Help！ Boston College or Oxford!!!

[odeta]

I am admitted to both, Mphil of sociology in Oxford and Master of sociology in BC. Both have no funding, both 2 years...which school to go??? Help!!!!!! I am planing to apply for PHD in sociology after 2 years study.

[SocHope]

I think you probably need to provide more details about your research interests and ultimate career goals for anyone to give decent advice.

That being said, from the information you've provided, I would think BC is probably the cheaper option, if not in terms of tuition then probably in cost of living. Not sure that's at all helpful though!

[odeta]

I think you probably need to provide more details about your research interests and ultimate career goals for anyone to give decent advice.

That being said, from the information you've provided, I would think BC is probably the cheaper option, if not in terms of tuition then probably in cost of living. Not sure that's at all helpful though!

My research interests in temporarily in family, gender, population aging and quantitative research. And I would like to pursue an academic career in the future. I am oversea student so both BC and Oxford costs a lot for me. Actually the approximate cost at Oxford is around 60,000 pounds for two-year, and I don't know the exact cost in BC yet. And I know BC is ranked 41 in the US sociology. I don't know the ranking of Oxford sociology... That's all the information I have~

[cogcul]

That must include living costs for Oxford? I got up 13.200 pounds per year for tuition (so 26.400 + the price increase until next year) by using page on Oxford's website: http://www.ox.ac.uk/.../search/launch/

Boston seems to be more expensive than that, this webpage suggests 40000 dollars a year: http://www.bu.edu/re...+f-1112reg.html

A pound is worth about 1.5 dollars, so 26.400 * 1,5= 39.600. About half that of Boston University for two years. The living costs should not be very different in the two places. If costs is an issue, you should ask them whether they offer TAships with any chances of getting tuition remission, I think Boston might do that. Or whether they offer scholarships for students in their second year, or whether they suggest that you apply for certain scholarships.

I know very little about these two places academically. I don't think neither Oxford nor Cambridge are actually known for being very good in sociology (I think the Guardian ranks sociology departments), but since the M.Phil. is a stepping stone to a Ph.D. degree for you; name recognition might play a bigger role than normally.

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-guide-sociology

Turns out Cambridge and LSE is in the top of the British sociology programs, but for some reason I can't find Oxford on there.

Edited May 3, 2012 by cogcul

[odeta]

That must include living costs for Oxford? I got up 13.200 pounds per year for tuition (so 26.400 + the price increase until next year) by using page on Oxford's website: http://www.ox.ac.uk/.../search/launch/

Boston seems to be more expensive than that, this webpage suggests 40000 dollars a year: http://www.bu.edu/re...+f-1112reg.html

A pound is worth about 1.5 dollars, so 26.400 * 1,5= 39.600. About half that of Boston University for two years. The living costs should not be very different in the two places. If costs is an issue, you should ask them whether they offer TAships with any chances of getting tuition remission, I think Boston might do that. Or whether they offer scholarships for students in their second year, or whether they suggest that you apply for certain scholarships.

I know very little about these two places academically. I don't think neither Oxford nor Cambridge are actually known for being very good in sociology (I think the Guardian ranks sociology departments), but since the M.Phil. is a stepping stone to a Ph.D. degree for you; name recognition might play a bigger role than normally.

Edit: http://www.guardian....guide-sociology

Turns out Cambridge and LSE is in the top of the British sociology programs, but for some reason I can't find Oxford on there.

Thanks very much! Just to clarify that I got into Boston College not Boston University. It's really a tough decision for me...

[Ladril]

Thanks very much! Just to clarify that I got into Boston College not Boston University. It's really a tough decision for me...

You should get acquainted with the work of the faculty in both Universities, and see which one fits better your research objectives and the theoretical and methodological tools you want to learn. This is changing a bit in recent times, but Sociology departments in UK universities are mostly filled with professors who do qualitative research. Many universities have a separate Social Statistics department where the more quantitative-minded professors cluster. Oxford is a bit of an exception to the rule, since it's a department with a strong quantitative and qualitative focus.

Conversely, in the average US Sociology department there is more of a quantitative/qualitative mix. In Boston College, you're going to meet a faculty with more diverse interests, which will allow you to switch more easily between subfields if you ever feel the need.

