kahlan_amnell

There is almost nothing you can do with an MA in History without a Ph.D. also.  Unless you want to go into public History, then you can find jobs with an MA.  Public History is about the only History field that has much in the way of jobs, the rest of the field suffers from the same problems that most liberal arts fields do in terms of oversupply of Ph.D.s and not enough jobs for them let alone people with just MAs.

There is almost nothing you can do with an MA in History without a Ph.D. also.  Unless you want to go into public History, then you can find jobs with an MA.  Public History is about the only History field that has much in the way of jobs, the rest of the field suffers from the same problems that most liberal arts fields do in terms of oversupply of Ph.D.s and not enough jobs for them let alone people with just MAs.

There is almost nothing you can do with an MA in History without a Ph.D. also.  Unless you want to go into public History, then you can find jobs with an MA.  Public History is about the only History field that has much in the way of jobs, the rest of the field suffers from the same problems that most liberal arts fields do in terms of oversupply of Ph.D.s and not enough jobs for them let alone people with just MAs.

There is almost nothing you can do with an MA in History without a Ph.D. also.  Unless you want to go into public History, then you can find jobs with an MA.  Public History is about the only History field that has much in the way of jobs, the rest of the field suffers from the same problems that most liberal arts fields do in terms of oversupply of Ph.D.s and not enough jobs for them let alone people with just MAs.

To find a place to live, first check if the school has a website with information about off campus housing. They might have ads, or a list of apartment complexes, or other similar usefull things.

As for finding a roomate, I have avoided roomates in grad school. I've had such bad luck with the roomates I had in college that I didn't want to go through the hassle. You might want to consider if having a roomate is really worth it to you cost wise considering the possible annoyance and distraction.

That too is somewhat less than reliable, at least with it's overall "walkablity" score. It rated two different addresses in the same town quite differently, despite the fact they were equally walkable. It said that the town was "car dependent" when I just entered the town name and state, but when I added a street number it said it was "somewhat walkable". Also, the distances listed to various things like supermarkets, bars, etc seemed to pick a random example from each category. I can honestly say I've never heard of some of the ones they selected for my town, and there are closer ones than the ones they listed.

The "walkablity" of a town really depends on how far you're willing to walk. A town could be less walkable if it lacked sidewalks in places, like the area I live in now. I'd say the best way to find out if you need a car in an area is to see how far it is to the things you need, like grocery stores, and determine if you'd want to walk that far. Also, check for buses and see if they go where you want to go at useful times. You should also take weather into account. Will you want to walk the distance to campus if it's snowing, raining, below zero, or over a hundred? Are area you'd be walking lighted enough that you'd feel safe walking at night? If they aren't lighted, would you feel safe enough if you just had a flashlight or headlamp? Some of these things can't really be determined from a distance.

My opinion is that you can walk just about anywhere, some places are just friendlier than others for walkers. I live in a place that most people say it's impossible to get by without a car. Yet I don't have one, and I do just fine.

I'm headed to Pullman at the end of the month to look at apartments, I'll post about what I find in case it would be helpful. I'm looking for the same sort of apartment that you are, pet friendly (for 2 cats), one bedroom, safe, near a bus route and quiet.

I've seen apartments with no kitchen, just a hot plate and a mini fridge. You don't want to go there. But I too assume what you actually mean is that there is no dining room, which, meh.

I'm sorry but what you said there came off as really insensitive.

Being in a relationship is about supporting each other. So you significant other had a bad day and didn't get what he said he was was going to done. This happens. You should support him, assuming that he does the same when you've had a bad day. You're both under a lot of stress and are going to need to be patient and supportive.

I'm sorry but what you said there came off as really insensitive.

Being in a relationship is about supporting each other. So you significant other had a bad day and didn't get what he said he was was going to done. This happens. You should support him, assuming that he does the same when you've had a bad day. You're both under a lot of stress and are going to need to be patient and supportive.

JustChill, another thing to think about: from what I understand, a lot of schools won't take class credits from other schools. So it will probably take you 5 years from the time you get your M.A. to finish your PhD, because you'll have another couple of years of classes before you can write your dissertation. If you don't mind staying in school that long, that's fine, but if you're eager to get out into the workforce you might not want to split the M.A. from the Ph.D.

Can I offer a perspective here? I am at Michigan for my interdisciplinary MA. Guess what? I got rejected for the History PhD program. REJECTED. This is just a proof that there's no guarantee of obtaining a MA from a top-10 school will guarantee admissions into another top 10 school (even though Michigan is the only top 10 on my list). I do think it's more of rolling the dice on my application not that I had a serious fault on my application.

