jamc8383

Hey all- Longtime lurker and future Fall 2013 phD applicant. Czesc, I might encourage you to take a graduate history course this spring (registrations will be available soon for most universities that operate on semesters) and then, following your undoubtedly stellar performance, request an LOR from that professor. It would be a strong recommendation because they could attest to your abilities to function on the history graduate level. Most universities have some sort of "extended learning" type program that allows students that are not officially enrolled to take classes (in many cases credit can be applied to a degree later: this would be particularly spectacular if you took a course at one of the universities to which you hope to apply). I did something very similar to this on the MA level a couple of years ago. And, of course, most graduate seminars are held in the evening and could therefore accommodate your full time work schedule. I don't know if this is helpful at all, but thought I'd chime in. Applying to: U of Chicago, UPenn, Yale, UBC, Toronto, and Madison-Wisc for Modern European urban history

I have to rely on federal loans and a part time work to finance my MA. During my first semester I was doing about 24-30 hours a week of retail, my second semester I was doing 12 hrs/wk as a tutor on campus and 12 hrs/wk in retail. This third semester I'll be moving into balancing two university jobs for a combined total of 24 hrs/wk. I've intentionally balanced my course load to make this possible. Each semester consists of one upper division course, one graduate seminar and one language course. The program will take me a little longer, but I can dedicate the appropriate amount of time and energy to my coursework. Additionally, I have two colleagues working full-time and doing an MA. They each take no more than two courses/semester. Most of us need to work while pursuing our masters degrees, you just have to make sure that your work isn't so time consuming that your grades suffer. Hope that helps.

Sorry, a little tardy on catching this one. I have actually been in this exact position. I did my undergraduate work in International Business and Italian, had been doing "real work" for about 6 years and, having gone to a huge university, had zero reliable academic references to call on. Definitely an MA program is the way to go. Instead of applying to the program outright I enrolled in an area university's "extended learning" program which allowed me to take upper division history courses, prove myself in the classroom and work with some great professors in the field that could then write LORs when I applied officially to the MA program. Most universities have this kind of program in which you can just take some courses without actually being admitted to the university. It was exactly what I needed to get my foot in the door. I took a couple semesters of classes while working full-time and then applied and was accepted to the masters program. Next year I'm applying for phD programs. What's important is not to think of the time doing the MA as lost time. Many phD programs will excuse a year of coursework if you have an MA and for me (and probably you) with no prior background in the study of history, it's allowed me to develop some killer writing samples, secure some amazing recommendations, and generally make myself a more desirable candidate for phD programs. Hope this helps!

One of the colleagues in my history MA program just got into the prestigious University of Chicago Phd program and he had below a 3.00 as an undergrad. Speaking with other grads and admissions people, it seems like letters of recommendation and writing sample are the big sells. It's also my understanding that GRE scores don't necessarily help you but they can hurt you.

All valid questions. As an graduate student in the SFSU history program I would say the following... -SFSU is the #1 feeder of History MA's into phD programs (no question, many students have gone on to very prestigious institutions). That being said, the MA is not the best option for everyone. As my colleague has pointed out, not all phD programs give you credit for the MA (though certainly some will allow you to bypass a year of coursework). The one advantage is that it gives you time to really develop your C.V. in order to become a more attractive applicant for phD programs. There are many opportunities to participate in conferences, get published in/be on the editorial board of the history journal, and because not everyone is looking to move into phD programs, it's often quite easy to add a few executive officer positions to your list of accomplishments. In terms of funding, CSU's are broke. The only funding is through federal student loans, though there are a number of university scholarships that you can apply for to ease the burden (For example: I was awarded a $500 award from the history department and was selected as an 'alternate' for the $1500 university Alumni Association scholarship, so it's definately possible to access some of this stuff). I would say that the program is as rigorous as you make it. I do three courses each semester (one graduate seminar, one upper-division lecture course and a language course). This balance allows me to work two university jobs and serve on three executive boards simultaneously. My program will take more than two years though so it's a trade-off. Based on my experience, and a familiarity with the shortcomings in my own application, I think that as long as you have a strong writing sample and quality letters of recommendation, you should be fine. On a side note: As my focus is Europe after 1500 (specifically France late 19th/early 20th century) Sarah Curtis is my advisor and I find her to be very actively engaged with the graduate students as a whole and always willing to advocate for me personally. She is a great resource.