If I were you I would probably pursue the masters in a US university, find a research topic that really interests you, write a good masters thesis, and then move to the UK for the doctorate. But as they say, I may be talking bollocks. Make sure to gather other opinions.

[odeta]

That must include living costs for Oxford? I got up 13.200 pounds per year for tuition (so 26.400 + the price increase until next year) by using page on Oxford's website: http://www.ox.ac.uk/.../search/launch/

Boston seems to be more expensive than that, this webpage suggests 40000 dollars a year: http://www.bu.edu/re...+f-1112reg.html

A pound is worth about 1.5 dollars, so 26.400 * 1,5= 39.600. About half that of Boston University for two years. The living costs should not be very different in the two places. If costs is an issue, you should ask them whether they offer TAships with any chances of getting tuition remission, I think Boston might do that. Or whether they offer scholarships for students in their second year, or whether they suggest that you apply for certain scholarships.

I know very little about these two places academically. I don't think neither Oxford nor Cambridge are actually known for being very good in sociology (I think the Guardian ranks sociology departments), but since the M.Phil. is a stepping stone to a Ph.D. degree for you; name recognition might play a bigger role than normally.

Edit: http://www.guardian....guide-sociology

Turns out Cambridge and LSE is in the top of the British sociology programs, but for some reason I can't find Oxford on there.

I found that the reason that oxford is not on the list is that Oxford do not offer sociology in undergraduate study, only for master and PHD~~

[Chuck]

I would caution almost anyone against enrolling in a completely unfunded master's program, no matter how "prestigious" the program or university.

$40,000 or $60,000 is a TON of money to be paying for a master's in socioloy. Even in the best case scenario (the program is your springboard to a top PhD program and a good chance at a tenure-track professorial job many years down the line), you're still looking at typical starting salaries for social science faculty, which are not nearly enough to live comfortably on while servicing that kind of debt. Unless you are independently wealthy, if you want to go into academia this is almost certainly a bad idea. This level of debt will require you to make monthly payments of many hundreds of dollars. It will literally cripple your lifestyle for many years, perhaps many decades, to come.

At the very least, ask the program to put you in touch with some recent graduates. Ask them how much debt they took on, and if they felt it was worth it.

I can sympathize with the desire to start a program as soon as possible. It can be tempting to take one of the offers you have now, but my advise is to strengthen your application in other ways and apply again next year. BC and Oxford both have good reputations in sociology, which is probably why they are sometimes able to get away with enrolling master's students who pay the full sticker price. Most of these students come from wealthy families who can afford this level of tuition. The money you pay is going (albeit indirectly) to finance the tuition of PhD students. I have heard unfunded master's students lament that they are thought less of in the departmental hierarchy. Think about if this is a position you want to be in academically.

There are plenty of other programs that do provide some level of funding to master's students. Many of these programs are just as good as BC and Oxford, some just a little bit less prestigious. If you're using the masters as a launching pad to the PhD, there are literally hundreds of programs out there that will provide you with solid grounding for a strong PhD application. Ultimately, where you got your master's won't matter nearly as much as where you get your PhD.

Just one man's opinion.

[RefurbedScientist]

Let me preface by saying that Chuck's post should be taken very seriously, as unfunded masters programs can be very costly and not necessarily worth more in the long-run than working in a research field for a year or two.

However, I do want to return to the OP's original question about comparing Oxford to BC. One of the factors not yet discussed is networking. I think that having a couple of years to do the conference circuit, get letters of recommendation, co-author, meet faculty for coffee, and generally make professional connections with faculty is probably the biggest advantage to a masters program in sociology. That is, the professional network you build will probably mean more in the admissions process than the stats sequence and intro theory course you take in your masters. With that in mind, I encourage the OP to think about long-term career goals. Specifically, what do you want to do with your degree and where do you want to do it? If you want to be a professor in the U.S., than you'll need to do your PhD in the U.S. In that case, going to B.C. might make it easier for you to make connections in the States that will help your career down the line. By the same token, if you want to be a professor in the UK, then the network effects favor Oxford (I assume, knowing little about UK higher ed). If you want to go into the private, non-profit, or government sectors, then think about the networks of those industries. I have a friend who got a masters in Poli Sci at Oxford and then slipped easily into an analyst job in London. If you're interested in working in your home country (which I infer is neither the US nor the UK), then over all name recognition might behoove you (Oxford wins, in that case).

