Why a one-year MPhil?
The MPhil is an intensive, one-year research programme focused on connecting law with social-scientific approaches. One of its greatest strengths is that it is devoted exclusively to research. Oxford distinguishes between taught and research degrees. Taught degrees follow a traditional structure of lectures and tutorials culminating in examinations, whereas research degrees include seminars designed primarily to deepen knowledge in theory and methodology, with the principal output being a dissertation project.
I did not consider applying for the DPhil (Oxford’s doctoral degree) due to the level of tuition fees. The current annual tuition fee for the MPhil stands at £31,110, while for the doctorate this amount is effectively tripled (i.e. three years of study), with the fee increasing annually in line with inflation.
In addition to the considerable challenge of gaining admission to Oxford (only three candidates out of fifty-two were admitted to our MPhil cohort), securing funding for both tuition and living costs represents another major hurdle. In my case, I was successful in obtaining support from The Sekyra Foundation, together with the Foundation of the Faculty of Law of Charles University and the Oxford Law Faculty. Without this support, I quite simply would not have been able to come to Oxford.
Opportunities for scholarships for research postgraduate study are rather limited in the Czech Republic, which is why I welcome the recently established Oxbridge Stipendium initiative, which has the potential to address this shortfall at least in part. [The difficulties of funding research and study in the social sciences and humanities abroad were previously discussed in a blog post by Bára Cihlová, currently a doctoral student at Oxford in biochemistry – editor’s note.]
What the programme looks like in practice
It is important to say at the outset that this programme is genuinely very intensive and demanding (and I say this as someone who has studied at two universities simultaneously). A major advantage is the highly personal approach and intensive mentoring provided by supervisors. Professors and postdoctoral researchers generally treat us as equal partners. British academic culture is free from the Czech emphasis on formal titles, and everyone addresses each other on a first-name basis.
The architecture of the Social Sciences building is also significant. It has been deliberately designed to encourage constant interaction in open-plan office spaces, both within individual centres and across them. Each student has their own office, and we share the space with more senior academics. Numerous social events also take place, attended by both students and faculty members, for example the regular Thursday tea times.
Observations from Oxford compared with Czech academia
One of the most striking differences compared to the Czech academic environment lies in the everyday culture and atmosphere. It is entirely normal to meet professors in person and to discuss research informally with them at events, over lunch or coffee. This represents enormous added value. Such seemingly trivial conversations and small talk should not be underestimated — they often lead to new ideas, valuable feedback, or even future collaborations.
Institutional background and the faculty’s reputation also play a specific role. An Oxford email address significantly facilitates communication and genuinely opens doors that might otherwise remain closed.
Another major difference concerns research seminars. Although these also exist in the Czech academic environment — and in Prague their quality and international openness have been steadily increasing, particularly in terms of hosting international guests (e.g. 1, 2) — at Oxford the presence of leading academics from around the world is an almost daily reality. It is not unusual for seminars to feature genuine “stars” of the field whose work has shaped entire disciplines. At the time of writing, for example, I am preparing to attend a lecture by Michael Sandel (Professor at Harvard University and one of the most prominent contemporary philosophers).
Another important realisation has been how differently publication platforms operate across disciplines. In legal scholarship, for instance, American law reviews play a key role. Although regarded as top journals, their editorial boards are often composed of undergraduate students rather than expert peer reviewers. This has a significant impact both on the thematic structure of published texts and on the selection process itself. I have also encountered highly cited works that were essentially systematic overviews of existing literature rather than genuinely innovative research, while methodologically demanding and empirically rich studies in more marginal areas remained almost unnoticed.
The Oxford environment has also taught me to be more cautious about uncritical reliance on databases and indexing systems. Citation metrics often include non-peer-reviewed texts, popularising articles, or conference papers, which further blurs the distinction between genuine scholarly contribution and mere quantity of outputs. I have also observed that citation behaviour may be influenced by personal or institutional ties, and that the academic community is not immune to long-standing disputes or selective citation practices.
Overall, this experience has helped me move away from comparing myself and others purely on the basis of numbers. Instead, I now place greater emphasis on substance, methodological quality, and meaningful contribution to the field. Metrics can serve as a useful orientation tool if one understands the internal dynamics of one’s discipline, but they should not function as the primary, let alone the only, compass for evaluating academic work (which, unfortunately, used to be my own approach).
Social life
Oxford is intensive not only academically but also socially. The entire environment naturally encourages openness, active networking, and spending time with as broad a range of interesting people as possible across disciplines and academic levels.
It is entirely normal to have lunch one day with a doctoral student researching lion demography in Botswana, to discuss insect extinction during the Philippine monsoon season over coffee with a postdoctoral researcher the next day, and to spend the evening with an experimental psychologist studying the impact of artificial intelligence on human behaviour. It is precisely this daily diversity of contacts and topics that makes Oxford such an exceptionally inspiring place where academic debate naturally intertwines with social life and where one rarely feels confined within one’s own disciplinary bubble.
This is further supported by the wide range of societies (student clubs) that students may join. I am personally active in the Oxford Czech and Slovak Society, the Oxford Armenian Society, and the Oxford Chess Club.
In conclusion…
I would wholeheartedly recommend the experience of doing research at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies to anyone enthusiastic about law and legal research, whether in the form of the MPhil or DPhil, or even in the form of a shorter research stay. The experience one gains here is truly unique, and Oxford is, in this respect, an exceptional and inspiring place.
Gor Vartazaryan
Gor is a qualified lawyer (JUDr, Faculty of Law) and political scientist (PhDr, Faculty of Social Sciences) from Charles University. He is currently reading for an MPhil in Socio-Legal Research at Oxford’s Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, which forms part of the Oxford Law Faculty. There, under the supervision of Professor Agnieszka Kubal, he is working on a project entitled“Dissenting Behaviour of Judges at the European Court of Human Rights.”
At the same time, he is in the second year of his PhD at the Faculty of Law of Charles University, where, under the supervision of Professor Jan Wintr, he is writing his dissertation, “Why Judges Dissent?”