Help a History N00b get into grad school

[karaya]

Aim

To do a Phd in history (South Asia focus) so that I can go on to research/teach modern South Asian history.

My background

I have no formal training in history. I stopped formally reading the subject in the 10^th grade (16 years old). I do though have a pretty good undergrad academic background but in engineering. Professionally I have worked for four years in management consultancy and have had one of the biggest names in the field as an employer. Currently working for a US-based developmental consultancy called Technoserve.

Coming back to history. The good thing is that I read a lot of it. Jalal, Gyan Prakash, Zamindar, Sugata Bose. I can confidently say that I know more about history both generally as well as Modern South Asian than most undergrads with a history major. I find history insanely addictive and this has bought me to the realization that this is what I should be doing rather than numbing by brain, picking away at some random Excel spreadsheet.

Question

Does a person like me have a realistic chance of getting into a good programme? No history background but has a passion for it. If so how do I go about persuading schools that I am a good candidate?

P.S: Don’t know if it’s important but I'm an Indian citizen/resident.

[aec09g]

My focus is on East Asian history so I sort of have a vague familiarity with your field... So here's some basic advice.

Now, to double check here, you said you had a great undergraduate career but in Engineering, correct? Have you taken any history classes or done any significant research in history, meaning at least a one long undergraduate paper with primary sources?

Personally, unless you have a great research background, you don't sound that competitive. You need to take some sort of classes in History to prove you are capable of succeeding in the historical field. However, you might be able to just do this by jumping into a history master's program. Beyond that you also need LORs from professors who know you academically and should be in the field of history. You need to have a good verbal GRE score.

But honestly, I think your big problem is the lack of research listed. You need at least one kick ass primary source based history paper, and a publication would certainly help. You need to make a kick ass SOP that explains clearly why you changed careers and perhaps explains some great advantages having the previous career will be to graduate school.

I would say you have very slim chances for acceptance, as is, into a PhD program. You don't have much proving that you are excellent in historical research.

However, I have to say as a final note. History is a very hard field to find a job in, and I think it is especially hard for historians with a focus in Asia to find a job. Furthermore, once you get a job, it is not a well paying job.

[pudewen]

However, I have to say as a final note. History is a very hard field to find a job in, and I think it is especially hard for historians with a focus in Asia to find a job. Furthermore, once you get a job, it is not a well paying job.

It's actually, bad though it is, substantially easier for historians focusing on Asia (at least East Asia) to get jobs than it is for most other historians (Jewish history is probably the only field that's clearly better). Universities are generally increasing the size of their faculty in East Asian history at the expense of European historians (probably the worst field for getting a job). As for South Asia, though there are still very few jobs in it in the US (the UK is much better), I wouldn't be surprised if as India becomes more important in international politics and economics, South Asia starts doing relatively well, as those are the same reasons that produced a boom in China jobs in the last decade.

[CrazyCatLady80]

Honestly, you do not have a very good chance of getting into a PhD program. You don't have the research skills nor (and this is a guess here) the languages. However, you probably have a very good shot at getting into a MA program. Do your homework and apply to several programs. Ideally, location should not factor into the decision, but you may not have that luxury. I know I didn't. Get into a MA program, take classes in several fields (very important, because you might that you like someone else more), learn how to do primary source research, pick up a language(s), and then, if you are still interested, apply for a PhD. It is a less direct route, but extremely common among grad students, especially those who didn't major in field (including myself).

I would also strongly advise doing your research on what getting a PhD in history exactly entails. I highly recommend picking up a copy of Graduate Study for the 21st Century by Gregory Colon Semenza. He is very (sometimes painfully) honest about what it is like to be in a PhD program. You will work very long hours and get paid close to nothing. Once you are finished and have the degree, you have around a 50/50 chance of getting a job. You really shouldn't go for the PhD unless you can't imagine being happy doing anything else with your life. If you want to just study history for fun, I recommend just getting a MA.

[CageFree]

I would strongly recommend you pursue a M.A. first in order to gain writing and research skills in History. It's not enough to "know a lot" about History to get into a Ph.D. program... you also have to prove you can WRITE History. Letters of rec need to come from professors who are familiar with your history work, rather than engineering professors or employers; you need writing samples in History to show you can do the work. Without any formal training, you just won't be able to get any of those things.

If this is really your passion, the M.A. will make you a much, much stronger candidate and even though your undergrad work was not in History, I think the M.A. would make you a very competitive candidate (assuming you do well).

[Simple Twist of Fate]

I agree that an MA is the best starting point. Most PhD departments are looking for the following in an application: a personal statement describing your specific interests or "intellectual autobiography" and how it is best served by studying in that particular department, a writing sample (demonstrating language ability), letters of recommendation from professors who can speak to your ability as an historian, GRE scores demonstrating verbal proficiency and a solid GPA (with more emphasis on grades in history classes). How many of those would you be able to supply at this point? An MA will put you in a great position to be able to supply those. Additionally, not to be indelicate, but it sounds like you may have the means to be able to support yourself through an MA, which may be necessary. That's a good situation to be in.

