UK MA degree: good or bad idea

[Ayayay]

Hi all,

I was recently accepted to a History MA at a very well known and regarded UK university even more well regarded in the field I'd like to study. I didn't apply to any PhDs because, frankly I didn't feel I was ready for one as I didn't end up obtaining a history BA and wanted more experience.

I'm afraid of three things though.

A. When I apply to a phd program, universities will not appreciate my intensive 12 month MA even if I do terrifically stellar.

B. No amount of MA work will undo my only having gotten a history minor as an undergrad, although I was only two courses short of the major.

C. US schools will for some reason be suspicious of a yank who went overseas to get a grad degree.

To he quite honest, I'm not entirely sure I'd like an academic career in the US. I'm a bit on the foreign side of things and I think american academic culture is a bit too much to stomach; I've seen the alternative overseas and it seems a bit more ... humane. THAT SAID at the risk of sounding a bit "have your cake and eat it, too" I'd like to keep all options on the table and doors of opportunity ajar at this point in my life.

Thanks all!

Ayayay

Edited January 25, 2010 by Ayayay

[Venetia]

Okay, I'll start out by saying I know no inside secrets about the admissions mindset of US universities, I can only tell you what I've seen based on my own experience.

Firstly, I would think that if you do amazing on your MA and have done amazing in your History classes on the BA, the adcoms wouldn't judge you on the fact that you don't in fact have a history degree. But again, I do not know this for a fact...

Secondly, about the experience of an American studying in the UK- I'm an American that's done both BA and Masters in the UK, and I highly recommend the experience. At an undergrad level I had the chaUnce to focus on the subjects I liked very early on, as there are very few required classes to take (only those related to your discipline). At a Master's level it was great to be in the UK because of my research interests. As I'm interested in the Medieval period, the wealth of manuscripts my university had was a real boon.

I wouldn't think that US universities would count it against you if you went to the UK. I like to think that it adds that touch of diversity to your application, especially if you go to a reputable school that they will have heard of. And of course you can always talk up the experience in the SoP...lol.

That's my take on UK studies; although, I must admit I have had a couple of problems translating my grades accurately to the US system, and I won't be able to adequately judge if my UK degrees counted against me until results come out (eek!).

[Matilda_Tone]

I am no expert and can only offer limited advice- but for what it’s worth...

Here in Canada, the standard process is BA to MA to PhD (direct entry is rare) and I know people with BAs and MAs in Canada who have been accepted to the United States for a History PhD...which seems to indicate that getting an MA abroad does not block one from getting into American PhD programmes.

I applied to UK schools for my MA as well, and the one big thing I was told was that it is not worth going into debt for. International fees and living expenses will be high and the sort of funding you get should be a major factor in the decision.

[repatriate]

I don't have any special insight into admissions being but an applicant myself, but I am an American working on an MA at a UK university in the School of History and Anthropology (if this name sounds familiar, PM me if you think it might be the same institution and I can answer specific questions) who is now applying to US PhD programs. Coming here was the best professional and personal decision I have ever made.

A: I don't know the structure of the course you are considering, but my taught MA is fairly small in comparison to US degrees (and I'm told this is common for UK taught degrees in humanities and social sciences): 2 courses per semester plus a 50-page dissertation that is a research proposal rather than a research report. Some US faculty don't know this and think the degree is equivalent; others will know, but they will still view it as additional training. I know that the degree is not viewed the same way as an American MA would be (by those who are aware of what a UK taught MA is like), but I also know that the caliber of the faculty here is stellar. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this for applications. Training under well respected experts is worth more than taking 64 credits under OK faculty at an American school. On top of that, I got a fantastic LOR with an important name attached to it, and, at least in my field, who you know can really help you.

B: I'm saw your other post on this, and I think the comments you get there will be more useful. I'm doubt that studying overseas will have any effect on this.

C: I don't think this is a concern if the school is, as you say, well regarded in your field of study. If profs at the PhD programs you are applying to respect the profs under whom you are studying, that is the important thing. I don't know what your specialization is and I'm not in history, but if you are planning on studying non-US history, I would imagine studying overseas would actually help you rather than hurt you. Another way to look at it (and it was recommended to me that I stress this in my applications) is that you love your discipline so much that you were willing to give up your home, friends, family, whatever else and go to an unfamiliar place where you know no one so that you could pursue it. How could an adcom look down on that?

