hopefulJD

Thank you for all the comments so far! I definitely think it's more advantageous to apply after having all master's courses and thesis under your belt, not to mention the strong relationships with advisors and other faculty members. After all, I'm getting the master's to bolster my application considering my below average undergraduate GPA (~3.5) and research experience. English teacher? Retail job? Any kind of job just to get by for a year? These are all things I thought about. But it's reassuring to hear that it is what others do as well. If anyone else has further suggestions, please say so!

It looks like I will have to end up choosing between a one-year fairly prestigious master's program in the UK vs. an average 2-year MA in the US. I'm not really that worried about the level of prestige that either program carries, but rather their length. With the 1-year program in the UK, I'll be applying to PhD programs after I'm done with the program, whereas with the 2-year MA program I'll still be in school while applying for the PhD. I wouldn't mind choosing the 1-year MA but I'm not at all sure what I'd do in that gap year besides apply to Phd programs. Has anyone been in this position? What do gap-year students who are recent graduates of 1-year MA's customarily do? I feel like still being in school and having something to do while applying for the PhD sounds so much better than the uncertainty of the alternative option. But I don't want this to be the sole factor in choosing what route to take, so any help is appreciated!

That's similar to how I'm thinking about it. For fields like historical sociology or political sociology I feel like you could pursue them in sociology, history, or political science departments. Ultimately, however, I do wonder if it makes a difference. I've had history professors research and commentate on recent events who are well-regarded across disciplines. I'm sure there are many such examples across the board in all disciplines.

Gahhh that's what makes it so confusing. What if I don't wanna be bound by these departmental boundaries? Surely I'll have to make a decision at some point. Dreadful!

Very generally speaking, I'm interested in the history of social movements, state-formation, religion and secularism within a specific country. The history department I'll be at for my MA is particularly strong in what I'm interested in. However, I'm just not sure if I'll want to continue on with historical research for the PhD. Wouldn't it make more sense to continue on with a sociology program if I want to do research on contemporary issues that are basically a chronological continuation of my master's research? I also find it very hard to completely separate the fields of history and sociology (and most other social sciences for that matter). Particularly in my case, there is so much overlap it's hard to determine exactly where I belong! But I guess things will make more sense after I begin the MA. I just wanted to make sure the heavenly doors of sociology will remain open to me in case I come a-knockin for the PhD...

That point has been well illustrated, needless to say. It's reassuring to know that I'll at least stand a chance in admissions without a sociology BA or MA. Of course, I may very well decide to continue on to a history program or another related social science but it's good to know that I can keep my options open.

Thank you for all the valuable information! It's certainly reassuring. I guess I should have added that I'm interested in more recent history and not anything like ancient Greece lol Assuming that my research interests and master's thesis has relevance to sociology it doesn't seem like I would be at a major disadvantage without a formal background in sociology. Though I suppose, as felicidad said, I might want to take up coursework in methodology while doing the history MA. I was just worried that not having prior research/coursework in sociology would preclude admission into sociology, even though my research interests might have direct relevance to it.

Hello everyone, I will be starting a master's program in history starting next fall. I have specific research interests going into the program but I'm obviously keeping my options open in case my interests change. I realize it's very premature to even speculate what I might want to focus on for the PhD. Assuming that my research interests evolve into something that aligns more closely with sociology (which is a possibility), I'm wondering if I would have to get a master's degree in sociology before applying to Phd programs. On their websites, a lot of programs specify that a sociology background is not a prerequisite for entry into the program. Given that I would have a limited background in sociology (my undergrad was in another field), I'm wondering if this would put me at a disadvantage. I know I'm looking too far into the future, but I really don't think I would wanna get another master's degree before going for the PhD. Is jumping fields common within the social sciences/humanities? What do you guys think? Thanks!

