Vr4douche

I have not posted here in a while but remembered this post while sitting in my hotel room just outside of the Oxford University district. I am here for the Oxford Patristics Conference that just finished. It is obviously a beautiful campus with loads of history. There is one tower that dates back to the 11th century but most seem to be from 1600-1860. Public transport here is amazing. You cannot go a minute without seeing a bus. It is somewhat expensive to live here. The average rent looks to be in the 800 pound per month range for a 1 bedroom though if you go a few miles out that drops to 500-700. Other than cost there are 2 downsides. First, Oxford is a tourist attraction so it gets quite busy. If you did not know better you would think Asians with cameras were the students. Second, the theology department is not in the "old" part of Oxford. It is actually about a 10 minute walk from high-strung and is in a not so nice modernish building. This saddens me....the o port unity to work in the "old world" so to speak is part of what attracted me to oxford. O get back to the topic, Cambridge and Oxford both have scholarships for international students. Additionally most countries have scholarships that will fund graduate work overseas. I will be applying for 2 here (sshrc and ogs) and If I get both I would get in excess of $50,000. Ì think the chances of getting them is improved with an acceptance from Oxford get or the ivy leagues....well I hope at least. My advice is to choose a few dream programs and some lower tier schools. I apples to Oxbridge and UofT as my dream schools and a few other top tier Canadian schools. I never thought I would get into Oxford but it happened and I am happy. Just don't put all of your eggs in one basket. The same goes for scholarships....apply for everything!

I took think you made the right decision. It is just too much money to spend when you do not even know where you want to take it, or have it take you. Especially at the M* level since everyone seems to have those nowadays.

I agree, but from a purely economic perspective any study in the humanities is a bad investment. If it is a bad investment to go to Oxford for a PhD what can we say about a BA in the humanities? Why do so many people pay $80,000 + for a BA in the humanities when it is unlikely that they will eve find a job in that field? That said, I don't think I would take out a loan to do the PhD, or at least not a loan to cover the whole cost. Personally I think government need to restrict the number of loans they give for studies in the humanities...but that will never happen because it would be seen as an attack on the poor. I am going to try and get my study done through Oxford's Centre for Late Antiquity. My hope is that this will more strongly position my work in history and make me more attractive to history departments. I must admit, however, that my careers goals are not very grandiose... I would love to teach at one of the many small universities in the U.S. where I can make a decent living without the pressure of a big school. What is the point of struggling to get a well paying job at a big school like UofToronto when the cost of living is so much greater. It may well take me 4-5 years to recoup the tuition money but at the end I will have a degree from Oxford,

Well it is not $180,000, it is about £17000/year for 3 years for a total of around £51,000 or about $100,000 Canadian dollars. With living expenses I anticipate about $180,000. I think I am in a somewhat different boat than most in theology and religious studies. I am a historian studying in a theology department because the best supervisor is there. At best I study hisyorical theology but in reality I study the intellectual tradition of late antiquity. I think my history background at the ba and ma level with my historical topic makes me somewhat more employable than most who study theology. I cant imagine turning down Oxford. The intellectual environment and high level connections one can make there are invaluable. Never mind the reputation Oxford brings in both the academic and professional world.

I did not apply to any U.S. schools as I refuse to write the GRE. Also, I am leaning towards Oxford over the other Canadian schools I received offers from.

This is a concern common to all fields. However, the professors I have spoken with do not question the validity of the UK doctorate but feel that it does not prepare the student to teach...they seem to think that we can only teach the exact topic of the dissertation. But I wonder how systemic this is. Afterall, Oxbridge is up there with the Ivy's in placing their students in teaching positions. I would not even consider the UK doctorate if it was not at Oxbridge! I do, however, have an M.A. in history. It was course based with an MRP instead of a thesis. I think this puts me in a somewhat better position than those who did a course based M.A.. For the most part I believe that we shouldn't obsess over the future because we will forget the present. But god, you could do a lot of living for the $180,000 the Oxford doctorate would cost. My hope is that I would receive one of Canada's graduate scholarships for the second and third year but I can't rely on that.

I am lucky enough that I won't have that problem...I can afford it. I am more concerned with making a smart investment with that money.

