Besides the discussions related to my research interests, this years SMH gave me a better understanding of how to present a paper.  Through the various panels, it became clear that powerpoints are only as good as the presenter and a paper based on generalities will put many people to sleep.  Moreover, my belief that if one is going to ask a question it better be amazing and relevant.  Sometimes is pays to be quiet and take notes.

In sum, I enjoyed the conference and am looking forward to the next SMH.  Additionally, I hope to present some research next summer.

At present, I am not certain as an exact dissertation topic. Having always been interested in the relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth, I am contemplating a dissertation that would examine how the armed forces of America and Australia interacted prior to, and during, the Vietnam War. Granted that a fair amount of literature covers such a topic, I hope further reading will afford me a better understanding of issues that require additional analysis. In between many summer commitments, I hope to read-up on Australia in the Vietnam War so that by the fall I will have a more refined dissertation topic.

This semester I am taking a course solely on the Vietnam War. Incidentally, this is my first true post-Second World War American history course. Needless to say my understanding of the Cold War era leaves a lot to be desired. All of that aside, my escalating interest in Vietnam might cause me to shift my Civil War to Second World War focus to one that encompasses America’s more modern conflicts. The World Wars onwards might be a better focus simply because of the amount of literature that needs to be written. That realization has started to make me wonder what would happen if my interest in the Vietnam war led to changing my dissertation topic to one that dealt with some aspect of America’s turbulent foray into Southeast Asia. At present the idea of centering on 20th Century warfare seems far less drastic and would allow for my Great War topic.

Granted I have comps to worry about first, I still find it prudent to ponder these questions before I start asking certain professors to join my committee. For instance, if I shift to a more modern topic it would help to have professors whose strengths lie in Cold War-era topics. Alternatively, perhaps I just worry too much! Any outside thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

1. It helps to be as organized as possible. Losing syllabuses halfway through the semester must be avoided. Aside from the misplacing of syllabi, it would be beneficial to create a list of all assignments and their respective due dates. This technique can be attributed to a colleague of mine who demonstrated throughout the semester just how magnificent this method of consolation helps one keep track of the numerous papers due in multiple classes.
2. While a centralized list of assignments goes a long way in managing one’s time more efficiently, one must plan out and complete those tasks with enough time left for proper revisions and edits to be made. Consequently, having to write a couple papers over the course of a single weekend could be avoided if one planned ahead.
3. Be more confident in you reading abilities. While taking notes on the material is important, being able to express your understanding of the literature to professors is invaluable.

Again, these are just some suggestions on how to improve my academic performance while preserving my sanity. As always, outside input is welcome.

Shortcomings in the existing literature furnish an opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding of the Meuse-Argonne offensive as well as other engagements. While little work is being done on the AEF, other First World War fields are generating new interest. Recent assessments of First World War  scholarship, for example, have underscored the need for studies on the Imperial German Army’s non-Prussian units. Certainly, such research needs to be conducted, but there is also a need for similar analysis of the AEF. Dr. Groteleuschen noted that the Field Artillery serves as an example of good American branch level doctrine and battlefield performance. Such an approach can also be applied to the study of other important branches of the AEF. This observation was supported by my research, in which I argued that the Coast Artillery Corps played a crucial role in the development of a mobile heavy artillery arm of the AEF, a conclusion reached without benefit of any major works on the subject. A thorough study on the heavy artillery arm of the AEF should be a major component of the revitalization of the field. As a result, I wish to explore the impact of AEF heavy artillery on the First World War, with possible emphasis on the Meuse-Argonne Campaign.

Unlike the many people you hear that say they knew they were PhD material early on, I need more time to figure that out. It is one thing to know you love history, but is an entirely different matter to make it your life. By my third year of undergrad I knew I wanted to get a history MA and perhaps even a doctorate. I obtained my MA within a year of obtaining my BA and was in need of a break from being a student. As a result, I spent the next two years as an adjunct instructor at my undergrad college. During that time I realized that military history was my field and that I was ready to become a student once more. I thoroughly enjoyed teaching it and was excited at the thought of expanding my knowledge through research at the PhD level.

