Kilos

I think @FreakyFoucault sticks the landing on a number of thoughtfully argued points. Sometimes I get so wrapped up in my own perspective and experience that the broader picture begins to blur around the edges. I suppose what I should have said is that in my personal situation, it would have been absurd for me to apply to 10-15 different schools. Though the PhD has always been my end goal, I determined that there were only a few schools/programs that I'd have been willing to drop everything, quit a lucrative career, sell a house, and drag my wife/neurotic cat states away to attend. While it wasn't at all feasible for me, personally, to broadly apply to the large number of schools that I felt drawn to, I'm guessing that most people applying to graduate school are in a much more flexible, fluid situation where the chief objective may not be to find the absolute perfect fit, necessarily, but rather to find one of a number of solid fits. In this case, since we're all kinda shooting in the dark, subject to the whims and wills of admissions committees and what sometimes feels like dumb luck, perhaps the high-volume approach is best. If the desired result is an acceptance above all else, you can only increase your chances by applying to more schools. My only caveat would be that if you plan to apply to a huge number of schools (which, I cede, may be the best course of action), you should be especially mindful of the fact that you're choosing an approach that may, after weeks/months of application fatigue, devolve into adopting a "quantity over quality" mentality; accordingly, you should fight to make sure that doesn't end up showing through in your applications.

Absolutely true. If nothing else, do a bit of half-hearted apartment/room shopping in your desired locale. I was blown away by how expensive it is to live in a few of these places. Seriously, shocked.

+1 for good info! And, although I think the University of Oregon is a bit lower at around top 50~ish in the rankings, they don't guarantee first year funding either. It's a weird situation where they don't give classroom teaching appointments to PhD students straight out of a B.A. program if they don't have college teaching experience... and then, because you can't teach the first year, you have to compete for a "limited number" of "non-classroom" graduate teaching fellowships (essentially working as a writing tutor). This was why I ended up not applying though it was one of my top-choice programs. I couldn't risk moving across the country for a spot in a program that had a possibly unfunded first year. Too risky. I think most people would be really surprised if they knew just how many of these patchwork funding situations exist out there. Also, keep in mind that a lot of these stipends are so low that you simply can't live off of them. I grew up near Eugene, Oregon (where the UofO is), and I guarantee that you can't live in Eugene on the stipend they offer (12k for 0.40 FTE). Guarantee. So you're gonna have to work a significant number of hours on the side. I'd posit that this same situation exists across the country. I wouldn't call a program "fully funded" if you can't eke out a living on the stipend. That's just my opinion.

