SFSU History MA

[Guest mckee002]

I didn't find a topic on this so here we go.

I have recently become very interested in SFSU's history masters. I need to be in the Bay Area for family reasons but don't want to be out of school for too long. I ultimately want to go onto a PhD in Art History or History (emphasizing visual culture).

I love the work that Sarah Curtis does and would be interested in working with her.

BUT, I have some questions before I apply:

1. I went to one of the higher ranked universities in the bay for undergrad. My professors don't seem to think that doing a masters would prohibit me from going to a top ten-twenty program for PhD. Any thoughts on this? (This sounds really elitist and don't mean it that way at all. SFSU was my second pick for undergrad. I just want to be realistic. Unfortunately academic elitism does exist...)

2. What about the program's reputation? Their website has great stats of students going on to some fantastic PhD programs, but what have people heard?

3. FUNDING? Is there any? How do I get my hands on it?

4. How competitive are admissions?

5. How rigorous is the program?

I'm getting verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

Edited April 21, 2012 by mckee002

[cunningwalrus]

Since I am finishing my MA at SFSU, I figured I should probably provide some information.

1. My understanding of this is that, while it certainly varies by program, the majority of top tier schools at the very least won't exclude you based on having an MA (although there are rumors that some places view it negatively). Bear in mind, however, that some programs won't give you credit for already having an MA (UC Berkeley for example will only give you credit for two classes from another graduate program), so be sure to check possible future Ph.D programs you are interested in.

2. I can tell you that, at least during my time in the program, the SFSU history department has had a very successful track record with getting students into exceptional schools. Last year there were two admits to Stanford, one to UC Berkeley, one to Columbia, and I think one to UCLA as well. This seems to be somewhat of a down year, but even so there are two people going on to the University of Chicago's Ph.D program next Fall (including me) and then a few people going to other programs (UCSB, and a couple of others I can't recall right now).

3. Funding. As you may know, things are rapidly becoming bleak for graduate students at CSUs. While the department does offer a few fellowships, they are very meager. The vast majority of students in the program use part time jobs/student loans to fund their expenses. In short, you can't really expect much in the way of money from the school.

4. As far as I know, admissions are technically competitive but to be honest I don’t think it's very difficult to get in, assuming you meet the programs requirements.

5. The rigor of the program is difficult for me to accurately address since I have little to compare it to. What you need to bear in mind is that many of the other grad students have no intention of moving on to a Ph.D. As such, they aren't really working towards becoming professional historians, hoping instead to work at a community college or in a high school. This is not to say that seminars are negatively affected, just that there isn't much focus on research (you are only required to take one research seminar, for instance). I will say that I was very impressed by the faculty during my stay and have nothing but positive things to say about them.

If there was one thing I would stress, it would be that your experience at SFSU is what you make of it. Should you attend, I would also suggest you make use of the cross-registration policy with Berkeley. You are allowed to take up to two graduate seminars at the UC and doing so will most definitely enrich your evolution as a scholar. As I mentioned, don't expect to get anything in the way of funding aside from possibly a grant from the state of California that basically only covers tuition (and even that may not survive after next year). If that isn't a deciding factor you, I would absolutely recommend the program. They really do have a pretty impressive track record with sending graduates to great programs and the experience has definitely facilitated my academic growth.

If you have any more questions, I'll try and help

Edited April 21, 2012 by cunningwalrus

[jamc8383]

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.

[New England Nat]

While some of the top tier programs wont give you course credit for your existing masters, there are a number of top 10 programs that are either taking no or almost no students right out of undergrad anymore. From their point of view a masters is a way of avoiding people burning out in their PhD, and it proves that you can handle graduate level work.

I went to a top tier flagship state university, got a masters at a very good but not very well known or regarded state institution, and than went onto a phd program at an Ivy. I would not have gotten into the program i got into without having done the masters, which I actually think is well worth not getting credit for that masters.

In my cohort, the students who came in with masters were much better prepared than those that went straight from undergrad or those who came in from law school (not uncommon in my program). That said, I used my masters to get a credential that is different than my PhD. My masters is in a subfield that is almost entirely missing from my PhD institution, to the degree that I am sought out to explain what is happening in that field by the faculty.

[TMP]

Seriously, don't worry about the MA putting you at a disadvantage. Just don't expect the PhD program to take all of your credits or, even if the graduate school does, apply them towards the degree.

I am seeing an increasing number of acceptances coming from people with MAs than those with BAs. One of my POIs told me that he really appreciates people with MAs because they perform better in a PhD program. The MA assures the faculty that you will not burn out. There is a lot to get used to and I can imagine it all being very overwhelming on someone who doesn't have a MA. The MA teaches you the foundations without putting tons of pressure on developing a long-term project (the dissertation) coming with goals of its own (fellowships, conferences, eventual book contract).

Even my current program, a top 25, has an incoming cohort of where almost literally nobody would becoming straight from the BA.

Here's the dirty secret: It's about money, too. A MA saves the department a year of funding because MAs usually have smaller funding packages. A department would rather have 5 MAs over 1 BA. That just increases its chances of a higher retention and graduation rates (which then makes it look really good for the Graduate School).

[New England Nat]

To add to the dirty secret bit...

MA's finish faster. Often they come in with a project or at least with something very much closer to a project.

[GuitarSlayer]

One of my professors indicated to me that his biggest regret was doing his BA,and MA enroute to PhD all in one place. When you do that, either you have no diversity in your thought, having been shaped by the same people over the course of 10-15 years, or you are perceived as such. Variety is good, so don't worry about having an MA before entering a PhD program.

Also, keep in mind that if you have your MA and your first round of PhD apps don't go well, you do have more career options during your gap year than if you only had your BA.