All that being said, most of the world's best recognized sociology programs are in the US. Going to BC will allow you, at the very least, an opportunity to network with those programs more easily.

[giacomo]

Much of what I'll say here has been already said or inferred in one way or another, but I'll add that, while U.S. Ph.D.'s are generally more prestigious than U.K. Ph.D.'s,, an Oxford degree will probably go farther than a BC degree at the same master's level both in the policy circle and in the academia (whether a master's degree can be helpful in the Ph.D. admissions is another discussion). I suspect that both programs will be more than an adequate stepping stone for a PhD program, but, for the same expensive price tag, which program would be a safer bet? BC wins in the U.S. networking category, but Oxford probably wins in the rest of the categories.

[RefurbedScientist]

Much of what I'll say here has been already said or inferred in one way or another, but I'll add that, while U.S. Ph.D.'s are generally more prestigious than U.K. Ph.D.'s,, an Oxford degree will probably go farther than a BC degree at the same master's level both in the policy circle and in the academia (whether a master's degree can be helpful in the Ph.D. admissions is another discussion). I suspect that both programs will be more than an adequate stepping stone for a PhD program, but, for the same expensive price tag, which program would be a safer bet? BC wins in the U.S. networking category, but Oxford probably wins in the rest of the categories.

Agreed. If there's a chance you won't go on to a PhD in the US after the masters, then Oxford is a safer bet probably.

Another thing hasn't so much been mentioned is the course load of each program and to what extent those courses prepare you for non-academic work (if that's a career outcome you're considering). If there's a chance you won't end up as an academic, then you'll want "applied" sociology skills, of which reading Foucault is, sadly, not included. This may not be a decisive factor between programs, but it may be reason for you to look outside your department for certain skills (as an earlier poster mention, at Oxford this may mean going down the hall to social statistics courses).

[Ladril]

That must include living costs for Oxford? I got up 13.200 pounds per year for tuition (so 26.400 + the price increase until next year) by using page on Oxford's website: http://www.ox.ac.uk/.../search/launch/

Boston seems to be more expensive than that, this webpage suggests 40000 dollars a year: http://www.bu.edu/re...+f-1112reg.html

A pound is worth about 1.5 dollars, so 26.400 * 1,5= 39.600. About half that of Boston University for two years. The living costs should not be very different in the two places. If costs is an issue, you should ask them whether they offer TAships with any chances of getting tuition remission, I think Boston might do that. Or whether they offer scholarships for students in their second year, or whether they suggest that you apply for certain scholarships.

I know very little about these two places academically. I don't think neither Oxford nor Cambridge are actually known for being very good in sociology (I think the Guardian ranks sociology departments), but since the M.Phil. is a stepping stone to a Ph.D. degree for you; name recognition might play a bigger role than normally.

Edit: http://www.guardian....guide-sociology

Turns out Cambridge and LSE is in the top of the British sociology programs, but for some reason I can't find Oxford on there.

Oxford and Cambridge rank high here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2008/dec/18/rae-2008-sociology

And both are among the best Sociology schools in the world.

[Karlito]

I think Essex has traditionally been the strongest soc department in the UK. I don't know much about Oxbridge...but you probably can't go wrong here.

[obsessovernothing]

If you want to go merely by ranking, according to US News and World Report Oxford sociology is ranked third in the world: http://www.usnews.co...ities-sociology

Edited May 4, 2012 by waiting*it*out

[simulant]

I would caution almost anyone against enrolling in a completely unfunded master's program, no matter how "prestigious" the program or university.

$40,000 or $60,000 is a TON of money to be paying for a master's in socioloy. Even in the best case scenario (the program is your springboard to a top PhD program and a good chance at a tenure-track professorial job many years down the line), you're still looking at typical starting salaries for social science faculty, which are not nearly enough to live comfortably on while servicing that kind of debt. Unless you are independently wealthy, if you want to go into academia this is almost certainly a bad idea. This level of debt will require you to make monthly payments of many hundreds of dollars. It will literally cripple your lifestyle for many years, perhaps many decades, to come.