If it helps, I have heard back from 3 schools: 1 rejection (from a program that is dead broke this year) and 2 interviews (waiting on final admissions decisions). Last year, without the MA and associated LOR, I got 5 rejections. I am convinced that enrolling in my current program is what made the difference.

[Ayayay]

A: I don't know the structure of the course you are considering, but my taught MA is fairly small in comparison to US degrees (and I'm told this is common for UK.

My MA course is six modules plus a dissertation over the summer.

Here's another few questions. Did the folks who did the UK MAs have time to acquire LORs/polish samples before applying to US PhDs? LORs are a big deal for me; while my undergrad institution as great I don't believe the history department had any instantly recognizable names facultywise while I studied there. Did anyone / would anyone consider staying in the UK to finish their PhD and maybe pursue a career abroad?

Thanks everyone. You folks are very helpful!

Ayayay

Edited January 25, 2010 by Ayayay

[jacib]

My $.02 would be the value of your MA depends a lot on what subject you study. If you wanted to study England in the Middle Ages, a Masters in England would strengthen your application considerably, especially if you had the opportunity to gain experience with archives. If you wanted to study America at any non-Colonial point in time, a Masters in the UK would probably be relatively useless. Other fields fall somewhere between the two.

[gravitysrainbow]

I applied to UK schools for my MA as well, and the one big thing I was told was that it is not worth going into debt for. International fees and living expenses will be high and the sort of funding you get should be a major factor in the decision.

From a Canadian with British (Oxbridge) Mentors / advisors in History, I agree! I would also advise that in Britain the research degree is the MPhil. An MA / MSc is often seen as more appropriate for people changing fields, and not for people continuing along a research path. (Though, if you didn't major in History, this may be fine). I also know historians who complained that the taught MA students at top history schools (Cambridge) felt like second class citizens, North American cash cows, etc. Didn't get respect or attention from prof.s.

Cheers,

GR

[Highfructose]

I am American doing an MSc this year at the London School of Economics. I did history for undergrad but struck out when applying to get straight into Ph.D.s last year- well I got into UCLA but unfunded and a few masters programs. I went for this one because it was shorter, and honestly because I thought London would make me happier than LA.

I don't regret it. I didn't really know the UK academic vocabulary before coming and wasn't myself aware of the difference between M.Phil and M.Sc. and had I known that I might have considered an M.Phil at Cambridge or something. But London rocks, I am getting a lot personally out of living here and that shows itself academically. I am sort of redefining my academic interest a bit to focus on British Colonialism. Academically it is also quite a blast, my M.Sc. is 'History of Empires'. I feel like I am learning lots, learning to locate myself in the geography of the field and getting a clearer idea of exactly what I want to study. Mainly I feel like I can articulate a clearer argument about what I want to do and how I have prepared for doing it than last year.

But the ultimate question is - Will it help get me into a Ph.D. program? I am not applying until next December but I'd like to think it would. I know other people have went this route and got into top schools in the U.S. Since I want to be a European historian, I'd imagine that getting to know the archives here, doing a dissertation based on research in those archives which might act as a prototype to a PH.D. would give me a substantial leg up on an American student with a similar specialization. Next year is going to be a year off for me to relax a bit, teach english, and put a lot of effort into applications in November/December.

Something to take into account when doing a one year masters is that had I applied this past December, I would have only had a couple months at the LSE under my belt which wasn't really enough time to get Letters of Reccomendation or to formulate a convincing argument about how my time working here has expanded me as a historian. I figured to just wait till I have a dissertation I can talk about and have developed more intimate relations with professors and to just give it a really concerted effort next round.

Some of the critiques raised above do have some validity. Masters programs at least here at the LSE do have a bit of a factory element to them, you have to put in a little more effort yourself to develop closer contacts with professors. But still I'd frame it in a more positive way, my lecturers and fellow grads are top notch, the instruction challenging, the school fairly prestigious, and I also find I get some of my most inspiring education from the city itself.

