Hi, I hope this sort of question is allowed. It doesn’t seem to be against any rules as far as I can tell. It seems like the best place to ask, being that I’m sure there’s probably a good bit of people in here with Masters and PhD’s in history and each once you get to that level, it seems things such as admissions start to vary by specific subject.
I graduated undergrad with a BA in history. I’ve come to love history and would love to study history at a higher academic level with hopes of possibly becoming a professor. My overall GPA wasn’t so great, at least not good enough to get into grad school where I was and wanted to stay. Instead, I’m currently doing a MS in Integrated Marketing Communications but would love to go back and study history at some point in the near-ish future. I think it would be nice to not deal with a masters in history and go straight into a PhD, but I don’t know the possibilities, logistics, and likelihood of that.
I’d say I had some good connections with a couple of my history professors, but I don’t know if those would be good enough to mention a potential PhD sponsorship/mentorship down the road. I have a fair amount of research experience, but I understand going through a masters in history provides a lot more research experience.
Thanks in advance!
I did a PhD without doing a Masters first. I also - eventually - made it to a permanent academic position (although in Politics, not history). It is an unusual route, especially these days, and not an easy one.
Finding a PhD programme that would accept me without a masters wasn't hard. But when I started, I realised I was at a massive disadvantage compared to those coming out of a masters. I had no idea how academic 'worked'. I'd been outside it for too long, and as an undergraduate you don't have much of a clue anyway. I had no sense of 'the state of the discipline', or what sort of PhD thesis would lead to a marketable CV. I had chosen to skip a masters to save time and money, but those who had done a masters already (especially in a subject close to their PhD thesis) completed in 3 to 4 years, whereas it took me nearly 6. So overall, no time or expense saved.
Also, a PhD is a really big chunk to bite off. It's more than just a passing interest. You have to really be committed to it. It would be better to get a taste for it first by doing a masters.
I should add that there are about (exaggerating slightly) about 10 gazillion PhD graduates for every 1 tenured academic job. Because I'd done mine in Politics, I was able to go into the international development world for a few years after my PhD, but it might be harder for a 'proper' historian.
These are just personal reflections, but my advice would be not to try and skip a step. But I'd also advise you to do a masters that has some flex/pivot potential to non-academic jobs, if the PhD/academic route does not work out.
Your mileage, as they say, may vary.