14 (or even top 50) law school, they better graduate within the top 10 percent in their class.</p>
<p>I'm also a current college senior applying to PhD programs for History (American, 18th/19th century). A realistic examination of admissions statistics is good, but if you really want to get a PhD, it's worth giving it a shot. I do think grad schools are looking for capable, thoughtful students who are passionate about their research, first and foremost. Their goal is to produce scholars, and there does seem to be the assumption that you are going to do original research as at least part of your career. I'm not an expert, but I don't think Highfructosecorn is by any means out of the running, so as long as he/she feels strongly about a PhD and applies to less selective schools. I personally am not interested in Master's programs because it's harder to get funding for just an M.A., and I don't want to accrue debt for a future career that isn't going to pay that much.</p>
<p>Law school has its own benefits, but it is not the same as a History degree focusing on social/labor history, or even labor law specifically. I don't know what Highfructosecorn's interests are, but IMHO labor history is a different field from labor law. There is overlap, but I see them as distinct entities. My dad studied labor law as an undergraduate, has a JD, and labor law is his focus. He'd agree that his training, while very beneficial to him, isn't nearly the same thing as the training History PhDs get. I'm not saying one is better, but they're very different educations and tend to lead in different career paths. Anyway, law teaching positions tend to be very competitive, just as other academic positions are. I tend to be of the school of thought that you should only go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. For a PhD, you should really want to do the coursework and the dissertation, and probably teaching for humanities fields. It sounds like that's the case for Highfructosecorn, in which case he/she should be looking at PhD programs.</p>
<p>I'm going to be applying to quite a few places as well. My goal is to have some choices not only in terms of the program, but also in terms of fellowships and financial assistance. So, Highfructosecorn, you're not the only one going through this right now. (I'm doing it on top of senior thesis, which I know will be tough.) But while posters here are right to be realistic about the process, don't let that stop you if that's what you want. :)</p>
<p>Hehe thanks for the semi-encouragement...good to know someone else is going through the process. BTW, if you don't mind sharing I'd be interested in your 'stats' to have something to compare with, and what schools your thinking of applying to. </p>
<p>Yeah, thanks for pointing out how labor law and labor history are very very different sra08. I have wanted to do a PHD program for awhile now and law isn't really in my interests. </p>
<p>That said, if I do not get in anywhere this year it will prompt a lot of soul searching on my part about what the hell to do with my life which would probably include a look at law school... although I really really have wanted to teach US labor history for quite awhile. </p>
<p>I would hope I am not 'out of the running', I mean ****, I have worked in an archive for 2 years, and each of my 3 letters of recommendation are from notorious professors in the field that I have done relevant research with, (Thats 3 separate research projects!) with on top of my having decent grades and being in honors. If I ain't at least 'in the running' then I'd hate to meet the history monsters that are.</p>
<p>I imagine that some people actually do get into graduate school. I mean I could swear that I have seen history graduate students before lol.</p>
<p>If you say your professors are the "tops"... your range of schools should almost entirely depend on your professors' connections. Of course you're welcome to apply to wherever you want but those schools are going to make your life a little easier because academia is all about who you know. Scary... but true.</p>
<p>It's just that everyone seems to want to go to grad school because of the economy and bad job market. US history is easy for a lot of Americans because we didn't learn a lot of foreign languages. </p>
<p>It's really not all that uncommon for people to apply at least 2 or sometimes 3 times. So be sure to have a back up plan and DO apply again.</p>
<p>I had nearly the same research experience- 3 semesters (2 summers, 1 spring) working in a presitigous museum with historians doing research work for them, including translation. Certainly people were impressed (as they said so in their feedback after the fact) but thought I needed more coursework in my field (@#$@!). Without the competition of others, you would've stood a better chance than me but with it, it's hard to judge. Oh, the other thing, how many history classes have you taken by the end of your junior year? That's another factor too, believe it or not.</p>
