Process, at least in the US:

1. Do well in your major. Try to accumulate research experience during summers, either independently under a professor's supervision or as a research assistant. In your senior year, take MA-level classes or independent studies. By this point you should have identified 2-3 faculty members who are close to your interests, ideally have some standing in their field, and are capable of writing you good letters of recommendation. Work with them on your applications.

2. Apply to about 10 PhD programs (I am leaving out MA programs here). None of these should be true "safety schools." The negative fellowship and job market consequences of being at a low-ranked program will haunt you for a long, long time, even if you get a tenure-track job.

3. See who has accepted you WITH FUNDING. Do not fall for "maybe we'll have funding for you next year." You should not be taking on any debt for this degree. If you have not been accepted anywhere with funding, repeat step 2 next year.

4. [Years 1-3] Do coursework. Try to figure out what your dissertation topic is going to be. This will almost certainly not be what you told them it would be in your statement of purpose; that's fine. (If it is, then there's a possibility you need to be more open in your intellectual development.)

5. [Year 3-4] Apply for fellowships. You need anywhere between 6 and 18 months of funding to go to archives. Ideally this will be a big-name fellowship like a Mellon (this is your first real chance to demonstrate your ability to secure major outside funding, which is important for jobs). (Get some teaching experience too!)

6. [Year 4-5] Go to archives. This is the fun part.

7. [Year 5-7] Write your dissertation, present at conferences, ideally publish at least one article in a decent journal before you graduate. Start to go on the market when you think you can finish in one more year.

8. Paths diverge. You might get a tenure-track job (great); you might get a 1-3 year postdoc (decent or great depending on the details); you might get a 1-2 year visiting gig (not so great); you might have to adjunct (bad).

9. Repeat 8 until you either get a TT job or you leave academia (at least the traditional academic route) for some field which is not based on vicious, cultlike psychological terrorism.

10. If you got a TT job, great! Now you get to spend 6-8 years frantically working to build a respectable tenure file. If you get denied tenure and you're not at an Ivy, your career is effectively over. Since you are probably in your mid-late 30s at the very youngest at that point, have fun finding a whole new career! How about $12/hour at the call center?

OK, so lots of good info here so far. Since I'm a long-ago tenured full professor and have served on a lot of hiring committees I can offer a bit of strategic advice should you decide pursue a Ph.D. in history and want an academic job in the US.

• Do not bother attending a school outside of the top 20 or so institutions, unless there is a specific and widely-known reason to do so (i.e. a mediocre department that happens to employ the top three scholars in your sub-field)

• Plan your major, inside minor, and outside minor fields very carefully for maximum marketability. Most hires outside of R1 institutions today require people to cover what were once multiple positions; you may need to teach Asia and Africa, or Medieval and Modern Europe, or US and Latin America. Bonus points for any trans-national field(s), comparative field(s), or interesting approaches to world history as long as they are all combined with a traditional geographic field.

• Teach as much as you can in graduate school and get damned good at it. The tenure-track jobs of the future will be mostly in teaching-oriented institutions (SLACs, public comprehensives, community colleges) because the R1s have shifted to adjunct instructors while the tenure-track faculty focus on research. Without serious and extensive teaching experience you will not be taken seriously at a teaching school, period.

• At the same time, have an impressive record of scholarship and a clear trajectory going forward. It's not fair at all, but even at SLACs we are looking for people who will be outstanding teachers while also producing significant scholarship. Tenure expectations have increased dramatically at many schools (especially highly-ranked SLACs) over the last 20 years and today there are many applicants fresh from graduate school who have more publications than people needed for tenure in the past.

• Network your ass off. While all "real" job postings are published widely and anyone can apply, knowing people helps in more ways than I can count. Grads should be attending national conferences in their first year, and delivering papers by their third. You not only need those lines on the c.v., but the people you can/will meet at conferences will be critical to your career later on (editors especially, but also peers). Network all the time.

• Ignore the bad advice you will get from your graduate faculty. While it is by no means universal, there are clearly a great many graduate faculty that have no idea what the modern job market is like. They give terrible advice on preparation, pay no heed to teaching, and write useless letters of recommendation. Ask around and find out which of the graduate faculty are actually guiding their students to completion and success on the job market and get them on your committee-- quite often I've seen outstanding mentoring from secondary committee members make up for poor mentoring from advisors.

• Go on the market strategically. That's way down the line (the average time to degree in history is ~10 years from the BA now) but many people do the actual search poorly. Ask for and follow advice from people who are experience in hiring, not people who got a job 25 years ago and haven't been involved in a hire since.

