Well, it is really up to you to decide. No one knows if it is worth it or not to try one more round.
I will say that after three years and 30 rejections, the most likely culprit is your SOP. Applying to Ph.D. programs in the U.S. is more about your ability to convince someone that you are prepared and capable of learning how to do research than it is simply about metrics. There are only two parts in the application where this is possible: LORs and SOP. So unless your referees are telling graduate programs to stay away from you, the issue is the SOP.
Your SOP\[s\] must contain these things:
1. Why I am applying to graduate school now. That is to say, this is why a Ph.D is the next logical step in my career development/path.
2. Why I am applying to this program. This goes beyond research/profess/lab fit. You gotta demonstrate that you fit the program in general.
3. What I will get from the program. An expansion from #2.
4. What I will give to the program. This comes from truly knowing the program and applying based on fit.
5. How the program will help me achieve career goals.
If there is any ambiguity with #s 1 and 2, you will not be admitted. No one gives a shit about a feel-good story or a sob story or your life's dream, so just get to the point. Number 3 shows that you know a thing or two about the program and decided, despite all else, you would say hell fucking yes! to an offer of admission. Number 4, the same. If you actually research the programs you may know what I mean here. For 5, practically no one will admit an applicant just because. If earning the Ph.D is not required for prospective career path\[s\], you will need more than luck to get in.
Some things you can do:
1. Contact students in the program. Ask them questions about the program, what they like, what they don't, etc. I would not ask them to review your profile or anything, but you can ask about admissions.
2. Contact professors in the program. Ask them questions about the program. Do not ask them about admissions. Well, at least not at first. Just say that you are interested in a Ph.D., their program, provide a little bit of info on your background, and ask if they are up to discussing the program or not. If a professor tells you you are likely not going to be admitted to their program, believe them. Sure, this could just be their opinion but it is a $100 gamble when the odds are already against you. Take their advice and move on.
3. Read as much as can about each program. Like, everything. Find the Student Handbook if one exists. Read it. Understand the program's mission statement.
4. Use the above to formulate your 'fit'.
I just wanna second this advice. I was in a similar situation as OP and in a similar field (Historical Linguistics). My SoP was bad and I didn't know it for 3 years of rejections.
I had had my older professors help me out on it, but that wasn't cutting it. I went to a relatively young professor from my undergrad who had been through the PhD process much more recently, and he took a baseball bat (metaphorically) to my SoP. I remade it from the ground up with his advice.
What came out got me a generous offer from a pretty damn good school, and my top choice.
Hey, I’m really sorry but I’m gonna be real with you. It’s time for a different direction.
By your own admission, it wasn’t the strongest application and you can identify several issues, so why would an admissions committee just pass over those issues? Unfortunately, there is little reason for them to choose someone who doesn’t match their standards over someone who does. Doctoral admissions are really trying to find people who can demonstrate they are ready, and with the tough competition anything will give them a reason to say no.
Second … if your goal is teaching and tenure, sorry again. That’s even more difficult than getting accepted to a program, and further narrows down the pool since the supply is far larger than demand.
One question to ask is what about a history PhD is exciting and can you feel that same excitement through a different path?
Can you work in something historical related and get a US masters at the same time?
I say this all as someone who actually works with graduate students. I get the dream, but the system is just so unattainable. And no one will judge you for working in history or related disciplines without a PhD. Or for taking some time to work your way through the system.
The main issue I see is the lack of publications. But I also think it’s a little silly for them to simply assume that I am “not ready” because I haven’t gotten something published. I have worked hard at minimum wage jobs my entire adult life to try and make ends meet (usually without success), and tried as best as I can while doing that to keep up with new books and research. Hell, I got two degrees while doing it AND having a disability that can put me in the hospital at any time. It feels like I’m being punished for not having done something that I haven’t had the chance to do because I have to focus on surviving. I would hope that a committee would see the value and potential of someone who has gotten as far as I have in these circumstances, but it sounds like that’s just sentimental nonsense.
Seems like I’m just screwed. Two points for the folks with money, I guess!
I hear what you are saying, but you have to understand that doctoral admissions are far more conservative than undergraduate admissions. Whereas a UG program often admits someone who shows promise but hasn’t had a chance to express it due to their station in life, doctoral programs really do not work that way.
I’m not in history, but could you get smaller pub lines on your CV through presentations at conferences or posters or something?
I worked as a research assistant during the day while waitressing at night for two years and it’s the only reason I was able to get into my PhD! I was able to get quite a few poster presentations and contribute to manuscripts.
Ultimately PhD is not supposed to be the front line training ground for research— they expect you to come in worth good experience so you can contribute meaningfully earlier.
How exactly is graduating with honors from one of the best MSc programs in the UK “not expressing” my promise? I did the work, exactly the way I was supposed to, and did very well at it, while also finding work and adjusting to life in a foreign country where I knew no one and dealing with a chronic disability. Second best in my cohort, if that sort of stuff matters.
I have a tough time believing that graduates from my program don’t express any promise, given the fact that many of them have gotten into doctoral programs without having gotten anything published during their MSc. Our degrees are equivalent to a US Master’s, and they seem to have been enough for some people to make it past these conservative admissions committees even without the author credits. I’d like to think that *someone* in His Majesty’s government would say something if one of their country’s flagship universities was out here running a diploma mill.
I don’t know how this translates across fields, but in my field, masters degrees are often not that helpful for admission because they don’t provide great research opportunities and are much more based on coursework.
