History of medicine MSc at Manchester vs History and phil of science at UCL?

[brazeneggo]

Hi everyone,

I have offers to study the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at Manchester, as well as History and Philosophy of Science at UCL. I have secured full funding for both so that is not an issue. Any recommendations on where to go? I am almost exclusively interested in the history of medicine (public health, psychiatry, women in medicine), so Manchester seems like a better fit, but I can't deny the appeal of attending UCL, living in London, and having access to various libraries/archives (though these would not be impossible to access from Manchester either). I was admitted to the Oxford  MSc last year but couldn't secure a deferral and was rejected this year, which was really disappointing as it seemed like the perfect fit and I had the money to go. Alas! 

Any advice on either of these two programs would be appreciated! Thanks!

[TagRendar]

I can't give you any insight on either program, but I will tell you this: go where your research interests would be best served.  It won't matter where you're living if you hate what you're studying.

Then again, if you hate the idea of living in Manchester, that's also something to consider.

[psstein]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:54 AM, brazeneggo said:

Hi everyone,

I have offers to study the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at Manchester, as well as History and Philosophy of Science at UCL. I have secured full funding for both so that is not an issue. Any recommendations on where to go? I am almost exclusively interested in the history of medicine (public health, psychiatry, women in medicine), so Manchester seems like a better fit, but I can't deny the appeal of attending UCL, living in London, and having access to various libraries/archives (though these would not be impossible to access from Manchester either). I was admitted to the Oxford  MSc last year but couldn't secure a deferral and was rejected this year, which was really disappointing as it seemed like the perfect fit and I had the money to go. Alas! 

Any advice on either of these two programs would be appreciated! Thanks!

What is your long-term goal? UCL has practically zero interest in history of medicine (they've managed to completely exorcise the ghost of the Wellcome Unit) and I think getting competent supervision would be a significant challenge. With that said, I would try to determine the outcomes for each program. If one program is pumping graduates to Oxbridge or other high quality programs, and the other isn't, then the answer is clear.

[brazeneggo]

2 hours ago, psstein said:

What is your long-term goal? UCL has practically zero interest in history of medicine (they've managed to completely exorcise the ghost of the Wellcome Unit) and I think getting competent supervision would be a significant challenge. With that said, I would try to determine the outcomes for each program. If one program is pumping graduates to Oxbridge or other high quality programs, and the other isn't, then the answer is clear.

Yes, I think the issue with supervision might be significant. I've seen some PhD dissertations from UCL that do align with my interests, which indicates that I could find a home there, but reading the the course syllabi does not make me particularly excited to study there. 

Long-term goal? Possibly starting a history PhD in ~5 years, though I don't think that the history of medicine will necessarily be at the crux of my career (I work in healthcare). Outcomes matter less since I'm not planning on continuing in academia immediately, but it would be nice to develop a project that I could eventually publish. I feel as if I might have more support at Manchester vs UCL. Overall, it seems that UCL is more recognizable internationally but that Manchester is very well respected in the history of medicine community. 

I think the questions I need to is whether I spend the year living in London, doing a course I'm ambivalent about, but with access to world-class archives, seminar series etc, and everything that is London (probably idealized, but I've loved all of my experiences there), or living in Manchester doing a course I find very interesting, in a city that is also nice, but does not have the same level of educational or experiential amenities that are offered in London. However, I was clearly prepared to not live in London and go to Oxford if I had that option, so maybe geography doesn't matter that much. I don't know!

[psstein]

3 hours ago, brazeneggo said:

Yes, I think the issue with supervision might be significant. I've seen some PhD dissertations from UCL that do align with my interests, which indicates that I could find a home there, but reading the the course syllabi does not make me particularly excited to study there. 

Long-term goal? Possibly starting a history PhD in ~5 years, though I don't think that the history of medicine will necessarily be at the crux of my career (I work in healthcare). Outcomes matter less since I'm not planning on continuing in academia immediately, but it would be nice to develop a project that I could eventually publish. I feel as if I might have more support at Manchester vs UCL. Overall, it seems that UCL is more recognizable internationally but that Manchester is very well respected in the history of medicine community.

UCL is phenomenal for history of the physical sciences/history of chemistry. They've staked their reputation as a program on those two elements and, for the most part, done very well. One of the foremost historians of chemistry today, Catherine Jackson, has her PhD from UCL. So if you were in that area at all, I'd say go for UCL. However, their department is very weak outside of those areas and has a bit of a slant towards STS (which isn't what everyone wants). 

On another note, Manchester seems to have quite a good relationship with the Wellcome Trust, which definitely can't hurt as you look towards PhDs...