MA vs PhD

[Hypnotoad]

Hello all. My question concerns the benefits of obtaining a History MA before applying to a PhD History program.

I finished my undergrad degree in May 2010, and it was always my plan to wait a few years after graduating before applying to graduate school. I'm not sure why, but that was always the way I envisioned doing it. Grad school has always been in my thoughts however, and I plan to spend the next year applying for the Fall 2013 term.

I guess I don't really have a more specific question other than, 'What are the benefits and drawbacks of each path?' Applying to an MA program first, versus applying straight to a PhD program.

One thing I've noticed so far is that PhD programs seem to be more common, so maybe it would be easier to find the right place for me. Just a thought.

I don't have anything more detailed than that yet, so I was hoping people who have gone each route can share their thoughts and perhaps this will help me tease out some of the specifics of my situation. Any info is appreciated, and feel free to ask me any question. Thanks for the help.

[superfluousflo]

In many cases, I think that getting a MA first is useful for filling in any weaknesses you have, particularly in research and possibly also language training (not that a MA is necessary for that). There is a thread about a person lacking research experience in the history forum and you might read it to find out if the advice people are giving there is applicable to you.

[SapperDaddy]

Sometimes people aren't ready to jump right into a phd, I got an MA first, I'm glad I did it that way. There are a lot of options and for a lot of MA programs there isn't a lot of funding. I think the decision has a lot to do with your personal situation. I was not in a position at the time I got my MA to go somewhere, I went to a state school that was fairly local and they did fund it (they only offer a terminal Master's). At the time I could not afford to move somewhere (I am married with children) which has since changed. I don't know your situation, so you may be in a completely different boat.

[Sigaba]

A potential draw back of going the M.A. path is that some master's students treat that path as a pit stop as they figure out what they want to do with their lives. This dynamic can result in you be surrounded by classmates who may not push/challenge/support you the same way as doctoral students. Even if there are students in your program trying to earn a doctorate, they may also not push you. For example, in my experience, there were a couple of masters students who, because of a lack of experience in the study of history, were not at the same skill level of the doctoral students. We in the latter group definitely treated these two students differently. (We did not hammer them the way we hammered each other.)

An additional factor to consider is that a doctoral program may want you to jump through many of the same hoops you did as a master's student. If you're committed to learning the craft, you might not mind. If you're at a point in your life where such requirements grate on you, it could be an issue. (As I've noted once or twice, I 'transferred' from one doctoral program to another after earning a master's. The second program treated me as if I were at level zero.)

If you do go the master's route, I suggest that you apply to programs that require either a thesis or a report. These options will position you to gain valuable research experience, and, potentially, to identify a topic for your dissertation.

HTH.

[Hypnotoad]

Thanks everyone for the info! Very helpful. Though I love history I don't have too much research experience and my foreign language skills aren't the best (to say the least). So completing an MA first could be useful for strengthening those areas before moving on to the next level.

I get the sense, however, that funding is not as easy to come by for MA programs as it is for PhD programs. If so, this is a major drawback for me (well, most people probably) since I can't really afford this type of degree on my own. Is my perception accurate, or is MA funding easier to obtain than I thought?

[Sparky]

Unfortunately, you're right that MA programs are less likely to be funded. I (and a few other people I know) skirted this by doing our master's work in religion, where it's a little easier to get funding at that level. This would only work, however, if you're actually interested in religious history. There are some funded history MAs out there, though--there have been a few threads here on that in the past, if you want to search or just click back through the archives a few pages.

Which brings up question of research interest. Do you know what area and era (of history) you want to work in? Although it's *possible* to switch subfields once you've been admitted to a program, and nearly everyone's interests shift at least a little from what we propose in our SOPs, in order to be competitive for PhD admission you really should have a good idea of what you want to focus on. (I'm not saying you don't; I just didn't see any reference to it in your posts, that's all).

That, IMHO, is what a master's degree is for even more than language preparation or research skills--figuring out what the heck you want to study.

[SapperDaddy]

I get the sense, however, that funding is not as easy to come by for MA programs as it is for PhD programs. If so, this is a major drawback for me (well, most people probably) since I can't really afford this type of degree on my own. Is my perception accurate, or is MA funding easier to obtain than I thought?