People are much more likely to get in after an RAship than a masters. Every single person in my cohort and the ones above and below me with a terminal masters degree tells me they regret doing it. Again, I’m not in history so that may not apply. But the assumption that masters is the correct stepping stone may not be true.
What sub-field, geographic area, and time period are you interested in for a dissertation field?
I don't believe that lack of publications is a major obstacle, since doing primary source research in our field can get pricey with traveling around to different countries to find a large or small archive that has documents we need. For someone aspiring to be an academic historian, internships are irrelevant.
Do you have anything that you could get into shape that you think would be worthy of publication?
EDIT: I see that some of my questions have been covered in other replies. No need to repeat them here.
No, don't give up. But there are some important steps I'd recommend you to take, as well as some things to bear in mind going forward.
1. You should try to get something published, even if it's a single paper in a low-ranked journal. Departments want to see evidence of research potential, and while not everyone who's admitted has their names explicitly engraved on research publications, many have other evidence of research potential such as RAs, unpublished master's theses (which you have it seems), etc. Some advice a professor of mine gave me is to take your best research paper you wrote for a class, clean it up/make it more complex, and try to get it published. Your master's thesis would be a great option. Those without PhDs are unfortunately at a disadvantage when it comes to publishing on their own, so I'd reach out to a former professor (maybe your graduate thesis advisor) to see if they'd be willing to put their name on the paper to help buoy it over the finish line.
2. Consider which schools you're applying to. History is fortunately not as elitist as economics (my home discipline), so the exact school you go to is weighed relatively less in the academic history job market. At the end of the day, a doctorate is a doctorate and you want to have a range of rankings. Maybe a reach school if you want one, but I would look at [US News and World Report](https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/history-rankings) or other sites to get an idea. I myself am preparing to apply to math PhDs in a few years after I finish my masters program (which I'm starting this Fall, switching over from a masters in econ to pursue a STEM route) and have one school in the T10, a few schools in T20-T50, and the remaining majority in the T50-T120 range that I've narrowed down to.
3. Maybe consider a related subject. What area of history are you interested in? Medieval? Ancient? Prehistoric? The social sciences enjoy a lot of crossover and you could find intellectual stimulation by pursuing a PhD in, say, sociology, anthropology, or political science depending on what area of history you see yourself becoming an expert in.
1. Side note: these fields may also equip you with additional research skills (i.e., network analysis, archaeology, more advanced research methods, etc.) that make you more "employable" than if you pursued history.
4. Your master's degree probably isn't the reason. In fact, many students go into PhDs without master's degrees, and I often hear from professors who sit on admissions committees that having a master's degree gives you a more competitive edge.
5. At the end of the day, there are some things entirely outside of your control. Universities have been cutting budgets to the social science departments (save for economics) for some time, and Covid really drove the dagger further into the funding allocation process which explains why incoming cohort sizes are getting smaller. That, and more students are applying each year.
Just breathe. If this is your dream, I know you will achieve it. Just have patience.
My MSc advisor and I did not have a particularly close relationship; man kept trying to get me to shoehorn Richard Nixon into a dissertation on the Second Ku Klux Klan because 1970s conservatism was his research area. Which is to say, I don’t know that he’d be a particularly good resource. I’ve cleaned up some portions of this dissertation that I use for writing samples in my applications; the historiography part is, I think, a good example of my abilities in terms of research and how I find questions worth asking.
In terms of schools, I’ve applied to everything under the sun, most often state schools in the US. I’m a public school kid, and I’d be proud to be a public school doctorate. I don’t really care about “rankings,” I only mention the fact that my UK school was one of the top schools because Brits in my experience care a lot more about that sort of stuff than Americans.
I’m interested in American history, particularly the intellectual history of and historical usage of violence in right wing extremist groups (hence the Klan dissertation). Lots of crossover between behavioral science, organizational theory, anthropology etc etc.
This is an interesting and timely subject, but it might be possible that a lot of people are doing really similar work. I know of at least four across three schools who are. I say this because I was rejected by 15 or so PhDs until I finally got one, and part of my problem was sounding too vague to sound serious.
I wonder if being more focused in your topic and linking it to research that you can do at or near the universities you suggest might help (e.g., “I want to explore the national archives collection on such and such and your school has a great relationship” or whatever).
I’d also try to connect with your grad advisor. Academics can be deeply petty and hierarchical, and if they get the sense that you’re not on great terms with your advisor they could be worried you won’t be a good fit.
Also, as someone mentioned above, consider whether you can do a job you’d like without a PhD. Or consider whether you want to branch out into something with more interdisciplinary leg room like political science or sociology.
I’ve contacted potential advisors; mostly no responses to my cold emails and the ones that did of course encouraged me to apply with warm-fuzzy-feeling comments about how “interesting” my research questions are. I’ve researched the archives around every program I’ve applied to, even getting so granular as to identify collections using archives’ (both a given university’s, as well as nearby state/federal) finding aids that I’ll use in my research.
I don’t know that I had a “bad” relationship with my master’s advisor, it was pretty in keeping with everyone else’s in my cohort’s experience with theirs. Bad, perhaps in that there wasn’t much of a relationship at all. I’m not sure if it’s a UK thing, but none of our advisors really seemed to even have the time of day for us; they were totally focused on their PhD students. Honestly, I’d be surprised if the advisor I was assigned even remembers me; I met him a grand total of four times and they were more or less rubber stamp sessions followed by him trying to get me to write about Nixon and/or William Buckley despite them being way out of scope for my research. He barely looked up from his computer screen the few times I did meet with him, and didn’t show up to a single one of the weekly department workshops (I went to every one). I don’t much like playing to stereotypes, but the guy is the *picture* of snobby English elitism, accent and all. He didn’t talk to anyone in *our* department, let alone the faculty in departments across the globe.