I think that's a solid approach. As you well know, the whole point is to (succinctly) say "Hey, I'm convinced that this program/school/department is really good at XXX; furthermore, I'm convinced that some of the faculty in this program/school/department are particularly good at/interested in XXX niche/subfield/area of interest and I would love to work with them; additionally, I'm really good at/interested in/engaged in XXX--here's how I can prove that I know what I'm talking about." None of this requires any name-dropping. Then again, as I said above, if you've already talked to a POI/contact within the department and they've implied that they're interested in working with you, I don't think you can go wrong finding a way to fold them in. As far as tips on things to mention, I always hesitate to say too much because I'm no expert, and one of my biggest fears is to give anybody bad advice. That said, I'm happy to give examples as long as you promise to take everything I say as the anecdotal ramblings of somebody who is just as confused about the process as anybody. Disclaimer out of the way: What I did was a buttload of research. I know you're asking for specific examples, and I'll get to that, but I think I have to emphasize that you won't know what to mention unless you've really done your homework. I started at a very high level, eliminating places I knew I wouldn't want to live (very important), then eliminating schools that didn't guarantee full funding, then eliminating schools that didn't have opportunities for summer funding, fellowships, and conference funding. I'll admit that as much as I hate generic "rankings" of schools and departments, they probably played a role in my filtering (especially the National Research Council rankings, and placement rankings). Then I started getting way more picky. I eliminated schools that didn't have at least a few active faculty members whose bodies of work aligned with my intended research path (this took a lot of time and a lot of digging through CVs, and then a lot of digging through published works listed on said CVs--I feel like I did more reading for this than I did for my thesis or my last seminar paper). Then, once I had a list of about 25 schools that I felt fit me, I went and asked some people I trusted; I asked mentors, advisors, people who knew my interests and could recommend landing places that would fit well (I didn't share my list until after they'd given me their unbiased recommendations, and then I asked if they liked any on my list, or had any reason to remove any others). Then we discussed where our lists crossed paths, and I added a few that I'd missed. At that point I was down to about ten schools, and I started scouring the internet, the library, and even message boards like this one. I reached out to a few people at different schools (some reached back, some didn't), and I tried to make contact with current and former graduate students in the programs I liked. I tried to keep it short and sweet, and I got more than a few wonderfully detailed responses. I asked these people what they valued about the program, what they were looking when they entered, how that was working out, and what they'd discovered (both pleasant and not so) once they'd arrived. I compared these responses with what I'd uncovered through my own research and tried to build a picture of the program as best I could without ever setting foot there (which was as hard as it sounds, and could be completely off-base even now). Then, under the gun of looming deadlines, I eliminated a few more for random reasons (some just didn't feel like they were me, some didn't feel like they were in a location that my wife would feel comfortable, and others I just didn't get a good vibe about). Eventually, I was down to a handful of schools. One was local (convenience), one was the best program in the country (or at least it was in my mind, though the fit wasn't perfect), and the other one felt like it was made for me (this one rose to the top of my list while I was researching, and the rhet/comp faculty seemed open-minded, eager to expand the scope of their program, fully engaged, and the graduate students seemed happy, not overworked, and excited--they also talked about how they felt fully supported). Here's where I'll get into specifics, because I noticed how my SoPs diverged from this point. The local school was pretty much guaranteed. It was my alma mater, I knew the faculty, and I guess it's what some might call a "safety" school. I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't spend a lot of time on this SoP (basically a pared down version of my other ones) with almost no tailoring to fit, but I still got accepted with full funding and a T.A. position. I mentioned that I was familiar with the faculty and the program. I guess this could, possibly, be interpreted as evidence that perhaps proving fit isn't as important as establishing qualification or merit. The other two were more difficult. As I wrote the SoP to the really prestigious school, I found myself contorting my own thoughts (as well as interpretations of my past work) to try and make myself sound more appealing--it felt like I was changing who I was and what I was interested in in order to fit in better. Maybe they could tell. Maybe the fake veneer is what sunk my chances. I really wanted to attend this school, but the further I got into the SoP the more I felt that I didn't really belong. They had a few faculty members that would have been a dream to work with and whose work aligned with mine (which is why the program made it so far up on my list), but it didn't really feel like they had a huge rhet/comp contingent, and despite their great resources I was afraid I'd feel like an outsider in a top-shelf literature program. As I wrote the SoP for my top choice school, the exact opposite happened. I felt that I could just gush about who I was, what I was passionate about, how all of my past work aligned perfectly, how I knew I fit right in, and it all just made sense. I talked about these things in particular: this school is a strong research university with well-established and burgeoning schools/departments across dozens of disciplines (numerous sciences, linguistics, psychology, etc.), and the English department is known for having wonderful, productive relationships with many of them; the rhet/comp side of this department is run by a group of really gung-ho faculty who have a wealth of experience with the rhetoric of science, the interdisciplinary facets of composition, writing across disciplines, and (to a lesser extent) ecocriticism, which is the exact kind of environment I was looking for; these same rhet/comp faculty run a stellar FYW (first-year-writing) program with a 24 student cap on each section, and a 1-1 course load for the TAs (which really gives the TAs a chance to work one-on-one with students rather than lecture and pray); they also have a spread of courses that the TAs can begin teaching as they develop professionally, including literature and rhetoric courses, some of which the TAs have a great deal of control over. I've rambled too much already, and I could add some more detail, but I feel like I probably shouldn't re-write my whole SoP here. Essentially, I did what I could to briefly index what I loved about the program, why I loved it, why I knew this would be a unique, stimulating, resource-rich environment for me as an individual--and, most importantly, I made sure to turn all of this back around and relate it to my past work and future goals. All said, this probably amounted to 1/4th of my SoP. Another 1/4 was sign-on and sign-off, and the 1/2 remaining was diving into my proposed research topics and intended trajectory. What I'm getting at, while trying to answer your questions, is that you when you stumble across these things while researching potential schools, they will jump out at you. You'll think "holy crap, that's great, that's just what I'm looking for." When you have those moments, jot them down and try to remember why you felt so energized about it at that very moment. Put that energy and excitement into your SoP, and remember to do it without sounding like a crazed idiot. There's an important line between positive, focused energy and unhinged, aimless vomitus (trust me, I know, I'm a rambler, as is evidenced here). Also, you asked about classes: Often times you can go on a department's website and they'll have the courses/seminars posted for the next year. All of the schools I applied to had this--one of them I was able to request. They usually say "subject to change," but this, paired with a list of past offerings, can give you a really good idea of what to expect from a department. Often times there will be great 1-2 paragraph descriptions of the seminar. Just feel it out! Finally, I think you're right when you say that you can't really get a good feel for the ethos of a program until you're actually in it. This sucks. It makes applying really hard. Then again, you don't know what that entree is going to taste like until you order it and eat it--you just have to do your best to figure out what it might be like by browsing some online reviews, looking at a recipe, reading the menu, looking around at the other diners' plates, asking the wait staff, and glancing into the kitchen. Research will get you as close to the finish line as anything else.

