<p>I'm entertaining the idea of doing a history PhD--- I keep hearing that undergrad 'research' will make you more competitive for fellowships, among other things, but I don't know exactly what this means or how to go about doing it. Do I need to get published? If that's the case, then I'm done for. There's no way I'll be published as a lowly 22 year old undergrad. </p>
<p>As far as research experience goes, I'll have written my senior thesis, and done a 'research paper' for a class I took during a Summer study abroad program that transferred back to my home university. Beyond that, I don't think I'll have anything very impressive. Sure, I've written 'research papers' for other history classes, in the sense that I proposed my own topic, assembled a bibliography of primary and secondary sources, and incorporated lots of footnotes into my paper (I'm a huge nerd, I love footnotes!) But these were always along the lines of a term paper for a specific class, and nothing more. I've never been published in a scholarly journal. But is that really the level of scholarship I would need to be at in order to be competitive at, say, Berkeley or Yale?</p>
<p>And what about assisting a professor with research? I would think that most of those opportunities would be taken by current grad students. I'm just at a loss here. </p>
<p>Any advice at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>
<p>Well, as a Berkeley undergrad who happens to know quite a bit about the history grad program, I can tell you that by no means do you need a publication to get in...although you do need plenty once you're in and hoping to actually get an academic job.</p>
<p>It sounds like you've got a good amount of research experience. Focus on GRE/statement/recs and I think you'll be fine, at least for Berkeley.</p>
<p>If you manage to get into both Berkeley and Yale history, go to Yale - better funding, placement, faculty-student ration, etc.</p>
<p>Just to add a detail to what dobby says - go over your papers with your advisor and/or LOR writers to pick the best one(s). Ideally the paper you use as your writing sample will show some familiarity with the area of research you propose in your SOP. </p>
<p>The grad programs that look for significant undergrad research are usually in the sciences. For history, you don't need it so much, although it is good to do a senior thesis, etc. You should, though, talk to your advisor about whether any of your research is publishable. If it is, s/he can guide you in that process. Don't assume no one would publish you. It won't be a top-tier journal, but there are several journals that focus on publishing grad student work that also take the occasional undergrad. Also speak to your advisor about conferences - both attending and presenting.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, though, grad schools for history will care about your SOP, writing sample, LORs, GRE and GPA. Most applicants will not have journal pubs or conference presentations. Extra stuff is just gravy.</p>
<p>Honors theses most definitely count and make excellent writing samples. </p>
<p>If you are planning on graduate school, be sure to discuss that with your honors advisor. The approach to a "generic" honors project and the first step toward your graduate research can be a little different. </p>
<p>In my case, the paper went from a (fairly) simple archaeological survey to a much more comprehensive approach to the existing literature that used my findings to hilight gaps and even one longstanding error. My advisor also dug out some material on "competing" methodologies that helped support my own approach. As a result, I ended up with what amounts to:</p>
<p>1) A comprehensive bibliography of the relevant material published over the past 2 centuries (though not all was used in the paper itself)
2) The "lit survey" that goes with (1)
3) What amounts to my dissertation prospectus </p>
<p>And all of that made it extremely easy to write my SOP and find appropriate programs to apply to this fall. The whole application process (not counting program research which I did last summer) took about 3 weeks was virtually painless.</p>
<p>Not to hijack this thread or anything, but what other factors will a M.A./PhD program look at for history?<br>
Also, if your GPA in history is stellar, but your cumulative GPA is nothing amazing, will this hurt you a lot when looking into different programs. Thanks and sorry for digressing.</p>
<p>In general, history graduate programs will weigh your statement of purpose and writing sample the most. Your GPA is important because it gives the department an idea of your diligence and promise as a student. Excellent recommendations and GRE scores, however, can help overcome a low cumulative GPA. In general, the median verbal GRE for top 25 PhD programs for history is in the mid-600s. </p>
<p>There are a lot of factors that influence acceptance into a graduate program. How highly ranked was your undergraduate institution? Is your mediocre GPA the result of a single bad semester or have your grades been consistent? What classes did you take as an undergraduate? Does statement of purpose show promise and the possibility to be an excellent graduate student? Do your interests match those of the department's faculty? It is difficult to predict how individual programs will look at your application. My suggestion is to research individual programs, talk to your current advisor about places where you would be a good fit, and then roll the dice.</p>
<p>Letters of rec rank right up there with the SOP. I would say the writing sample is somewhat less than the two of those. When I applied to history programs, I got comments on my LORs and SOP, but not on my writing sample.</p>
<p>I think it depends on individual committees. When I wrote to a professor at Princeton, she told me to make sure that I focused on my SOP and my writing sample because those factors would determine whether I was admitted. I know another student who had an okay SOP, great letters of rec, and an okay writing sample and was admitted to a top 25 program.</p>
<p>My undergraduate advisor has repeatedly told me that it is difficult to judge what each committee will think is important because they vary so much.</p>
<p>I agree with many of the posters above, I'm in process of applying to PhD programs for history.</p>
<p>Sounds like you've done a pretty good job in finding research experience, in which unfortunately for non-science subjects tend to take place during the summer when there is more time. I included 3 major research papers- the kind of papers that incorporated a lot of primary material and strong arguments and went beyond 30 pages. Simply put, the graduate committee just wants to know how familiar you are in working with different sources and if you can handle sitting in the archives and in front of the microfilm machine for over 3 hours straight. Bor-ing to many people. :) But I lose track of time.</p>
<p>That's my gist of research experience for history PhD.</p>