Stanford or Oxford? History Ph.D.

[Oink2014]

Hi everybody,

 

I have been admitted to Stanford and Oxford for a Ph.D. in History and I am really torn between the 2 universities... any advice? I am Italian, so Oxford would be "closer" to home, family and friends, but I have always been dreaming of studying in the US. The British program is shorter (3 years), while the American is a 5-year program. I would have funding in both cases, so money is not an issue. Both universities are excellent, Oxford is higher in the History rankings, but I don't know if that means anything...

 

Thank you in advance for any information you can provide me with to help me make a choice!

[Carthage32]

Congrats! That's a good choice to have.

 

I guess it comes down to the differences between a British PhD and an American PhD (which have probably been discussed in more detail on another thread).

 

But, in a nutshell, in an American PhD, you get to take classes for at least a couple of years before starting dissertation research. In comparison, in a British PhD you jump right into the dissertation. So, you should think about where you are academically, and what your needs are: do you feel like you need course work, or are you ready to start your dissertation work?

 

Then, there is the job market to think about. Do you see yourself working in the US or in Britain/Europe? Which program is right for you will depend on the answer to that question.

 

Another issue to consider is teaching. Generally, in an American program you can get TA experience (though not always), whereas in British programs it is rarer to come by. So, you should think about whether teaching experience is something you are keen on developing or not.

 

Finally, apart from all of these differences, a big part of your decision will come down to your individual field, adviser, and department. You didn't mention what your field is, but maybe one of these departments/advisers is stronger than the other for that particular area? 

 

Good luck with the decision!

[L13]

Two corrections to the above post:

 

The majority of DPhil students in history at Oxford get teaching experience.

 

An Oxford doctorate would serve you very well on the American job market.

[Mandarin]

"Very well," perhaps, but likely not quite as well as a Stanford PhD--the personal connections and network of your program or advisor (which matter deeply, regardless of what the perception on these boards may be) will be much stronger if s/he works in the US, unless you work in British history.  It's also vastly easier to network and "get your name out" in the US if you're in the country, rather than across the Atlantic.  Similarly, can you get a job in Europe with a Stanford PhD?  Of course you can, and plenty of people do, but it won't be as easy as if you got your degree at Oxford.  We're talking in comparative terms here, not absolutes.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Mandarin

[therealhogwarts]

I am not too familiar with the Oxford DPhil in History, but having done an M.St. at Oxford and being offered a spot for the DPhil in Oriental Studies, I would say take the Stanford offer. I turned down Oxford for Emory because of the vastly superior teaching and learning opportunities I would have at the latter. Moreover, I have no doubt that coming out of Emory, I will have far better job prospects than I would have had coming out from Oxford.

[wiewanderlust]

I can't speak to Oxford, but I sent you a message if you have any questions about Stanford!

[cesarchavez90]

I think it really depends on your field. If your interested in Latin American History, Stanford would be the best bet. They are shaping up that field to rival UChicago's LA field. If your interested in U.S. history, Stanford is losing all it's major U.S. historians - Camarillo, White, and Freedman.

If you're interested in Imperial history or empire, Oxford is better for the worldwide connections. Many scholars at my undergrad did their doctorates at Oxford

But unless the department is giving you funding, Stanford would be the better bet. The stipend is around 31k a year (26 +5k summer), and TA experience. Plus as an international student, it would look great to get degrees in different nations

[spellbanisher]

I think it really depends on your field. If your interested in Latin American History, Stanford would be the best bet. They are shaping up that field to rival UChicago's LA field. If your interested in U.S. history, Stanford is losing all it's major U.S. historians - Camarillo, White, and Freedman.

If you're interested in Imperial history or empire, Oxford is better for the worldwide connections. Many scholars at my undergrad did their doctorates at Oxford

But unless the department is giving you funding, Stanford would be the better bet. The stipend is around 31k a year (26 +5k summer), and TA experience. Plus as an international student, it would look great to get degrees in different nations

Is Richard White retiring?

[cesarchavez90]

Is Richard White retiring?

Yes, they are all slowly tranitioning out for the next 3-4 days

[New England Nat]

3-4 days

[cesarchavez90]

3-4 days

ugh damn dictation from iPad sucks. i meant to say years! 

[JustChill]

I turned down an offer from Oxford for a state school in the US, mainly because every student in my subfield whom I contacted at Oxford was not particularly satisfied with their experience, and most Americans told me that they had wished they had taken offers in the US. 

[Oink2014]

Guys, thank you so much for your advice! Regardless of the fact of taking 2 additional years of classes, I am wondering whether I would have a better chance of finding a teaching position in the US...

[therealhogwarts]

Guys, thank you so much for your advice! Regardless of the fact of taking 2 additional years of classes, I am wondering whether I would have a better chance of finding a teaching position in the US...

No doubt that Stanford offers the better likelihood of obtaining a teaching position in the US after your degree.

[czesc]

Keep in mind the quoted length of the Stanford PhD - 5 years - is probably an underestimate. The average length of a history PhD in the US is usually closer to 7, if not higher, except at Princeton where they're very strict about the 5 year limit. Stanford may officially offer only 5 years of financial support, but the likelihood is it'll take longer than that. I doubt it'll mean any financial difficulties (Stanford students wouldn't have a problem obtaining outside fellowships or grants) but it needs to be weighed properly against the much shorter Oxford program.