An experience I contrast my time at the LSE with is that of a Masters student I knew at UW. He was on the third year of a Masters in Sociology and was burning out. He felt like he was putting an amazing amount of effort into a degree which doesn't have the finality or academic clout of a PH.D., and described the bus ride in everyday a site for a daily existential breakdown. When doing an advanced degree at least from what I observed and experienced, there are these existential waverings and moments of extreme self doubt. Am I doing the right thing? Will this really get me where I want to go? Should I do something else? When I started the program here in London there was a lot of these feelings, but it was hard for serious self doubt to take hold because it's only been a few months and I'am already about halfway through the Masters! If I was locked into a Masters that could take into three years I think these self doubts might have had more weight and I might have seriously questioned what I was doing.

Anyway i think the verdict on this whole experience is on hold till next spring when I figure out if it paid off for getting into Ph.D.s at all - I think it might!

[kent shakespeare]

From what I've heard, there are Us out there with PhD programs that only give MAs to those who are weeded out of the PhD program; these Us don't have regular MA programs to even apply to - they assume everyone is going for the PhD. So it is possible that getting an MA from one of these schools might look bad - if you are going for a U of equal or even higher ranking.

but otherwise, it does not seem to be a bad thing; it shows you have completed work and have experience in the field; that's a good thing. Especially if you have a good thesis/chapter to show for it.

Since your UK school apparently offers both, I doubt there'd be a problem. You could always clarify your reasons in your statement of purpose as well, for those or other reasons. In general, study abroad usually looks good - especially at a reputable school. For many, the logistics of being abroad for multiple years can be problematic as well; you could add that to your statement, too, as it may apply to you.

[Noodles]

A terminal master's degree program from a reputable European program (e.g., Oxford) can be a positive signal as long as you perform well. It is an opportunity to learn research methods, enhance language skills, further your knowledge of history, and define your research interests. Unless your master's degree is from a department that normally grants them "en route" - signaling that you were asked to leave a doctoral program - it should help and not hurt you as an applicant. Admission committees are well aware of other history departments and the types of researchers they produce. It may also be worthwhile to investigate the CVs of faculty and graduate students in the programs you wish to apply to in the future. You will notice that many people at the top U.S. programs obtained master's degrees at other highly regarded programs before earning their PhD. Columbia, Georgetown, LSE, Oxford, Cambridge, and other known programs have an established history of placing their better master's students in their own programs or other similarly ranked programs.

Any reputable U.K. program will place similarly if you are at or near the top of the class (i.e., graduate with Distinction). Also, earning a doctorate at a reputable U.K. program will provide you with ample opportunities to have an academic career in the United States. You will find that many professors at top programs in the U.S. earned their doctorates outside of the country. Usually, you will want to choose the "research" rather than "taught" master's program. The "research" program is for students planning to pursue a PhD or equivalent. English/Scottish programs tend not to post their placements because most of their top graduates stay for the PhD, but you will frequently find that PhDs from the very best programs have master's degrees from these programs.

Georgetown's recent placements:

"Graduate Placements

James Pickett, a May 2008 MAGIC graduate, will begin a PhD program at Princeton University in September 2008. At Princeton, Pickett will concentrate in Eurasian history under the direction of Stephen Kotkin.

Nathaniel Mathews, a prospective 2009 MAGIC graduate, will begin a PhD program at Northwestern University in September 2009.

Evan A. North, a prospective 2009 MAGIC graduate, will begin a PhD program at Georgetown University in September 2009.

Graham Auman Pitts, a prospective 2009 MAGIC graduate, will begin a PhD program at Georgetown University in September 2009. "

NOTE: I recently decided to pursue a PhD in history as opposed to another discipline. This is based on my own research of history programs using techniques I learned when searching for other programs. I do not have specialized knowledge. What I know is strictly from reading admissions websites at the top 50 programs, investigating master's programs in the U.K. and U.S., and pouring over hundreds of CVs. I am interested in a less popular field of history and so finding programs/faculty that fit my needs are a bit more difficult and requires more research. I have no specialized or "inside" knowledge. If I am misguided, feel free to correct me.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Noodles