Getting into grad school at 33

October 14, 2007 5:02 PM

I'm looking at applying to Ph.D. programs in history. I'm 33. How can I maximize my chances?

I'm 33 years old and the idea of getting a Ph.D. in American history has dogged me for years. I think about it, decide it's too much work for no money with no guarantee of a job, and then I toss the idea away. Then it comes back. This has happened to me several times over last few years. Lately it's back again.

Given the job market, if I get a Ph.D., I want it to be from an excellent school or it won't be worth it. I majored in history and I had very good grades. I have a law degree from a great school, and although law school is not like grad school, I'm hoping it will give me some credibility. (I worked as a government lawyer for several years and I'm currently an editor for a legal publishing company.)

Getting What You Came For says that you should contact professors in your field at the schools you want to apply to, so you can make connections. But I'm nervous about reaching out to professors who don't know me. Does anyone have advice?

Also, how much of a focus must I have right now beyond "American history"? Do I need to know what era I want to study, or is this enough? I seem to enjoy several periods of American history equally, but I imagine that focusing on something in the 20th-century would be more fruitful because it probably hasn't been explored as much. Should I say that I want to study a particular era even if I'm not 100% sure yet?

Finally, as far as recommendations, I've been out of college for years and never really clicked with any of my law school professors. I still have some of my well-graded history papers from college and I'm wondering if that will help. I might contact the history prof who did my law school recommendation.

Beyond reading "Getting What You Came For," what advice can people give in my particular situation?

posted by Tin Man to education (24 comments total)

Getting What You Came For says that you should contact professors in your field at the schools you want to apply to, so you can make connections. But I'm nervous about reaching out to professors who don't know me. Does anyone have advice?

I recently got into the field I currently work in and want an MS or PhD. So I e-mailed a professor who keeps his published books online in downloadable form, which I've been reading for the past few months.

I didn't know him. He didn't know me. We have a meeting scheduled in his office this week to discuss my future. Just make the call, or the e-mail, or the pop-in. The worst thing that can happen is they tell you they're busy. The best thing that can happen, well...it could be the best thing that ever happened to you.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:09 PM on October 14, 2007

BTW, you said you're nervous. Understandable. But this is your career, and your life. You gotta want it. You gotta want it bad. You gotta get out there and grab your luck and your future. Otherwise no one is gonna take you seriously.

Now, if only I could take my own advice with respect to dating, I might actually have what more normal people call "a life".
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:18 PM on October 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Professors meet with prospective students all the time (and of all different ages at the grad level), so this is not something that you should worry unduly about. Contact the professor directly or the admissions office of programs you're interested and say that you'd like to visit. They will most likely arrange times to meet with faculty and current students. Again, you're nowhere near too old for a graduate degree and programs do this all the time.

You should probably start to think about what in particular you want to study as the sooner you have a thesis/dissertation topic, the better off you are once you're in. Prior to all that though, having a better idea of what you are interested in can help you choose the right program and help you convince the program that you are right for them. Start framing it to yourself in the form of questions... are there specific questions in history that you want to answer? Write them down and you'll probably get a sense of what eras and topics you're interested in (and perhaps, a direction for your research).
posted by stefnet at 5:22 PM on October 14, 2007

Ok, first of all, do you have any interest in legal history? Because if so, having a law degree would be a big plus. I've heard that it's hard to study legal history after being a lawyer, because historians and lawyers think about law really differently. But having the law degree gives you credibility, and it also gives you more job opportunities, because law schools as well as history departments hire legal historians.

Also, how much of a focus must I have right now beyond "American history"? Do I need to know what era I want to study, or is this enough? I seem to enjoy several periods of American history equally, but I imagine that focusing on something in the 20th-century would be more fruitful because it probably hasn't been explored as much. Should I say that I want to study a particular era even if I'm not 100% sure yet?

You definitely need to be more precise than "American history." You will not be held to the thing that you say you're going to study, but what you say will tell them a lot about you. If the thing you say you want to study sounds compelling, it will suggest that you think like a historian and that you are, at least to some degree, on top of current trends in the study of history. You should have a time period, but more than that, you should have a more specific topic. It doesn't have to be an actual dissertation topic, but it should be a relatively narrow interest.

You definitely can contact professors, but I'd wait until you have a better idea of what you want to study. Once you know that you're interested in urban history of the early-20th-century South, it will be easier to know which professors you should contact and what questions you want to ask them.
posted by craichead at 5:40 PM on October 14, 2007

One more thing. It used to be that the standard thing to recommend to people applying to grad school in U.S. history was The New American History, a book of essays about current scholarship on various topics in American history. It's got a series of chronological essays (ie the colonial period, the antebellum era, the gilded age, etc.) and then a series of topical essays about things like labor, Western and gender history. It's getting a bit old, but I think it would still be worth your while to look at it. The editor is Eric Foner.
posted by craichead at 5:51 PM on October 14, 2007

Professors want students who will actually complete the program (the attrition rate is very high).

