Univ. of Cambridge versus CUNY

[heulwen]

Hello guys

 

So... Here's the question. I'm an international student with an interest in labor history and gender in the Middle East. I've been admitted to the CUNY History PhD Program with 5 years of funding. I've accepted the offer with great joy because the department has some great Middle Eastern faculty and offers excellent courses. I was putting together documents to make my visa application but then all of a sudden I've received a notification from the University of Cambridge that I've been awarded with three years of scholarship by their Committee. (This was totally unexpected because previously I had been told that the deadline for funding was February)

 

I'm super confused now. I know that there are pros and cons of doctoral education in the British system. The most obvious advantage is, as far as I know, that the students are not expected to do any TA work so it's possible to spare more time for your own research. (the CUNY students are expected to GIVE COURSES starting form the second year). Another advantage in my case is that the Cambridge diploma is world wide prestigious and the University Library is beyond impressive. As a personal advantage, the UK is closer to my country which saves me lots of money to visit my family and friends whenever I want. The city is nice, people ride bikes to the campus, etc...

 

There are also some disadvantages compared to CUNY. The fact that no courses are offered in Cambridge's PhD program makes me concerned because I feel not exactly ready jumping into writing my dissertation yet. My potential supervisor at Cambridge (although a very sophisticated scholar) is not a Middle Eastern Historian. (In CUNY, I'll have this supervisor who has very similar research interests to mine). Lastly, the city is, well, can't possibly be compared to New York which I've always wanted to see..

 

So.. What are your thoughts? I have to reach a quick decision before the 15th of April. I'd appreciate very much if you could share your ideas/opinions on the British versus American PhD education in history. Which one would you rather go?

 

Thanks a lot in advance!!!

Edited April 7, 2013 by heulwen

[Andean Pat]

REALLY though choice! 

 

It is obvious that the decision is not easy. Because of this, you will feel your are giving away something wonderful. However, if you choose one over the other, you should also feel that you've made the right choice. What I would do is to make a list of everything that might influence that choice, from the big factors to the little ones. For example:

 

Department fit

Courses offered

TA load

Funding

Weather

Moving expenses

Travelling grants

Placement

Housing

Extracurricular activities

etc etc etc

 

You can then give a score to each category per university, the highest scores wins. Moreover, you can weigh different categories with different percentages, according to their importance. So maybe department fit for you is worth 30% of the total score and weather only 3% (Tip: if you are not satisfied with the decision, then you choose the other one and that's it )

 

It's just an idea, I hope it helps!

Edited April 7, 2013 by Andean Pat

[heulwen]

Thanks for the comment, Andean Pat! Yeah scoring sounds like a good idea...

 

This has been the weirdest week of my life.

[Wicked_Problem]

Hello guys   So... Here's the question. I'm an international student with an interest in labor history and gender in the Middle East. I've been admitted to the CUNY History PhD Program with 5 years of funding. I've accepted the offer with great joy because the department has some great Middle Eastern faculty and offers excellent courses. I was putting together documents to make my visa application but then all of a sudden I've received a notification from the University of Cambridge that I've been awarded with three years of scholarship by their Committee. (This was totally unexpected because previously I had been told that the deadline for funding was February)   I'm super confused now. I know that there are pros and cons of doctoral education in the British system. The most obvious advantage is, as far as I know, that the students are not expected to do any TA work so it's possible to spare more time for your own research. (the CUNY students are expected to GIVE COURSES starting form the second year). Another advantage in my case is that the Cambridge diploma is world wide prestigious and the University Library is beyond impressive. As a personal advantage, the UK is closer to my country which saves me lots of money to visit my family and friends whenever I want. The city is nice, people ride bikes to the campus, etc...   There are also some disadvantages compared to CUNY. The fact that no courses are offered in Cambridge's PhD program makes me concerned because I feel not exactly ready jumping into writing my dissertation yet. My potential supervisor at Cambridge (although a very sophisticated scholar) is not a Middle Eastern Historian. (In CUNY, I'll have this supervisor who has very similar research interests to mine). Lastly, the city is, well, can't possibly be compared to New York which I've always wanted to see..   So.. What are your thoughts? I have to reach a quick decision before the 15th of April. I'd appreciate very much if you could share your ideas/opinions on the British versus American PhD education in history. Which one would you rather go?   Thanks a lot in advance!!!