I agree with some of the above posters. Take a good hard look at yourself. Is it because you're coming from Penn that you feel that you cannot accept anything less than a top 10 or Ivy League? Is that the kind of person you want to be? You don't have to lower your standards but be MORE realistic as StrangeLight pointed out- anything in top 20 is really just fine.

Also given the economic conditions, do you really want to re-apply in two years and take the chance of rolling the dice?

This could be a bird in hand situation--just remember, getting into PhD programs is such a crap shoot that there are no guarantees that an MA from Harvard will improve your future school--unless, of course, getting the MA will drastically improve your application in a year or two. Keep in mind too whether the MA is a one or two year program. If it's a one year, and you want to enter a doctoral program the fall after you complete the degree, you'll have to apply after only a half-semester of course work. Even if it's two years, that gives you only one year to impress and get new references.

I'd also like to voice my solidarity with those here who discount the notion that a non-top-ten program will hinder your future. [Though they may have some merit--see good articles about this at the AHA website-- USNWR rankings tend to be widely distrusted by those who actually know things about the internal workings of departments. And, if you are going to go by them at all, the sub-field rankings are probably much more helpful because that's what people care about. If your institution is highly ranked overall, but terrible in your field, rankings don't really matter. At least that's my take. Others?] Firstly, while nothing is guaranteed, there's a litany of people at elite places with degrees from non-top-ten, yet very solid programs. Yale and Brown, for instance, each have young faculty members (earned PhD's in the last decade) from places like UC Davis, UNC, UVA, and the like. More importantly, though, is what your placement goals are for the future. People forget that there is an incredible range of universities in this country between Ivies and schools no one has heard of (which may well be quite lovely places to work at!). Do you anticipate wanting to research or teach more? Or both? Do you want to be at a large state school, a regional private school, a liberal arts school? Perhaps you don't want to be in a high pressure or super competitive place, or want to work relatively normal hours. For those of us in the academic bubble, it's incredibly easy to think that good educational experiences exist only for the tiny percentage of people at the nation's elite universities. And if you admit to yourself that the chances of being an earth shattering academic and piling up awards is quite slim, then you can relax and go about the business of being a decent human being who happens to work as a historian for a living.

It so happens that I recently completed a masters degree at an Ivy, but received rather different advice from my professors--they all encouraged everyone in my cohort to apply to a range of places based on fit, beyond the ivies. From speaking with professors and friends at several universities, my assessment (and it may well be incorrect) is this: An ivy league degree will get your job application looked at. And yes, some schools out there will prefer the ivy/top-ten candidate because the name seemingly enhances the stature of their program to outsiders. But at the end of the day, it comes down to your work. While equal candidates from top-ten and non-top-ten places may not get the same first jobs, I'd say that, much like in undergraduate, though more people from top-ten places may get jobs in a given cycle, top students at non-top-ten schools will get jobs as well. So basically, at the end of the day, go to a school with a good fit, where you'll be well trained, and stand out.

Are you kidding?

Take a funded PhD. I know it may be shocking, but people that didn't go to a top-10 still manage to find a job after grad school. If either of the PhD programs you've been accepted to are a good fit for your research, go to one of them. Plus, if you're so concerned about the status or rank of the school you'll attend, one of your acceptances still comes from a "public ivy".

I agree. If you can financially swing it, by all means go to Harvard.

Honestly, there should be no real rush to get the PhD just to find yourself in a spotty job market with a degree from a non top-ten program.

Are there positions for those with a PhD from non top-ten programs? Sure, but nothing fantastic. All of the profs here at UPenn have said that if you don't get your PhD from a top-ten school, don't waste the time. That even though there are great programs out there that are not top-ranked, and that offer great funding their graduates have a very difficult time getting a tenure-track position.

Remember... every year, every single year, each top-ten program puts out say 6-8 fresh PhDs. Now... say of those near 80 graduates, most will be looking for work in academia. At least 75 of those 80. So... when you're applying for a tenure-track position somewhere not only are there those 75 new "top graduates" on the market, plus top-ten graduates that have been teaching somewhere for a few years and are still not in a tenure-track position, plus those from your lower ranked school that have been out there gaining experience, beefing up their cv.... Oh, and then you and all the graduates from the lower tiers that are new.

Look... It would be great if these rankings were meaningless, if having an Ivy PhD was equal to one from the University of North Dakota (not a real school), but it's not. Where you get your PhD from is everything. Do not listen to people who say "oh, it's all about fit, and where it 'feels' right." IT IS NOT!!

