Harvard MA vs fully-funded PhD

[JustChill]

Hi guys,

I'm sorry to post this when I know there are still some people who haven't received positive news, but I could use some advice.

I've been very fortunate to be accepted into two fully-funded history PhD programs at a "public ivy" and a well known, Catholic university. Both have good faculty in my area and both are recruiting me actively. However, I have also been accepted into an area studies MA program at Harvard with partial funding. Now, my problem is that a history PhD is my ultimate goal, but neither of my two PhD offers are from top-10 programs. Many people are telling me that if I go to the Harvard program now and reapply to PhD programs in two years, I should be able to get in to at least one or two top-10 programs. Harvard is offering me roughly 1/3 tuition grant, which isn't much compared to my pretty nice stipend offers, but of course it's Harvard.

So, what would you guys advise?

Edited March 6, 2010 by JustChill

[breakfast]

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".

Edited March 6, 2010 by breakfast

[ChibaCityBlues]

If you can keep your level of debt (including that accrued during undergrad) to below $20K or so after two years at Harvard, then I'd say go for it.

[Septimius]

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!!!

[Sparky]

Okay, but all of this about jobs assumes you will get into a top 10 school if you apply in two years with a Harvard MA. Looking at the track record of that program's graduates, how will it help your application? Do the area studies MA grads go on to "higher-ranked" PhD programs than the two where you currently have full funding?

What will the MA do to enhance your application? Or to put it another way, do you know why you were rejected from your top choices? Was it because your application is lacking an essential component that you could fill in via an MA (language, exposure to various methodologies, etc)? Or was it simply a matter of "Wow, these five people are all really fabulous and we can only accept one. Let's roll dice"? If it's simply a numbers game, how confident are you that you will be able to win it next time? (Who are "many people"? Are they on adcomms at any top 10 schools?)

Also, you are aware that UNC is just barely out of the "top 10", right? (I'm sure you are, but still. Seriously.)

[StrangeLight]

uhhhhh...

an MA from harvard doesn't guarantee you a PhD acceptance from an ivy league or top 10 program. and what sort of "public ivy" are we talking here? michigan? wisconsin? berkeley? UNC? if it's one of those, or of similar stature, take the PhD offer.

follow. the. money. contrary to the above poster's assertion, it is VERY possible to get a tenure-track job at a research institution where you will be advising graduate students without coming from a top-10 school. every graduating PhD from my program this year has secured a tenure-track job offer from well-known schools with graduate programs. one of them has three tenure-track offers to choose from, and if he picks prestige over sunshine, he'll be advising at a top-20 overall (top-10 in certain fields) graduate program. he's probably the only person in the country that can say he's turning down two tenure-track job offers and he's not coming from an ivy or a top-10 whatever.

follow the money. you shouldn't go into a program without a fellowship, let alone without full funding.

edit:

also, the distinction between a #9 school and a #14 school is absolutely meaningless. the USNWR rankings are meaningless. YES the prestige of the school matters (but not as much as some people here maintain). YES it is important that your school is known as a place where top students go to study X. but HELL NO is there any real difference between #7 and #16.

"fit" matters only in terms of getting an acceptance. the job prospects depend heavily on 1) your primary advisor's connections and reputation, and 2) on the quality of your research. you can get a great advisor and do excellent research outside the top 10 and you can get an unknown advisor and do poor work at the #1 ranked program. this whole idea that "harvard" means more than "UNC" or "michigan" does is really an undergraduate mentality.

Edited March 7, 2010 by StrangeLight

[dflanagan]

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!!!

This is my reading. You did your undergraduate work at an Ivy (UPenn), then didn't get into a top 10 history program. That happens, the process is a crap shoot. However, you seem to have the idee fixe that an ivy league degree (such as an area studies MA) will not only ensure your admission to a top ten program, but will be worth the 30-70,000 dollars borrowed to earn it. My advisor, a distinguished older historian of France, once told me that "the MA isn't worth a hill of beans" and all of my advisors and friends with PHD's at my top-15 LAC have told me never to borrow money for graduate school, because academic employment doesn't pay well.

