What I should I accomplish in a Master's?

[astroid88]

Hi All,

I am currently applying to MENAs master's and History PhD programs, with the intent of going to into a MENA master's program. I applied to 2 10-20 PhD programs as feelers for later on.  My goal is to get into a top 10 history program after my master's.

I graduated with decent grades from undergrad (3.75), typical awards (PBK, magna cum laude, history senior award, etc.), proficiency in two languages related to my research area,  study abroad experience in two countries related to my area (A North African country and France. I study French colonialism), archival research experience in France, and I have teaching experience (3 years as a French language teacher). I scored highly on the GRE Verbal and Analytical Writing, so I don't plan on retaking the test.

I am applying to MENAs master's program to work on my Arabic. I have a preliminary goals list, but I would like to add on to it. 

My goals are to: get my Arabic to third-year proficiency, do intensive Arabic study abroad my first summer (or one in the US if that doesn't pan out), develop good relationships with my professors, write a master's thesis (and get in a second archival visit in the process), present at a conference, and be a TA.

Is there anything else I should be doing?

As a side question: I feel like  I did well in undergrad. A lot of people apply to master's programs because they didn't do too hot in undergrad. I was wondering, all else being equal, will my strong record in undergrad play any role in the admissions process? Are people who do well in both undergrad and MA programs seen in a better light than those who went into one because of poor grades and lack of focus? I realize I'm not the only one applying and entering master's programs with a strong undergrad record, nor is my undergraduate record the best. I'm just curious as to how that record is factored in to future PhD applications.

Edited December 18, 2017 by astroid88

[AP]

If your goal is a PhD in history, once you get into a master's I would advice you to take classes cross listed with a history department and/or write your research papers using historical methods. I know people in MESAS, African Studies, CLAS, and the like who study questions about the past but doesn't mean they do historical research. They have their own methods and their own focus, which is very interesting and all, but which is not the same as doing history. If your long term goal is a PhD in history, in your PhD application down the road you will need to explain how this master's informs your historical scholarship. 

If you are thinking of attending a conference, I would strongly urge you to plan to attend a national/regional conference in your field, especially if your advisor goes and they can introduce you to people. This will be a great networking opportunity in light of PhD applications later on. 

4 hours ago, astroid88 said:

As a side question: I feel like  I did well in undergrad. A lot of people apply to master's programs because they didn't do too hot in undergrad. I was wondering, all else being equal, will my strong record in undergrad play any role in the admissions process? Are people who do well in both undergrad and MA programs seen in a better light than those who went into one because of poor grades and lack of focus? I realize I'm not the only one applying and entering master's programs with a strong undergrad record, nor is my undergraduate record the best. I'm just curious as to how that record is factored in to future PhD applications.

Grades are important in the sense that I doubt AdComms in the top 10 programs you are thinking of would admit anyone with a low GPA. But grades by no means factor anything. As said elsewhere, your SoP, WS and LoRs comprise the most important documents in your package. Having a master's tells AdComms that you have conducted independent research, that you have some knowledge of the historiography, and that you master some languages. But many people also check these boxes in other ways, even coming straight from undergrad. One thing that I keep telling incoming cohorts in my school and people here (and you can of course take it or leave it) is that for going to grad school you need to stop thinking like an undergrad. This is not an accumulation of requirements (I mean, it is, but it is so much more to it) and that's why applying for grad school demands these forums: because it is very complex and it is not contingent only on your record. A master's will give you time to decide what type of scholar you want to be. Remember that in the long run, your audience will be bigger than the people that do French colonialism: you will speak to scholars of colonialism, scholars of Northern Africa, scholars of the Arab world, etc etc. So use your master's to stretch your network. 

(I hope this makes sense!)

[astroid88]

1 hour ago, AP said:

If your goal is a PhD in history, once you get into a master's I would advice you to take classes cross listed with a history department and/or write your research papers using historical methods. I know people in MESAS, African Studies, CLAS, and the like who study questions about the past but doesn't mean they do historical research. They have their own methods and their own focus, which is very interesting and all, but which is not the same as doing history. If your long term goal is a PhD in history, in your PhD application down the road you will need to explain how this master's informs your historical scholarship. 

I forgot to mention that I majored in history and carried out a big research project my final year, so I'm pretty aware of that issue.

All the MENAs master's programs I applied to are kind of these crosses between many departments. The four master's programs I applied to all have historians (as in their main department is the history department) with whom I can imagine working. So I think I'll be good on that end. 

 

1 hour ago, AP said:

 One thing that I keep telling incoming cohorts in my school and people here (and you can of course take it or leave it) is that for going to grad school you need to stop thinking like an undergrad. This is not an accumulation of requirements (I mean, it is, but it is so much more to it) and that's why applying for grad school demands these forums: because it is very complex and it is not contingent only on your record.

I know my post came off a bit as a list, but I understand your point. I was just trying to relay what I've done in order to get more specific feedback. 

Thank you!

Edited December 18, 2017 by astroid88
Period

[dr. t]

1 hour ago, AP said:

Grades are important in the sense that I doubt AdComms in the top 10 programs you are thinking of would admit anyone with a low GPA. But grades by no means factor anything.

Yeah, I think that the best way to think of your quantifiables on a PhD app is as if you're applying to a top-tier undergraduate institution. Every year, UChicago (for example) gets enough applicants with perfect GPA and SAT scores to fill out an entire freshman class; every PhD program worth attending can certainly do the same, mutas mutandis.

What else can you bring to the table to stand out from the crowd? If you don't have that perfect GPA (I didn't), why, specifically, should the admissions committee take you over a candidate who does? 

Edited December 18, 2017 by telkanuru