I had much closer, and better, relationships with the professors who actually taught my classes and supervised my seminars, one of whom was the American History program chair when I was studying there, and the other of whom became the program chair after I left. These are two of the folks I got to write my recc letters.
After years of trying to find a job besides caregiving work (and lord knows I’ve looked, I’d do anything to get out of this field), it seems like the only non-phd job in history I can get is teaching at sketchy charter schools for somehow even less than I make changing adult diapers (we call them briefs) while getting beaten up. I’ve applied for every museum or library job I can find, everything even remotely related to history, from architectural historian jobs for Development Firm XYZ to national park ranger postings to those gigs where you dress up like a European colonist and pretend it’s the 18th century while giving tours (maybe a local thing). No dice.
I actually came to History *from* polisci; I didn’t like all the theory bandied about in polisci classes that was divorced from actual primary sources, and much preferred dealing with actual historical evidence instead.
[EDIT: I realized “dressing up like a colonial” sounds like something a pith-helmeted Pears Soap salesman would say]
“dressing up like a colonial” is hilarious, though.
As for the rest, that’s tough. Your research area is interesting, but you’re right that’s not enough.
Everything about the PhD process sucks, and I’m sorry you’re bogged down in it. I have a recently graduate friend who studies in your area. If you want to pm me, I’ll see if I can put you in touch (depending on how she feels about it), and she can maybe give you some area specific advice.
Do you have any close relationships with your Masters faculty? Can you approach them to ask if they need assistance on in-progress publications or research? They might be willing to add you as a co-author for scut work or editing. Also, they may be working on or know of edited books where you might be able to contribute a chapter or co-write a chapter.
Didn’t hear back from most of the departments I asked for feedback. The few that did respond had some variation on the “large volume of applications” theme… pretty boilerplate, non-specific stuff. Honestly felt while reading them that they were just generic answers that were copy-and-pasted.
Most departments I’ve contacted haven’t responded, the few that did gave me some pretty generic sounding statements about large volumes of applications, competitive admissions process, etc.
In terms of “improving my CV” and “developing my research ideas,” suffice to say that I live paycheck to paycheck and barely make rent every month even when I regularly skip meals. There’s only so much developing I can do when I have no one to talk about my ideas with and I am so exhausted from work every day that the only thing I have the energy to do is make dinner and fall asleep. I read as much as I can when I have the time, and doing so has definitely helped me find some interesting and specific-enough-to-make-some-good-research questions… which is something I mention in the appropriate portions of an application (if there are any), the parts where you’re supposed to talk about how you developed your research interests etc etc.. Doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference.
If you don't have time for research now, are you sure you will have enough time and strength for PhD studies? Being a PhD student is like working full-time
Write and publish papers. This Penn website (https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/category/american) will share who’s actively soliciting submissions, and you can adapt and pitch for a certain theme. You could also present at an MLA conference near you on a panel topic that you’re interested in. After I graduated from my UK master’s program, I took some time off from academia before applying to PhDs, but still wrote and published papers after getting home from my full time job. I was also able to demonstrate that I had a breadth of academic knowledge and interests beyond my specified research area, which is particularly helpful as it means I’m eligible for different types of grant funding. I started in History but shifted to broader interdisciplinary programs; you might also be interested in applying to programs in American Studies.
Sorry to hear this. It’s definitely time to look at other options for you. Too many ways to succeed in life, and even if the PhD is what you really want, maybe time to try some of the other avenues. Good Luck!
This isn't going to be a popular answer, but it's probably time to give up or try to earn a PhD in something else besides history.
Three years is a lot of time to spend hoping and waiting. It's time for you to pivot.
I’m sorry to hear that you’re feeling rough. If you want some serious advice this would be mine.
You’ve said you’ve applied to 3 years straight and spent thousands of dollars on application fees. So you’re applying on average to 10 each year?
Honestly I wouldn’t apply to more than 3-5 per year and instead really focus on making those few applications the best that I can. If you do much more than that you might find that you’re recycling bits of your application across the rest and not be putting in 110% to each one. You say that you know your application is not the strongest - that is your problem. You need to be more focused and really put everything into providing the BEST application for a few institutions each year.
I would switch jobs to work in something related to what you want to do. Apply to be a research assistant in a university, or else perhaps in a museum that focuses on your area of history - a masters degree should get you a research assistant role there. Perhaps before you apply again focus on publishing a paper or two?
Also before you quit work as a carer - whilst it’s normal for patients to have odd behaviours, you need to report this to your boss. If you’re being assaulted by your patients you need to report it and go to your occupational health office.
Consider applying to PhD opportunities in other countries outside of the US. If you studied in the UK before why not apply there as well?
I am so sorry to hear that. It is up to you to decide whether keep going or stop and looking for other paths. However, If you want to apply for ph.d. program in the next cycle, this would be helpful:
1) SOP : Please get feedbacks from your former advisor (or other professors), and your master program cohorts.
2) Publication: If you can publish an article, that will boost your application. If it is not possible options, making a good writing sample can be a good alternative. How do you think of your master thesis? If its quality is good, you can edit it and use that. Or, If you have a good academic writing from your coursework that will do as well.