I have a similar offer to the one that the OP has, a 1/3 tuition scholarship for a non-history MA (area studies isn't precisely history) at the University of Chicago. A 1/3 tuition scholarship from a top-5 university is a lure, not really a compliment. If they really wanted you, they could fund you adequately. MA's are a source of income for graduate schools, and in many cases the revenue from MA students funds PHD students. In addition, the Chicago program in question sent all of the history students who attended on to fully funded PHD's this year. However, out of the seven, one got into Oxford, one into Chicago's own program, one into an Ivy, and the other four got into programs that are ranked at the same level or below the level of Brandeis, my one funded PHD offer. Common sense says that there is absolutely no guarantee that my Chicago MA would get me a top-10 or even a top-25 phd. For my own part, I will be going with the recommendation of all of my (non-Ivy league but still pretty prestigious and Ivy league educated) faculty and attending a program at which I can receive funding and a living stipend that shows that the program actually supports my work, rather than giving my money to the University of Chicago (or Harvard) because its name. Best of luck to all, and if OP feels like it's possible to afford this MA without having to be paying for it ten years from now or more, then sure. But if you have a funded offer from a top school, going to a Harvard MA won't guarantee you any return on your investment. Just my two cents.

[downcasteyes]

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.

[Septimius]

This is my reading. You did your undergraduate work at an Ivy (UPenn), then didn't get into a top 10 history program. That happens, the process is a crap shoot. However, you seem to have the idee fixe that an ivy league degree (such as an area studies MA) will not only ensure your admission to a top ten program, but will be worth the 30-70,000 dollars borrowed to earn it. My advisor, a distinguished older historian of France, once told me that "the MA isn't worth a hill of beans" and all of my advisors and friends with PHD's at my top-15 LAC have told me never to borrow money for graduate school, because academic employment doesn't pay well.

Yes I am currently at UPenn, but I did my undergraduate work at a large, insignificant state school. I am here at UPenn enrolled in a post-bac program to beef-up my ancient language skills.

That being said I also have not applied to any Ivies for a PhD and am instead going for a MA first (although I did toss my name in the hat for UNC and was waitlisted) The MA programs in classics that I applied to are all fully-funded programs (for whatever reason very few, if any history MAs are fully-funded)

Now, here at UPenn, the post-bac directors hold bi-weekly meetings for the group of us post-bacs, and have a different faculty member speaking each meeting. The faculty that speak here also are all on the admissions committee here so the points that they make are extremely valid, and sound.

According to the adcomms here at UPenn, nearly 80% of all accepted PhD applicants had a MA degree first. We were advised to achieve a MA first because:

1. The obvious fact that you have a higher degree than most other prospectives.

2. It shows that you are capable of strong graduate-level work.

3. Your odds are better for getting into a top-program, because:

------a. Most likely your GRE scores will be higher after 2 years of graduate work.

------b. Most likely your new writing sample will be stronger, and more polished than prior.

------c. Your recommendations are commenting on your graduate-level performance.

------d. Your SOP will show a more dynamic and further honed applicant.

------e. You will have more opportunity to further your language skills.

------f. You will most likely have had TA experience.

------g. You might have had the opportunity to speak at conferences.

------h. Maybe, you would have an article published. (wishful thinking most likely)

4. The simple fact that you have another degree, that you are going through the "cursus honorum" so-to-speak.

Now, obviously to have a MA will not guarantee anything. To think this is foolish. But, it will definitely not "hurt" your chances at getting into a better program. For all the reasons above you would definitely be a better applicant.

Also, as I said before, there are always exceptions, and there are great programs out there that are not Ivies or par-Ivies. But... It is very foolish to think that the prestige of your school is not VERY persuasive when in the job market in academia. Of course you have to be able to meet the expectations of that top-tier program on other parts of your cv other than the name of where you came from, but many times for new graduates the largest factor that really pushes you to the short list of possibles is the reputation of your program that you have just graduated from.

I realize that other factors exist, and that it is not "all" about where you came from, but for new graduates it is 80-90% "where" you came from.

I don't know anything in particular about the MA at Harvard that you are referring to, but I would assume that you applied to that program since either an adviser at your current school recommended it, or you have thoroughly examined it and determined that it is a good next step.

Again... If money permits, and the program is designed to be a benefit to you, by all means do it. In your case to that list of "why get a MA first" add this one: your new recommenders will be profs from Harvard, and most likely well-connected.

