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.

Retreat, But No Surrender for Military History
After several decades of disappearing from college campuses, the study of military history is poised to make a comeback.

By David J. Koon

September 24, 2009

Outside academia, military history appears alive and well. The shelves of Barnes and Noble and Borders bookstores are coated with nonfiction works from biographies of General George Patton to analyses of Civil War infantry maneuvers. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Gods and Generals inundate cinema screens and television channels. And on college campuses in North Carolina and nationally, students line up for courses dealing with military history as soon as they become available.

But until recently, the field was on a slow march into scholarly obscurity. “While military history dominates the airwaves,” said Eastern Michigan University history professor Robert Citino a few years ago, “its academic footprint continues to shrink, and it has largely vanished from the curriculum of many of our elite universities.” John J. Miller in 2006 wrote in National Review that military history was in fact “dead” at many universities. “Where it isn’t dead and buried,” he added, “it’s either dying or under siege.” The New Republic, U.S. News and World Report, and other publications have echoed that sentiment.

Military history is a sub-discipline of history that focuses on the strategy, tactics, methods and operations of combatants in armed conflicts throughout human history. It is a traditional component of university history departments, although its emphasis varies tremendously among colleges and universities.

Miller and other conservative writers attributed the decline of military history to the rise of “tenured radicals” in universities. That is, the students of the 1960s who became professors in later decades found the study of war offensive and too aggressive for the curriculum of a “humanitarian” university. According to this thesis, military history was deliberately supplanted by multicultural or other politically correct studies.

An alternate view is that traditional military history’s popularity waned as other historical topics began to be explored. Beginning in the 1970s, historians became more interested in social history and, specifically, formerly neglected subjects such as African-American history, women’s history, and cultural history. Most who subscribe to this view don’t think military history’s abandonment was due to an agenda against it. Wayne Lee, an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that there wasn’t a “deliberate policy of killing these positions.” The study of military strategy and tactics was deemphasized simply by default.

Data from the American Historical Review support the idea that a shift occurred. In 1975, 2.4 percent of college history departments listed a military history specialist while only 1.1 percent had a specialist in women’s studies. By 2005, 8.9 percent of history departments listed a women’s studies specialist while the percentage of departments that had a military history expert shrank to 1.9 percent. This change could mean that there was a deliberate replacement of military history by social history—or it could merely reflect the shifting interests of history scholars.

And military history itself changed. In an effort to understand the social and cultural implications of war, military history redefined itself to encompass topics tangential to the battlefield. Historians still focused on the men who traded bullets but also looked at the wives, sons, and daughters who were left behind. “Military history,” explained Andrew Wiest of the University of Southern Mississippi, “began to include examining conflicts from new perspectives and historiographies,” generating “more complete and respected programs.” It wasn’t enough, however, to halt military history’s decline.

Many scholars—both within history departments and outside—began to regard traditional military history as “old news.” The field of drums and bugles is “finished,” they argue—there is nothing more to be gained from studying Jackson’s flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville or Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg. Mark Grimsley, a military historian at Ohio State University, was quoted by Inside Higher Ed as calling this attitude toward military history “incuriosity.”

But the incuriosity and rejection of military history may at last be ending. The past two to three years have seen a small surge in military history’s acceptance and respect in academia.

One change can be found in historical journals. Over the past thirty years, military history has been largely absent from the top historical journals. John Lynn, a well-known military historian now at Northwestern University, points out that during that period the American Historical Review, a highly respected history journal, “did not publish a single article focused on the conduct of the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the War of Louis XIV, the War of American Independence, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War, or World War II.” It did print a handful of articles about the atrocities of war, but not about the execution of the wars themselves.

But in March 2007, the Review published a fifty-page roundtable discussion of American military history that dealt with war in the context of its society. The Review has since published a number of articles directly and indirectly related to war. Other journals—including the Journal of American History—are also including more articles on the subject—even to the surprise of military historians.

It’s not just journals that suggest a revival. Other emerging trends hint that a corner has been turned.

