[DaddyTorgo]

thanks cronin! i'm in the stage right now where i'm freaking over the bleak job prospects on the other side, but OTOH I have the self-confidence/arrogance to believe that i will be in that small % that will get a job.

also still debating Roman history (and learning Latin and/or Greek) versus either colonial American history or Civil War era American history.

both have their advantages/disadvantages

roman: way fewer people studying it=better prospect of a job even with fewer open jobs, however it means learning more foreign languages and working with primary sources in a foreign tongue. took several classes (2) on it as an undergrad, but it's only really come on strong after my visit to Rome in '04 and my observation of the obvious parallels between the Roman Empire and the American "Empire"
colonial/civil war american: civil war american history was my first love, took as much on it in undergrad as i could and shined. i have lived in boston most of my life, so colonial/revolutionary history is literally alive around me, however there are a large # of people with American history as their specialty (although a lot of this is 20th century) which means that the research is by necessity much more focused, and also the job competition is stiffer. advantage would be that with this it would likely be easier to secure a non-academic job post-phd.

outlier choice:
russian history: i took a lot as an undergrad (4 or so courses, mostly soviet-era stuff with a fairly well-regarded (i think) professor). i love the grand sweep and the epic scale of russian history but i havn't checked to see what the job prospects are like in that area.