If you're applying to thesis-based programs, the chances of persuading one that you will complete your degree wil be maximized if you have a specific topic that you're passionate about, have done enough initial research on so that you know exactly which archives or libraries house the documents you will need, and can write a proposal that sounds like it'll constitute an original contribution to knowledge. What's fresh about your approach? What angle will you be using that hasn't been done to death already? See if you can get ahold of copies of recent successful PhD proposals - perhaps your previous history prof could be helpful here.

However,

Should I say that I want to study a particular era even if I'm not 100% sure yet?

Very few finished theses actually look like the thesis proposals they started out as, because what you find in the archives can completely change the direction of your research. So yes, go ahead and pick something. It doesn't matter if you change it once you're in the program. We all do.

(If you're applying to non-thesis based programs, I've never experienced one but it seems to me that a prospective supervisor would still want to be sure that you're passionate enough about a topic to carry you through the grad school years of demanding workloads, intellectual self-doubt, minimal financial renumeration, etc.)
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 5:57 PM on October 14, 2007

You are quite correct that only gold plated Ph.D.s have a decent shot at landing a tenure track job in history. So first things first. Do your GRE scores merit admission to a top 20 program?
posted by Crotalus at 6:00 PM on October 14, 2007

I do not do history. Larryc does, and hopefully somebody who knows him will shine the Larryc-signal in the sky. So with a lump of salt,

But I'm nervous about reaching out to professors who don't know me. Does anyone have advice?

Be straightforward and direct without being pushy. Don't send an email about "O HAI, I love this thing you wrote blah blah" and then sneak in "BTW, I want into your program." Unless you're dealing with a wierdo, there's no need to dress it up or pretend to develop a relationship. Just politely but directly ask some questions about the graduate program, or about life as a history prof, or whatever.

I'm hoping [my JD] will give me some credibility

If this were political science, I would not emphasize this, or expect it to be a particular plus on your application. If for no other reason than that recovering lawyers with romantic but deeply wrong ideas about academia are a common blight on graduate programs and search committees. History might differ.

How precise do you need to be about your plans:

More precise is almost always better than less. Telling me that you want to study [SpecificThing] by using [MethodOfAnalysis] that [Person] used to study [SomethingElse] is better than telling me that you want to study American history. The odds of anyone holding you to what you said in your application are near zero, but sending a more specific statement of purpose demonstrates familiarity with the literature and, maybe, with norms of research.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:08 PM on October 14, 2007

I don't think GRE scores matter nearly as much as your recommendations, statement of purpose, and writing sample. I could be wrong, but that's my definite sense. It's hard to quantify the things that make a good historian.
posted by craichead at 6:09 PM on October 14, 2007

I don't think GRE scores matter nearly as much as your recommendations, statement of purpose, and writing sample. I could be wrong, but that's my definite sense. It's hard to quantify the things that make a good historian.

They don't matter if they are above a certain threshold. They are an easy way to deal with too many good people for too few spots if they are below it. I'm not in history, but our social science department has an informal GRE cut-off point. I'm sure there have been cases where we've admitted people below that point, but they would be quite exceptional, given the number of great applicants that also have high GREs.
posted by Crotalus at 6:14 PM on October 14, 2007

In general, questions you might be asking yourself:

*Can my GRE scores get me into a top-few program? Take a practice GRE, including the subject GRE, and see how you do.

*Do I want to do this because academia seems nice? It isn't. It's hard, there's lots of drudgery, and there's an astonishing amount of competition and backbiting over very little stakes. Even if you are a very good candidate, you won't be able to pick where you live. All of your holidays until retirement will fall in school holidays. You will take a dramatic pay cut, and your pay will rise very slowly unless you get an offer from another department.

*Do I want to do this because I liked my undergraduate education, or because I want to reach young lives? Don't. Even if you came from an elite undergraduate school, you will almost certainly not get a job at one. Your average school out there is an utterly unselective private or church-related school where academic rigor is more honored in the breach than in reality, or a regional or local state university where the average student is very poorly prepared for... well, really, even for a rigorous high school. Yes, there are highlights, but your average day in your average class in your average school is very fucking far from Dead Poets Society. I don't mean that it's terrible or that it's not rewarding, only that the actual practice of undergraduate education is very unlike the romantic images that it's easy to conjure about it.