I face a similar choice, but in a different discipline than History. The safe choice (Ph.D. in my professional field) versus working with a world renowned scholar in a field that, though completely applicable, is new to me. The parallel I am making is CUNY (safe) vs. Cambridge. At Cambridge you would be pursuing your studies independently (a good model for the rest of your life as a scholar) and would have less "hand holding." These are positives, not negatives. Perhaps you should go out on a limb, and lay your cards on the table, and ask your CUNY adviser what he or she would advise you to do. You hold all the cards right now, so this could be very informative. Others might think differently, and I hope they chime in, but what your CUNY adviser says could tell you as much about CUNY and him or her as it would about the value of the offer from Cambridge. If you end up going to CUNY, your adviser would know that you made that choice. The consequences of that could be nothing but positive. If you go to Cambridge, your CUNY adviser would know that you are a straight shooter -- you won't necessarily be burning any bridges with him or her -- and you might even laying the groundwork for a future with that institution...

[Wicked_Problem]

Full disclosure: I haven't had that discussion with my (safe) adviser yet.

[CrazyCatLady80]

I am an Americanist so the idea of going abroad to earn a PhD is not in my picture (although I day dream about it occasionally   ). However, if I were in your shoes, I think my main concern would be the job market. I have heard stories of people going to fantastic schools abroad and not getting a job once they come back to the states. I don't know about you, but by far the most important thing to me is getting a tenure-track job once I am finished. I know it won't be easy and it may not happen, but I will do everything in my power to make sure that I have that job even if it means sticking with a school here in the states. 

[lafayette]

Yeah, if you plan on teaching in the US, Cambridge will make it hard. But I'm not sure what kind of stock CUNY has internationally though; Cambridge would definitely be a better choice if you don't intend to teach in the U.S.

And yes, NYC is a great city, I recommend it. However, CUNY is reallllly going to make you work and their campuses where you might have to teach classes are really far flung, in less than desirable places to be in NYC (not saying they are unsafe, but they are deep in the boroughs). I think their reputation might be moving up a bit, but I know in the past CUNY has had less than stellar placement records. If I were you I ask would your potential advisor about what placement is like specifically for your field.

[lafayette]

Oh -- and one more thing. Ask what research funding is like at CUNY. I'm assuming you'll go overseas for archives, right? CUNY is not a wealthy institution, so it's good to ask what sort of resources are available.

[Wicked_Problem]

I have heard this (PhD from UK not well regarded in US academia) multiple times in this thread. What is the source for this, and why would this be the case? I am asking out of ignorance. Since when is the academic quality of a an Oxford or a Cambridge undervalued in the international marketplace, of which the US is a part?

 

Not discounting or questioning the responding posters, by the way.

[Carthage32]

Yes, it's true that British PhDs might have difficulty on the job market. But, then again, we're talking about Cambridge, which is arguably among the top two or three history departments in the world. Top departments in the US are filled with Cambridge PhDs (though, to be fair, many of them are of an older generation). 

 

In terms of city, do remember that Cambridge is a stone's throw away from London, so you will still have access to the cosmopolitan, big-city atmosphere, if that is what you want.

 

Good luck with your decision! It's a very hard choice.

[heulwen]

Thank you all guys for your comments !!! You've been really helpful. Regarding lafayette's question: I don't actually dream about teaching in the US, as a matter of fact I believe I'll be much more happy if I can teach in a European country instead... On the other hand, (as Wicked_Problem stated) I also don't exactly understand why the UK diplomas are considered comparatively disadvantaged in the US job placements in general. Is it because of the lack of teaching experience? The lack of PhD courses? I heard that it was possible to take a couple of courses or gain teaching experience for the PhD students in the UK too -as long as they asked for it-. Is there anything else I've been missing?

 

.. and as Carthage32 said.. Let's say I wanted to teach in the US. Would a CUNY diploma do actually much more good than a Cambridge diploma which is among the top five institutions in the world rankings?

[pudewen]

The reason a UK PhD is often considered a disadvantage on the US job market is because it's a qualitatively different degree than a US PhD. There's a reason the former takes 3 years, and the latter takes at least 5, but usually more like 6 or 7. Coursework and general exams are part of this, because they mean you will be able to teach more broadly - especially if you don't work on the US (or maybe Western Europe), not many US universities want to hire you if you're only expert enough to teach in your major field. If they're going to hire you to be their only East Asianist, you have to be able to teach courses on Japan as well as China, on the modern period as well as the early modern, etc, regardless of what you actually work on. Same applies if you work on Latin America, or the Middle East, or South Asia, or Eastern Europe. Someone with a UK degree who did nothing but show up and start writing a thesis is unlikely to be as qualified for this as an American PhD who passed general exams in four fields and has a somewhat broader base. This may be less true for jobs at top schools with large history departments, but we can't exactly count on getting jobs at a UCLA or a Columbia, and even they will want the ability to teach survey courses, which a UK PhD has done nothing to prove they have the requisite knowledge base to do (even if they in fact have it).

