The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

PhD/DPhil in Defense/International Security Studies

Scroll to see replies

Apologies all round are clearly due! What I failed to explain clearly was that I was seeking to give a customer's eye view, not a view of the relative academic merits of the choice you face. Some clarification is probably required.

1. W/ref the LSE - I was trying to explain how customers (military professionals) will see a think tank/policy wonk who has gone to the LSE, not how he will be regarded by fellow academics. I think that it is fair to say that the people to whom you may be trying to get to enact your ideas (the military) are less likely to regard a doctorate from the LSE as favorably as one from Oxford.

2. W/ref the KCL/K-State comparison - KCL is the academic partner of the Joint Services Command and Staff College. it offers a huge number of postgrad qualifications to military officers who really aren't up to postgrad study. It does this because a) the military funds it to and b) it is tremendously profitable to do so. As a result the repuation of the qualifications, particularly at Masters level, amongst military professionals has (probably) fallen. K-State does the same thing for the US Army Command and Staff College at Leavenworth. Hence the comparison. Again, this is the view from a consumer, not an academic. (I should also mention at this point that I am one of the postgrads of whom I am so dismissive.)

3. W/ref Kabul - what I was trying to indicate here was the extreme shallowness of those to whom you will be selling your ideas. Military professionals are simple folk. Oxford means more than the LSE or KCL, within the military, both British and US flavors. Incidentally this is also true of those State Dept/DfID people with whom I have worked.

4. W/ref Oxford - I have no knowledge to match that of 0404343m, who is clearly rather more up to date than I am. I would say only one thing in my defense. Look at the number of senior officers in the British Army (brigade commanders and higher) who have undergraduate degrees from Oxford/Cambridge. They do have a tendency to listen to those who have the same background as them. The LSE does not score highly in this regard and the flaws mentioned above w/ref KCL also serve to undermine it.

Anyway I hope that was a) helpful and b) served to explain my (admittedly fuzzy) logic. I think that you are making a very brave choice for all the correct reasons.
Original post by Massingberd
W/ref the KCL/K-State comparison - KCL is the academic partner of the Joint Services Command and Staff College. it offers a huge number of postgrad qualifications to military officers who really aren't up to postgrad study. It does this because a) the military funds it to and b) it is tremendously profitable to do so. As a result the repuation of the qualifications, particularly at Masters level, amongst military professionals has (probably) fallen. K-State does the same thing for the US Army Command and Staff College at Leavenworth. Hence the comparison. Again, this is the view from a consumer, not an academic. (I should also mention at this point that I am one of the postgrads of whom I am so dismissive.)


Thanks for your comments. I do have a few comments/questions on the statement above:

1. I see the parallel your drawing between KCL and Kansas State, but to be honest these universities are in different leagues. KCL is one of the leading universities in the world and Kansas State is simply not.

2. KCL has two departments that make up the War Studies Group—the War Studies Department and the Defence Studies Department. The military-oriented programs you speak of fall under the Defence Studies Department, while the War Studies Department is far more academic. Do you think those in the military recognize the difference?

3. I think KCL runs the Defence Studies department for more than financial reasons. Training generations of future senior military leaders provides KCL access at the highest levels and this ensures that they maintain influence within the MoD/DoD communities.

4. Kansas State is not the only US university to educate government-sponsored personnel. Most of the people in SAIS’ MIPP are sponsored by the government; a large portion of the students in Georgetown’s SSP are studying through established government programs; and nearly all of the American students in Harvard Kennedy School’s Mid-Career MPA program are sponsored by the government. Do you think these schools lack prestige because of government sponsorship?

5. I think there’s a quantum leap between a taught MA and a research-based PhD. Even if a university is viewed as offering a less challenging MA, the PhD is considered to be in a different category by most people.

You seem to be saying that because KCL educates a large number of military officers it is a more familiar university amongst the defence community than Oxford/LSE. Some officers are very academic, while others are not. This is probably true, but does this mean that KCL is held in less regard? A large number of US Army officers are intimately familiar with West Point. Some of these officers are less academic than others. Based on your logic, does this make West Point less prestigious?
I think you make a very good point indeed about the difference between a taught MA (or MPA for that matter) and the PhD. It is certainly not something I had considered sufficently. However I stand by my view that the overall reputation of the War Studies Department is lowered in the eyes of many in the military by their experiences of the Defense Studies Department; I think that there is insufficent distance between the two in the eyes of many.

Your point about the MPA program gets to the heart of my argument. The MPA program is not valuable because of anything that you are taught there (in my experience of those who have been on it). The value of the MPA program to its students is in a) having been recognised as been worth sponsoring onto it in the first instance and b) in the people they meet while doing it. In essence my argument would be that like an MBA the value comes in having been accepted into a prestigious program in the first place.