I found out last Friday that I was accepted to Oxford Theology and Religion Dphill. This caught me completely off guard since I applied in January and it is now almost June! I was sure that I had been rejected. I think any international students whose last name is not Rockefeller is concerned over the price. My course will be $36000/year (Canadian Dollars) in tuition and college fees, plus $$$ for rent, food and transportation. I assume I will be all in at about $60,000/year. It is hard to turn down Oxford with its history, prestige etc. but that is a lot of money...on top of that I was offered a position here at a world-ranked university with almost $30,000 in funding....going to Oxford is a $90,000/year swing OUCH! As for why I study theology...I don't really. I would say I study historical theology. My field of interest is in Late-Antique/Early medieval intellectual history, particularly Augustine and Boethius. I applied to Oxford Theology because that is where the most relevant supervisor is. I may see if I can link up with Oxford's Centre for Late Antiquity. That, I hope, would push my doctorate more squarely into the realm of history which I am sure would be better in the job market.

If you don't see that there is an imbalance in the system you are either blind or the beneficiary of the imbalance.

You don't start controversy by being vanilla;)

If you want to study medieval history in Canada there are but few options. UofT's CMS is really the only place. Other than that there are a few historians scattered among the different history programs. Even then, however, most study it from a very narrow perspective. Ultimately, however, I have not had a problem finding willing professors. I have had a hard time finding willing professors who work in departments receptive to my interests. I applied to a very limited number of schools precisely because I did not fit with most and only after speaking with a willing POI. At the advice of professors I have applied to divinity schools because they have a broader purview and because my topic relates to historical theology. I do not think history has been diluted and I think that the new school has added considerably to the way everyone approaches history. There is an imbalance in the system and a rigidity that prevents many qualified students from pursuing their interests; that has pushed many into 'pop history' and that has alienated historians from the general public. Do you honestly think that most of the work produced in history departments is interesting to the wider public? Do we really do all of this just for each other...for a narrow audience of likeminded historians?

Yes, you've got me. I'm a misogynist because I am concerned that about 25% of UofT's history professors have the word 'gender' in their field description; a racist because it concerns me that an equal number include the terms race or ethnicity while the terms military and war are all but absent. Yes, I concerned that white, straight, middle-class men have lost opportunity, and yes I blame it on the prominence of social and cultural history...but I lament that anyone, black or white, and gay, straight or Sheldon Cooperish is not allowed to follow his or her interests because of the rigidity of the system.

That's simply not true...I did not question their value. In fact, that was a response to Telkanuru who thinks that UofT has only a couple social/culture historians on staff when in reality many of the profs. focus on those issues. Your constant attempt to convince me that I hate social and cultural history is interesting. Do you really believe that anyone who questions their prominence hates them and should not be a historian? Again, you know nothing of my proposals. I did not formally propose them, I was told by relevant professors that topics like mine would not be welcomed by the admission committee. They suggested that I add some of the methodological catch phrases but I wouldn't. Your idea that I'm blaming the boogieman for failures is comical to me. I succeeded at the BA and MA level and I have been accepted to every graduate program to which I have applied (so far I am 1 for 1 of a possible 6 for Phd apps). I have also received considerable funding offers at both MA and PhD levels. I am not concerned with by personal circumstances but with the discipline on the whole. Moreover, I am concerned for those who might be shut out by the excessive rigidity of modern history.

Everything you wrote there validates my view that the 'new historians' are really the entrenched conservatives resistant to change. How can you begin to comment on my proposals without having read them? Obviously you think my proposals are bad because I do not focus on social or cultural history. So you praise the inclusiveness of history yet you promote a very limited concept of it. Seems hypocritical. And I will remind you that I never once questioned the value of racial, ethnic, gender etc. histories. I actually enjoy the good ones, especially the works of Natalie Zemon Davis. My complaint is that the influx of studies that could properly be done in other departments has not been met with increased funding, teaching jobs, or graduate spaces for those who want to study traditional aspects of history. But of course you don't have a problem with this...you're the beneficiary. Why do you say I dislike academia? because I do not get my jollies from modern methodology? It seems that you have now narrowly defined academia in addition to history. So much for inclusiveness.

I think you better look again at the University of Toronto's list of faculty and ongoing dissertations. They are replete with words like race, ethnicity, gender, culture and all the other usual suspects.

I was not suggesting that methodology is not important to the study of history. Obviously it is...its also a part of the way I played basketball, fix my car, brush my teeth etc.. My point is that methodologies should not define history and should not influence a graduate school application. Yes, applicants should demonstrate a knowledge of different approaches, especially at the PhD level, but it is wrong and limiting to require certain approaches. If I have the grades to qualify, a good proposal, and a willing professor I should be eligible. And I don't care what anyone here says, I have been warned time and again that my projects are not social enough.

