I was wondering what universities in Europe have English-taught PhD/doctoral programs in art history (among those which are worth attending)? Apart from the English speaking countries, of course. I could have visited the website of every single well-known European university, but this will take a lot of time, and I thought there are some knowledgeable people here who can share their opinion.
I am a current history undergraduate student who would like to teach someday! I would really like to teach at the collegiate level but I hear that it’s becoming very competitive to find a tenure track? How come?
On the applicant side, did admissions require the same documents as today? Also, since gathering the required documents presumably took longer (especially for an applicant who had already graduated), how soon did the applicant have to apply before intake? For example today’s graduate programs commonly have a January application deadline for August intake – what was it like in the past? Since today’s students regularly email prospective supervisors before applying, did students in the past also regularly visit campuses before applying? Finally, how much were application fees then compared to now?
On the admissions committee side, did committees rely less on personal contacts and more on the submitted documents? E.g. suppose an applicant submitted a recommendation letter by Einstein, who a member of the committee knew firsthand. Today, I presume the committee would email Einstein to discuss the applicant. Would committees of the past do the same (but with telephone / post)? If not, was there a greater risk of forgery?
If someone majors in political science or international relations or history, what do they end up actually doing as a career?
I’ve found numerous sites that give the obvious answers what they can do, but to date no site that says what they actual do.
It’s all fine and dandy thinking that an International Studies degree will prepare you for a career as a diplomat, but if 95% of graduates end up selling life insurance, or filling out form 2773A-11 for some bureaucracy, I may want to make a different set of choices.
I have a bit of a technical question about constructing narrative while writing as a historian (I guess it also applies to other humanities).
This never really occurred to me as an issue during undergrad and graduate school while writing my thesis, but I have noticed now as I revise my thesis that at times I write sentences that contain both the factual events contained in the primary source I cite in the footnote at the end of the sentence and my interpretation of the source I cite.
For example, if I describe the relation between Event A and Event B, I might first describe the general context. Then follows Sentence A that describes Event A and cites Source A describing Event A. Then follows Sentence B that says:
In reaction (to Event A), Event B happened⁴.
Where Footnote 4 describes Event B.
My question about this example is about the two words “in reaction”. The source I cite at the end of Sentence B does only describe Event B. I derive the connection between the two events and that Event B is a reaction to Event A from the general context. Thus “in reaction” is my interpretation of the causality between the two events.
Now if one is really squeamish I guess one could say that by not separating “in reaction” from Sentence B I mix interpretation and factual evidence and some readers could be misled that the source I cite at the end of Sentence B also includes that Event B happened in reaction to Event A.
The same kind of situation seems to happen at times in my writing when I have a sentence that is built like this:
[Interpretation], [relative clause with factual evidence] [Footnote with evidence for events/facts in relative clause].
My question is whether this style of writing is acceptable at all? It certainly does not occur often in my writing, but it does at times. No one who has read my writing really has ever said anything about this. Although it is hard to check the writing of other historians with regards to this question, as I do not have the sources to check in most cases, I have noticed that other historians do this kind of mixing at times as well (some even seem to simply cite sources at the end of paragraphs that clearly contain both factual statements and interpretation). I also wonder what having to interrupt sentences to clearly separate interpretation and facts all the time would do to the flow of the narrative.
Still this is a concern now, and I would like to know how to approach this dilemma. Is there a convention or best practice? Is mixing interpretation and evidence acceptable, is it sloppy writing or is it completely unacceptable?