Good Luck!

Edited March 7, 2010 by Septimius

[TMP]

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?

[Septimius]

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?

I think that we both were replying at the same time, and I finished first. But, to reiterate, I am not a UPenn undergrad, but a post-bac (please see the post just before yours )

Also.... to JustChill: I assume that you would like the schools that have accepted you to be anonymous, but perhaps if you shared them, it would be easier for those of us here to give better assistance. For example, if one of those "public ivies" that accepted you was UC-Berkeley this greatly changes my advice here at least...

[eurocentric]

Decisions decisions.... This is a tough call here, but if you already were accepted to top public-ivies now, imagine how good it would be after a MA.

That being said, what school is your "dream school?" And while it is painful to say publicly, and you very well may be a private person, what ones turned you down? This is helpful since if you only applied to say, Stanford, who knows what say Yale would have said. Also... try to contact the DGS at denied schools and see if they can give you any indication of where a weakness lies, and most important: is this weakness something that the Harvard MA can remedy?

[chickadee21]

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.

[TMP]

I think that we both were replying at the same time, and I finished first. But, to reiterate, I am not a UPenn undergrad, but a post-bac (please see the post just before yours )

OOps! Sorry I misread your first post!

Either way, JustChill, unless you truly come from no-name school, think about my advice.

[JustChill]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.

Look, I'm not one of those people who claim that if you don't get a degree from HYPS you're shit out of luck. My undergrad was a large state school with decent, but not renowned reputation. There are exceptions to everything -- of course there are people at Yale and Brown with PhD's from non-20 programs, and of course there are mostly top-10 PhD's at the top departments.

I should have mentioned that one of my undergrad majors was this exact area studies. The reason I applied for the MA as well as the PhD is that I felt that if I were to go for the MA first, it would only make me a better scholar of this country, as it would allow me to study it beyond the historical lens. I am not thinking about it as much because it's Harvard and it would bolster my CV (but I would be full of crap if I said that I don't think about this at all), but rather because I felt that it could possibly give me some understanding of this country from a different perspective. This program is directly related to my history interests, so it's not a MAPSS-like generic program (I don't mean this in the negative sense).

The other thing is that those two PhD offers I have are very good departments with great faculty in my field, but their interests are not really aligned with my own. The professor at the public ivy, for instance, doesn't even work on the same century as I'm interested in, and not a single one of his current students is working on anything even remotely similar to what I want to do. That is why I feel kind of strange that they've been recruiting me so much, because I keep feeling that I would not fit in well with the cohort. I don't want to be the only one doing my century, while the whole department is doing another.

[Noodles]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.

Look, I'm not one of those people who claim that if you don't get a degree from HYPS you're shit out of luck. My undergrad was a large state school with decent, but not renowned reputation. There are exceptions to everything -- of course there are people at Yale and Brown with PhD's from non-20 programs, and of course there are mostly top-10 PhD's at the top departments.

I should have mentioned that one of my undergrad majors was this exact area studies. The reason I applied for the MA as well as the PhD is that I felt that if I were to go for the MA first, it would only make me a better scholar of this country, as it would allow me to study it beyond the historical lens. I am not thinking about it as much because it's Harvard and it would bolster my CV (but I would be full of crap if I said that I don't think about this at all), but rather because I felt that it could possibly give me some understanding of this country from a different perspective. This program is directly related to my history interests, so it's not a MAPSS-like generic program (I don't mean this in the negative sense).

The other thing is that those two PhD offers I have are very good departments with great faculty in my field, but their interests are not really aligned with my own. The professor at the public ivy, for instance, doesn't even work on the same century as I'm interested in, and not a single one of his current students is working on anything even remotely similar to what I want to do. That is why I feel kind of strange that they've been recruiting me so much, because I keep feeling that I would not fit in well with the cohort. I don't want to be the only one doing my century, while the whole department is doing another.