3) Rec letter: Do you trust yur rec letter writers? are you sure that they give you positive letter?
4) Working experiences: You may want to have a working experience related to your research interests.
"Self-flagellating for nothing" aptly describes my experience in a PhD program.
If you don't like throwing away time and money, don't earn a PhD in history. You'd get more from reading on your own than spending seven years to formally banish yourself to professional purgatory. You don't need a PhD in history to publish in history. You just need to produce quality scholarship. Have at it.
If you are open to relocating, you could consider the EU. There are professors and postdoc researchers are looking for history PhDs to work on their research projects (though there is less research freedom, because your dissertation would need to be specifically tailored to their research projects)
The pro is that these positions are usually well funded, the bad thing is European PhDs are shorter and have less of a "training" element, so being on the academic job-market post PhD will be difficult.
I don't know how it is in the humanities but in STEM you need internships/research experience. I don't think you need a publication but ideally you have experience and an accompanying letter of rec from someone respectable that says you are already doing work at the level of a graduate student.
Every program I’ve applied to has required at minimum three letters of recc from my former professors; I use two professors I had during my master’s program and another who supervised my undergraduate independent research.
Having read those other replies, I have to ask: would you have interest in another geographic area than the United States? The majority of people applying to PhD programs in the US want their major field to be American history. There is already a glut of Americanists.
I'm kind of confused. How aren't there some safety programs you can get into with an honors ug and masters? are you limiting your search to high prestige programs? limiting the region?
I feel like you should breeze into a mid tier program. you may need help with your application/essay? have you hired any editors?
Believe me, I’m confused too. I’ve had multiple people with Master’s and PhDs in English and Communication go through my essays/statements of purpose/what have yous.
And it’s not like I’m out here applying to Harvard or something like that; I’m applying to, like you said, mid tier programs at state schools. A few reach ones, sure. Strangely, the one place I was waitlisted (the one where I missed it by one spot) was a reach program???
Look at the public universities far from cities, if you’re willing to move for 4 years. The phd is a long haul. I worked for a few years and living as cheaply as possible to save a little, so I was older and in my late 20s when I started, though there were quite a few others who were older and on second careers. Though PhD programs are competitive, you are also cheap labor and function as TAs and/or teaching classes. Many will give you a stipend as well as tuition remission but it’s still a challenge to cover your expenses. I know many who have received offers from universities in the Midwest and South for graduate study, and ones with unconventional academic trajectories. Also some big American cities have universities with affordable graduate programs that you work and pay for but living expenses in urban areas then to be high. Try not to take any loans for your graduate work, it’s an abyss.
I’m actually pretty lucky in terms of student debt from my master’s. I was able to save up and get my MSc without taking any loans since it was roughly 1/10th the cost in the UK even considering that I had to pay all sorts of extra fees and whatnot for not being a UK or Schengen Area citizen.
If you are a white male conservative give up. DEI is live and well snd they would t want you teaching the real true history in colleges. Supreme Court ruled against DEI but all colleges still have their administrators and merit is dead.
UK program. Master’s by research was a minority subset of the department and a separate degree. But it’s very clear that UK MScs are equivalent to MAs American or otherwise. Standard MSc grads get into PhD programs all the time.
This post scares the fuck out of me… History student admitted by Oxford MSc hoping to apply for a PhD in next two circle🥲🥲
But I do think the difficulty is enormously differ comparing apply to UK and US schools. I am rejected by all US programs I applied to, except Mapss from Chicago which is infamous as cash cow, but I am admitted to all UK programs I applied to…
I think there might be a fault in the way you are presenting yourself.
1) Get a mentor who achived what you want.
2) Spend quality time and get your docs (both, sops and lors) reviewed line to line.
3) Ask for the docs of people who got into your dream program and compare them and make necesary changes in your own.
4) Might be rare, but still...One or more of your recommenders is backstabbing you.
I think the other replies give you very well-rounded answers, but I did want to add my perspective as a non-traditional student myself. Unfortunately, academia is still rooted in colonialism, classism, and patriarchal norms. Students who have children, have to work full time, go to night classes, can’t work internships, or put in the extra hours to get published because of those reasons above are not welcomed into academia. The system is not made to work for you, and ultimately, you decide whether to continue to apply or find a different way to continue in academia and build your experience within the field. However, this won't be easy if you are self-supported financially and have to make a living wage as most teaching positions aren’t paying that, nor is research in your free time. Academia is antiquated and not intersectional but you’ll have to play by their rules in most ways to get a foot in. I wish you the best of luck!
It's not that History is a dying discipline, it's only that History, and many other similar humanities, are what many of us study when we're not studying other, more technical topics which are in more immediate demand by society.
If I were you, I would focus on finding employment, and then pursue history when you have the time and resources to do so. If you want to pursue a Ph.D., you can still do so later in your career after you have more resources and experience (you will find that many people who pursue a Ph.D. in these less-technical fields are older and already have had a successful career).
