FemmeFatale

Good point. I suppose my advisor's train of thought is that I don't plan to jump into a PhD program right after receiving my MA. He would rather have me focus on things that are going to get me hired, namely good exposure through conferences and publication. As it stands, I have 3-4 different papers I am planning to edit for submission. And that's not including doing what my advisor suggested: taking my proposed thesis topic and doing a journal article, instead. Since I plan to graduate in December, it's more doable. Based on where I'm at in research, a thesis would take me another semester to do.

I think that would apply to me. I've written a total of three papers on cholera in St. Louis, which is the same subject I would have considered doing a thesis in. I should also add that my advisor wasn't opposed to my topic... he just didn't think I could finish in the time I have left in the program (my TA position ends in December of this year, and that's when I'd want to graduate). I've already been in the program a while, since some semesters I was only part-time. He did say that if I still wanted to pursue the topic on a smaller scale, he'd help me prepare something for publication.

I'm still on the fence about pursuing a PhD. I would only turn to it in the future if it'd benefit me professionally. I don't have a real interest in teaching, although I did get a certificate in university teaching as something of a backup. At this point, I'm interested in public history. But if I did a PhD, I know for a fact it'd have nothing to do with the thesis I had in mind. The program I am currently in really doesn't have much of an emphasis in any of the topics I would want to spend years on.

It's not that I cannot find anything... I can think of several topics. But none of them are well-covered by any professors in my department, and so it was discouraged. I chose the topic I did because I've already written several papers on it. I'm interested in it, and I think I could write a good paper. But saying I'm passionate about it is a bit of a stretch. I'm also not going to pursue a PhD until after a few years working. If my track record thus far is any indication, my interests will probably change drastically after that time anyway.

thanks for the feedback everyone. all of our professors encourage archival research in even our term papers, especially if they're on a local topic. after speaking with another professor, i am leaning more toward the research track. he said that professionally, i'd be better off spending my time presenting at conferences and/or trying to publish a few of the many papers i've written that he thinks are quite stellar. since PhD programs don't demand a thesis in particular (just a writing sample), it's only worth doing a thesis if i'm really contributing something new to the historiography and am really passionate about it. The latter isn't really true.

The moment of decision has come. My program offers two options: write a traditional thesis, or do a research track. The latter consists of taking three high-level courses for more credit hours, and writing substantially longer papers. It all depends on whether you want to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or breadth of knowledge. I have two questions... 1) My advisor, being a very practical man, thinks that it's only worth doing a thesis if you're going to continue on to a PhD program. Otherwise, any job you can land with an MA isn't going to care whether or not you wrote a thesis. Is he right? Are there any other practical reasons why I should consider one over the other? 2) If I end up deciding to get a PhD in a focus totally unrelated to my Masters thesis, is it even worth it to do one at this point? Wouldn't I just need to start from scratch in a new program, anyway?

I came into mine by accident. After a year or two of being in the program, I didn't feel like I really had a focus. A friend pointed out that I had done three or four papers on cholera, and one on Justinian's plague. So now I'm considering doing my thesis on the history of disease as a "natural disaster" and how societies respond.

my school (a state school) didn't even require the GRE on the application, but i took it anyway and included them. since my undergrad GPA wasn't so stellar, i think the fact that i had moderately good scores on the GRE was what got me in.

Hi, I just finished up a research assistantship and am looking for another one. It had been offered to me, without me really looking. My grad program is very informal when it comes to research positions. Professors are usually working on their own projects, receiving funding from outside the university. We don't have a web site or anything that I could use to see what is available. Is there a tactful way to approach a professor whose interests match mine and ask if there are any ongoing projects I could become a part of? I should add that while pay would be awesome, I'm open to working just for the experience.

Hi, I'm working on a 30-page paper on the Black Legend for a seminar on the Inquisition in the Spanish New World. Other than Bartolomé de las Casas, I'm having trouble finding true primary sources from that period. I can't read Spanish, so it has to be something in English. Right now, my potential topic is how the Black Legend factored into English piracy/privateering. Thoughts?

Unfortunately, it's more the former. She was pretty clear with other students about them having to find out where their sources are kept and how to access them. I agree, the first one makes more sense than the second.

Yeah, the whole experience has me wondering whether this program is right for me. I applied more out of convenience and cost factors. I had taken history classes there before, and they have plenty of ancient/medieval/classics stuff at the undergraduate level.

Her specialty, judging by her publications, is 20th century US labor history. I was told this during the mandatory first-semester graduate class, where the culminating project is basically a thesis proposal. I have not talked to everyone in my program. But as far as my fellow classmates go, I was the only one interested in anything ancient or medieval. After me, the next earliest time period someone was doing was the 19th century. Obviously, this has me second-guessing whether this program is right for me.

I'm in my first year of a MA History program. I want to have an emphasis on ancient history, or early medieval. But during my first semester, I had some difficulty with a professor regarding my project ideas. She placed two stipulations on primary sources: 1. In order to use them, I have to be able to get my hands on the original text AND be able to read it in the original language (in other words, my translation of Tacitus on my bookshelf won't do... I have to track down the manuscript in some museum in Italy). 2. A text cannot be used as a primary source for an era if the copy I am using does not date to that era. Meaning, my aforementioned Tacitus cannot be used as a source on Rome because the earliest copies we have date to centuries later. I have never heard this before as a stipulation, and the second one seems especially ridiculous because it makes studying ancient history practically impossible. I'm not sure if they're just being strange, or if it's due to the program having more modern focuses. Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Well to be frank, it's a topic that was thrust upon me. My original idea was deemed impossible,and this is the closest my professor could get to something "historical" that had anything to do with my original thesis (which she said was more archaeological in nature). Due to time constraints, I don't have much of a choice in the matter. So yeah, it confused me too. I spoke to my professor again, and she helped clarify my topic. My proposal is going to be on how the decipherment of Linear B changed (or didn't change) historians' ideas of what writing means when describing a culture as civilized. So I'm guessing that now, my primary sources would be the writings of historians in that time period?? And no offense taken. It is an MA program. My BA was a self-designed major and very interdisciplinary, and classes tended to blend history, religious studies, archaeology, etc. Most of the classes I took were not, in fact, history classes. I'm thinking I may have to switch to a Classics or Ancient History program. I'm just not well-versed in telling the difference between a question that can be answered historically, and a question that cannot.