This April, the long-empty professorial chair in military history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison was finally filled. Stephen E. Ambrose, the late historian and best-selling author, had donated $250,000 to his alma mater to commemorate his mentor, William Hesseltine. Before he died in 2002, Ambrose had doubled his initial contribution and pressured others, too, to support that professorship. Ambrose, a World War II specialist and author of Band of Brothers, was one of the most popular military historians of his generation. But the position he supported sat controversially vacant for years. The failure to find a suitable professor generated speculation that the study of military history was finished at Wisconsin.

Now the University of Wisconsin hired the respected West Point graduate and professor John W. Hall, a specialist in unconventional warfare—wars that involve forces other than governmental armies. Hall received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina. Wisconsin isn’t the only college hiring military historians this year. Duke University, Cornell University, Notre Dame University, and Sam Houston State University are searching for military specialists.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Peace, War, and Defense program, or PWAD, as it’s known on campus, has hired new faculty over the past three years as well. In fact, says Joseph Glatthaar, former head of the interdisciplinary curriculum, it is growing “like a rocket ship,” with enrollment up by 27% last year. The program focuses on the cultural impacts of war while also teaching traditional military history. It is nationally recognized, produces respected historians, and is bursting at the seams with undergraduate majors.

Military history seems to be gaining a stronghold at lesser-known universities. Many Ivy League and elite schools let their programs atrophy, creating a vacuum filled (most notably) by the University of Southern Mississippi and the University of North Texas. These institutions are leaders in the instruction of military history due to their “excellent programs,” says Wayne Lee of UNC-Chapel Hill.

As to precisely why military history is enjoying increased popularity, John Lynn thinks that it’s partly due to the fact that “the world has simply gotten nastier.” Terrorism, three wars, and international violence are all “staring you in the face” and “even humanists have to pay attention,” he says. This violence has granted military history greater traction in academia. “The past decade has been a decade of war,” says Frederick Schneid, a military historian at High Point University. “Historians are products of their environment, so the wars have, in a way, helped the profession.”

Just as surrender seemed imminent, military history has gathered unconventional reinforcements—less well-known colleges and, of all things, war and violence. These, along with broad student interest and an academy that now listens when military historians speak, may have positioned military history to climb out of the trenches and regain the field.

To view the original source, visit http://www.popecenter.org/news/article.html?id=2236.

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.

A reading system that has helped me, and probably countless others, is one that my undergraduate professors told me shortly before I headed off to graduate school. First and foremost, always read the preface and introduction. This is where the writer lays out his/her thesis and approach to the subject matter. Historiography will often be covered in the introduction, allowing one to see how the author fits into the appropriate history field. In some cases, the writer might discuss research methods and primary sources. I have read a few books where the historian professes their great research, only to discover weak arguments later on in the book.

Look through the table of contents and note the chapter headings. If the book is on the use of artillery during First World War, a chapter titled the “Allied use of indirect fire” might contain some of the authors most important analysis. By reading such chapters you insure that you will be familiar with the historians more profound arguments while skipping over less relevant chapters. Ultimately it is up to you to decided on which chapters are essential to understanding the authors overall argument.

Be certain to look at the index and select some key terms most closely associated with the books topic. For example, if the book is on the end of the First World War, then it will help to locate terms such as Ferdinand Foch, Germany, Kaiserschlacht, and so on. Such terms are usually discussed in relation to much larger arguments being made by the writer. Key terms, on their own, will not help you understand the overall argument being made, rather they can lead to the pages where the writer is adding support to his/her argument. Granted that you have been successful in choosing essential chapters, the index will further enhance your focus on the crucial aspects of the work. Additionally, key terms can lead you to some great items of interest to use during a reading discussion group.

While the introduction helps one discern the writers main arguments and approach to the material, the conclusion will sum up all of the arguments and findings. The conclusion will cover how the historian perceives their work as a success, while stressing why the work is valuable. Combined with the passages you located via chapter headings and the index, it will be possible to make your own opinion of whether the work is of good academic value or if it suffers from some type of flaw.

None of what is read will matter if you can remember anything about it. Therefore, always take notes on what you read. Try to write notes that will allow you to maintain your steady reading pace. Your notes should emphasis important page numbers as well as instances where the writer makes a key statement. Refrain from the heavy highlighting of passages in the book. Heavy highlighting will hide good pieces of information within unimportant sentences.

Hopefully all that has been said will be of some use to those entering their first graduate seminar. Remember to relax and approach each book with these reading tips in mind.