Request for Advice, Stats

[Apill]

Hi everyone, I'm new to applying to History (PhD). I have pretty good statistics but I am a bit nervous about the fact that I'm switching to History from Political Science. I majored in IR and Polisci in Undergrad with a good GPA (3.8+) with a minor in History but I didn't produce any major paper through that minor. My interests were always historical, in that both my undergraduate theses were on history related topics: IR Thesis a historical case study on the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and my Polisci Thesis on Historicism, Hegel, and Spengler. So given all that and my disinterest in Political Science as a discipline, especially quantitative work, I've decided to apply to a PhD in History, with a focus on early modern South Asian history. Since most of my work previously was on South Asian security and IR and often used case studies, I chose this. My verbal GRE was 170 and I have some command of Hindi, Urdu, French and Persian ranging from good (Hindi) to beginner (Persian). I have one Political Science publication, my thesis.

 

My main question then is, how likely is my admittance into a history program and how are departments going to view my profile, especially in regards to switching fields? Thanks.

[Bactrian]

You'll have to make the case in your SoP and show you know how to think like a historian but other than that I think you should be in good shape. People switching into history from other fields isn't all that uncommon. I assume since you have a minor in history you can get at least one letter writer who is a historian?

[Apill]

My situation is a bit complicated. After undergrad, I applied to PoliSci PhD programs. I got into a couple w/o funding, turned them down and decided to bide my time by going to graduate school in IR and then apply again. A few things happened in the last 2 years since undergrad that made me really switch to history. So, as a result, my minor was a while back. I took my last history class my junior year of college, almost 4 years ago. It was only 5 classes, mostly lecture hall classes so there was really not much contact with the professors, one of whom has also left the field. So I'm relying on 3 Polisci letters, but 2 of them are the people I did my historically related theses with. However, I did make a clear case in my statement of purpose as to why I made the switch and what I hope to accomplish by doing history. Also my proposed study's advantage and disadvantage is that by studying the diplomatic history of 17th century South Asia, I'm entering a relatively unsaturated field but one that also does not attract much attention, and thus, probably not much funding either.

[dr. t]

Sounds to me like it's time to get an MA.

 

Or at least apply to some MA programs during your next cycle.

[Apill]

Can you please elaborate a bit? Btw, I am getting an MA but not in History. I know it would have made more sense to have gotten one in History, or a relevant language or area studies program, but I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to do and hopefully can get the MA along the way to my PhD. 

Edited December 8, 2013 by Apill

[gsc]

An MA program in history is usually a common option for people switching into history from other fields. I think telkanuru was suggesting it in particular because your experience in history was a while back.

 

If you do the MA first, or at least apply to a few MA programs and your PhD apps wash out, you can use the time in an MA program to shore up your ~stats: write a history thesis, get some recommenders who are historians, familiarize yourself with the discipline, etc.

 

I didn't see your edit until I posted this, so I'm not sure how having an MA in IR will change your application, but applying to a few can't hurt!

Edited December 8, 2013 by girlscoutcookies

[dr. t]

Can you please elaborate a bit? Btw, I am getting an MA but not in History. I know it would have made more sense to have gotten one in History, or a relevant language or area studies program, but I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to do and hopefully can get the MA along the way to my PhD. 

 

Your attractiveness to a history department is, from my reading, uncertain. There's things for them to like and things for them not to like. I don't know what the outcome of your next cycle will be for you, but if it's negative, then you need a way of continuing forward, and a history MA is that way. 

[Apill]

Thanks for the advice. The next couple of months will be tense!

[New England Nat]

I don't think you necessarily need an MA.  The line between political history and poli sci is very blurry.  In fact in the last twenty years all the good political history was done by poli sci people in the 1990s before the "rebirth" of political history in history departments.  It's not like you are switching from a field with completely different methodology.