I cannot comment on that book as I have not read it. It was not out when I was thinking about that project and my project focused on World War 1 internment of Germans. Based on Wikipedia it is a product of a Fox News personality, one with a BA who is no historian. If it is as poorly researched and argued as I assume it is I would probably hate it. I wouldn't hate it, however, because she doesn't use some fancy methodology. But the emotional reaction to the book is amazing. 30 something historians and researchers penning a letter in protests of the work seems awfully similar to the response of objectivists had to relativism.

1) Every state school in the US and around the world is tax-payer subsidized. 2) It wasn't a serious example the point is that pretty much everything in medieval studies now focuses on 'the other'. 3) You see, I am not protesting new history approaches, I am complaining that their rise has not been met with an increase in space for traditional studies and so many have been forced out of the profession. I know one scholar who has written numerous best selling and scholarly books who cannot find stable academic employment. 4) You can believe me or not, I don't really care. I know what I have experienced and I know many other people who were advised not to apply to programs because their project was not social. 5) Take a quick look at the faculty of the big universities in Canada and the US and tell me social history is not dominant.

You seem to be validating my point that the 'new school' has become the entrenched privileged group who ardently protect their narrow view of history. It is the new school that is toiling away in the ivory towers producing work for the select few who are smart enough to appreciate it. Forget that it is those twits watching the discovery channel that fund the ivory tower. I have a thorough background in medieval history. I turned to study medieval philosophy and late-antique intellectual history partially because I was sick of reading works like "female monasticism in 14th century England." Medieval history is dominated by those types of studies...history departments full of medieval professors with very specific specialties. But I'll give you an example of a 'black-listed' subject. I approached a few prominent professors with a project that questioned the validity of the Arab Agricultural Revolution. They were quite interested in it but told me that it would probably not be approved because it might offend Muslims and because it focused too heavily on irrigation and other agricultural developments and ignored social issues. I can also tell you that there is no appetite for a study on internment during the World War unless it approaches it from the social-justice perspective...Even though there are few studies on the military side of internment, many on the social side, if your project isn't social it aint happnin. We are talking about a discipline that since the 1960s that become excessively social to the detriment of many who want to study history from a different perspective. Moreover, about a discipline that has a veneer of openness but is as rigid as ever.

Not worth it? we have got you to think more deeply about historiography;)

I'm not grumpy at all, military history is not even my primary field of interest and I have been give the opportunity to study it if I wish to. I do take exception with your view that no one is interested in military history. There is a massive demand for military history in the general public. Sure, no one is interested in German field artillery...beside the military no one ever has been...but do you really hold this narrow view of military history? If so I suggest you read the studies on the WW1 Naval Arms Race, especially Sumida and Lambert. Maybe if historians paid more attention to what society wants there would be more funding for our work. Who cares about methodologies? What is this fascination with approaches? as a medievalist I used 'postmodernist' approaches long before I learned about them. The problem is not that 'old fashioned' methodologies have been disregarded but that entire subjects have been essentially black-listed. If you are not studying society or culture you might as well pound salt!

I bet the old-school conservative historians of the 1960s who were in a position of privilege and who struggled against the new approaches felt the same way. I'm sure they felt there was nothing wrong with the status quo.

While I am quite fond of the Annales school that is a social-science approach and I was not referring to strictly social historians. As I said, there are fascinating works on the causes of the World War 1 that are deeply contemplative and analytical but which would never see the light of day today. I don't know why you are so hung up on military history. I simply used it as an obvious example of a traditional subject shunned by history departments. I did not intend it as a discussions on the definition of military history.

That seems idealistic. While there are exceptions to every rule, in my experience departments are interested in projects that feature sexy methodologies and current hot topics. Look through this board. There are many who complaint that they have a willing professor who could not convince the department that the project fit the department's agenda. Why do we have to fit a contrived notion of history? To my mind, anyone with a suitable background/grades, a well developed proposal, and a willing supervisor should be given an opportunity to pursue his/her interests.

I still think, however, that many people have a profound misunderstanding of the old-school historiography. Read some of the histories from the 20s and 30s on the causes of WW1 and tell me those historians were merely fact gatherers. They were much more contemplative and analytical than many of you seem ready to acknowledge...perhaps your knowledge of them is second hand.