Is there any overlap between your interest in history and your training in engineering? For instance, are you at all interested in the history of science, or engineering? I ask because that could actually help you when you eventually do apply to PhD programs. After all, history PhD programs get hundreds of history majors applying every year - engineering majors are less common - this helps set you apart. Whether it's setting you apart in a good way (by turning this perceived disadvantage into a strength by focusing on science and technology) or in a bad way may ultimately make the difference in the success of your eventual application.

Of course, if you're not interested in studying the history of science and technology, and would rather just put that behind you, then I certainly can't fault you for that. But if you wind up in an MA program, I would encourage you to look into this field and at least give it a chance (perhaps this is something you've already done). And there's no reason you couldn't combine this with your preexisting interest in Modern South Asian history. That might actually make you a highly attractive candidate for PhD programs, and ultimately, a marketable PhD on the job market.

As for your claim that, "I know more about history both generally as well as Modern South Asian than most undergrads with a history major." ...well, as CageFree points out, that's not really hugely important. For one thing, undergraduates with a history major might not know as much as you about history, but they still may be better prepared for graduate school. Graduate schools are looking for abilities and potential, not someone who is familiar with content. Perhaps others have different experiences, but my graduate school experience to this point is not focused on acquiring knowledge about a subject (ditto my undergraduate experience, though to a lesser extent). Sure, content knowledge is important and it comes. But other skills are far more important for thriving in history graduate school: critical thinking, language skills, research, time management, networking, etc. Many of these go along, I imagine, with being a successful engineer or businessperson. However, I would also imagine that many of the things expected of a history graduate student (ie. thinking on a rather annoyingly abstract level) might be antithetical to someone who is used to problem-solving as an engineer.

[aec09g]

It's actually, bad though it is, substantially easier for historians focusing on Asia (at least East Asia) to get jobs than it is for most other historians (Jewish history is probably the only field that's clearly better). Universities are generally increasing the size of their faculty in East Asian history at the expense of European historians (probably the worst field for getting a job). As for South Asia, though there are still very few jobs in it in the US (the UK is much better), I wouldn't be surprised if as India becomes more important in international politics and economics, South Asia starts doing relatively well, as those are the same reasons that produced a boom in China jobs in the last decade.

That is information I'm very glad to hear. (:

Also, to add a note, all the advice I gave earlier was based on information I know about American schools. I realized later that this was possible that perhaps you were thinking of universities in other locations as well...

To further add a positive to the mix, since you are a resident of India, I imagine you have a strong language background in a South Asian language, which is a definite plus side. That would, I imagine, help you get into an MA program. But this is, of course, just an assumption based off your location and citizenship. (;

Edited September 29, 2012 by aec09g

[Riotbeard]

I agree with people that you probably have to get an MA first, but in general there is not reason for all the doom and gloom (just be glad you don't want to study Europe/U.S.) that so many people want to lay on anybody else applying for grad school. If you really wanna do this, you can definitely pull it off. I also think your experience outside of school will help you in the long run even if you don't do anything related to history of science. A lot of people who go straight through (I have found) lack appreciation of how awesome being a grad student is as a job, and seem to lack a concept of what real jobs/life is like. Also start saving as much money as you can now. Having a nest egg in grad school will be very helpful.

[virmundi]

+1 to what Riotbeard said -- and be certain to research MA programs as much as you can. Talk to prospective advisors, find out about possibilities for funding (my program offered TAships to some of their MA students), and see where graduates of the programs tend to end up. You want to try, if at all possible, to get into an MA program that has a track record of sending its students on to solid Ph.D. programs! Good luck with everything! It is a long road, but the MA is a great way to find out if it is one you'd like to follow further!

[karaya]

Hey,

Thanks a lot for the great answers. Helped me clear a lot of stuff up.

Doing an MA in History in India itself and then applying for a Phd (which either be in the UK or US) is a definite option and one that I will consider.

Sadly, my undergrad has no history courses in it (the Indian education system is rather rigid and does not allow us to study outside of our majors).

As for the point that a lot of people have made that it's the method and not knowledge that determines success, yep, that makes a lot of sense to me.

I will, however, as a sort of let's-do-it-anyway option apply to one grad school for the heck of it. I figure I don't have much to lose.

[New England Nat]

I will, however, as a sort of let's-do-it-anyway option apply to one grad school for the heck of it. I figure I don't have much to lose.

I think based on your post you have read this thred entirely right. There is very little to loose other than the money in going through the app cycle. Especially if you look at it as probably unsuccessful. A word... if you are wanting to do it this cycle you need to start preparing the aps now and in a hurry. Many US programs have a dec 1 deadline and it is not a simple thing of just filling out forms.

[thedig13]

Karaya --

I'd like to discuss this in deeper detail with you. Check your PMs.

Respectfully,

TheDig13

[karaya]

Karaya --

I'd like to discuss this in deeper detail with you. Check your PMs.

Respectfully,

TheDig13

Thanks for the offer. Have replied back to you via PM.