[Apill]

I don't think you necessarily need an MA.  The line between political history and poli sci is very blurry.  In fact in the last twenty years all the good political history was done by poli sci people in the 1990s before the "rebirth" of political history in history departments.  It's not like you are switching from a field with completely different methodology.

 

This is basically what my professors  (all Political Scientists) told me. I got a second opinion from a History PhD as well and he said the same thing as well. I agree with both you and the other people who commented here in that whether or not this switch would be an issue is really up to the perspective of different departments. I realize I'm basically flipping a coin here. But since I'm flipping multiple coins (many schools), I try to remain optimistic, though realistic. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by Apill

[New England Nat]

My opinion is based on my relationship with Kevin Kruse and Julian Zelizer, and being a political historian (albit a slightly off beat one) at Princeton.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that as long as your SOP explicitly dealt with historical questions and thinking you wouldn't be at a disadvantage in applying to my department. 

 

There are others that might but I think they would be in a distinct minority.  Frankly, those would would be seriously out of touch with the recent trends in American political historiography.

[Seeking]

Apill,

 

Exactly which region do you want to study in the 17th Century South Asia?

 

Perhaps you already know that in 17th Century, Mughals ruled over a large part of South Asia and their records are in Persian. Although major ones are translated, you'll need to learn advanced Persian for research on their reign.

 

The other big players in 17th Century South Asia were the Portuguese. Their records are less translated and hence, you'll need to know advanced Portuguese if you want to take up Portuguese part of the region.

 

If you wish to study the Southern part of the sub-continent, it will also help to acquire an advance proficiency in the regional language of that region, which may not be easy, but can certainly be achieved.

 

This study may take a minimum of 7-8 years, if you want to do it well, which I am sure you want to do. So, you need to be prepared for this long, hard research.

 

On the other hand, since you are coming from an IR background, I feel it will be much easier for you to convince the selection committees about a topic on early 20th century South Asia. This period also mostly deals with records that are in English, unless you are studying the local history of a region, in which case you'll need to learn the local language.

 

Please think about all this before you embark on a research project.

 

UK has much more advanced scholarship on the history of South Asia than the US does, for obvious historical reasons. I'd suggest that you should also check the schools in the UK for your research. SOAS, Cambridge and Oxford would be great places to do this research.

[Apill]

Thank you very much. I have been studying Persian for about a year and am planning to continue with it and also know some Telugu (South Indian language. For the sake of records, I am more focused on the Mughuls and those that came after them such as the Marathas and Sikhs, but I also find myself interested in Vijayanagara (south Indian state). This topic (IR history) can definitely be done from a 19th-20th century perspective, though I feel as though the Great Game is well-researched. However, one of the topics I've focused on in both my SOP and previous research is the history of political interactions between the subcontinent and Tibet, which has room for further research. In any case, I am still planning to update my statement of purpose towards a more British Raj orientation on this topic when applying to a couple of schools in Britain. 

[Seeking]

Apill,

 

I think you have too much on your plate.

 

In the 17th century, all the regions you have mentioned have records in different languages and you need very advanced fluency in the concerned languages. Maratha records are in Marathi, Sikh records are in Punjabi, Tibetan are in Tibetan, Vijayanagar records are in Telugu, Sanskrit, Marathi and ancient versions of mixture of Telugu and Sanskrit.

 

Not only are the languages different, but their scripts are also archaic in the 17th Century. Learning modern versions of these languages often doesn't help to understand the records from the 17th century. Often, you'll find records that are not even printed, but written in cursive handwritten manuscripts which are difficult to read even for the native speakers.

 

Besides, South Asia is a dynamic, forever changing region and hence, a knowledge of its contemporary situation often doesn't help in understanding its historical past.

 

Believe me, one year's Persian learning does not prepare you to do this research.

 

I am not trying to discourage you, but you need to develop a clarified focus - if you want to study the Mughal History, I'd say focus only on that, learn Persian for a couple of years, travel through South Asia a couple of times before you study the 17th century history of the region. This will help you to evolve a clear research project that will be fruitful.