• Realize now that salaries are relatively low for academic faculty given the amount of education required. For example, a full professor with 20 years experience at an SLAC will earn about $75K at the 70th percentile of the AAUP salary survey. The average numbers are utterly misleading, because they are skewed by a few elites who earn $150K+ and some faculty at public schools who milk the summer online teaching system to double their base salaries. In reality the average starting salary for new history faculty outside of the R1 universe is about $50K, and there are only two opportunities for promotion in your entire career, each of which will yield about 6-8% raises at a typical school.

• Further recognize that you will likely have to give up any hope of getting a job in a specific place. Most applicants apply all over the entire US, dozens of positions each season, and are lucky to land a few campus interviews. While some do get more than one offer, most do not-- most get none. If you do get lucky, the odds are good that it will mean moving, permanently, to some part of the country far away from your friends and family.

• Finally, be realistic about the work: the typical junior faculty hire in history will not be at an R1 like your advisors work at, and your work life will be much different as a result. Odds are you'll teach a minumum of six courses a year (3/3) and quite possibly as many as ten. Teaching will consume your working hours from September-May, and many of your evening/weekend hours as well; junior faculty generally work 50-70 hours per week during the academic year. You will have no time to do research and almost no time to write. Those things happen in the summer, when you are not being paid. Your long weeks will be spent almost entirely preparing for class, grading papers, meeting with students, or serving on committees. None of these things, of course, are what draw most people to the study of history.

Bottom line would be to look at the numbers in the Chronicle and the articles published by the various historical associations for info on placement rates. They are terrible. My school-- a modest SLAC with national pretensions --routinely sees 150-200 applications for every position we post in history. We hire one, but all of the top 20-30 candidates are outstanding, at least on paper. If you won't be one of the top 10% of all the people on the market you won't get a tenure-track job, period.

All these issues aside, I can say that if you are lucky enough to land a tenure-track job (and it is luck; all of the top candidates in most searches are outstanding, but only one gets the offer) the career is rewarding. I like my co-workers a great deal, and my students as well. I get to spend much of my time talking about ideas, and teaching other people about things that interest me. My barber is impressed that I have a Ph.D. and work at the college (though nobody else is). The work isn't physically taxing, so I should be able to keep at it until 75, which is when I can afford to retire after having no real income until my early 30s.

Above all, enter into this bargain with your eyes open and with full information. It's not a decision to take lightly and you need an exit strategy-- after all, the vast majority of people who being history Ph.D. programs will not end up in careers as academic historians.

History ABD here. Don't do it unless you can't live with yourself without trying. Grad school can be a dark pit of misery, despair, and petty enmity. There's no guarantee of a job when you finish, and if you're doing your job right you'll be the only one you can talk to about your topic.

Not to say it's all bad. I'm obsessed with the stuff I work on, but the culture can be rough, there are strange hoops to jump through, and money - there's never enough and you're always digging to find more somewhere.

I did my BA in the states; double majored in Classics and Political Science. My first MA I did in the UK. Didn't get into any PhD programs to continue. I came back home to do a second MA in the same topic (Classics), and then moved to a history department for my PhD. So we're close to ten years of school now? I'm writing my diss at the moment and looking for jobs. There are a lot of jobs for historians, but not for the field I know (Roman history).

Along the way, depending how your department structures their program, you may have to write an MA thesis, take language exams (I had to take three), and have comps - for me that was 3 3 hour written exam and one 3 hour oral. I know at some other schools they instead give you a set of questions and 24 hours to write answers.

IF you can't live with yourself without trying, jump in, but realize it's going to be a hard slog, and there isn't necessarily a job for you when you finish.

EDIT: To whoever downvoted me, fine, but nothing I said was wrong. Maybe other people have better experiences in grad school than I do - and I made a point of it not being all terrible. Nevertheless I think students need to take more thought than I did and be better informed than I was about what grad school actually means.

History ABD here. On top of all that's been said, seriously consider your job prospects according to your field. Some are better than others.

First off, if you do transnational or "world" history, you are in a much better place than 90% of the new Ph.Ds out there. Current research is trending toward global connections, comparative histories, and big history. If you can pair a major field and associated language with a field+language rarely (if ever) seen together with your major, you're likely to attract the eyes of departments looking to hire.

Be prepared to pick up several foreign languages. By the time you defend your Ph.D., you'll want to speak at least one fluently, and have reading knowledge of one or two more. If you're set on doing this as an undergraduate freshman, start now. French for reading is always a smart choice, no matter what field you study (yes, even Asian history).

As for particular fields:

American history is glutted with job seekers. I cannot in good conscious recommend going into American history unless you're only in it for the satisfaction of completing a Ph.D.