Similarly, UK PhDs have no teaching experience, which is a major problem in the extremely competitive US job market. Why hire someone whose first day at the front of a classroom will be when they show up at your department in September to teach 4 courses (sadly, a not uncommon teaching load), when you can get someone who already has a fair amount of teaching experience? It's not like there's a shortage of candidates with strong research backgrounds.

 

Think about it this way - you say that you're not sure you're ready to jump straight into writing your dissertation (I don't blame you, I certainly wasn't when I started my PhD - I think it's really hard to be ready if you haven't at least done an MA already). Who will be more prepared to jump into a faculty job - you in 3 years having written a dissertation and done almost nothing else, or you in 6-7 years with substantial coursework, teaching experience, several years of experience giving conference presentations (I imagine you'll have a lot less time for that in the very rushed UK PhD), and a dissertation that you had more time to plan and think about (and modify what your plan for as you gained a better sense of what directions the field was going in)? That's the same question a search committee is going to be asking when they consider hiring a UK PhD or a US one.

 

That all said, Cambridge is obviously more famous and better ranked than CUNY, and that does matter. Oxford and Cambridge are probably the only UK schools that can give you decent job prospects in the US. So I wouldn't definitely say that CUNY would be a better choice for someone looking for a job in the US (which I know you say you aren't anyway), but there are certainly reasons that it might be, especially when you start looking at jobs at places other than the largest, most famous research universities (which are likely to put a higher premium on the name on your degree).

[sweetcheese]

The reason a UK PhD is often considered a disadvantage on the US job market is because it's a qualitatively different degree than a US PhD. There's a reason the former takes 3 years, and the latter takes at least 5, but usually more like 6 or 7. Coursework and general exams are part of this, because they mean you will be able to teach more broadly - especially if you don't work on the US (or maybe Western Europe), not many US universities want to hire you if you're only expert enough to teach in your major field. If they're going to hire you to be their only East Asianist, you have to be able to teach courses on Japan as well as China, on the modern period as well as the early modern, etc, regardless of what you actually work on. Same applies if you work on Latin America, or the Middle East, or South Asia, or Eastern Europe. Someone with a UK degree who did nothing but show up and start writing a thesis is unlikely to be as qualified for this as an American PhD who passed general exams in four fields and has a somewhat broader base. This may be less true for jobs at top schools with large history departments, but we can't exactly count on getting jobs at a UCLA or a Columbia, and even they will want the ability to teach survey courses, which a UK PhD has done nothing to prove they have the requisite knowledge base to do (even if they in fact have it).

Similarly, UK PhDs have no teaching experience, which is a major problem in the extremely competitive US job market. Why hire someone whose first day at the front of a classroom will be when they show up at your department in September to teach 4 courses (sadly, a not uncommon teaching load), when you can get someone who already has a fair amount of teaching experience? It's not like there's a shortage of candidates with strong research backgrounds.

 

Think about it this way - you say that you're not sure you're ready to jump straight into writing your dissertation (I don't blame you, I certainly wasn't when I started my PhD - I think it's really hard to be ready if you haven't at least done an MA already). Who will be more prepared to jump into a faculty job - you in 3 years having written a dissertation and done almost nothing else, or you in 6-7 years with substantial coursework, teaching experience, several years of experience giving conference presentations (I imagine you'll have a lot less time for that in the very rushed UK PhD), and a dissertation that you had more time to plan and think about (and modify what your plan for as you gained a better sense of what directions the field was going in)? That's the same question a search committee is going to be asking when they consider hiring a UK PhD or a US one.

 

That all said, Cambridge is obviously more famous and better ranked than CUNY, and that does matter. Oxford and Cambridge are probably the only UK schools that can give you decent job prospects in the US. So I wouldn't definitely say that CUNY would be a better choice for someone looking for a job in the US (which I know you say you aren't anyway), but there are certainly reasons that it might be, especially when you start looking at jobs at places other than the largest, most famous research universities (which are likely to put a higher premium on the name on your degree).

 

I'd like to counter this a bit, because pudewen, though bringing up many of the major fears of doing a UK PhD, also generalized a lot. First, saying that a UK PhD has no knowledge base past their dissertation is horribly wrong; the system is set up differently, and students in that system cover those things long before they enter a PhD. At least from what I've seen, UK masters programs are incredibly intensive, covering all of that before the student even reaches a PhD. That doesn't even consider the kind of work they do during their undergraduate years, which seems to have a bit of a different focus. You could say that's too short of a time, but there are also people that think the way the US system is set up isn't perfect, either. Both have their benefits, but focusing on the negative doesn't do anyone any good here.