This is less true at places that offer only a Master's. If they offer a Master's and a PhD, then they don't fund many MAs. Lots of good schools offer that sort of thing. What flavor of history do you want to study?

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Having just finished an MA program and now sweating out the waiting period, I can tell you that what's been said here so far reflects my MA experience 100%.

One month in to my program, I attended a seminar (designed for undergraduate upperclassmen) on how to get into Grad school- it provided a laundry list of things to do from the obvious ends (publish and present) to the less obvious means (use list-serves for opportunities to publish and present; how to get started with and progress through a master's thesis). I spent the next year and a half doing everything the seminar speaker suggested (much to my wife's chagrin). Because of my MA experience, I have many arrows in my quiver to help get me into a PhD program.

Unfortunately, my arrows are dull and my aim is poor

But this is not the fault of the MA program. And from what I have heard, many terminal MA programs (especially larger state schools with tens of thousands of undergrads required to take World and American history surveys) will fund TAs (maybe not 100% funding, but maybe 80%) and provide a modest stipend. However, in some cases only a small number of MA students are given TAships. Also, if a large undergrad survey does not have a graduate program to provide TAs (such as Philosophy in my school: 350 person survey class and no grad students), you may be able to apply for a TAship out of your department to help fund and support you

My experience also supports Sig's comments about the caliber of the typical MA student. Of the 30 or so full time students in my program, I would say that about 10 are smart enough for a PhD program and only 5 of them have the work ethic to get into one. That is 25 dead weights that can bring down the smarter more motivated students...yes that sounds (and maybe is) snobby and arrogant of me, but it seems to be true...

My comments reflect my experience and research and may or may not be illustrative of the larger MA picture...but I hope it helps anyway

[oseirus]

Getting an MA still doesn't guarantee you a seat at the table. A PhD candidate isn't necessarily better because they have an MA in history, IMO. Then again I don't have an AM so I might be biased in that line of thinking, but I have read the posts of some of the people who have been admitted and some have said they did not have an MA.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

Oseirus- in as much you were responding to my comment, it seems that you missed my point...or perhaps I muddled my point in a wash of verbiage, as I often do.

Of course, the MA does not guarantee one a seat at the table, but I beleive that the MA experience DOES invariably make that MA applicant stronger. In other words, yes the PhD candidate is necessarily stronger because they have an MA. That is not ot say they are always stronger than other candidates, but they have definetly made themself a better applicant.

IMO...

[TMP]

It really depends on the program. It would help to look through graduate students' profiles to see if they have a MA or not. In such a program that does have loads of MA students, there are very good reasons. A student with a MA often has already demonstrated the ability to jump through the hoops in a graduate program. S/he is usually more focused and can take direction with his/her studies. I can name a few examples based on my convwersations with professors but the bottom line is that when a student comes in with a MA in hand, it means less baby-sitting for the advisers and professors involvved. Professors want the reassurance knowing that the student knows what s/he is doing like how to tackle seminar papers, readings, writing some small research grants, planning research trips, etc. The less they have to hold the student's hand, the better. Sometimes they're just seen as better, more collegial colleagues.

You need to write down goals that you want to accomplish in a MA program. Writing "research experience" isn't enough. What are the things you really want to get out of research experience? Broader understanding of secondary literature? Learning how to manage time in an archive? Figuring out how to write a historiography? Learn a new language? Be specific.

I disgress but you see my point in the first paragraph. Yes, a MA is not a guarantee for an acceptance to the PhD because so many variables still come into play but a MA would be usually be preferred if the program feels that the student is still capable of being molded into their own methodology (some schools prefer "fresh" minds as to train them into their own school of thought without any resistance).

[oseirus]

Oseirus- in as much you were responding to my comment, it seems that you missed my point...or perhaps I muddled my point in a wash of verbiage, as I often do.

Of course, the MA does not guarantee one a seat at the table, but I beleive that the MA experience DOES invariably make that MA applicant stronger. In other words, yes the PhD candidate is necessarily stronger because they have an MA. That is not ot say they are always stronger than other candidates, but they have definetly made themself a better applicant.

IMO...

Thanks for the clarification ... you just get so many differing views on a message board such as this so I hope my comments didn't come off too strong either