didn't get any funding :(

Ah yeah, they are massively over subscribed - It really is just a roll dice amongst those with high 2.1's and firsts, it seems.

You can always do it part time and work alongside (which I'm doing). Another option is to borrow as part of a postgraduate loan from Barclays or The Co-operative Bank - very reasonable interest rates of which are paid by the government whilst you're studying!

That's not so bad, especially when you factor in department studentships too. Certainly better than a lot of other competitive graduate options..

I have heard of this happening in History too, because many departments still have on their regulations that the only formal requirement is a good BA, but I have found (I was advised to do this) that it tends to be offered to students who have done an undergrad at an institution who are therefore a 'known quantity' and the department can feel comfortable offering them a PhD place without going through a masters course. It's never officially recommended and I got the impression that if you havn't been advised to do it by someone high up in the department, then they won't really consider you.

haha that's a great way of putting it!

I didn't even know it was possible to do an arts/humanities phd without a master's! Even if I had the chance, I don't think I'd feel fully prepared to embark on a full-time PhD without having the experience and teaching at MA level, the MA seems like a good bridge from undergrad to phd.

What are the chances for those of us who haven't even done that??

Thanks for the help! I'm actually very lucky in that I can afford to do the MA without taking out a loan - I didn't work this past year but I had a job before then, so I can self-fund. I'll try and look for a part-time job whilst doing the course, but honestly I can get by without doing so financially - and if I don't absolutely have to then I think my time would be better spent making sure I fulfil my potential with my studies and getting my money's worth by spending extra time reading and studying rather than working.

If I end up doing a PhD I almost think I'd rather take a year or two out and work full-time, then do the phd full-time without working. I think I'd prefer just focusing on one thing at a time, rather than spending all day at the library then my evenings doing bar work or whatever.

That'll depend entirely on your MA course - I felt like I'd gone back a year on mine (as did others). An English MA friend of mine worked one day a week, managed to do a part time intership and still get a Distinction...



If you're AHRC funded for PhD full time, you're not actually allowed to work, firstly because the funding is there to be spent and secondly, you're meant to treat it as a 9-5 Monday to Friday job. The only caveat is academic teaching at a maximum of six hours (so it says in my guidelines!)

I'm most grateful for the two years I worked for before starting my PhD

So have you been working since graduation? And do the universities know you have savings? I wonder if perhaps that could have influenced their decision - it makes sense to favour those with less options.

You won't need to work during a funded PhD; the stipend is fairly generous.

That's not so bad, especially when you factor in department studentships too. Certainly better than a lot of other competitive graduate options.

You probably should have stated that in your post instead of just saying AHRC in general, which was misleading.

Still, compare it to about 1 in 50 for grad medicine and law training contracts, 1 in 20 for Big 4, even worst for consulting, probably 1 in 100 for investment banking.

Graduate options are tough across the board.

1 in 36 is very competitive but no different to the above careers. That's what it's like now for ambitious graduates - funding is certainly not as rare as "unicorns" and all this nonsense, but you need to be well prepared and realistic, as do most graduates who want to be in a top career.

Wow from everything I've heard the MA is a huge step-up. I'd love if it wasn't because at the moment I'm kind of intimidated by the amount of work I'll have on in september!

Ah okay I didn't know that. Thanks for the help!

1 in 36 is very competitive but no different to the above careers. That's what it's like now for ambitious graduates - you need to be well prepared and realistic, as do most graduates who want to be in a top career.

What do you mean 1 in 36 to get the title? To get an interview?

All you need to know is how many applicants and how many offers. It sounds like you're saying there were only 3 places because 3 in 15 doesn't make sense (it's 1 in 5) so I presume you mean 3 places for the 15 people who make it to interview? If there were 540 applicants then it's 1 in 180. That of course is extremely competitive, though certainly not typical and will be offset by all the other studentships you apply to which increases your odds. No one just applies to one funding opportunity which is 1 in 180 unless they're nuts (or a genius).

I was being slightly tongue in cheek but MA funding through the AHRC does not exist (bar Oxford's special Oxford MSt only pot) onwards of the 2014/2015 academic year. Institutional awards still exist but will most likely go to a student who is a known quantity.

What do you mean 1 in 36 to get the title? To get an interview?

