MrArl

Thanks very much for the insight, itsevolutionbaby! It's been very tough to get perspective on the value of a UK PhD in the US these days. In floating these options to historians and other professors, I've heard numerous statements as to the decline in quality in UK universities (from budget cuts and slow modernization), and humanities scholarship in particular. It's nice to hear that this isn't the only opinion... A major concern, beyond the value issue (and a slight fear of the imminent collapse of British academia, thanks profs), is the lack of professional training in the UK. I feel I'm a somewhat competent researcher, but I'm a far cry from anything approaching a professional historian. The LSE IH department has something of a methods training plan for new entrants (1 term of 3hr/week seminars on research methods and a couple of UofL-wide courses), but it is no where near as rigorous/extensive as in the US. I'm just not sure I'm equipped to have a archival research-based chapter of the dissertation completed at the end of the first 8mos.

A quick solicitation of opinion as I make a final decision between these two schools. I was accepted to an international studies MA program at Stanford and the PhD program in International History at the LSE. Originally, I was selected for the PhD studentship at the LSE (full tuition+stipend for up to 4yrs), and received no funding from Stanford. However, a week ago I received an email from Stanford offering a first-year full tuition fellowship, and RA/TAship to cover costs in the second year. I had just about made up my mind on LSE (financial reasons were very important), but now--great problem to have--I am torn. I would love to keep academia open as an option during/after my degree, but I am realistic as to the miniscule prospects provided in the field by a PhD from the UK--particularly a non-Oxbridge PhD. That said, I've been told the LSE PhD is a useful professional credential, and at the end of the day, it is a PhD (even if a UK PhD-light) not an MA. Yet Stanford, is, well, Stanford. The program is interdisciplinary, with flexibility to take courses across the University, including in the History department. ~30% of graduates continue on to a PhD (Econ, PoliSci or History) at Stanford or peer institutions. I also already have a one-year UK masters in a related field studied on a fellowship immediately post-undergraduate, which adds to my hesitation to go for "just" another MA. So, as decisions must be made soon, I guess I'm just soliciting any opinions, particularly any that can offer more insight into the reputation/value of the LSE International History department and the value of going for an MA at a prestigious university with a sub-50% rate of placement in PhDs. Thanks!

Jahiliyya, You'll probably have better luck with such a question over on the Political Science board; I imagine folks that frequent that board would be much better informed about the argument than those of us in (or aspiring to be) the History field. That being said, I had a similar struggle as I neared the end of undergrad. As a History/IR dual-major, I had always been most comfortable in History and almost solely utilized qualitative methods in my IR work. Yet I always fretted about the "usefulness" and "marketability" of History as a specialty, so I forced myself to gravitate toward IR, pursuing honors in that discipline and eventually going on to a Masters in the UK (which, luckily for me, was much more forgiving of my qualitative proclivity than a US polisci department would have been). I contemplated going straight on to a PhD program in PoliSci, but decided to try my hand in the policy world before, which I am very glad I did. Several years of working in the national security/foreign policy field in DC and abroad (including a civilian deployment to Afghanistan) sharpened my desire to return to academic study, but also confirmed for me what I had been struggling against since undergrad. Academically, in terms of both subject matter and methodology, I am much more comfortable in History than PoliSci; now, having embraced that, I'm looking forward to entering a PhD program in History (assuming acceptance, of course!) and dedicating myself to its study. All of that was the long way of saying perhaps your best bet is to delay applying for and entering graduate school for a few years. Maintain good relationships with your potential recommenders and keep up with the literature in your field, but go work in the field that you think you'd like to. You may find that you dislike it, or that you'd prefer academia; alternatively, you may find that you love it, and you don't need to spend 5 years in a PhD program to get ahead in the field. If there's anything I learned about the security/foreign policy field is that there is no single way to succeed in it. One person may have used a PhD to launch their career, while another leveraged their personal relationships to springboard into their dream position. Alternatively, you could pursue a Masters or PhD in a less-academic but related field such as Public Policy or Public Affairs, both of which average roughly 3-4 years to PhD completion. They require significant quantitative skill and study (most require multivariable calc completed as of application), and while original research for the dissertation is necessary, they are geared toward policymakers rather than academics, thus the shorter timeframe. My advice: take some time. Graduate school will still be there.

Hello all, I thought I would throw this out to the group, because I haven't really found a good answer on my own. I've been talking to several friends who have recently (and successfully) completed PhD applications. While they all are in the social sciences (PoliSci, Econ) or hard sciences (Chemistry, Physics) rather than History, one of the recommendations they had was to make sure I apply for external fellowships simultaneously as I apply for PhD programs. Essentially, applying for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and at least one or two other awards, despite the very small chance of success (something less than 5% for NSF), is a necessary box to check to show your "seriousness" as an applicant. As I noted, I haven't seen anything that indicates this is the case for History, but I thought I would ask. Should a "serious" History PhD applicant be simultaneously applying for fellowships? If so, any suggestions of which to pursue, or a place to find a list of them? Thanks for your help, and please forgive my ignorance of the process!