At the very least, ask the program to put you in touch with some recent graduates. Ask them how much debt they took on, and if they felt it was worth it.

I can sympathize with the desire to start a program as soon as possible. It can be tempting to take one of the offers you have now, but my advise is to strengthen your application in other ways and apply again next year. BC and Oxford both have good reputations in sociology, which is probably why they are sometimes able to get away with enrolling master's students who pay the full sticker price. Most of these students come from wealthy families who can afford this level of tuition. The money you pay is going (albeit indirectly) to finance the tuition of PhD students. I have heard unfunded master's students lament that they are thought less of in the departmental hierarchy. Think about if this is a position you want to be in academically.

There are plenty of other programs that do provide some level of funding to master's students. Many of these programs are just as good as BC and Oxford, some just a little bit less prestigious. If you're using the masters as a launching pad to the PhD, there are literally hundreds of programs out there that will provide you with solid grounding for a strong PhD application. Ultimately, where you got your master's won't matter nearly as much as where you get your PhD.

Just one man's opinion.

Really? I understand that the rhetoric has been heavily 'dont-go-if-no-funding' in terms of postgraduate education, and rightly so. Although I know of several excellent Masters degrees programs in the UK that are half the cost (or more) of those in the US, and for a person who really wants (for whatever reason) to enroll in a quality Masters program although can not get into or afford a 'top-notch' university, several Masters programs in the UK offer very good value. The situation is a bit different in the UK. Just wanted to add that FWIW ...

Edited May 4, 2012 by simulant

[Chuck]

If you want to go merely by ranking, according to US News and World Report Oxford sociology is ranked third in the world: http://www.usnews.co...ities-sociology

This list is confusing to me. The top US sociology departments (also according to USNWR), don't appear in the same order relative to one another. What's going on here?

[obsessovernothing]

Agreed. Very strange. But it seems as though the ranking methodology for the world report is different when compared to the US report, that's all.

[obsessovernothing]

^^ for you

This list is confusing to me. The top US sociology departments (also according to USNWR), don't appear in the same order relative to one another. What's going on here?

[Ladril]

This list is confusing to me. The top US sociology departments (also according to USNWR), don't appear in the same order relative to one another. What's going on here?

What's going on is that people - including university administrators - take rankings much more seriously than they should. US News & World Report's methodologies are not consistent from ranking to ranking.

This ranking in particular is taken from the QS University Rankings, which is highly inconsistent.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Ladril

[Chuck]

Really? I understand that the rhetoric has been heavily 'dont-go-if-no-funding' in terms of postgraduate education, and rightly so. Although I know of several excellent Masters degrees programs in the UK that are half the cost (or more) of those in the US, and for a person who really wants (for whatever reason) to enroll in a quality Masters program although can not get into or afford a 'top-notch' university, several Masters programs in the UK offer very good value. The situation is a bit different in the UK. Just wanted to add that FWIW ...

There are two issues around levels of funding less than 100%.

You are right that there can be quite a variance of the sticker price of MA programs at different institutions and in different countries. No matter if a school is giving you a 95% scholarship or no scholarship, what you should really be considering is your out-of-pocket cost. When I was looking at MS programs (many years ago), the school that "gave me the most money" ("oh wow!" I thought, "look at that GIGANTIC scholarship they're offering me!") also happened to be a private institution with very high tuition in an expensive city. My out of pocket cost would still have been around $20K/year. At a comparable program in a public university, I was also given a scholarship, but for quite a smaller amount. My total yearly cost at that school would have been $5K. This is a big difference, especially over a 2 year program. Even if I had been an unfunded student at this second school, my annual out of pocket cost would have been much less than with the large scholarship at the private university. So, at one level, you should really not be comparing the level of funding, per se, but the final net expense.