All you need to know is how many applicants and how many offers. It sounds like you're saying there were only 3 places because 3 in 15 doesn't make sense (it's 1 in 5) so I presume you mean 3 places for the 15 people who make it to interview? If there were 540 applicants then it's 1 in 180. That of course is extremely competitive, though certainly not typical and will be offset by all the other studentships you apply to which increases your odds. No one just applies to one funding opportunity which is 1 in 180 unless they're nuts (or a genius).

You won't get History PhD AHRC funding without a Master's though unless regulations have changed in the last year? Also, remember that most PhD students start out as MPhil students until they pass their upgrade and are officially PhD students. Some people do fail their upgrade.


It's rare but does happen It does depend on the MA, I'm not sure I gained massive amounts from mine looking back. Again though, fairly sure you won't get AHRC funding without a Master's under your belt.

Wow from everything I've heard the MA is a huge step-up. I'd love if it wasn't because at the moment I'm kind of intimidated by the amount of work I'll have on in september!

Yes, the point about not getting funding without a masters is valid and one of the main reasons I didn't take up the offer to go straight to PhD (the only funding I would even have a shot at would have been partial stipends and tuition waivers, along with teaching work in my second year).

It does seem that whether an MA is worthwhile or not seems to depend on the individual circumstances. My masters has certainly been a step up from undergrad and I feel I've learnt a huge amount and been challenged, but it's been a realistic challenge that I could rise to. One of the important things (I've felt) is that I moved universities, because adapting to the different culture/approaches/methodologies and frameworks used by my current department (who are on the whole a lot more theoretically grounded than my undergrad one) has been one of the biggest challenges. It's not something I gave much thought to, but even just a change in location/people can be incredibly educational.

On the question of odds, I know that for my History in Oxford, there were 9 fully-funded places, plus the Clarendon Scholars (30 for the whole Humanities Division). In 2012/13 there were 265 applications, so assuming a similar number this year that actually boils down to a not-too-shabby 29/1 odds of getting full funding, excluding Clarendon and other general/external awards.

On the question of odds, I know that for my History in Oxford, there were 9 fully-funded places, plus the Clarendon Scholars (30 for the whole Humanities Division). In 2012/13 there were 265 applications, so assuming a similar number this year that actually boils down to a not-too-shabby 29/1 odds of getting full funding, excluding Clarendon and other general/external awards.

You could potentially argue that the competition will be tougher though and those awards that are open to both home and international students, even more so.

Basically be the best you can and cross your fingers!

I wish I'd enjoyed my MA and it been a step up but sadly it wasn't.

I bet Oxford has more money to dole out though?

The MA sounds like a very valuable experience. I'm changing unis too so I hope I'll find it as worthwhile. I know it'll be a step-up but hopefully it'll be cumulative just like moving from second year to final year

Of the 9, I think only 2 (maybe 3?) are open to internationals, the rest are AHRC, topped up with departmental and college money. There are also a few (maybe 2 or 3?) ESRC funded places, but only if your history is quantitative enough. So still, yeah, cross your fingers!


Oxford has more money, but it's a big name university so attracts more applicants (and significantly more internationals). It's a bit of a catch-22 really and often it can be easier to get funding from a smaller/less 'prestigious' uni, simply because there's less competition from ridiculously smart people.

I know it is notoriously difficult to get funding at Master's level, particularly in the Arts & Humanities (I'm an Arts student). I got an email yesterday telling me I hadn't secured any funding and I'm just feeling a bit down about it. I wasn't expecting to get funding and I wasn't relying on it, but all the same rejection isn't nice!

I just don't know what I did wrong. I have a first in my undergrad degree, and I thought my application letter/proposal was pretty solid. I'd been led to believe (from my tutors at old uni) that if you had a first you stood a really good chance.

Anyone else in this position?

Ah that sucks
I had a similar experience last year. There were a "significant number" of scholarships available which covered almost half of my masters fees and they were based solely on academic merit. The description said that a high 2:1 or 1st would be sufficient. Given that at the time I had an average of ~77% and a few other nice things to mention I thought I had it in the bag. Turns out I missed out on both rounds of funding. I think I may have been disadvantaged because I was coming from another department in the same university and they 'look after their own' so to speak.

I'm currently trying to get phd funding and it looks like one of my options is to write my proposal, send it to the university who then may select it as one of their 8 guaranteed funding placements as provided by the funding council. I'd then have to apply for my own project (theoretically on a level playing field with anyone else interested) and then I might get selected to do the project I wrote. I may have to write my funding proposal to be so specific that only I could do it

1 in 22 is still no walk in the park! Sounds more competitive than AHRC.