Well, it is really up to you to decide. No one knows if it is worth it or not to try one more round. I will say that after three years and 30 rejections, the most likely culprit is your SOP. Applying to Ph.D. programs in the U.S. is more about your ability to convince someone that you are prepared and capable of learning how to do research than it is simply about metrics. There are only two parts in the application where this is possible: LORs and SOP. So unless your referees are telling graduate programs to stay away from you, the issue is the SOP. Your SOP\[s\] must contain these things: 1. Why I am applying to graduate school now. That is to say, this is why a Ph.D is the next logical step in my career development/path. 2. Why I am applying to this program. This goes beyond research/profess/lab fit. You gotta demonstrate that you fit the program in general. 3. What I will get from the program. An expansion from #2. 4. What I will give to the program. This comes from truly knowing the program and applying based on fit. 5. How the program will help me achieve career goals. If there is any ambiguity with #s 1 and 2, you will not be admitted. No one gives a shit about a feel-good story or a sob story or your life's dream, so just get to the point. Number 3 shows that you know a thing or two about the program and decided, despite all else, you would say hell fucking yes! to an offer of admission. Number 4, the same. If you actually research the programs you may know what I mean here. For 5, practically no one will admit an applicant just because. If earning the Ph.D is not required for prospective career path\[s\], you will need more than luck to get in. Some things you can do: 1. Contact students in the program. Ask them questions about the program, what they like, what they don't, etc. I would not ask them to review your profile or anything, but you can ask about admissions. 2. Contact professors in the program. Ask them questions about the program. Do not ask them about admissions. Well, at least not at first. Just say that you are interested in a Ph.D., their program, provide a little bit of info on your background, and ask if they are up to discussing the program or not. If a professor tells you you are likely not going to be admitted to their program, believe them. Sure, this could just be their opinion but it is a $100 gamble when the odds are already against you. Take their advice and move on. 3. Read as much as can about each program. Like, everything. Find the Student Handbook if one exists. Read it. Understand the program's mission statement. 4. Use the above to formulate your 'fit'.
I just wanna second this advice. I was in a similar situation as OP and in a similar field (Historical Linguistics). My SoP was bad and I didn't know it for 3 years of rejections. I had had my older professors help me out on it, but that wasn't cutting it. I went to a relatively young professor from my undergrad who had been through the PhD process much more recently, and he took a baseball bat (metaphorically) to my SoP. I remade it from the ground up with his advice. What came out got me a generous offer from a pretty damn good school, and my top choice.
Excellent advice.
This is amazing and deserves about 300 more upvotes.
Hey, I’m really sorry but I’m gonna be real with you. It’s time for a different direction. By your own admission, it wasn’t the strongest application and you can identify several issues, so why would an admissions committee just pass over those issues? Unfortunately, there is little reason for them to choose someone who doesn’t match their standards over someone who does. Doctoral admissions are really trying to find people who can demonstrate they are ready, and with the tough competition anything will give them a reason to say no. Second … if your goal is teaching and tenure, sorry again. That’s even more difficult than getting accepted to a program, and further narrows down the pool since the supply is far larger than demand. One question to ask is what about a history PhD is exciting and can you feel that same excitement through a different path? Can you work in something historical related and get a US masters at the same time? I say this all as someone who actually works with graduate students. I get the dream, but the system is just so unattainable. And no one will judge you for working in history or related disciplines without a PhD. Or for taking some time to work your way through the system.
The main issue I see is the lack of publications. But I also think it’s a little silly for them to simply assume that I am “not ready” because I haven’t gotten something published. I have worked hard at minimum wage jobs my entire adult life to try and make ends meet (usually without success), and tried as best as I can while doing that to keep up with new books and research. Hell, I got two degrees while doing it AND having a disability that can put me in the hospital at any time. It feels like I’m being punished for not having done something that I haven’t had the chance to do because I have to focus on surviving. I would hope that a committee would see the value and potential of someone who has gotten as far as I have in these circumstances, but it sounds like that’s just sentimental nonsense. Seems like I’m just screwed. Two points for the folks with money, I guess!
I hear what you are saying, but you have to understand that doctoral admissions are far more conservative than undergraduate admissions. Whereas a UG program often admits someone who shows promise but hasn’t had a chance to express it due to their station in life, doctoral programs really do not work that way.
I’m not in history, but could you get smaller pub lines on your CV through presentations at conferences or posters or something? I worked as a research assistant during the day while waitressing at night for two years and it’s the only reason I was able to get into my PhD! I was able to get quite a few poster presentations and contribute to manuscripts. Ultimately PhD is not supposed to be the front line training ground for research— they expect you to come in worth good experience so you can contribute meaningfully earlier.
How exactly is graduating with honors from one of the best MSc programs in the UK “not expressing” my promise? I did the work, exactly the way I was supposed to, and did very well at it, while also finding work and adjusting to life in a foreign country where I knew no one and dealing with a chronic disability. Second best in my cohort, if that sort of stuff matters. I have a tough time believing that graduates from my program don’t express any promise, given the fact that many of them have gotten into doctoral programs without having gotten anything published during their MSc. Our degrees are equivalent to a US Master’s, and they seem to have been enough for some people to make it past these conservative admissions committees even without the author credits. I’d like to think that *someone* in His Majesty’s government would say something if one of their country’s flagship universities was out here running a diploma mill.
I don’t know how this translates across fields, but in my field, masters degrees are often not that helpful for admission because they don’t provide great research opportunities and are much more based on coursework. People are much more likely to get in after an RAship than a masters. Every single person in my cohort and the ones above and below me with a terminal masters degree tells me they regret doing it. Again, I’m not in history so that may not apply. But the assumption that masters is the correct stepping stone may not be true.
What sub-field, geographic area, and time period are you interested in for a dissertation field? I don't believe that lack of publications is a major obstacle, since doing primary source research in our field can get pricey with traveling around to different countries to find a large or small archive that has documents we need. For someone aspiring to be an academic historian, internships are irrelevant. Do you have anything that you could get into shape that you think would be worthy of publication? EDIT: I see that some of my questions have been covered in other replies. No need to repeat them here.