 

Further, many UK PhDs seem to be offering teaching; it may not be required, but it is now an option so that students can be competitive in a different job market. Though it may be slightly uncommon for students with a UK PhD to get an American job, I think it needs to be recognized that it is possible, and that the people that do are entirely qualified. I think, as a previous poster mentioned, there is something to be said for the kind of independence that a UK PhD forces you to have; a kind of independence that a committee may see as the person's ability to come up with things on their own without having their hand held. If a committee is looking at an American candidate that doesn't seem independent at all and will need guidance through every step of the first five years of their job, and a British candidate that has fresh ideas on how to teach a course and the independence to do these things on their own, well... I'm not going to say who they'll pick, but I know who I would. That's also a generalization, but I think we need to consider how the other side views this process.

 

What I mean by all of this is that I hope each and every one of us chooses a path that we want, not one that is standard or makes the most sense. Our original poster doesn't seem to share the desire many have to obtain a job in the US market, so perhaps Cambridge is better. I think we also need to consider what we're all looking for from this experience, and let the job be the goal, but not the absolute first reason for pursuing PhDs. Choosing a program that is the best fit and will provide you with the resources you need to do that kind of work you're passionate about it should be the focus, not necessarily how a program is perceived over the other. If we lose sight of that, I don't think it matters what the name of the institution is or how it ranks; I don't think anyone will succeed if things are picked solely on how others perceive them.

 

This all being said, I chose a British program over funded PhDs in America because I thought the experience I would gain there and the opportunities that I realized I would have were more what I was looking for out of the experience; if you choose the right program for you, I think you can create the kind of career you want.

[heulwen]

Thank you very much pudewen and sweetcheese for your detailed posts... These are excellent points you both made.

 

Although I agree with pudewen about the point s/he made on the experience/knowledge gained (and proved) through coursework and general exams, I shall say I have some doubts about the UK PhD providing less time & opportunity to give conference presentations and plan about the thesis. I believe one will find more time for these if s/he is not burdened with heavy amounts of TA or RA work. As I understood from my own MA experience, these take most of your time & energy and leave very small for either conferences or thesis preparation. Especially at CUNY, I heard that the TA work was extremely heavy and combined with the course load the earliest you start seriously thinking about your research would be the beginning of the third year of your PhD. I somehow feel it's good to be granted money in return for doing absolutely nothing but your own research. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to do anything else, it only means that you'll have the chance to plan your time as you see fit.

 

On the other hand, as heavy as it is, the TA work means experience and the more of it you have on paper the better you stand at job applications, I guess.

 

This certainly is not going to be an easy choice for me.

[playingivory]

Leave it to my fellow Wolverine to take the words out of my mouth I agree, actually, with both SweetCheese AND pudewen to an extent though. There are ultimately advantages and disadvantages to any program regardless of the location. I think ANY program, be it for the student want to study history, or architecture, or even jazz guitar...we must make decisions that will ultimately, hopefully, allow us to best achieve our goals- where to apply and where to attend all go along with that, and when you consider the uniqueness of each program, we all should in some way be afforded that opportunity. That being said, heulwen, if you think you're interested in teaching in Europe, I think the debate here over job prospects with regard to both of your university options shifts entirely. To me, Cambridge seems like the program that would be set you up for that particular goal. Beyond that, I'm sure you're able to give fairly accurate weighting to other factors through your own knowledge and insight from others.

 

To add to the two comments above mine about the US/non-US PhDs, I have two acquaintences who are assistant professors at a satellite Michigan campus. One is an Tudorist (Elizabethan diplomacy) from Oxford and the other is an Asianist (eastern Russia / western China) from Harvard. The one from Oxford had teaching experience, though I believe for her, it was optional (I admittely could be wrong about that, but I'm positive she taught). If that's the case, perhaps a good question to ask going into a non-US PhD program is if that IS an option for you and you can do what you need to. (Really, Princeton doesn't have a teaching requirement - optional, I believe - and they're arguably one of the most well-regarded history PhDs in the country.) They both found fairly immediate success with job placement and have tenure track positions at a respectable institution. I do know that the one coming from Harvard has an easier time teaching survey courses overall; the one from Oxford has to do a bit more research teaching the survey courses. Perhaps that speaks more to pudewen's point, but perhaps it's also coincidental. An interesting comparison though, given the discussion, looking at two young historians with fairly similar backgrounds at the best universities in the UK and the US (essentially, anyway, not trying to suggest any type of ranking....just looking at how they're perceived). Interesting discussion!