I'm glad to see that you are considering turning down a fully funded offer to a very good program for the right reasons (e.g., fit) and considering the master's program for the right reasons (e.g., education). Ordinarily I would recommend accepting a funded offer, but if it you think you will be on somewhat of an "island" in the department then I would advise you to do the M.A. if you believe you will benefit from it academically and intellectually. It is a considerable financial investment though. I would definitely be sure that fit at your funded public ivy offer is poor enough to warrant passing on the offer. Check to be sure that there aren't faculty in other related departments that would be able to advise or serve on your dissertation committee. It is often the case that doctoral students are enrolled in and funded by a particular department, but do much of their graduate work outside of the department. For example, a graduate student interested in the social history of the family in China (I just made that up) could end up doing most of their graduate work outside their home department and work with scholars in the demography, sociology, and East Asian studies departments. A friend of mine is in such a situation and works out of an institute and has little involvement with her home department. The home department supports her with a stipend, but she receives additional grant funding from the institute and does her research there as well. Another friend of mine is similarly disconnected from his home department, but his funding is more closely tied to it. Assuming none of this applies to you I would consider the M.A. only after very serious consideration. Just make sure you know what you are turning down before you do so. Good luck! This is quite a dilemma.

P.S. You could accept the offer with intention of completing the program and if you find that fit is an issue you could take a terminal M.A. and apply to other programs. However, this may have its own set of problems.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Noodles

[StrangeLight]

personally, i think it's a mistake to pay for your own MA when you have other options.

how about you take the fully funded offer, complete the MA portion of the combined degree, and then reapply to different PhD programs (top-10 ivies). yes, having an MA before entering PhD programs can be very beneficial. if this is really a top public school, then an MA from there should make you competitive for any top program.

that way, you get the MA to help your future apps and you aren't paying for it. when the time comes to jump ship, you tell your advisors that while X is a great school, you would like to complete your dissertation at a program with a clearer fit for your interests.

a kid came to my program and altered his thesis topic only slightly, to focus on medical history. that's fine for his MA, but to complete his dissertation he wants to be advised by someone else in the medical history field, so he may try to move on to another school. fair enough.

i guess... i guess if i was buying your argument that the fit at these other places sucks, i'd wonder why you applied there in the first place. or why they're recruiting you. it's possible they're bringing in other students who study your century in this latest cohort. you don't know who was been accepted besides yourself, right?

but this whole thread sounds like you're seeking justification for paying for an MA from harvard. i think you've made up your mind and you just need a handful of people to say "yeah, go for it!" so... yeah, go for it. i can tell you it is definitely not the decision i would be making, but then i only applied to two top-10 schools in my field. not because i'm a bad student (i got into columbia's journalism program, so i can't be that bad) but because there wasn't anyone at most of those schools that i was interested in working with or they wouldn't advise on anything other than a very narrow set of topics.

i followed the advisors, and i'd suggest the same for you. if harvard has perfect advisors for you, people whose work you've read and loved, then cool. go there. if not, i'd take the free MA from the public school and reapply in two years.

[JustChill]

I have not made up my mind, and if I had I wouldn't be asking for advice. In fact, I am leaning more towards accepting the PhD offer, it's just that my parents and even some professors are suggesting the MA program.

I am mostly interested to see if other people have personal experience with a similar situation - going for a non-history MA which helped them later on in their history doctoral program.

And, StrangeLight, I only applied to one top-10 PhD program because it was the best fit, as opposed to all of them just because they're so famous, like I see so many people on here doing.

[Sparky]

One more thing to think about:

I should have mentioned that one of my undergrad majors was this exact area studies. The reason I applied for the MA as well as the PhD is that I felt that if I were to go for the MA first, it would only make me a better scholar of this country, as it would allow me to study it beyond the historical lens. I am not thinking about it as much because it's Harvard and it would bolster my CV (but I would be full of crap if I said that I don't think about this at all), but rather because I felt that it could possibly give me some understanding of this country from a different perspective. This program is directly related to my history interests, so it's not a MAPSS-like generic program (I don't mean this in the negative sense).

It will make you a better scholar, yes. However, an area studies MA will likely not have the same admissions advantage that a history MA would have. I know you say "directly related," but look: I am getting my MA in historical theology, from a program that send a fair number of its PhD grads to jobs in full-blown history departments. I was assured, when I contacted several history departments originally, that an HT degree was just fine and they liked diverse background and diverse methods etc. In contacting programs to find out why I was rejected, however, as it turns out lack of history background was an important factor. Important enough, in fact, that one school didn't even mention that I had sent the wrong SOP. (Additionally, at several other schools a prof--not the DGS or dept chair--was kind enough to tell me flat-out that it would not be 'close enough'--even though there was an alum of my program working in the dept! Sheesh).