*Do I want to do this because I liked [PopularBook]? Don't look at popular books about history. You are very unlikely to write one. Instead, dig up current issues of history journals and look at them. Do you want to write stuff like that?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:24 PM on October 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

My grad student adviser (U of Chicago, history) told me that during applications they take all the qualified applicants and they start passing them out to each professor. So each professor has a small stack in from of him/her of students who want to work with them. Then they have a pile of applicants who "look great" but don't have a specific person in mind to work with.

Take a look at this livejournal about applying to grad school.
posted by aetg at 6:44 PM on October 14, 2007

don't think GRE scores matter nearly as much as your recommendations, statement of purpose, and writing sample. I could be wrong, but that's my definite sense.

As far as the program determining qualifications this is usually the case, but if you ever want a chance at more prestigious university, or external, fellowships, the GRE score is more important than all of these.
posted by mrmojoflying at 6:48 PM on October 14, 2007

I'm 37 and will soon be applying to archaeology MA programs in the UK, which I found out about while I was volunteering at this year's Society for American Archaeology conference.

Find and join similar relevant institutions in the field you're interested in. Volunteer for their conferences. You'll get a great opportunity to pick the brains of people in your prospective field, find out about opportunities. You'll get an idea about what kind of research people are doing and see whether something lights your fire. I also found that volunteers very much appreciated by the attendees.

I'm also taking archaeology classes now. I have an advantage as I work at a prestigious university and can take classes there for free, but it's definitely worthwhile in that it's confirmed that this is the right path for me and I will now be able to get letters of recommendation from someone who's seen my work recently.
posted by ursus_comiter at 7:31 PM on October 14, 2007

Lots of good advice here. Let me add:

Once you have specific departments in mind, it's usually best to contact the Director of Graduate Studies or Graduate Advisor first, who can give you advice about that particular institution and point you to the most appropriate professors to follow up with.
posted by Rain Man at 7:56 PM on October 14, 2007

Read this previous question immediately: it is full of good advice directly applicable to your question. And take a look through other questions tagged with things like "gradschool" for more good advice.

Based on the history departments I've observed (from outside), I think your law degree might be an asset, and even if you don't want to work on legal history, at a minimum it will demonstrate that you had the ability to do grad-level work in something and the tenacity to complete it. In addition, a publishing background can be a great asset for a scholar in the humanities, because so much of your career will be tied to publishing your own work. So much for your advantages in getting in.

You make it sound like your age is out of the normal range for beginning Ph.D. students, but it isn't – it's just on the high end of the normal range, at least in my perception. You'll have to do some extra work to put together a good writing sample out of those old papers, and write a personal statement that explains clearly why you want to do this degree now and are committed to finishing it. Tracking down old recommenders is a good idea, but try to have a catch-up conversation with them or give them a version of your personal statement in order to explain what's happened in the interim and why this move has become so important to you.

And please do seriously consider whether academia is the only thing for you, or whether there is some other way of moving into a field that interests you. (Perhaps, e.g., you could make a move into academic or popular publishing in history, and work on the subjects that interest you at a journal or press?) In general a Ph.D. in the humanities is best viewed as a last resort if nothing else works for you, not a very attractive choice if any other career is available, for all the reasons outlined by ROU_Xenophobe above. (I say this as a humanities Ph.D. candidate.)
posted by RogerB at 9:35 PM on October 14, 2007

I am just one student, in one department, at one school, so take this with a grain of salt, but: 33 is in no way too old, or even old, for a PhD program.

I'm currently an MFA candidate, and at 22 I'm the youngest by a bit, and then a lot.
posted by bijou at 10:08 PM on October 14, 2007

But this is your career, and your life. You gotta want it. You gotta want it bad. You gotta get out there and grab your luck and your future.

posted by SeizeTheDay

Eponysterical!
posted by letitrain at 10:40 PM on October 14, 2007

Crotalus is right. If you cannot gain *funded* admission to a top PhD program, your chances of a successful career in academia are slim, especially in a saturated field like American History. Hell, your chances are still slim.

Be as specific as you can about your interests, and take time to figure them out before starting conversations with faculty at programs you'd like to join. Yes, dissertations usually differ a lot from whatever was written on the application essay. But very general essays that do not indicate a specific project or theoretical approach as a commitment are weaker than ones that do.

I direct a PhD program and we meet with prospects all the time. Send a short, to-the-point email to the program chair for the program you are interested in. Attach a CV, and be quick about describing your background and interests, and especially in establishing your seriousness.

