History Phd Programs

I am currently completing a master’s degree in American history. I will graduate in December or May at the latest. I want to begin work on a Phd the following fall. My area of emphasis is 20th century US with research topics that walk the line between cultural, intellectual, military, and history of science and technology.Does anyone have any advice about the application processs, completing the degree, or even specific programs. Right now I plan to apply to

Duke, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, U of Alabama, U of Tennessee Knoxville, and possibly U of Georgia, North Texas, and Kansas. The list is certainly up for revesion.

All advice and insights are wellcome.

Thanks

I’m in English, so I don’t have any insights about specific programs in history, but I think what I’m about to say is true for any PhD program in the humanities:

The job market sucks. I’m sure you know this on an intellectual level already, but it’s hard to wrap your head around just how sucky it is until you actually get there. Do not pay out of pocket for this degree – if you can’t get funding, there’s an extremely good chance you won’t get a job either. If you can get funding and you genuinely love your subject and love the idea of having four to eight years to geek out on it, regardless of what comes later, then go ahead and get the PhD.

Unless the professors in your grad program are exceptionally pragmatic and sensible, they will probably try to groom you for jobs like the ones they have – jobs at big research universities with lots of grad students. That’s what they know. Only a tiny minority of grad students will actually get those jobs. Even if you think the research career is what you want, take the time to get the kind of experience that will make you look like an attractive candidate to a lower-tier liberal arts school or a land-grant university where the faculty teach four courses a semester. These schools will be looking for a candidate who a) has a broad variety of teaching experience, especially in the lower-level core courses that all students have to take; b) expresses genuine enthusiasm about teaching; c) has experience teaching and mentoring first-generation students, students who are underprepared for college, etc.; d) doesn’t freak out at the thought of committee work. Cultivate as many of these experiences as you can, and be able to sell them to search committees.

Go to conferences. The more practice you have talking about your work, the better you’ll come across in interviews.

Get to know the other people in your program early, while you’re still taking coursework. The dissertation is a long, lonely slog, and it helps to have friends who can give you support (read: drag you out for margaritas).

Depending on how successful you have been so far (if you already have publications, or are seen as a rising star in your department), try to find a person to work with, not a school. If a person wants to work with you (as your advisor), they can get you into whatever school they are teaching at. My best college history professor used to hold conventions and have speakers come in–leaders in their very specific fields–so that he could introduce them to his very best undergraduates.

Basically, list the ten people you most respect in your field. Try to find out if you know anyone in your department that knows them. Alternatively, speak to the people in the department that know your field and find out if they know anyone who shares your specialties and that would be interested in working with you. A letter of rec from one professional to another who know each other is a lot more meaningful than a generic one to an admissions committee.

This may be impossible. It’s a really long shot. But if you can get into a situation where you have a true mentor–someone brilliant and who knows academia and shares your field, as opposed to an assigned advisor who sees managing a stable of grad students as an administrative task they are obliged to take on–it makes all the difference in the world, IME. The only person I have ever seen actually go on to a career as a tenure-track history professor at a nice school went this route.

I got my doctorate in a technical field, so this may not be directly applicable, but I’ll tell you what I wish I knew when I started grad school.

Professors and researchers succeed by bringing in grants. You can’t get grants unless you have a track record of publication. But you can’t develop a track record of publication unless someone will give you a grant so you can eat while you’re generating your publications.

To break this Catch-22, beginners are permitted to glom onto someone else’s grants, in exchange for doing all the scut work. This is called graduate school.

Why am I telling you this? Because (1) it explains to you exactly what you’re getting in exchange for busting your hump for miserable pay for a few years, and (2) it helps you realize the vital importance of getting as many publications as you humanly can in grad school. The number is more important than the quality. Don’t be a perfectionist, and above all don’t do what I did: spend all your time writing one huge, magisterial, perfect paper for the most prestigious journal. The first thing a search committee will do is ask, “How many?” “How good” only comes later, after you pass the “how many” test. They will judge “how good” mostly on the basis of who your advisor (co-author) was and which journal the paper was published in. They may eventually read your papers, but only if they bring you in for an interview.

Also, the difficulty of getting papers published will be greatly lessened if you choose a very famous advisor. You don’t want to pick anyone below the level of full professor, if you can possibly help it. Better yet, pick someone who edits a well-known journal. You’ll be writing all the papers (even though your name will appear second), so you want to get them all published. You don’t need to waste your time writing papers that get deep sized because your professor doesn’t have enough juice to get them published.

If all this strikes you as too cynical, you should probably forget about an academic career.

I appreciate the comments so far. For whatever its worth, I entertain few illusions about academic life. I know the job market is awful and probably always will be. I am prepared to be rewarded for my years of hardwork and academic excellence with a job at a junior college, in the most inhospitable corner of the nation, making the princely sum of $35,000 a year.

I have a good coporate job and I can’t wait to leave because its boring and pointless. I love history, I love to study it and write about it and talk about it and if I can make enough money at it to satisfy my simple tastes then I’ll take it in a heartbeat.

I have presented papers at two confrences (and I’ll do another one next month). A publisher has accepted four of my articles for publication in an encyclopedia of invention and technology coming out next year. I currently have an article under review by a lesser known academic journal.

When I look at programs I’m mostly looking at facutly. I very much want a personal mentor (even if they’re not at the top of the field). I plan to start sending emails this month to potential mentors to see if their interested in me. I have even convinced two of my proffessors to make personal phone calls to scholars they know, who I want to work for.

Does it sound like I’m on the right track? Anything else I should be doing?

I wish I had opted out of trying to have an academic career. At the tail end of my phd and it’s been one disaster after another. Employment prospects afterwards are scant and the whole experience was extremely offputting.