So, reeeally think about what you are doing. What is the PhD acceptance rate for grads coming out of this program? What programs do they get accepted to?

[Medievalmaniac]

I'm not in your discipline, but I did want to offer you my experiences as a heads-up: I have my MA in hand, in my area of study...not from Harvard by any means, but from a decent up and coming nationally recognized for improvement and growth (#1 in the US News & World Report rankings for its size and programs), second-tier public university. My grades are perfect - a 4.0 with no less than an A on any paper. My GREs are fine - 90% verbal, perfect 6 on the writing section. My LORs were superlative, I have teaching experience already, and I have an extensive list of conference presentations and publications, including presentations at the International Medieval Congress, Southeastern Medieval Association, and Medieval Academy of America - which are the three "big" conferences in my field and my corner of the world. Even with all of that - MA in hand, mind - I was rejected outright by every program but one this season, and that one did not offer me funding.

So...if you have gotten into a strong PhD program fully funded - in my opinion - you take that offer and run with it. You may not teach at Princeton "when you grow up" - but you WILL most likely get a job teaching somewhere at some point - do keep in mind the job market is tight and tightening yearly. Just remember - there are no guarantees at this point - except that you have been offered the chance to pursue the PhD fully funded.

The other decision is academic snobbery and pretty shortsighted, honestly - it's fine if you have your heart set on the Harvard degree, but you can't know it will get you into any PhD program more securely than you already have this season.

[Nytusse]

I also have to speak against the Harvard MA.

I would totally recommend it if you had serious weaknesses as an applicant, which you clearly don't. In two years, who is to say if there is ANY money left to fund people?

I also have to say that I am currently finishing a Master's degree at an Ivy, have exceedingly high GREs, have my languages in order and...yeah, did not guarantee me an acceptance to a top ten school.

I think I would be a little more likely to recommend the MA if it were in history, but, as other posters have said, if you do more work in area studies it may ultimately hinder you when you try to apply again. It might look like you made more of a commitment to that form of study than to history.

The people who are telling you to go to Harvard are likely blinded by the fact that it is HARVARD. There is nothing preventing you from doing some kind of post-doc work at an Ivy, after all.

[JustChill]

I very much agree with that, Nytusse. I really do feel very lucky to have these two PhD offers (especially since I also got rejected from 7 other programs), and feel like it might be too big of a gamble to pass up these offers and then re-apply.

[chlobot]

One more thing to think about:

It will make you a better scholar, yes. However, an area studies MA will likely not have the same admissions advantage that a history MA would have. I know you say "directly related," but look: I am getting my MA in historical theology, from a program that send a fair number of its PhD grads to jobs in full-blown history departments. I was assured, when I contacted several history departments originally, that an HT degree was just fine and they liked diverse background and diverse methods etc. In contacting programs to find out why I was rejected, however, as it turns out lack of history background was an important factor. Important enough, in fact, that one school didn't even mention that I had sent the wrong SOP. (Additionally, at several other schools a prof--not the DGS or dept chair--was kind enough to tell me flat-out that it would not be 'close enough'--even though there was an alum of my program working in the dept! Sheesh).

So, reeeally think about what you are doing. What is the PhD acceptance rate for grads coming out of this program? What programs do they get accepted to?

First of all, congrats on your achievement. You are in an enviable position.

I totally agree with Sparky, and admit that I would feel differently about your dilemma if you had been accepted to Harvard's history M.A. program. I think it is reasonable to self-fund an M.A. from Harvard and then re-apply for the Ph.D. with an expectation of better admission results (although there is certainly risk involved in this approach). However, the fact that the M.A. is not a history M.A. makes the risk for you much greater. Definitely find out about this particular program's placement rate in history programs before you make your decision.

[ChibaCityBlues]

Ask Harvard for a full tuition remittance. Tell them it's unreasonable for you to go 50, 60, 70 grand into debt for this degree and that you have other funded PhD offers. Worst case, nothing changes.

[JustChill]

Yeah, I'm planning to call first thing on Monday. Most likely will decline the offer if they don't give me tuition remission.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It helps to hear different views.