 

By the way, Mughal History and Vijayanagara are also intensively researched. But you can always find a topic of your interest in Mughal history that has not been researched, or you can attempt to reformulate a research question related to Mughal history that has been researched before.

 

Perhaps getting an MA in History with focus on a Mughal Historical project with more Persian learning and field work in South Asia would be a good idea. Getting this degree from Delhi or Aligarh would be even better- these are two great places for researching on Mughal History and Persian learning. Between the two, Aligarh is somewhat better for Mughal History. Their Masters degrees are highly valued in the Departments of South Asian History in the West. With this MA you can apply for a PhD in the US or UK.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Seeking

[Apill]

Thank you. I will keep your advice in mind and definitely was planning to narrow my topic down when actually writing a dissertation. Without trying to sound defensive, I will say that I have been studying and keeping myself immersed in literature on South Asian history for years. I am aware of its historical dynamics and know what I'm getting into, the linguistic issues and so on. I agree with you that I need to continue to immerse myself and expand my knowledge of the region which I am still doing and hope to continue doing. By the way, the Sikh Empire (of Ranjit Singh) did not switch its administrative language to Punjabi but retained Persian and Vijayanagara never used Marathi; Kannada was the most commonly used language there. In any case, all will be made clear in a couple of months. Thank you again. 

[Seeking]

The administrative records may be in Persian in the Sikh Empire, but you need to corroborate your evidences with other kinds of sources, which may be in Punjabi of 17th century and in a host of other local languages. Vijayanagar certainly was using a lot of languages - apart from the administrative records, inscriptions are very important at Vijayanagar, which are in Sanskrit, Telugu and in a mix of archaic Telugu/Tamil and Sanskrit - the script of which is also archaic now. Then there are other categories of texts which are in Marathi and become important for a study of Vijayanagar. In the Maratha kingdom, Marathi, Persian, Sanskrit and a script called Modi script are important for a study of administrative records, inscriptions and texts of other categories.

 

When you begin to do your research, you'll realize all this. 

 

I don't doubt that you have been studying South Asian history for several years. But I would say a Masters in History from Delhi or Aligarh - preferably latter - will stand you in good stead. I know several students who have taken this route - of getting an MA in History from India and continuing into PhD in South Asian History in the North America or UK and it helped them a lot. Of course, it's your decision, but think about this option.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Seeking

[dr. t]

I don't think you necessarily need an MA.  The line between political history and poli sci is very blurry.  In fact in the last twenty years all the good political history was done by poli sci people in the 1990s before the "rebirth" of political history in history departments.  It's not like you are switching from a field with completely different methodology.

 

I don't think we disagree. I'm just unsure enough to think that some MA apps make sense.

[thedig13]

I think you'll be fine. As has been previously stated, switches between fields (especially related fields) is not uncommon. Also, your Political Science research touches upon historical topics in your field, which is good, and you have at least some undergraduate training in History. Also, people who know multiple languages relevant to their field of study have a massive advantage in the admissions process. Many programs will automatically throw out otherwise-qualified applicants who don't already know relevant languages, and I've heard stories about multilingual applicants with minimal training in history getting into strong programs. I'd also imagine (but cannot confirm) that people who don't know their languages but manage to get into programs anyway tend to drop out at a higher rate, since they have to not only do the work of a typical graduate student, but also pick up new languages at the same time.

 

As long as you can write a strong statement of purpose that successfully explains your change-of-discipline, and convinces people that you're prepared to enter History PhD programs (i.e.: highlights your foreign language training, mentions your history minor, and emphasizes that your research, although technically done in a different discipline, still reflects competence and familiarity with historical topics), I think you could put up a very competitive application.

 

All this, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt. My field is the furthest thing from South Asian history, and I have absolutely no idea how much language training the typical PhD in that field needs.

Edited December 9, 2013 by thedig13