Don't kid yourself about GREs either. If your *verbal* GRE score is lower than 600, don't apply to PhD programs in history until you get it up over that score. Very few places use GREs as an absolute admission standard, but most universities use "objective" measures (like the GRE) to award university-wide fellowships across different fields and departments.

Besides, if you can't pull a 600 on the verbal GRE, and there is no explanation (a learning disability, not a native English speaker), you really aren't prepared to write a dissertation that will found an academic career.

33 is not too old. It's on the north side of the average age range. If you are *done* by 40 you will be ok.
posted by spitbull at 6:02 AM on October 15, 2007

And btw, a prior JD and law career is not unusual. A lot of people find out they can't stand the practice of law and go on to PhD programs. It's very common, and I see a few JDs in our pool every year. It's not a credential except in the limited sense that it shows you are serious, grownup, and know how to finish things. But it is an explanation for why you have come (just a little) late to the academic career track -- you weren't wasting your time or screwing around, and that matters to admissions committees. If your proposed area of research can draw on a law background, then it's a credential of a different sort. Personally, I *look* for specialized backgrounds like law, because it tends to be common that people who do innovative interdisciplinary work in my field have expertise in the practical areas we study (including, for my field, law). So the answer to what to say about your JD and law experience is contextual.
posted by spitbull at 6:06 AM on October 15, 2007

Final advice: take a continuing ed course or two in American History, one where you get to write a substantial paper and can make a good connection with a faculty member (not grad student) instructor. And then *kick ass* in that course.

You will need a current writing sample and letters from a recent teacher who knows your work in the field if you have been out of college for a decade or more. This is a common strategy for building up an applicant's portfolio in such a scenario.
posted by spitbull at 6:08 AM on October 15, 2007

Spitbull's advice is awesome. Scaffolding your way into a top Ph.D. program is a viable strategy. I had a *very* lackluster undergraduate career, which was a real problem when I decided I wanted to enter a Ph.D. program in rhetoric, even though I had a successful and interesting professional career afterwards. When I decided that back-to-school was the route for me, I just told myself that it would take a little longer. I used a continuing education environment (in this case, workshops, seminars, etc.) to propel myself into a decent M.A. program in English, knowing that I would have to be the stand-out student to have a chance. I maxed out the opportunities available in that program and was able to parlay this into the highest level of funding in a superior program.

By the time I was ready to apply to Ph.D. programs, I knew exactly how to sell my professional experience and credentials to programs; I was able to demonstrate serious committment to academic study, I was able to demonstrate a level of facility and success in graduate study that my undergraduate transcripts could not, and I was able to retake my GREs after over one-year of full time gradute study. I wouldn't recommend taking a 2-year M.A. detour unless you must, but anything you can do that demonstrates this is more than a well-thought-out whim and that you know what counts and what doesn't in this new environment will help you.
posted by mrmojoflying at 7:20 AM on October 15, 2007

This all sounds like terrific advice and gives me a lot to chew on. Thanks, everyone.
posted by Tin Man at 9:04 AM on October 15, 2007

Much good advice above.

Go right ahead and contact professors at your target institutions. We expect it and it happens all the time. But their first question is going to be what exactly do you want to research. You definitely need to decide where your interests lie before you apply to a PhD program. Most programs will want you to have narrowed your focus down to a specific era and perhaps even an approach. The "I love all history!" applicants are rejected as not ready for the big leagues.

On the other hand, you can get into a good MA program without having to define a dissertation topic in your personal statement. And it is possible to go from a decent MA program to full funding at a great PhD program. I did. But you will need to impress the hell out of the MA professors, ace the GREs and maybe publish something to make that jump.

If you really are wide open in your interests you might see if you can steer yourself towards a concentration where the job prospects are only mildly abysmal. For God's sake avoid 20th century American and diplomatic history! I think if you dig through the posts at the PhDinHistory blog you can get some clearer ideas about which fields are not totally hopeless. And though you say you are interested in American history, be sure to develop a teaching field in a non-western area while you are in school.

Speaking of the job market, you know it sucks ass don't you? And that it is not ever getting better? Check out this article. Ask yourself, are you willing to move absolutely anywhere in the U.S. to follow your dream of becoming a college professor? Fargo? Tuscaloosa? Are you willing to live in NYC or LA on a Midwest salary? If the answer to any of these questions is no, just put the idea of grad school away right now.

The law degree will help with admissions, as will your age. I was 30 when I began my PhD program, it was perfect.

Finally, get yourself over to the Chronicle of Higher Ed forums and lurk. You will get a good sense of the mundane underbelly of academia there and it is a good place to ask questions.

Good luck. This is the greatest damn job in the world.
posted by LarryC at 8:15 PM on October 15, 2007