<p>I am considering going back to get my PhD in history. I currently have a BA( 2.90 GPA) and a MA( 3.8 GPA), both in history. I have spent the last 4 years working for the State dept. A PhD is not necessary for my job and I have no intention of working in academia( as I understand it, there are few positions and I would be taking a pay cut). Would my undergrad GPA kill any chance of admission to a PhD program? Should I even be considering this option?</p>
<p>Why do you want one?</p>
<p>when I was applying for my MA( I was originally wanting to go into academia), I looked into schools that carried MA and PhDs… so I guess its the finality of getting the elusive degree. Partly because my job will pay for it. I think it is also because my 1st choice rejected my application my first go round when i had just a BA. A sense of unfinished business, which is really a stupid reason.</p>
<p>It is a stupid reason. However judging by your 3.8 GPA in your master’s program you obviously have the capacity for further graduate study. But for a Ph.D, you will need the ability, interest, and patience to write a dissertation. Unfinished business won’t carry you through it. </p>
<p>Would you take a leave from work? Because a Ph.D in history is not usually something you can do part-time or on the side. It will require your undivided, 40+ hour per week attention.</p>
<p>It is one thing for me to say it is a stupid reason, another thing for someone else.
As for my work, I would be getting paid for being a full time student, and writing a dissertation and doing research is similar to what I currently do, so not an issue with me. so there is no hinderance to get it aside from my undergrad GPA. That said, I am not required to get PhD. It is a want( with no real benefit) and not a need. That is my dilemma. A 2-6 year commitment for a degree I would love to achieve( but has no benefits that continued experience would not give me)and yet that would in turn require I be committed to my job for three times that duration(6-18 years)</p>
<p>You’ll be looking at the higher end of 2-6 years. You have to decided whether you want to commit to your current employer for X number of years while holding a Ph.D, even if more lucrative position presents itself. If you don’t see yourself doing this, embark on the Ph.D on your own - assuming you earn funding from the program. </p>
<p>Your master’s performance will help alleviate the 2.9 undergrad GPA.</p>
<p>thanks for the reply. its not a small step for anyone and I appreciate the feedback.</p>
<p>What about other factors in your life? Marriage? Children? Do you have enough family support to keep you in this position of being in your job and graduate school since you said that you’ll be obligated to serve your employment longer in return for going to graduate school. Can you stand where you are for another two decades?</p>
<p>if your job will cover you and you want to do it and you love the research, then go for it. i know someone personally who is pursuing a PhD in history simply because she wants the challenge of writing her own dissertation and she, like you, has no intention of going into academia.</p>
<p>given the job market for history PhD holders, i actually think that going into a program because you want to study X is a more sound decision by far than going because you expect a job in academia afterward. the professorship just isn’t a realistic goal for many anymore, so don’t let your motivation of simply wanting to do the degree stop you.</p>
<p>the 3.8 GPA at the masters level, plus your LORs from professors you had during your masters degree, will pretty much erase your undergrad GPA. schools tend to be more concerned with your most recent transcripts, and you’ve already demonstrated the ability to succeed in grad school.</p>
<p>you’d be making a longterm commitment to the state department, but if you could realistically see yourself staying at the state department for 12-15 years, then go ahead. the 2 years for a PhD thing is completely unrealistic, even coming in with a masters. you’ll still have to do one year of coursework, maybe even two, coming in with an MA on top of your dissertation research year and writing year. plan for it to take you at least four years. if you’re okay with making that sort of commitment to the state department, i don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t go for it.</p>
<p>good luck.</p>
<p>it simply depends on what kind of program you are looking at,</p>
<p>with 3.8 MA GPA, you shouldn’t have problem getting into any second tier programs
(second tier I mean non top-10)</p>
<p>I have never heard of anyone getting through a history program in 2 years, even with a master’s degree. I hear the national average is closer to 8-10 years, especially since in the humanities having a master’s is common and you often will only waive maybe a semester’s worth of coursework. You’re probably looking at a minimum of 4 years.</p>
<p>As for your reasoning, I don’t think it’s <em>entirely</em> stupid. I’m another one of those people who is pursuing a Ph.D because of the love of the field. I don’t want a job in academia (if I got a job as a professor at an LAC I would be pleased, but it’s not my number-one priority nor my dream); I just really love the research and I am really driven to get the Ph.D, and I the kinds of jobs I want outside of academia require a Ph.D. It’s enough to get me through and to realize that the 5 years is not so long at all to do what I really love.</p>
<p>A long-term commitment to the State Department doesn’t seem like a bad deal at all, but government work is my aim anyway, so…if you are really interested in the work of a historian and are ready to commit to the at least 4 but more likely 6 years it’ll take you to finish, by all means, apply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree juillet, however the OP didn’t profess a love for a particular field or research. He said it was more about “unfinished business.”</p>