Which draws me back to my original point. Neither KCL (despite me having gone there) nor the LSE is as prestigious as Oxford. Which will undermine the value of what you have to say and possibly even your chance of getting to a position where you have the chance to say it.

I'd like to finish by asking a question if I may. The best university, in terms of provision of faculty, funding etc, for military history in the US is Oklahoma State. If you were looking to do a PhD in military history (which I accept that you are not) would you go there, for the chance to work under Pete Mansoor, for example, or Harvard?

If the answer is Oklahoma State, fair play to you. Go to KCL.
Original post by Massingberd
I think you make a very good point indeed about the difference between a taught MA (or MPA for that matter) and the PhD. It is certainly not something I had considered sufficently. However I stand by my view that the overall reputation of the War Studies Department is lowered in the eyes of many in the military by their experiences of the Defense Studies Department; I think that there is insufficent distance between the two in the eyes of many.

Your point about the MPA program gets to the heart of my argument. The MPA program is not valuable because of anything that you are taught there (in my experience of those who have been on it). The value of the MPA program to its students is in a) having been recognised as been worth sponsoring onto it in the first instance and b) in the people they meet while doing it. In essence my argument would be that like an MBA the value comes in having been accepted into a prestigious program in the first place.

Which draws me back to my original point. Neither KCL (despite me having gone there) nor the LSE is as prestigious as Oxford. Which will undermine the value of what you have to say and possibly even your chance of getting to a position where you have the chance to say it.

I'd like to finish by asking a question if I may. The best university, in terms of provision of faculty, funding etc, for military history in the US is Oklahoma State. If you were looking to do a PhD in military history (which I accept that you are not) would you go there, for the chance to work under Pete Mansoor, for example, or Harvard?

If the answer is Oklahoma State, fair play to you. Go to KCL.



It’s unfortunate to hear that some in the military have a low opinion of the Defence Studies Department. Perhaps as an alumnus you should share some of your observations with the department head, Dr. Stuart Griffin.

I agree that for government/military personnel much of the value of an MPA comes from the prestige of sponsorship and the connections made. So you don’t think that programs offered by the Defence Studies Department carry the same prestige of sponsorship? They don’t provide similar opportunities for networking?

I’ve already talked about my perceptions of relative prestige and don’t want to beat a dead horse. In DC you’ll find that the LSE and Oxford are equally prestigious. Outside the security/military community the LSE and Oxford are both more prestigious than KCL. Within the security/military community all three are viewed as roughly equal. A comparable US example would be to look at Harvard (Oxford), Columbia (LSE), and Georgetown (KCL). Few people in the security/military community would discriminate against graduates from any of these places.

I assume you’re talking about Pete Mansoor from Ohio State, not Oklahoma State. In that case many prospective PhD candidates would opt against Harvard. You’ll also find Alex Wendt, considered one of the three most influential IR scholars of the past two decades, at Ohio State. I can safely say that among those wanting to pursue a PhD in constructivist IR theory, few if any would opt for Harvard if given the opportunity to study under Wendt. At the MA level more people would choose Harvard, but at the PhD level your supervisor is very important.

Regardless, and with due respect, your Oklahoma State and Harvard example isn’t all that helpful in the context of this decision. We’re not talking about choosing between some local state school (I’m referring to Oklahoma State, not Ohio State), which just happens to have a great department, and the pinnacle of higher education. We’re talking about deciding between three of the best universities in the world. One, KCL, might not be as generally strong as the other two, but it has the best department.

A better example would have been to compare Georgetown and Harvard; Georgetown isn’t quite as prestigious as Harvard overall, but if you want to study security there’s probably no better place to do so in the US. Lots of security studies students opt for Georgetown over Harvard every year. Many students interested in security choose KCL over LSE/Oxford every year. People can go with the strongest department because all five of these universities are prestigious and will be well regarded in the job market. The same cannot be said for Oklahoma State. Your example is flawed because the options are, generally speaking, extreme opposites in relation to prestige. Not to come off as full of myself, but all my options are highly prestigious and it’s really just a matter of finding the best fit.
You are of course quite right - I did mean Ohio State. (Go Buckeyes etc.) I'm sorry for the error, and I am grateful to you for ignoring it and answering the point I made w/ref the choice you have to make.

On a different, although related note, I have to confess that I had no idea that KCL was regarded that highly. I am a bit surprised that it is, but that is a different matter.

Given that it is, the choice seems clear enough.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you