Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11
The logic in history is that this person will be training you as a historian, so you should be training with someone in the same subfield as you. There are so many different methodologies that come into play that will greatly affect the type of scholarship that someone is producing (which I don't know is true to the same extent in science). Example: I focus on early Irish history. Within that field I look at culture. Why would I bother to study with an early Irish historian who primarily focuses on gender instead of a cultural historian? A historian of gender uses a much different "set of tools" than a cultural historian does.
Also, it proves that you have done your research. In your statement of intent, you have very little space to clearly state why you are an excellent fit for both the program and the school. If your only reason is, "the program/professor looks at the same time and area", you didn't do enough research and probably shouldn't look into grad school. That extends to the girl that honeychile spoke of, if I'm being honest. She should not have had to ask someone outside of history where she should be studying. If you have to, you are not ready for grad school in history.
|
Got it. I think one big difference is that, even though it's a masters program, you are talking about producing real research. Many, many masters programs are now all coursework, in the sciences and elsewhere.
