Didn't major in history--whoops?

[jbeld]

Hi guys,

I'm currently a junior at a fairly prestigious university, 3.77 GPA, interested in early modern to modern Middle East history (Levant and North Africa). Though I'm determined to take a few years off after I graduate to travel/buff up my languages/have a "real" job for a while, the more I think about the overall path I want my life to take, the more a PhD in history makes the most sense.

Here is what I'm worried about: I'm not a history major. My major is Modern Middle East Studies. There were a lot of reasons I chose my major, in spite of the fact that my university's history department is highly respected; I knew I was interested in the Middle East but wasn't sure if I was interested in history, the requirements for our history major are heavily Western-centric, it has a reputation for being a huge and impersonal department for undergrads to navigate, etc. (These are also the reasons I don't want to switch my major now.)

By the end of this year I'll have taken four history seminars and three history lectures. I will be writing a historical senior thesis next year, with a history professor as my advisor. By the time I graduate, I'll have reading knowledge of at least Arabic and Hebrew, and maybe French or Turkish.

Basically, I want to know: how un-rigorous does area studies look as a major? Should I plan to go for a history MA before I even think about applying for history PhD programs? (I really would rather not do this.) Is there anything I can do now to make my chances for getting into a good history PhD program better?

Your patience in dealing with this freaked-out undergrad is highly appreciated.

[asleepawake]

I'm not in your field, but I also didn't major in what I am now studying. The best advice I can give is that you should absolutely get an MA (assuming it is considered moderately normal in your field to do so). Even if you feel like you know what you want to study, the experience of doing grad work in your field before the PhD is beneficial in all kinds of ways. Your application will be much better after the fact, and you'll get a chance to figure out what you really want to work on though experience, not through what you imagine grad school to be like. You'll also find out if grad school is right for you in a better timeframe.

Your reasoning for not majoring in history is sound - if your program is Western-centric, and that isn't what you want to study, I don't see why you would get a degree in that program. Can you get a minor in history at least, though?

Edited November 25, 2011 by asleepawake

[Sigaba]

MOO, your undergraduate career (if you're where I think you are) and anticipated work experience will position you to be very competitive when you apply to graduate history programs.

Insofar as you getting a M.A. in history first, were I in your shoes, I would not.

Instead, during your "years off," (if you can keep your focus) you could do a fair amount of directed reading in the historiography of your fields of interest, and work on your language skills.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Sig is right:

Your Advanced Level Education ought to more than offset for the fact that you did not major in history. Your past and projected future studies will demonstrate the requisite level of aptitude for historical work at the graduate level. I would say that you shoud aim as high as your entire application (grades, GRE, LoRs etc...) warrants.

Regarding the M.A., it does not seem to be necessary for you. I went the M.A. track because I was coming back to school later in life (and located no where near a reputable PhD program). Maybe cast one or two lines into the M.A. waters as a total insurance policy.

That's my read on it...

Edited November 26, 2011 by ADMITedlyLucky

[Sigaba]

I went the M.A. track because I was coming back to school later in life . . . .

@jbeld. The M.A. option may become viable if the "few years off" stretch into a seven or more years. (As you go on in life, the years can fly by. Or so I've heard. )

Once you've had the opportunity to learn more about yourself and to experience the ups and downs of the private sector, the re-adjustment to the Ivory Tower may require a try out period for you to shake the rust off and before you commit to graduate school for a longer haul.

But please do note that the operative word here is "viable," not "necessary."

[jbeld]

Thanks, all, for your words of wisdom! @asleepawake, unfortunately my university doesn't do minors... I will definitely have enough courses to be the equivalent of a minor, though.

@ADMITedlylucky and @Sigaba: yeah, it makes sense that more time outside of the ivory tower might make me a little less eager to jump straight into a PhD program. But many thanks for your comforting words--the over-achiever-ness of my academic peers makes it easy to get tunnel vision and see myself as un-rigorous, lacking in intellectual and moral worth, &c.

[Loimographia]

Just as a word of support, I know of at least one graduate student I knew as an undergrad who had made a very similar shift in focuses as you want to. He'd double majored in Math and Middle Eastern literature, iirc, and only decided to switch to history after he'd graduated. A good SOP and his experience with languages got him into good schools, despite his lack of experience with any history classes. Moreover, despite the fact that nominally you're not a history major, the fact that you've taken many classes in the department will look very good, and particularly motivated, I think.

[cooperstreet]

Yeah I don't think you have anything to worry about really. My question for you is, though, why a history phd and not a middle eastern studies phd? There's always NYU, which has a joint program.