European history is a bit better but still very, very competitive. Unless you're on the cutting edge of transnational research and can speak 4+ languages, your job prospects are difficult. British history is probably as competitive as American, so you can't just do British history - has to be transnational.

Chinese history, early-modern and modern, is a relatively good place to be. If you go modern, you have to be a bit careful about your topic so the PRC government doesn't have any reason to deny you archival or visa access. As an example, I know someone who originally wanted to study the political and nationalistic motivations behind the PRC's space program, but had to switch to a completely separate topic years into their graduate career because of political sensitivity. As for funding, there's considerable money to be found from US and Chinese institutions. Can't speak for European institutions, but I imagine it's much the same. Just don't try to do Yuan Dynasty or earlier.

Japanese history is weird. Among all the national fields, in my experience it's been the last one to branch into transnational/global trends, and has remained relatively backwards in that its scholars tend to only study Japan and nothing else. However, if you can work up interesting research that makes global connections and uses languages other than Japanese, you're a lot better off than 95% of the Ph.D. candidates.

I can't speak for Middle Eastern history, but current world/Eurasian trends are promising.

African history is a huge black hole. There are very few African historians who do anything early-modern or earlier, primarily because it's really hard. Usually you have to rely on linguistic or archaeological resources. There's a ton of potential here but you must be very creative with your research.

Can't speak for Mesoamerican/pre-Columban/Latin American history.

In the UK, which is all I can write about, it is unbelievably competitive. I came to it late, too late, probably, which limited my chances. I read History for my BA, at a fairly undistinguished university, but the one that was closest to home. Having already had a career, and already with a family, going to university was an exploration of a new career direction, rather than a deliberate attempt to get into academia. anyway, I did very well, and by the second year I had been spotted as a potential "high flyer", getting top marks in all of my modules etc. It was suggested to me that I should go higher, and try for an MA (this was in 1990). Completing my BA, I went to York and read for an "MA by dissertation". Whilst doing so I was offered part-time work by Teesside and, through my dissertation supervisor, at York. I also worked for exam boards as an assistant examiner at GCSE and GCE, and as a Tutor for the Open University. However, money was very tight, especially with a family. Having completed the MA I started a DPhil, again at York. Again with the same part time temporary work, as funding, from any source, simply wasn't available. Research degrees in the sciences are relatively easily to get funding for, but not in the Humanities. I networked furiously, attended conferences, read papers, which were well received, wrote reviews and articles for Historical journals. There were two of us specialising in French History "doing the circuit" as it were at the same time. We got on very well together, but both became increasingly aware of the nasty competitveness that surrounded us; he was attacked with, I thought, unnecessary savagery after giving a paper at Lancaster, for example. The other bloke was much younger than me, and single, so he was far less concerned about subsistence and income and time, whereas when I went to Paris to do my research at Caran (the Archives Nationale) I had to cash in and use my life insurance to keep my family and pay the mortgage. In the end I realised that I was in a vicious circle; I couldn't get a proper full-time job as a Lecturer without a DPhil, and I couldn't get my DPhil without a proper full-time job as a Lecturer. Any other work would mean that I wouldn't have the time I needed to write my thesis, to meet my Supervisor etc. So, I gave up. I went to Cambridge to get a PGCE and became a History Teacher. My friend and rival is now, not only a Professor of History with a list of books published, whilst I have only ever been referenced in books, but is Head of his Department. Admittedly, not in a top rank university, but he achieved his aim. So, to conclude,

1. Get a First for your History BA from, preferably, a good university.

2. Get accepted on a good post graduate programme, preferably by dissertation.

3. Have wealthy parents or a wealthy wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend to fund you as you are most unlikely to get any other funding. Even a Student Loan is unlikely for post-graduate study.

4. Network furiously; attend every conference you can, give papers as often as you can and don't be dismayed by adverse responses. It may be that my papers were well received because I wasn't perceived as a threat!

5. Once you've networked sufficiently, get papers published.

6. Get work at the university at which you are studying. You'll probably be offered it anyway. Most "big" universities in the UK have their first year undergraduate courses taught by post-graduate students to "protect" their tenured staff. Tenured staff have to write books to retain the university's ranking, so the universities tend to give them time by using post-graduates, at a minimal wage, to do their teaching for them. Don't imagine, as I did, that getting such a job means that you've made it. It isn't necessarily the case.

7. Don't have a family, so that your time is your own, so you can dedicate it all to your career. If you do have a wealthy partner, ensure that they share your ambition.

