How to use Comp Lit MA to transition to History?

[boomah]

Hi all,

 

I'm starting a one-year master's in the Fall in Comparative Literature, after which I hope to switch to History. What can I do during my master's program to help my chances of transitioning to history? Would I need to do a second MA in History? (My undergrad was in English).

 

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Sigaba]

MOO, you might get more traction if you build on your earlier threads than start new ones. That way, members can get a better sense of your interests and your intentions.

 

Edited July 13, 2014 by Sigaba

[boomah]

MOO, you might get more traction if you build on your earlier threads than start new ones. That way, members can get a better sense of your interests and your intentions.

 

That was probably a good idea. I'm sorry, I don't frequent the forums that much, so I forget what I've written!

 

Basically: my undergraduate was in English, and I'm now headed for a master's in Comparative Lit. But I'd like to switch gears after that and go for a History PhD.

 

What I was wondering was: how do I tailor my Comp Lit MA program so that it benefits me in History PhD admissions? And would that be enough to get into History PhD programs, or would I need to another Master's? My area of interest is the Middle East, so I'm considering doing another Master's in Middle Eastern Studies before applying to PhD programs.

[CageFree]

Unless you've taken a number of history classes already, a MA in history would be better than a ME Studies degree. You should have at least some training in the discipline, since history and lit are not exactly interchangeable.

[boomah]

Unless you've taken a number of history classes already, a MA in history would be better than a ME Studies degree. You should have at least some training in the discipline, since history and lit are not exactly interchangeable.

Unfortunately, I don't have many history classes... I wish I had known my future plans during my undergrad days, but I was sort of clueless back then.

 

The reason I was considering a Mid East Studies MA was that it focuses on the Mid East, as opposed to many MA History programs I've seen which seem quite general (you take courses on all sorts of regions and time periods). Also, there seems to be better funding for Mid East studies MA programs, and they also seem to be quite flexible, allowing me to focus on history courses.

 

Considering that, do you still think a History MA would be better? Are there any History MA programs you would recomend that have strong Mid East faculty/resources?

 

Thanks!

[L13]

Unless you've taken a number of history classes already, a MA in history would be better than a ME Studies degree. You should have at least some training in the discipline, since history and lit are not exactly interchangeable.

 

Honestly, I'd say they are very far from interchangeable, and any historian worth his or her salt would be able to name several very good reasons for studying history rather than literature or some sort of area/cultural studies.

 

I've noticed that some undergraduates pick history because they don't know what they want to study, or because they think their general interests--often in literature, contemporary politics, social commentary, journalistic writing, etc.--would be best served by a well-established, versatile degree. Such reasoning often makes for mediocre work. I doubt it would get you far in graduate school, though you could always try.

 

OP, I think if you want to get a history PhD you should get a master's in history first. I'm not an expert on grad school admissions by any means--I haven't even gone through the process yet--but many of the history departments whose webpages I've explored advise that PhD applicants should have extensive training in history, if not a history degree. It seems like a pretty basic requirement you'd struggle to get around. I suspect an inspired statement of purpose that makes a good case for the switch from literature to history, on sound methodological rather than practical grounds, could compensate for the lack of experience, to an extent. But I think you'd have better chances with a history degree.

[CageFree]

Honestly, I'd say they are very far from interchangeble

Yes, I was understating on purpose.

Edited July 21, 2014 by CageFree

[pudewen]

Unless you've taken a number of history classes already, a MA in history would be better than a ME Studies degree.

If we're just talking about what will help you get in, I'm not sure I agree. My experience of history programs for people working in areas for which the primary linguistic competency required is not English or a Western European language is that linguistic training is valued far more heavily than experience in history. Obviously you should have taken some history classes, but doing a ME Studies degree, if one chooses a program carefully, I imagine in would be possible for pretty much all classes that one takes to be either in Middle Eastern history or a relevant language (whether Arabic, Persian, Turkish, or whatever is necessary for the OP's interests). And assuming it's a thesis masters, which is preferable, it's obviously possible to do write a thesis with a history professor as an advisor on a historical topic. Most of my experience with this is in Chinese history (where many of my PhD student colleagues have never done a degree program in history prior to entering a Chinese history PhD), but I have friends in fields like Russian history, and, yes, Middle Eastern history, for whom this is also true.

Edited July 21, 2014 by pudewen

[boomah]

Thanks for all the replies!

 

This was the program I was most interested in, due to it being close to home: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/mes/graduate/mes/programs.php

 

The program requires 6 hours of history courses, as well as :

•    6 hours of arts/humanities
•    6 hours of concentration courses

 

I'm not sure if the above 12 hours can also be history, but if so, that'll be a total of 18 history hours. Then, there'll be six hours of thesis under a history prof.

 

I'd appreciate it if any of you guys could comment on how history PhD programs would perceive it.