I think this was touched upon briefly in some of the earlier conversations, but what are thoughts on history vs. areas studies re: marketability? I’ve been accepted to 4 fully funded PhD programs, 3 history, 1 area studies. I applied to the area studies program because the POI, while trained as a historian, is formally appointed to the area studies department, and would not be able to serve as a supervisor for a history student.
The area studies program has some tempting pros to it—Ivy League, stipend is $10k higher per year than next best offer (granted, higher cost of living, but not 10k higher), and a very solid crossover with supervisor (contextual, thematic, and topical). On the con side, 1. area studies rather discipline based, whereas I hope to work in a history department, 2. more rigid coursework than other programs (4 required courses a semester the first year) which eats into independent work, 3. on a similar note, the scope of language requirements would eat into valuable travel research time the first couple of summers (I'll need to pick up three languages in house, of various relevance to my pitched project), and 4. while coursework has flexibility, a good chunk is dedicated to language and literature.
The big question though—is area studies that big of a sinker for marketability to history departments?