8. If you realise that success isn't coming your way (a good sign is of younger people overtaking you) then look quickly for an alternative career path. Success will come fairly quickly, or not at all.

Good luck.

If you want to do history, consider non academic routes like public history. The job prospects are slightly better and you get a hands on approach on practicing your trade.

Related question here:

Is it worth getting a BA in American History from an online school and moving onward to a brick and mortar for a MA?

All of the points below are really important, including the negative ones. I completely understand people's frustration with the poor job market, especially for those who may have felt misled when entering graduate programs under the illusion that a tenure-track job was a sure thing. I just graduated from a PhD program a few years ago and my first year on the job market I got only a few interviews and no offers after submitting probably over 30 applications; it was disappointing, and I felt a lot of these same frustrations. I also struggled to get through the year on what little savings I had and by working as a nanny. In my second year, through some sort of miracle, I did get a tenure-track position. Not at one of the big Ivy League schools, but at a really unique institution with a diverse student body in a city I really like.

My pointers (some of these have already been said, but to reiterate them) would encourage you to be aware of the poor job market and plan accordingly, but not necessarily abandon the possibility if you think it would really be a satisfying life for you. This means,

(a) only going to graduate school if you get full funding (as mentioned already). While this funding is not huge nor will it support a life of luxury, I had enough to support myself and even save a bit, which substantially enhanced my feelings towards the PhD experience after the fact. Although I wasn't sure if I would get a job, at least I had the chance to spend 6 years doing something I was passionate about, and I didn't have the massive debt my friends in law school and medical school had...and for the record, the former were also facing highly competitive job markets (and very low job satisfaction, it seemed), the latter were facing several years of 14-20 hour shifts and incredibly hard work before the perks of being a doctor would set in. (There are also loads and loads of people who work way harder than graduate students/professors, get paid way less, have very little job satisfaction or security, and/or difficulty finding work, just for some perspective...I don't really know anyone, except engineers, who immediately got good high paying jobs out of school. My own husband worked at an ok job for 8 years before returning to school to follow his passion.)

(b) actively preparing for the possibility that you might need to look for another job. The latter could mean beefing up your resume throughout your years in undergraduate and graduate school with other things that would be relevant if you one day find yourself writing applications for non-academic jobs. Things like professional experience (working in the summers, or taking some time between undergraduate and graduate school to work), internships (probably best during undergrad years, as many require you to be a student at the time, although I also did one post-PhD while I was applying for jobs) and volunteer work (which can be done during graduate school - although there is not a lot of time, I would highly recommend even a few hours a week mainly to keep you sane/grounded!). If you can keep these activities in some way coherent - for example, if you study Latin American history, you might also intern or volunteer with a Latin American NGO, you write a dissertation that is relevant to contemporary issues, and maybe try to do some research assistant work in the field - your resulting resume for a non-academic job would read like a coherent story based on your passion for this region/issues, rather than like someone who has only gone to school for their whole life and tried to get an academic job and couldn't and is now applying to other things. For the record, in my 2 years on the job market I discovered a lot of non-academic jobs that I would've loved to do and felt highly qualified for, particularly research and policy-writing positions with NGOs, as well as some public sector jobs. These are hard to get, though, unless you've got connections - so while meeting people in academia is important, internships and work experience in non-academia can also be a great way to build up a bit of a back up plan. I know this can seem like a lot of balls to juggle at once - but if it's united around a common theme, it can all be mutually reinforcing (for example, my dissertation was on women's history and I worked at a women's organization - this not only built up my resume, but enriched my understanding of my academic work as well).

c) Think carefully about why you want to go to graduate school. If it's just to get a good high-paying/prestigious job, it's probably not the safest bet. But it you really love learning, or think that teaching and research would be basically your dream life, it might be worth taking the risk....just as sometimes athletes dedicate years of their life to a sport despite the fact that they probably won't make it in the big leagues, and musicians/artists put all their effort into trying to get big even when the odds are slim that they will. Don't go in with any delusions, and be financially and emotionally prepared for it to not work out, no matter how hard you work/smart you are. The market is really random - you could be an incredible candidate overall, but if you don't fit the department's exact interests at the time, you probably won't get the position (ie being awesome and working hard is no guarantee). If you think working for 6 years on a topic and not getting a position in the field would cause an identity crisis, then don't do it. But if you're open to the fact that this could happen and feel like "well, might as well give it a go," you'll probably come out of the experience fine in the end.

For the record, at just a few months into the position, I'm loving it. Although it is definitely intense, I get to teach and do research on a topic I am very passionate about for a living. Maybe I will burn out or change my mind later, but right now, I'm pretty pumped.