Was coming in to second Fretful Porpentine’s assessment (art history here, and having a hell of a time finding a decent lasting job) but it sounds like you have a realistic view of the situation. The Great Boomer Die-off/ wave of retirements that they’ve been mythologizing about since, oh, 1985 or so will, let’s face it, never ever happen.

I would urge you, while you’re in, to also look at non- or para-academic careers that might value a PhD (public historian (being an Americanist will help!), library science, publishing, catering, moneylaundering, forgery) and make sure you pick up some experience of skills along the way (I really wish I knew how to use publishing software right now. . .).

Also while you’re in the big house, for every class you TA (and TA as much as possible and grab any summer adjunct opportunities that you can) take copious copious notes in great detail and save the syllabi and other paperwork like assignments and exams. Someday you will have to teach those courses at a week’s notice and you’ll be glad to have a basis for getting rolling. And make friends and try not to make enemies-- these aren’t just grad school peers, but in the future can fuck up your life or make it much better. Don’t get used as a pawn in departmental politics, either.

While you’re narrowing down the schools you’re looking at (in the end economics might make your decision for you) if you can visit the school, maybe take a couple of your potential advisor’s students out for a beer and try to get a realistic feel for how good of an advocate and advisor the person really is. Any two might have wildly different reports (Golden Child and Red Headed Stepchild advisees) so take the average.

I’m a history grad student who should have finished his PhD already, but who is an awful procrastinator. My partner finished her history PhD in the Spring, and now has a tenure track position in the Cal State system. I’ll second pretty much everything Fretful Porpentine said about academia and the job market, because it all applies in spades to history right now.

I have a question about the schools you’re applying to. Have you chosen those schools because they are strong in the area you want to study? Are there particular professors there with whom you are interested in working? Because these are very important things to consider, both for the application process itself, and for your future in academia.

For the application, i really think it helps if you can demonstrate a familiarity with the work of some of the faculty members, and make clear who you would like to work with, and why. I’m sure already know this, but your application needs to do more than tell them how much you love history, and if it contains some indication that you are aware of your mid- to long-term intellectual and professional goals, then that’s all the better.

Who you work with can also be important to your job prospects, because letters of recommendation are a big factor on the job market, especially in the initial weeding-out process when the search committee is trying to whittle down 200 applications to a dozen or so. If you have good recommendations from people who are recognized in their field, it really helps.

Many of the really plum positions at the good research schools get filled by graduates from other top research schools, and while the candidates from these schools are often top notch, the fact is that they are also helped greatly by the fact that their recommendation letters are written by people whose names everyone in the history profession knows.

The fact is that, all other things being equal, your chances of getting a job are better if you went to a top-tier school and had a well-regarded set of advisers. I’m at Johns Hopkins, and that’s where my partner got her PhD. Her letters of recommendation were written by professors whose names would be known to anyone studying women’s history in the United States, and possibly the world. These are professors who have written prize-winning books, and whose works are among the first cited in any bibliography on their subject areas. Good letters from people like that are worth their weight in gold. The value of going to a top-tier school is shown by the fact that basically every Hopkins PhD i know has a pretty good job, and quite a few are in top-tier research schools.

On a more general note, i think it really helps to have an adviser who you get along with and, more importantly, who gives you timely and valuable feedback on your work. You don’t want someone who is going to take three months to turn around a 50-page chapter, and you also don’t want someone who just hands back your work and says, “Yeah, this is fine.” You also, however, don’t want someone who insists that you follow their every dictate, and who effectively tells you what to put in your dissertation. What you want is someone who reads your work with a critical eye, who offers good advice, but who also does not expect you to be a mere clone of your adviser. I think it’s good that you’re attempting to get in contact with potential advisers now, because i know people who have been accepted into PhD programs and then find out that their professor of choice is not really interested in working with them.

I’ve asked my fiancee, who has a Ph.D. in History, his opinion. Can you narrow down your field of interest a bit? Not to be biased, but you might look at Vanderbilt at Nashville, TN. He says they are big on social and intellectual history.

I’m not sure I have any general advice that hasn’t already been mentioned, but I have recently done a couple of years of study in the grad program at OSU (early American, though, but with some modern US classes and contacts with several still in that specialty). So, if you have any questions more specific to that program, I’ll do my best to answer them or find an answer for you.

A Ph.D should be free. More importantly, they should pay you. At more prestigious places, a tuition waver + stipend is a given (e.g. at Yale, the humanities/social science/etc. grad students all got this, although the stipend was smaller than what the scientists got.) At other places, it’s not guaranteed, but there’s still certainly free money around.

If you can’t get paid to get a Ph.D., think very hard about whether you want to go through with it.

I would love to hear more about the program at OSU. I have heard some horror stories about them treating their grad students pretty rough, any truth to that? Which faculty members are you familiar with? Any of them I should try to avoid? If you don’t want to clutter up the boards feel free to email me CDThrasher@hotmail.com

Great advice. I’ve already decided that if they won’t pay me I won’t go. If that means I teach as an adjunct for a year and try to improve my CV then so be it. One of my proffessors told me that if they don’t offer me funding they don’t really want me, and I shouldn’t go into a program that dosen’t want me.

My specific area is the intellectual and cultural development of the American army. My master’s thesis is on how the first use of motor vehicles in combat during the Mexican Punitive Expedition changed the army. Before the campaign they were largely indiffrent to the new technology, afterwords a feud developed as the infantry and artillery pushed for motorization and the cavalry resisted it.

I haven’t really considered Vanderbilt. While they have a great social/intellectual program they haven’t done much military history and I want a school that does both. I also heard a rumor that they aren’t accepting any new US historians in an effort to build up their Latin American history program. If I am wrong about either of these points I would certainly consider Vanderbilt. Is your fiancee an instructor there?