It is a lie that we all say to ourselves to justify the fact that we're not a part of the 3% of the applicants who were accepted into a PhD program at Harvard, Stanford, etc,... Obviously there are always exceptions, and I'm sure that someone who reads this and is all upset can find half a dozen or so examples of profs at top-ten schools that didn't get their PhD from a top-ten. So what?!? These are most likely extremely brilliant academics who would have succeeded no matter where they went.


Whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not, this is the state of America today: Rank matters, prestige matters, pedigree matters, bigger is better.

We all want to have a PhD from Harvard, Princeton or Yale. And so does every university when they're reviewing applicants for that new tenure-track position.



Step back a second and look at the question that you're asking.... Your asking: "Should I go to Harvard, or a non-top ten school?"





Also.... in 10 years what are your possible situations. I mean in either case you should have a PhD. So...



Situation 1: You've gone to the non top-ten school and received a PhD.

Situation 2: You've gone to Harvard, received a MA, and received a PhD from (most-likely) a higher ranked school.




In both situations, you may or may not have a job. Ask yourself which one seems more likely for you to have a tenure-track job though.

As far as I can see it, the only thing really pushing for the benefits of situation 1 is to shave off two years. Honestly ask yourself: "what is better in the long run?"


If the financial means are there, in my opinion, there is no debate.

Good luck though, and congrats on all the offers too by the way!!!

That's a rather interesting stereotype you're promoting there. I'm female, but I'd rather the nice bottle of alcohol, unless the person happened to hit on one of the the kinds of wine I like.

I agree that:

1. wine vs. liquor by gender is...disconcerting
2. liquor, at all, is a bit much -- how do you know the person isn't in recovery? devout? will think you are trying to poison them to take their spot?
3. A CD is wayyyy too John Hughes for me. People still have CDs even?

I think a nice, sincere thank you note or email is sufficient BUT if I were to give a gift I love the bookmark idea. Also maybe a small bag of coffee or tea or something so milquetoast as to be impossible to offend. Or, while you are there pay attention to them and see if there is a small thing they seem to like. If it's not sincere -- whether a note or a gift -- and doesn't show some thoughtfulness I say you are safer not saying or giving it.

I guess everyone thinks waiting to get acceptances is the best choice then. I know what you mean about it being tough and completely respect your decisions with your fiance, kahlan_amnell. I had a long distance relationship with my husband (boyfriend at that point) back in undergrad and really didn't like the experience. We both decided that it's not the best option for us at this point in our lives. I also know what you mean about safety schools, but we purposely applied to *really* crappy ones. I'd be surprised if I didn't get accepted because I am a woman applying to a science field with a really good gpa, 2 related bachelor's degrees, and a very high math score on the GRE. My only disadvantages are lack of research experience (I have a ton of teaching experience, though) and the fact that my undergraduate institution could have been better. These credentials should get me into schools ranked 200 on the list, though. Sigh. Not much hope for the better ones, though.

strokeofmidnight, that's a good point. I didn't think of waiting a year to reapply. Might I ask how you guys are surviving, money-wise? Are you working while he's in school?


Just an update: I got acceptances to two schools today. They were two safety schools (very poorly ranked), so I was expecting to get in. My husband didn't hear from them yet. I'm also going to two interviews in the coming week and managed to get his name on their radar, so he got invited to get interviewed too. One of those schools is pretty good, so interviews there are already a good sign. He had a phone interview with a professor who was ready to give him an offer. I, on the other hand, am terrible at interviews, so I'm pretty nervous. I'm sitting here studying the professors and learning their names and faces. I want this whole thing to be over.

good luck to both of you! Thanks for your advice.

My fiercely pro-natal mother loves to make the Down's Syndrome argument re: waiting to have kids. And I love to counter her with the "prevention paradox" argument--even though women over 40 are at highest risk for giving birth to babies with Down's Syndrome, most babies born with Down's Syndrome are born to women under 30, because those women are the ones having the most babies. I was tempted to link to the all the peer-reviewed scientific blah blah articles on the Down's Syndrome prevention paradox, but I thought that might be taking it too far (if you're truly interested you can just google "prevention paradox Down's Syndrome" and find the relevant info; most of the articles in the hits do not require remote access to read ) I'm not trying to dismember anyone here, I'm just saying that there are biological threats to your potential baby's health no matter what age you are when you conceive. Environmental and situational factors may be more within the realm of someone's control, and for many that may mean waiting to have kids until they are good and ready (emotionally, financially, etc.).

I'm just remembering the way I took care of myself (or DIDN'T take care of myself) during UG...and I'd think that a baby born to a 30+-year-old woman who is actually mindful of her physical health and lifestyle would be better off, physically and developmentally, than a baby born to a 20-year-old malnourished, pill-popping mess. Most people aren't a complete mess when they're 20, but I just think that context is key.