<p>It certainly scares me, since I realize that increasing numbers of students are applying to graduate programs with the economy in its poor state. I only took three history courses in my first year, but am taking three each semester for the next two years. I worked as a research assistant for a professor last year, and will be presenting a paper at an international conference this December, but it's not in the field that I'll likely be pursuing. As much as I would like to do archival or museum with my work, I'm going to be focusing on my language studies, in order to bring my Arabic to an advanced level. Being at a liberal arts college makes the language element a little tricky.</p>
<p>Just jumping in with my regular refrain here:
There are MANY MA programs in history that fully fund their students, including full tuition remission and stipend. These programs are usually "feeders" to top PhD programs.</p>
<p>Okay, so you don't want to teach labor law.</p>
<p>Go to DC, work for a labor union while getting your MA. No debt, and actual real world experience that you can write about later.</p>
<p>Rock your MA, and get funded for a PhD.</p>
<p>Here's something to cheer you up if you think you have to get into the top-tier PhD programs or starve: look at any non-top tier LAC and look at where the profs got their degrees. Sure, you'll see Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, but you'll also see (I was bored so I did it for you):</p>
<p>Portland State
Youngstown State
Ohio Univ
American Univ</p>
<p>Ticklemepink, etc: Is this kind of competition similar for early american or European history programs? I am looking at yale, northwestern, uva for early modern/early american. GPA 4.0 in UG history, GRE 700Q/730V, weak on foreign languages, and good recs from non-history profs but a meh rec from history profs (spent a lot of time outside my department--also applying to political science phds as a result). What's the verdict? Doom?</p>
<p>Basically 20th century America is the most competitive field and unless you come up with a very original research idea, people are basically screwed by luck. With European history, 20th century is still tough... the earlier, the better.</p>
<p>whatsyours- if you don't have foreign languages like French for the US, you may not be as competitive as someone with similar stats as yours. You don't really want to get recs from non-history profs, even if they're stellar. You want to have recs from someone who's a historian and can spot a potential historian in the making. Start making friends with your history profs and talk to them about applying for history PhD.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice. I'm looking at the 16th-18th centuries, so relatively old. Too late to schmooze with profs--already graduated. My other recs are from polisci professors (history of political thought--pretty close to the intellectual history subfield I want to be doing) who can speak pretty well to my research/analytical abilities. Do you think that would still be problematic? </p>
<p>My history thesis advisor had a horde of students, and since my thesis was pretty on track all the way through while other people were having meltdowns, he never paid me much attention. He basically just read the thesis and recommended honors. I'm afraid a rec from him would be pretty vague and mediocre compared with my other options. A lot of my history profs also left for other schools while I was still there, so I didn't have the opportunity to take more than one course with them or get to know them. My only other history option is a prof I had for one course during the last semester of my senior year--nice guy, gave me a good grade, seemed to like me at office hours, but not sure he can say much about me now. Should I go with him over the others?</p>
<p>Yeah, I realize now that I should've been more diligent about language acquisition. I didn't know for certain that I wanted to go for a phd as an undergrad, so I never gave it much thought then, and I didn't need it for my history major. Nothing I can do about that now except take an intensive course the summer before grad school in one of the languages I've already started, but of course, that will be too late for applications.</p>
<p>I am going for 4 letters of recommendation, 3 of them from profs I have done research with and 1 who can comment on my relevant work experience.</p>
<p>One from a very well respected nationally labor historian, another somewhat less famous professor in colonialism/cultural and race studies, and another who is from the political science dept but used to head the labor studies center at our school and was formerly president of the American Political Science Association. I figure she may not be directly in my dept, but I did extensive research with her relating to labor and she is famous as all get out, so my strongest letter is from outside the dept I think. My fourth is a History MA who has been my boss at the archive I work at.</p>
<p>To add: If anything before I read your comment discouraging recs from non- hist professors, I had guessed that having a strong record outside a hist dept might be of helpful rather than a hindrance.</p>
<p>A sort of kitsch I was going to market about myself on my SOP was that I have decent experience outside of the history dept, doing research in teams with sociology graduate students and researching with political science professors. I thought it sort of shows an accumulation of some essential skills from other disciplines for a more throughly rounded undergrad experience which sort of broadened my theoretical toolkit with which to approach history etc.</p>