I'm applying to MA programs in history and I've realized the SOP is a lot more challenging than I thought. The schools I'm applying to want the SOP anywhere between 1500-2000 words, which is at least 5 pages double spaced. After reading posts on here and looking online for advice on how to write an effective SOP, my outline so far looks something like this: I. Personal background/origin of my interest in the field II. Relevant coursework/life experience relating to the field of study/Showing why grad school is the next logical step III. Research interests and faculty I'd like to work with IV. Career goals V. Why that institution is a match for me. While everyone on here has a ton more research experience than I do, I feel like my strengths lie more in my life experiences and personal background. Tying these in to my field of study would definitely make for a more compelling SOP. I'm just not sure if focusing on this is appropriate and how I should present my relative deficiency in research experience without coming off as completely incompetent. With regards to research interests, I also don't know how to mention this without it coming off as too broad/too specific (for example: dissent during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent or sports in the Hamidian era.) I definitely don't know what the topic of my master's thesis would be right now. I have general interests but I'm keeping my options open in case I discover something else I really enjoy. How can I go about writing on my research interests without seeming too confused and unknowledgeable? Does the fact that these are MA programs make a difference? They surely can't expect to know exactly what I want to do, can they? After all, I'm going for the master's first so I can refine my interests and gain research experience.

Good to see others are having the same conversation lol I guess like the one poster said on there, the NRC rankings might be telling in that only the Q score of programs outside the humanities are given. As was said though, this makes sense for sociology, political science and such given the mathematical and statistical research that may need to be done in those fields. I suppose the Q section, though, is only glossed over for humanities.

I realize the general advice is to send one's best writing sample, regardless of whether or not it's directly related to one's research interests as specified in the statement of purpose. But what if, say, my research interests are in South Asian history but my best writing sample is from a history paper on American history? The geographic regions and the time periods are totally different, but both are history papers. Would it still be acceptable to send the paper on American history? I would think that it is but I just wanna have a peace of mind by hearing what others have to say

It seems to me like humanities programs like history and English clearly only care about the verbal score, whereas social sciences like sociology and political science give both sections equal weight. Is this accurate? If so, it does make sense given the focus of each discipline. I only ask because of personal curiosity as my interests lie across multiple disciplines and it might be useful to know how various departments will look at my scores. Not suggesting anyone should choose a discipline to go into based on the strengths of their GRE scores Also, I've searched on these forums regarding how departments deal with multiple scores. Some schools take your highest, while others consider every score. The consensus seems to be that the most recent score is given the most weight, especially if there are multiple years in between the tests. Can anyone provide more insight? When the highest score is taken, is it from your highest in one sitting or highest from each section? Or does this change considerably from place to place as well? I have a feeling that nothing is concrete with grad school apps and everything is up in the air Ugh

It seems to me like humanities programs like history and English clearly only care about the verbal score, whereas social sciences like sociology and political science give both sections equal weight. Is this accurate? If so, it does make sense given the focus of each discipline. I only ask because of personal curiosity as my interests lie across multiple disciplines and it might be useful to know how various departments will look at my scores. Not suggesting anyone should choose a discipline to go into based on the strengths of their GRE scores Also, I've searched on these forums regarding how departments deal with multiple scores. Some schools take your highest, while others consider every score. The consensus seems to be that the most recent score is given the most weight, especially if there are multiple years in between the tests. Can anyone provide more insight? When the highest score is taken, is it from your highest in one sitting or highest from each section? Or does this change considerably from place to place as well? I have a feeling that nothing is concrete with grad school apps and everything is up in the air Ugh

I do have a general idea of the time period and subject I want to focus on. I am fluent in Arabic and Persian and would like to work on my Turkish as my area of interest lies mostly within the Arabs under the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Based on my research online, the University of Chicago, Harvard, the University of Arizona, the University of Utah, the University of Washington, and the University of Michigan have notable faculty members for Turkish/Ottoman studies. Do you know of any I've overlooked? All of these departments offer a PhD in addition to an MA so there may be schools that only offer a terminal Master's degree I may have not looked at.

Doxie-chan, Thank you for the advice! After giving it further thought, I have, in fact, come to that same conclusion. I don't think I'm ready for a PhD program yet. I need to hone my research interests and get used to writing graduate school style papers, instead of law school. I just hope it pays off!