Obviously, we are speaking from vastly different experiences, both of which are valid. I believe in a woman's right to have control over her body, and make the choices she feels are best. I decided to have my son while I was still in college because I was in a committed relationship and always knew I wanted kids. I may face different dilemmas than older moms, but they are certainly not worse ones, overall. There are both old and young parents who are irresponsible and immature; actual age has little to do with readiness.

What concerns me is not any one woman's decision, but the overall trend toward delayed parenting. That being said, I wish you the best when/if you decide to conceive (you are still relatively young and I think it was smart to freeze your eggs).


Here are some links regarding other problems that older mothers and their babies may have, beyond Down's Syndrome:

A summary of outcomes of advanced maternal age in Canada:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174987/

A new study that suggests a greater risk of autism in children of older parents:
http://www.dor.kaiser.org/external/DORExternal/news/press_releases/press_release.aspx?id=3264

A March of Dimes summary of all the possible complications for each age group of mothers:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp

Results out of Australia concerning the effect of advanced paternal age on a child's neurological performance:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000040

Why? Because young parents don't have the money/cars/house to create a "stable life?" It could be argued that older parents are so out of touch with their children's realities and so concerned with competing in the perfect-parent realm that they are actually the psychologically unstable ones. Not to mention their resentment for having to put their lives on hold after years of career-related success.

Also, it's simply a fact that older parents more often produce children with chronic health issues (everything from asthma to Down's Syndrome) than younger parents. Your comment about psychological well-being is just an opinion, and varies depending on a variety of factors.

But to reiterate my comment, I do not believe that anyone can impose a certain time that is right for everyone to have children. I agree with you that it is a woman's choice. I just think it's sad that we're not considering the ramifications re: long-term quality of life of the next generation. This is partly because women are now expected to be and do everything, and it's no longer acceptable to just choose the career or the family. No choice a woman makes is easy, because she is disproportionately affected by its outcome. It is very easy for a man to make a choice regarding family and run away from its consequences. Biology or social conditions? You tell me.

While the "right time" to have kids is certainly not the same for everyone, I hate that these discussions (and studies about fertility) rarely factor in the health of the children we are producing. Entering a pregnancy after 35 years of age is very risky in so many ways. This, combined with my observation that older parents tend to be busier parents, which leads to lower breastfeeding rates (since breastfeeding requires the mother's presence or dedicated pumping) and thus makes kids more susceptible to all kinds of colds and illnesses, solidifies my goal of being done with the baby phase by the time I'm 30. Yes, you may still have eggs then, but they are not the healthiest ones.

I am 23 and have a 2-year-old son (had him in my last year of UG) and want 3 or 4 more. I've applied to PhD programs for this fall, and my number one priority is not to make my life as a parent easiest, but to make sure my kids are healthy. It is a modern conundrum for women to worry about what age is best for having children. In the end, it's a luxurious choice, given the accessibility of birth control in the Western world. Still, we have to consider what we are doing to ourselves and future generations by staying on synthetic hormones for decades and then giving birth to vulnerable children at an age when we are already exhausted.

That's a rather interesting stereotype you're promoting there. I'm female, but I'd rather the nice bottle of alcohol, unless the person happened to hit on one of the the kinds of wine I like.

That's a rather interesting stereotype you're promoting there. I'm female, but I'd rather the nice bottle of alcohol, unless the person happened to hit on one of the the kinds of wine I like.

Oh, for God's sake. Nothing like more decontextualized pop science tossed out by the media to strike fear and panic in our hearts. As if women don't have enough on their minds while they're trying to put their lives together. The news blurb doesn't mention at all how many eggs a woman has to begin with and how many eggs she actually pops out during her lifetime. I had always heard that a woman is born with TONS and TONS of eggs that she'll never ever use up during all her lifetime of menstruating. Am I mistaken about that? I just feel like that interview was organized by the Grandmothers in Defense of Selfless Motherhood and the Cult of Domesticity Coalition.

I'm not denying biology or saying I agree that it's perfectly fine to wait until you're 40 to try to get pregnant, I'm just saying I think that news report was totally incomplete. And the piece about telling women to lose weight--lose weight if you're obese, fine, but to make a brief blanket statement that you should lose weight to increase fertility....if I were one of the people who worked on the featured study, I would be super pissed that Good Morning America would make such a mockery out of it.

For the record, I have heard professorial testimony that it's logistically easier to have kids during, rather than after grad school. Since having kids isn't one of my big priorities in life, I don't have many of my own thoughts to comment on the issue other than I think it's way too easy to skew such discussions with personal ideology.