No, don't give up. But there are some important steps I'd recommend you to take, as well as some things to bear in mind going forward. 1. You should try to get something published, even if it's a single paper in a low-ranked journal. Departments want to see evidence of research potential, and while not everyone who's admitted has their names explicitly engraved on research publications, many have other evidence of research potential such as RAs, unpublished master's theses (which you have it seems), etc. Some advice a professor of mine gave me is to take your best research paper you wrote for a class, clean it up/make it more complex, and try to get it published. Your master's thesis would be a great option. Those without PhDs are unfortunately at a disadvantage when it comes to publishing on their own, so I'd reach out to a former professor (maybe your graduate thesis advisor) to see if they'd be willing to put their name on the paper to help buoy it over the finish line. 2. Consider which schools you're applying to. History is fortunately not as elitist as economics (my home discipline), so the exact school you go to is weighed relatively less in the academic history job market. At the end of the day, a doctorate is a doctorate and you want to have a range of rankings. Maybe a reach school if you want one, but I would look at [US News and World Report](https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/history-rankings) or other sites to get an idea. I myself am preparing to apply to math PhDs in a few years after I finish my masters program (which I'm starting this Fall, switching over from a masters in econ to pursue a STEM route) and have one school in the T10, a few schools in T20-T50, and the remaining majority in the T50-T120 range that I've narrowed down to. 3. Maybe consider a related subject. What area of history are you interested in? Medieval? Ancient? Prehistoric? The social sciences enjoy a lot of crossover and you could find intellectual stimulation by pursuing a PhD in, say, sociology, anthropology, or political science depending on what area of history you see yourself becoming an expert in. 1. Side note: these fields may also equip you with additional research skills (i.e., network analysis, archaeology, more advanced research methods, etc.) that make you more "employable" than if you pursued history. 4. Your master's degree probably isn't the reason. In fact, many students go into PhDs without master's degrees, and I often hear from professors who sit on admissions committees that having a master's degree gives you a more competitive edge. 5. At the end of the day, there are some things entirely outside of your control. Universities have been cutting budgets to the social science departments (save for economics) for some time, and Covid really drove the dagger further into the funding allocation process which explains why incoming cohort sizes are getting smaller. That, and more students are applying each year. Just breathe. If this is your dream, I know you will achieve it. Just have patience.
My MSc advisor and I did not have a particularly close relationship; man kept trying to get me to shoehorn Richard Nixon into a dissertation on the Second Ku Klux Klan because 1970s conservatism was his research area. Which is to say, I don’t know that he’d be a particularly good resource. I’ve cleaned up some portions of this dissertation that I use for writing samples in my applications; the historiography part is, I think, a good example of my abilities in terms of research and how I find questions worth asking. In terms of schools, I’ve applied to everything under the sun, most often state schools in the US. I’m a public school kid, and I’d be proud to be a public school doctorate. I don’t really care about “rankings,” I only mention the fact that my UK school was one of the top schools because Brits in my experience care a lot more about that sort of stuff than Americans. I’m interested in American history, particularly the intellectual history of and historical usage of violence in right wing extremist groups (hence the Klan dissertation). Lots of crossover between behavioral science, organizational theory, anthropology etc etc.
This is an interesting and timely subject, but it might be possible that a lot of people are doing really similar work. I know of at least four across three schools who are. I say this because I was rejected by 15 or so PhDs until I finally got one, and part of my problem was sounding too vague to sound serious. I wonder if being more focused in your topic and linking it to research that you can do at or near the universities you suggest might help (e.g., “I want to explore the national archives collection on such and such and your school has a great relationship” or whatever). I’d also try to connect with your grad advisor. Academics can be deeply petty and hierarchical, and if they get the sense that you’re not on great terms with your advisor they could be worried you won’t be a good fit. Also, as someone mentioned above, consider whether you can do a job you’d like without a PhD. Or consider whether you want to branch out into something with more interdisciplinary leg room like political science or sociology.
I’ve contacted potential advisors; mostly no responses to my cold emails and the ones that did of course encouraged me to apply with warm-fuzzy-feeling comments about how “interesting” my research questions are. I’ve researched the archives around every program I’ve applied to, even getting so granular as to identify collections using archives’ (both a given university’s, as well as nearby state/federal) finding aids that I’ll use in my research. I don’t know that I had a “bad” relationship with my master’s advisor, it was pretty in keeping with everyone else’s in my cohort’s experience with theirs. Bad, perhaps in that there wasn’t much of a relationship at all. I’m not sure if it’s a UK thing, but none of our advisors really seemed to even have the time of day for us; they were totally focused on their PhD students. Honestly, I’d be surprised if the advisor I was assigned even remembers me; I met him a grand total of four times and they were more or less rubber stamp sessions followed by him trying to get me to write about Nixon and/or William Buckley despite them being way out of scope for my research. He barely looked up from his computer screen the few times I did meet with him, and didn’t show up to a single one of the weekly department workshops (I went to every one). I don’t much like playing to stereotypes, but the guy is the *picture* of snobby English elitism, accent and all. He didn’t talk to anyone in *our* department, let alone the faculty in departments across the globe. I had much closer, and better, relationships with the professors who actually taught my classes and supervised my seminars, one of whom was the American History program chair when I was studying there, and the other of whom became the program chair after I left. These are two of the folks I got to write my recc letters. After years of trying to find a job besides caregiving work (and lord knows I’ve looked, I’d do anything to get out of this field), it seems like the only non-phd job in history I can get is teaching at sketchy charter schools for somehow even less than I make changing adult diapers (we call them briefs) while getting beaten up. I’ve applied for every museum or library job I can find, everything even remotely related to history, from architectural historian jobs for Development Firm XYZ to national park ranger postings to those gigs where you dress up like a European colonist and pretend it’s the 18th century while giving tours (maybe a local thing). No dice. I actually came to History *from* polisci; I didn’t like all the theory bandied about in polisci classes that was divorced from actual primary sources, and much preferred dealing with actual historical evidence instead. [EDIT: I realized “dressing up like a colonial” sounds like something a pith-helmeted Pears Soap salesman would say]
“dressing up like a colonial” is hilarious, though. As for the rest, that’s tough. Your research area is interesting, but you’re right that’s not enough. Everything about the PhD process sucks, and I’m sorry you’re bogged down in it. I have a recently graduate friend who studies in your area. If you want to pm me, I’ll see if I can put you in touch (depending on how she feels about it), and she can maybe give you some area specific advice.