There is another issue with going to a program un-funded. Many programs that have un-funded MA students also have funded MA students (or at least students who were given some partial funding). I know that this is the case at both BU and Oxford. This means that if you attend the school as an unfunded student, you're literally at the bottom of the totem pole. Faculty and administration will take note of this. Not to be too blunt about it, but you're there as the student who they didn't really want, at least not enough to give money to. It can create an unfair and uncomfortable hierarchy, and academic bad blood. I ended up attending a master's program where most students were generously funded, but almost none at the level of 100%. On several occasions I heard professors remark about specific students what a bad decision they had made to attend the program un-funded. These remarks were certainly inappropriate. But, seeing how these students continue to struggle under the burden of large loan obligations, I have to agree.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Chuck

[SocHope]

There is another issue with going to a program un-funded. Many programs that have un-funded MA students also have funded MA students (or at least students who were given some partial funding). I know that this is the case at both BU and Oxford. This means that if you attend the school as an unfunded student, you're literally at the bottom of the totem pole. Faculty and administration will take note of this. Not to be too blunt about it, but you're there as the student who they didn't really want, at least not enough to give money to. It can create an unfair and uncomfortable hierarchy, and academic bad blood. I ended up attending a master's program where most students were generously funded, but almost none at the level of 100%. On several occasions I heard professors remark about specific students what a bad decision they had made to attend the program un-funded. These remarks were certainly inappropriate. But, seeing how these students continue to struggle under the burden of large loan obligations, I have to agree.

I've certainly heard rumors that differential funding can affect the vibe of doctoral cohorts, but hadn't thought about it in a Masters situation. I actually did a one-year unfunded Masters. However, the program made some efforts to find funding for students, and from what I can gather, it had less to do with the perceived ability or talent of the student and more to do with the oddly specific requirements of the original source of the funds. I was one of the few in my cohort to get some funding, and it was because I fit the gender and geographical profile that the funder requested. A few international students were fairly generously funded because they met the citizenship requirements of another source of funding. There were very few of us who had these funds, and to be honest, it never seemed to factor into our relationships with faculty or the members of the cohort who were unfunded. But this is obviously from my n=1 perspective. I'm sure funding mechanisms do differ widely across programs.

[Karlito]

With regards to what Chuck said, at Oxford funding for master's degree is extremely scarce. So the norm is rather to be unfunded...Meaning that those who get the Clarendon scholarship for example are probably considered superstars, rather than others being looked upon for not being able to get funding, since being unfunded seems to be a norm there.

[simulant]

With regards to what Chuck said, at Oxford funding for master's degree is extremely scarce. So the norm is rather to be unfunded...Meaning that those who get the Clarendon scholarship for example are probably considered superstars, rather than others being looked upon for not being able to get funding, since being unfunded seems to be a norm there.

Yep, that's correct for Oxbridge.

[SocViv]

One thing that I believe hasn't been mentioned is getting credit for the Master's Degree in a PhD program at a different university. Most won't accept all of your Master's credits when you "transfer" to a PhD program, even if you got your MA from a more prestigious university than the one you're attending for your PhD (I found out the hard way). So, on top of wasting money, you're potentially wasting two years of your life in courses that may only partially "count" at your next school (assuming you go elsewhere - though if you stayed at one of those universities for the PhD, credits shouldn't be a problem).

That said, if money and time are no object, Oxford, hands down. I've lived in Boston and Oxford, and Oxford wins, whether you're a student or a professional living there. Cost of living is similar.

[simulant]

One thing that I believe hasn't been mentioned is getting credit for the Master's Degree in a PhD program at a different university. Most won't accept all of your Master's credits when you "transfer" to a PhD program, even if you got your MA from a more prestigious university than the one you're attending for your PhD (I found out the hard way). So, on top of wasting money, you're potentially wasting two years of your life in courses that may only partially "count" at your next school (assuming you go elsewhere - though if you stayed at one of those universities for the PhD, credits shouldn't be a problem).

That said, if money and time are no object, Oxford, hands down. I've lived in Boston and Oxford, and Oxford wins, whether you're a student or a professional living there. Cost of living is similar.

Also just wanted to add (FWIW) that Ive noticed there are several persons in the UK who do a MSc or MA (one year) and then the Oxbridge MPhil/PhD.