<p>I realize this seems sort of close to the "Master degree in England!" thread, but I have some slightly different questions. I don't really need to know what's fun in England atm, I figure that's what tour guide books are for, but I was curious about the differences in earning a MA or PhD in England vs. the states- in terms of time spent, normal requirements for the 'humanities' type fields, the research, and the 'acceptableness' of the programs world-wide, etc. </p>
<p>Is it wildly different, or fairly similar? I know England's undergrad schools tend to be highly focused in one field, but I wasn't sure what the differences were for grad school.</p>
<p>In the humanities both the MA and PhD will usually take less time to complete than in the USA. Many British schools offer one-year master’s programs, and as with all PhD programs the length of time varies, but from what I’ve heard the average time in England is 4-5 years, as oppossed to the usual 5-7 year range here in America.</p>
<p>I completed a MPhil in Comparative Politics at Cambridge, so here’s a brief rundown of my experience. First, while I know my field was technically social science, the program I did was much more focused, overall, on qualitative over quantitative analysis, so the coursework I did was far more similar to humanities work than it would have been had I completed the degree in America. So, my program required a full calendar year to complete, running from August to August. I had to take two semesters of four courses, and then over the summer I completed my capstone research project, which was 10,000-word paper (I got the impression that is a fairly common length requirement for grad programs over there) and received credit for my research. My overall impression is that the rigor of research is comparable to that in America - many professors over there completed their doctorates over here, and likewise I’ve had a good number of professors over here who completed degrees over there (often for the sake of expediency). This leads me to believe that research requirements are at least relatively similar. As for “acceptableness” I’ve never heard of any grad program or employer turning an applicant away because thier English degree was unacceptable. For me personally, it was good enough to get me into an Ivy League PhD program.</p>
<p>Ah, so Cambridge/Oxford are probably those who can toss money around. But elsewhere should be examined more carefully; since money tossing is probably preferrable, and you’d need a very good reason to go otherwise. Cool, thanks.</p>
<p>Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, Kings and UCL, plus Manchester too I suppose have money, and frequent scholarship ops. As a scholarship seeker myself, trust me I have looked into it. </p>
<p>I’m not in one yet, per se. I’ll be starting my undergrad this year, so I have plenty of time. But I’m looking at museum work, maybe anthropology or art history with a focus on East Asia (China), so Oxford’s Anthropology & Museum Ethnography programs looked great (or something similar). I don’t know the differences between the taught programs and research ones, so I asked:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It would probably be more prudent for me to major in chinese (maybe minor in anthro)- because I’d probably qualify for governmental grants for majoring in a language.</p>
<p>EDIT: Oh duh, never mind. They’re literally seperate programs. </p>
<p>Anyways, I’d heard a lot about studying in England, and was curious as to how different the programs would be.</p>