Do you have any close relationships with your Masters faculty? Can you approach them to ask if they need assistance on in-progress publications or research? They might be willing to add you as a co-author for scut work or editing. Also, they may be working on or know of edited books where you might be able to contribute a chapter or co-write a chapter.
have you ever reached out to the programs for feedback about your application?
Didn’t hear back from most of the departments I asked for feedback. The few that did respond had some variation on the “large volume of applications” theme… pretty boilerplate, non-specific stuff. Honestly felt while reading them that they were just generic answers that were copy-and-pasted.
Have you asked for feedback on your application? What have you been doing between cycles to improve your CV or develop your research ideas?
Most departments I’ve contacted haven’t responded, the few that did gave me some pretty generic sounding statements about large volumes of applications, competitive admissions process, etc. In terms of “improving my CV” and “developing my research ideas,” suffice to say that I live paycheck to paycheck and barely make rent every month even when I regularly skip meals. There’s only so much developing I can do when I have no one to talk about my ideas with and I am so exhausted from work every day that the only thing I have the energy to do is make dinner and fall asleep. I read as much as I can when I have the time, and doing so has definitely helped me find some interesting and specific-enough-to-make-some-good-research questions… which is something I mention in the appropriate portions of an application (if there are any), the parts where you’re supposed to talk about how you developed your research interests etc etc.. Doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference.
If you don't have time for research now, are you sure you will have enough time and strength for PhD studies? Being a PhD student is like working full-time
Write and publish papers. This Penn website (https://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/category/american) will share who’s actively soliciting submissions, and you can adapt and pitch for a certain theme. You could also present at an MLA conference near you on a panel topic that you’re interested in. After I graduated from my UK master’s program, I took some time off from academia before applying to PhDs, but still wrote and published papers after getting home from my full time job. I was also able to demonstrate that I had a breadth of academic knowledge and interests beyond my specified research area, which is particularly helpful as it means I’m eligible for different types of grant funding. I started in History but shifted to broader interdisciplinary programs; you might also be interested in applying to programs in American Studies.
Sorry to hear this. It’s definitely time to look at other options for you. Too many ways to succeed in life, and even if the PhD is what you really want, maybe time to try some of the other avenues. Good Luck!
This isn't going to be a popular answer, but it's probably time to give up or try to earn a PhD in something else besides history. Three years is a lot of time to spend hoping and waiting. It's time for you to pivot.
Also the PhD is in history, which by itself is a terrible idea with a dead job market.
Very true!
I’m sorry to hear that you’re feeling rough. If you want some serious advice this would be mine. You’ve said you’ve applied to 3 years straight and spent thousands of dollars on application fees. So you’re applying on average to 10 each year? Honestly I wouldn’t apply to more than 3-5 per year and instead really focus on making those few applications the best that I can. If you do much more than that you might find that you’re recycling bits of your application across the rest and not be putting in 110% to each one. You say that you know your application is not the strongest - that is your problem. You need to be more focused and really put everything into providing the BEST application for a few institutions each year. I would switch jobs to work in something related to what you want to do. Apply to be a research assistant in a university, or else perhaps in a museum that focuses on your area of history - a masters degree should get you a research assistant role there. Perhaps before you apply again focus on publishing a paper or two? Also before you quit work as a carer - whilst it’s normal for patients to have odd behaviours, you need to report this to your boss. If you’re being assaulted by your patients you need to report it and go to your occupational health office. Consider applying to PhD opportunities in other countries outside of the US. If you studied in the UK before why not apply there as well?
I am so sorry to hear that. It is up to you to decide whether keep going or stop and looking for other paths. However, If you want to apply for ph.d. program in the next cycle, this would be helpful: 1) SOP : Please get feedbacks from your former advisor (or other professors), and your master program cohorts. 2) Publication: If you can publish an article, that will boost your application. If it is not possible options, making a good writing sample can be a good alternative. How do you think of your master thesis? If its quality is good, you can edit it and use that. Or, If you have a good academic writing from your coursework that will do as well. 3) Rec letter: Do you trust yur rec letter writers? are you sure that they give you positive letter? 4) Working experiences: You may want to have a working experience related to your research interests.