What I wanted to study, as it does with everyone, dictated the universities I was interested in attending. Wanting to specialize in both American and European military history, coupled with who I wanted to study under, further reduced my program choices. A year prior to apply to any PhD program, I had the fortune of meeting and chatting with my soon-to-be advisor at a military history conference in Ontario, Canada. Future conversations with him and current USM grad students lead me to selecting USM. Many will tell you that you ought to choose a program based on the reputation of both the school and your future adviser. More importantly, the program should be strong in your desired field. USM is a rising star in the military history community, making my decision all the more sensible. To me, however, the person I wanted to study under was critical to the decision process. Having benefited from strong relationships with former advisors, I knew I need to something similar at the PhD level.

Funding should be the make or break factor when accepting an offer. If a program fails to deliver any funding, then the decision is easy: do not go. If you are offered solid funding (a tuition waiver, plus a stipend of some magnitude), then you should consider the offer very seriously. Do remember to factor in quality of your possible advisor as well as the reputation and abilities of the program. Together these three factors will help you choose a program that is serious about you, while placing yourself in an academic environment best suited to your interests.

A factor that many argue is important to the program selection process is the geographical location of the institution. Personally, I believe that the geographical location (i.e. North vs South) of a university is not crucial. The rational being that you are going to be spending most of the next four to six years indoors, knee deep in literature; so the amenities of the school’s surrounding environs fail in comparison to the quality of the programs faculty and funding. To that end, the physical location (i.e. urban vs. rural) of the school is important. Being married, the physical location of USM was discussed in relation to the job opportunities that might be available to my wife. In that instance, geography might be more important to your significant other than to yourself. Nevertheless, it does help to discuss what type of location would best suite the needs of both you and you’re loved one. Larger cities, in theory, afford ample employment opportunities. A small town setting might restrict the chances of your loved one gaining meaningful employment. To be blunt, the income generated by your partner can be significant in that it is an additional source of funding. Therefore the cost of living needs to be apart of the equation. Hopefully, your means of income are sufficient to cover living necessities.

Ultimately, I selected my program based on criteria I deemed the most essential to the selection process. On that note, picking a program is an extremely personal experience. Outside advice can point you in the proper direction, but it cannot choose a program for you. You are choosing to spend a considerable amount of time and effort at an university based upon the criteria you used during the selection period. So be true to yourself.

Some highly respected history societies, such as the Society of Military History, have established their Facebook presence via fan and group pages. Can history benefit from conversations stemming out of these Facebook pages, or is Facebook still the bane of traditional human interaction? Are debates on Facebook any less valid than those occurring in a lecture hall? While Twitter feeds can be viewed by anyone, both Twitter members and unregistered visitors, to read any content on Facebook one must register. Additionally, to read and actively partake in Facebook group discussions further approval is required. Consequently, is Facebook too restrictive, and therefore unable, to allow a proper academic debate to occur? Contrary to the perceived restrictive nature of Facebook, the ability to regulate who can see certain pieces of information is a positive attribute. Since Facebook retains forum related features, the possibility of conversations being hijacked by interruptions remains. Limiting who can participate might very well allow conversations to flourish unhindered.

What of the academic relationships that are built and developed through the use of Facebook? Ultimately, the relationships fostered are perhaps Facebooks greatest asset. While the integraty of historical discussions is debatable, the ability to interact with other academics is valuable.

One of the greatest advantages for academia that I can see from Twitter is that it plugs you into a rapid-fire, real-time platform for ideas and thoughts. While this can quickly turn into a deluge of information overload, it also keeps you up to date on contemporary events, issues, and trends in a distinctively social manner.

Having used Twitter for a few months, I believe the tool can become integral to the dissemination of ideas. More than sharing simple comments, Twitter’s straight forward system of expressing current thoughts allows users to link the views of others; thereby giving context and structure to larger topics of discussion. Basically, a single comment can lead to a string of associated comments and eventually a complex debate becomes evident. Nonetheless, the current limit of 140 characters is a hindrance to the expression of complete thoughts.

Currently, Twitter is a basic means of exchanging limited dialog. In time, the service may very well develop into a more complete academic tool, where it allows for more developed/lengthy posts. Ultimately Twitter is capable of encouraging the expression fresh view points in real time.