[TMP]

In my department, we've had finalists with European PhDs (on the younger side) for our searches in the US.   They've been asked to submit FAR more evidence of teaching to satisfy the current faculty than any other candidates.  They all found ways to demonstrate teaching experiences (though I'm not sure exactly how- I didn't pay close attention).  And yes, they've been offered positions.

 

You have all the cards in your hand- feel free to ask your CUNY contacts ALL of these questions and tell them that  you have a funded offer from Cambridge.  See how they react.  The only complaint I've heard about Cambridge is gaining the right teaching opportunities.  My friend has a dissertation project located in South Asia but she's much more interested in teaching the history of British Empire, not South Asia itself...yet somehow Cambridge has her down for South Asian history, not British colonial/imperial history.  She has no training in that history nor wants to be a professor in that area (she doesn't even really have the languages!).

[Carthage32]

A few additional points that you might want to consider:

 

1. TMP brings up an interesting point about languages. If you feel that you might need to pick up a language in the next couple of years for dissertation research, then a US program would be very helpful because it would provide you the time to learn it. Many PhD students here take language courses during the year, or over the summer. In the UK, it might be more difficult to do this given the shortened timeline.

 

2. It seems to me that a typical path for an Oxbridge PhD wanting to work in the US would be to do two or three years of post-doc or fellowship (an equivalent to a Junior Research Fellowship in the UK, or something like the Society of Fellows programs in the US) before going out into the job market. This would essentially bring you to an equivalent level to an American PhD who has done a 5-7 program. 

 

3. You would have some opportunities to teach at Cambridge, depending on how you negotiate it with your supervisor. Some supervisors let their PhD students take on a few "supervisions" each year. This is nothing like TAing, but it would allow you to build at least some teaching portfolio.

[Wicked_Problem]

This topic has become incredibly useful and informative; others may need this type of information in the future. I wonder if it couldn't be pinned by a moderator?

[New England Nat]

It's worth remembering about Princeton's non-teaching requirement is that it just means we pick up our teaching at our leisure.  Everyone in the program knows they have to teach for the market.

[heulwen]

Thanks everyone again for their contributions. I decided to contact with the CUNY people and honestly tell them about my dilemma. I wonder how they'll react to this.. I've contacted two professors from the other two US programs I got admitted to and asked their opinions on this matter. One of them told me that it was hard to imagine I would want to turn down a Cambridge offer. The other said if I chose Cambridge, the University itself would be my resource regardless of the supervisor they assigned to me (in reply to my concerns about the match of research interests).

 

So far all the professors I've talked to (in my home country and in the US) emphasize that the Cambridge offer is too attractive and I shouldn't miss the opportunity to undertake funded research in such a world wide prestigious institution. Maybe I'll try to do two years of post-doc or fellowship in a US program afterwards  to compensate certain disadvantages..

[dr. t]

Just to add to some already excellent posts:

 

I was discouraged from applying to international programs for all of the reasons above, plus some concern over recommendations. Bluntly put, British academics apparently do not have the same facility for superlatives that is commonly expected in such letters in American academia. 

[heulwen]

What exactly does this mean Are you suggesting the British academicians are incapable of writing good recommendation letters?

[dr. t]

What exactly does this mean Are you suggesting the British academicians are incapable of writing good recommendation letters?

Hah! No, I mean that what is considered appropriate praise differs substantially from British to American English, and so the letter may come across as less enthusiastic than it actually is.

[annieca]

There's a quote I love that might help you decide.

 

"Flip a coin. Not because it decides anything. But because for that moment the coin is in the air, you know exactly which one you're wishing for." 

 

I am not saying by any means that this is a decision to do by a flip of a coin, but the logic still holds.

[heulwen]

Hah! No, I mean that what is considered appropriate praise differs substantially from British to American English, and so the letter may come across as less enthusiastic than it actually is.

 

I see.. That is strange. As a foreigner to both of the cultures it's hard for me to imagine the subtle differences between them. I'll keep this in mind. I'm just hoping maybe Cambridge professors are aware of these issues? I wish.

 

There's a quote I love that might help you decide.

 

"Flip a coin. Not because it decides anything. But because for that moment the coin is in the air, you know exactly which one you're wishing for." 

 

I am not saying by any means that this is a decision to do by a flip of a coin, but the logic still holds.

 

I understand what you mean... To be honest flipping a coin occurred to me before    After all these are both good options and it's meaningless to torture yourself after a certain point. This is a whole another approach though... Thanks!