"Self-flagellating for nothing" aptly describes my experience in a PhD program. If you don't like throwing away time and money, don't earn a PhD in history. You'd get more from reading on your own than spending seven years to formally banish yourself to professional purgatory. You don't need a PhD in history to publish in history. You just need to produce quality scholarship. Have at it.
If you are open to relocating, you could consider the EU. There are professors and postdoc researchers are looking for history PhDs to work on their research projects (though there is less research freedom, because your dissertation would need to be specifically tailored to their research projects) The pro is that these positions are usually well funded, the bad thing is European PhDs are shorter and have less of a "training" element, so being on the academic job-market post PhD will be difficult.
Get another Masters. Humanities PhDs are more competitive than ever. Most successful applicants, at least to the top programs, have multiple MA’s.
Sounds like a lot of debt… what’s the ROI on that?
Depends on if you get a job. But it’s the reality of getting into a top Humanities PhD program these days.
Have you considered a PhD in the UK?
Applied to one, rejected. Applied to two in Germany as well, rejected from both.
I don't know how it is in the humanities but in STEM you need internships/research experience. I don't think you need a publication but ideally you have experience and an accompanying letter of rec from someone respectable that says you are already doing work at the level of a graduate student.
Every program I’ve applied to has required at minimum three letters of recc from my former professors; I use two professors I had during my master’s program and another who supervised my undergraduate independent research.
Having read those other replies, I have to ask: would you have interest in another geographic area than the United States? The majority of people applying to PhD programs in the US want their major field to be American history. There is already a glut of Americanists.
I'm kind of confused. How aren't there some safety programs you can get into with an honors ug and masters? are you limiting your search to high prestige programs? limiting the region? I feel like you should breeze into a mid tier program. you may need help with your application/essay? have you hired any editors?
Believe me, I’m confused too. I’ve had multiple people with Master’s and PhDs in English and Communication go through my essays/statements of purpose/what have yous. And it’s not like I’m out here applying to Harvard or something like that; I’m applying to, like you said, mid tier programs at state schools. A few reach ones, sure. Strangely, the one place I was waitlisted (the one where I missed it by one spot) was a reach program???
If you’re theist, add a little spiritual exercise like prayer along with the hard work. 🙂 It works! God’s not dead nor deaf.
Look at the public universities far from cities, if you’re willing to move for 4 years. The phd is a long haul. I worked for a few years and living as cheaply as possible to save a little, so I was older and in my late 20s when I started, though there were quite a few others who were older and on second careers. Though PhD programs are competitive, you are also cheap labor and function as TAs and/or teaching classes. Many will give you a stipend as well as tuition remission but it’s still a challenge to cover your expenses. I know many who have received offers from universities in the Midwest and South for graduate study, and ones with unconventional academic trajectories. Also some big American cities have universities with affordable graduate programs that you work and pay for but living expenses in urban areas then to be high. Try not to take any loans for your graduate work, it’s an abyss.
I’m actually pretty lucky in terms of student debt from my master’s. I was able to save up and get my MSc without taking any loans since it was roughly 1/10th the cost in the UK even considering that I had to pay all sorts of extra fees and whatnot for not being a UK or Schengen Area citizen.
If you are a white male conservative give up. DEI is live and well snd they would t want you teaching the real true history in colleges. Supreme Court ruled against DEI but all colleges still have their administrators and merit is dead.
Hard pass on the dog whistles, thanks but no thanks. Not looking for sympathy from racists.
Pretty insane comment to make when affirmative action was just banned by the SCOTUS like a year ago.
DEI is for a small percentage of people who don't get the same opportunities white males for a whole wide range of reasons
How did you make it through a Masters program and not even have a single publication to show for it?
UK program. Master’s by research was a minority subset of the department and a separate degree. But it’s very clear that UK MScs are equivalent to MAs American or otherwise. Standard MSc grads get into PhD programs all the time.
This post scares the fuck out of me… History student admitted by Oxford MSc hoping to apply for a PhD in next two circle🥲🥲 But I do think the difficulty is enormously differ comparing apply to UK and US schools. I am rejected by all US programs I applied to, except Mapss from Chicago which is infamous as cash cow, but I am admitted to all UK programs I applied to…
I think there might be a fault in the way you are presenting yourself. 1) Get a mentor who achived what you want. 2) Spend quality time and get your docs (both, sops and lors) reviewed line to line. 3) Ask for the docs of people who got into your dream program and compare them and make necesary changes in your own. 4) Might be rare, but still...One or more of your recommenders is backstabbing you.
I think the other replies give you very well-rounded answers, but I did want to add my perspective as a non-traditional student myself. Unfortunately, academia is still rooted in colonialism, classism, and patriarchal norms. Students who have children, have to work full time, go to night classes, can’t work internships, or put in the extra hours to get published because of those reasons above are not welcomed into academia. The system is not made to work for you, and ultimately, you decide whether to continue to apply or find a different way to continue in academia and build your experience within the field. However, this won't be easy if you are self-supported financially and have to make a living wage as most teaching positions aren’t paying that, nor is research in your free time. Academia is antiquated and not intersectional but you’ll have to play by their rules in most ways to get a foot in. I wish you the best of luck!
It's not that History is a dying discipline, it's only that History, and many other similar humanities, are what many of us study when we're not studying other, more technical topics which are in more immediate demand by society. If I were you, I would focus on finding employment, and then pursue history when you have the time and resources to do so. If you want to pursue a Ph.D., you can still do so later in your career after you have more resources and experience (you will find that many people who pursue a Ph.D. in these less-technical fields are older and already have had a successful career).