<prompt> Human: Currently, I am in process of choosing where to get a masters degree in history. I was accepted to three schools: one is in the U.K., one is in the US, and another one is in Canada. The latter is the only one that offers to cover my tuition for a year if I do some assistantships, and a couple of thousands more for expenses. The other two offer me some discounts but I would still need to get a student loan from my home country to cover the tuition and living expenses. The problem is those schools in London and the U.S. are really good and have a great international reputation, and the one in Canada is no so high in the international rankings. History is not the most profitable career and the loans would be of around USD25.000 and about five years to pay them with 9 annual interest rate. Leaving aside other considerations like location, the climate, and the emphasis of the programs, what do you think I should do? Thanks for the advice. Edit: Wow!! What a turnout! There is some great advice here, for me and for everyone in the same position. Even though there are opinions on both sides, I guess going to Canada seems a more reasonable choice or not get a masters at all. Ill let you know what I decide. Thanks everyone. Assistant: Whats your desired outcome? I have a friend who just got a PhD from Georgetown and cant get a tenure-track job anywhere in academia. And, more rudely, what is the actual value of an MA in history in the job market, when it is flooded with PhDs looking for work?Human: Exactly, it is flooded with PhDs looking for work. Would a masters degree for now help me get a better job in a non academic market museums, magazines, government, etc? As some of you have pointed out, if I am not going to get a PhD, it is not necessary to go to an expensive school, but wouldnt it help me get a better job and pay that debt?  <response>: Thats the problem, though. The PhDs that cant find jobs in academia will be resigning themselves to these positions you speak of. What would your dream job be? 