Economic History PhD

[Malthusian]

Hi guys,

I'd like to do a PhD in Economic History (ideally, at Oxford or the LSE). I come from a non-Economics background and will be doing an M.Phil in Modern South Asian Studies (which will have an Economic History approach attached to it). I sense that I may lack the sufficient preparation to do a 3-4 year PhD in Economic History and was considering doing a second Masters in Economic History - do you think this is necessary before I apply to these two top programs?

Thank you for your time!

[elinen]

I did a couple courses in Economic History at the LSE and it was quite helpful, but I don't think it is necessary perse. I didn't learn any specific new skills. Especially if you already have connections with people who could potentially supervise you I don't think it's worth the money. 

The only thing I am wondering about, is that you might need to have quantitative research skills (statistics et cetera). However, they didn't teach those as part of the economic history courses I took (it was mostly studying the economic arguments, rather than the specific theoretical research behind it). But I'm sure your potential supervisors can tell you more about this.

[Malthusian]

2 hours ago, elinen said:

I did a couple courses in Economic History at the LSE and it was quite helpful, but I don't think it is necessary perse. I didn't learn any specific new skills. Especially if you already have connections with people who could potentially supervise you I don't think it's worth the money. 

The only thing I am wondering about, is that you might need to have quantitative research skills (statistics et cetera). However, they didn't teach those as part of the economic history courses I took (it was mostly studying the economic arguments, rather than the specific theoretical research behind it). But I'm sure your potential supervisors can tell you more about this.

Thank you for your prompt reply!

Indeed, I'm less interested in the quantitative aspect of Economic History (taking a far more historical approach rather than quantitative, e.g. viewing the development of economies from an holistic approach rather than purely economic) and hence why I'm concerned that many PhDs in the topic tend to come from a purely Economics background.

I appreciate your information about the LSE. Was this at graduate level, by the way?

[elinen]

17 minutes ago, Malthusian said:

Thank you for your prompt reply!

Indeed, I'm less interested in the quantitative aspect of Economic History (taking a far more historical approach rather than quantitative, e.g. viewing the development of economies from an holistic approach rather than purely economic) and hence why I'm concerned that many PhDs in the topic tend to come from a purely Economics background.

I appreciate your information about the LSE. Was this at graduate level, by the way?

On this page, you can find the CVs of students who are doing their PhD in Economic History at the LSE. They all seem to have history backgrounds so that would be good news for you!  http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/PhD-Job-Market.aspx 

Yes, it was at graduate level (mostly about Latin American development). 

[Malthusian]

50 minutes ago, elinen said:

On this page, you can find the CVs of students who are doing their PhD in Economic History at the LSE. They all seem to have history backgrounds so that would be good news for you!  http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/study/PhDProgramme/PhD-Job-Market.aspx 

Yes, it was at graduate level (mostly about Latin American development). 

Oh, wow. Thank you so much!!

(I'm from a business background, but changing majors all together!

[Guest HauteFinance]

I completed the MSc Economic History program at the LSE relatively recently, so feel free to PM me with any specific questions you may have about the course/department. 

The field is a wide spectrum from purely historical to purely economic, so I don't think the second master's would be necessary unless you were trying to make a fairly radical change in methodology. My guess (w/ a grain of salt) is that the MPhil will give you most of the skills you'll need. In retrospect, the program probably has greater benefits for folks coming from an economics background, like myself, who need a crash course in the relevant literature. 

I do agree with elinen, however, that it may be worthwhile to expand your quantitative skills even if you're not particularly keen to use them. One side effect of diverse approaches is that some scholars' work may be inaccessible without at least a crude understanding of statistics and econometrics. The department does offer courses at various levels in this regard, but I'm not positive that would be the most cost-effective method.