I'm putting in my application to the University of Southern California history department. They require a personal statement:
In this brief statement (1-3 pages usually suffices) please set out your proposed areas of study and your ultimate professional interests. You should be both specific and detailed about your interests: simply stating “American history,” or even “economic development of the United States in the early national period” is not sufficient. Note the specific time periods, countries, subjects, or topics that interest you, and explain your interest in them. Tell us what historical questions you find most pressing or intriguing, and why. We don’t expect you to know your dissertation topic yet; we do expect you to know how to engage historical questions and how some members of the profession have already engaged them
I know there are some smart people on these forums who could point me in the right direction so just checking if anyone has ideas.
My undergraduate degree was in political science so I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to history. Economic history topics will be hard to do because I don't have training in economics.
Do you have a masters? Have you published anything? Have you received any grants to do research? Have you minored in history? Have you presented at any conference?
If you can't answer yes to all of these, then do not bother applying for a PhD program. I do not say this to be an ass. Honestly, I am trying to save you money and time. You can not go from a political science undergraduate to a PhD in history. If you did not minor in history then odds are you just have some survey courses and you are sorely unprepared for PhD level work. You would need a second language in order to translate documents even before you get into PhD work and you need to acquire another language while you are doing it. You need to have written extensively to understand the process of historical writing. Also like I stated before hand, you need to have published to a degree and give papers at conferences. What is your CV like? If you do not know the answer to that question, then again that just shows you are not ready. If you really want to pursue a career in history, try for your masters. You will then realize the reading/writing load and can make a fair estimate if you want to continue. If you are still at school then you can ask questions to the graduate students. I am also a grad student in history so I can give you some general advice. You can also find a professor in your history department and tell him/her your interest in history and they can help you get on the road toward your goals. One basic rule I will give you is find a thesis advisor that you respect and will actually engage you in your research. If you are going for PhD, take the thesis route because it shows writing ability while just taking comps tests is not as "showy." You need to find someone who will help you on the road to success. Do not think you can conquer this all on your own. You need a strong thesis advisor especially if you do not have a history background and by this I mean actual historical training, not just reading history books.
I can recommend some books on the philosophy of history to help you understand the historical process better. I am also doing my grad work on American history, Colonial period to 1877, so I can help you with that. I can point you in the direction of some historical groups that will give you better information like the American Historical Association (AHA) and Phi Alpha Theta which is the Honors society for history. I can give you some impressions on masters level history. In the end, if you do not have any of the things I have explained, just save your money. There is hope. You can still do PhD work, you just have to come to appreciate the historical process before you can actually do upper level things like dissertations and comps. I was in the same position you are in now several years ago except I had a history degree. I thought I can just pop into the PhD section and overrun the masters program but really I was being ridiculously asinine. You really need to understand the difference between undergraduate work and PhD level work. You get a taste of that in a masters program.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
So did I totally crush yours dreams?
What is a degree in history good for anyway? What can you do with it?
Teach, be in a political think tank, be a librarian, go into pre-law, be a museum curator, work in the government (if you are so inclined).
There is actually quite a great deal you can do with a history degree. History is really the king of all other social sciences. It inculcates itself into everything. Even economies itself would be nonexistent without history because history is the actions of individuals.
I guess you are right, there are any number of things you could do with it, but what are the chances you will get to? I should have probably asked if employment opportunities aren't bleak?
Fair. I mean we are in a economic downturn. It depends on the field if you are teaching.
No you didn't crush my dreams. The system in Australia is a bit different. I should mention I have an honours degree in political science. That means I did a 12,000 word thesis. An honours degree allows me to jump straight to PhD in my country because its an intensive year of research. I also have a law degree and a few publications.
You're definitely right I'll need to learn a language, but I can do that in spare time before the fall semester starts.
I will probably re-evaluate though, based on what you said. I think it'll be harder for me to get into American uni's without an MA. But here in Australia there are plenty of universities that would take me. Nevertheless I'm still applying to USC because I've already started the application process.
I am familiar with the college admissions process since I've worked in that field before. Also, I am an Ivy League grad student so I've gone through that gauntlet.
Basically, you're screwed. Why?
Since you're posting on the Mises.org boards there are several assumptions that I can make. First, you are white (disadvantage #1). Second, you are a male (disadvantage #2). Third, you are going to write a pro-liberty argument (disadvantage #3). Fourth, you only hold a bachelors degree (disadvantage #4). Fifth, you don't have any connections in those departments to overcome the bias against you (disadvantage #5).
You will be held to a higher standard than women and other minorities who have an inside track to gaining acceptance, even if they are less qualified. I'm sure none of this is news to you, but I can guarentee you that you don't understand how bad this problem really is. The admissions officers and the folks that read your application are either Marxists, hard-core Leftists, or affirmative action enthustiasts. They don't care about your qualifications and they don't care about whether you're qualified or not; they see you as a product of white privilege. It's one thing to apply for a bachelors or masters degree, but a PhD is entirely different. The admissions officers and the related departments only care about cultivating more socialist PhD's.
I don't say this to discourage you, but it's important that you know that the odds are stacked against you based on the aforementioned criteria. Most liberty lovers understand that the odds are stacked against them regarding economic matters and dissertation topics, but they are absolutely clueless as to how far cultural marxism has infected the entire admissions process.
I know a PhD candidate in history who is studying at an Australian university and is white, male, drawing upon Austrian theory, has only BA (Hons) and some connections to the department. With that in mind, I would not give up hope in your situation - of course a MA would definitely help towards the goal.
"No you didn't crush my dreams. The system in Australia is a bit different. I should mention I have an honours degree in political science. That means I did a 12,000 word thesis. An honours degree allows me to jump straight to PhD in my country because its an intensive year of research. I also have a law degree and a few publications.
I will probably re-evaluate though, based on what you said. I think it'll be harder for me to get into American uni's without an MA. But here in Australia there are plenty of universities that would take me. Nevertheless I'm still applying to USC because I've already started the application process." Well moving between countries in terms of education is haphazard at best. They will probably take out chunks of your transcript because it will not apply to the US standards. Good luck though.
"Since you're posting on the Mises.org boards there are several assumptions that I can make. First, you are white (disadvantage #1). Second, you are a male (disadvantage #2). Third, you are going to write a pro-liberty argument (disadvantage #3). Fourth, you only hold a bachelors degree (disadvantage #4). Fifth, you don't have any connections in those departments to overcome the bias against you (disadvantage #5).
I don't say this to discourage you, but it's important that you know that the odds are stacked against you based on the aforementioned criteria. Most liberty lovers understand that the odds are stacked against them regarding economic matters and dissertation topics, but they are absolutely clueless as to how far cultural marxism has infected the entire admissions process. "
...What?... Honestly, what school do you go to that allows you to paint this picture?
Andrew Cain: ...What?... Honestly, what school do you go to that allows you to paint this picture?
I should have applied to Harvard.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I have a family friend who is a professor in the Duke politics department. Also, Mike Munger is a libertarian. However I didn't realize that personal connections mattered so much so didn't bother applying to Duke.