This is an excellent question, and it's one that I wish I had an answer to when I was writing my SoPs. Even now I wish I had a better grasp on what I did right and wrong. I'm unsure about which parts of my statement stood out in a positive light, and, to be candid, the fact that I didn't mention anybody by name may very well have been a negative. I have no way of knowing. The lack of initial direction and/or post-mortem feedback with personal statements/SoPs is one thing I despise about this whole process--it feels impossible to properly tailor an application without knowing exactly what they want to see. That said, what I did was zero in on faculty whose published works, courses taught, and students advised seemed to (as perfectly as possible) align with/encompass/support the direction I saw my own scholarship headed. Then, when I wrote about my past work and future goals, without mentioning anybody by name, I made sure to spend time explaining why I thought the faculty, school, department, and courses offered would provide a uniquely stimulating academic environment. I did everything I could to elaborate on what I loved about the program, and how I felt that I could contribute to field through that conduit. I figured that taking this approach would do one of two things: Either I would miss my target, and they wouldn't see the fit the way I did--or they would see exactly what I was seeing, and they would understand which faculty members I was talking about and act accordingly. I assume that the latter is true, because I ended up getting accepted and being assigned the exact advisor I was hinting at/hoping for. Later, I got a rare bit of insight into the process when that advisor sent out an email introducing me to some of the other rhet/comp students where she cited several key passages from my SoP and quoted/referenced my writing sample. I guess that's as close as most people get to a confirmation that they were on the right track. What worked in this specific application may have been a nail in the coffin for other applications (either this year or last). Who knows? As @Scarlet A+ noted, just because it worked for one person in one application cycle doesn't mean it will work for another person--even in the same school or cycle, or another school in another cycle. The whole thing can feel like a crap-shoot. I lean towards avoiding name-dropping because you never know who's going to be on that committee, and you also (probably) don't know how the person you're about to name-drop is viewed by the rest of the department, school, or their peers. The person you're investing your chances with might be viewed as a flake, or a diva, or somebody who isn't the greatest advisor--perhaps they've got a reputation for one thing or another, and the fact that you're angling your SoP towards them might leave a bad taste in somebody's mouth. If you don't mention that person specifically, it's more likely that they will still admit you based on merits and interests. In the end, who knows. Everything I just typed could be complete and utter bollocks. Edit: Also, I think it's worth emphasizing that many people get accepted while mentioning faculty by name. Perhaps it's just something each individual should feel out when they're applying.

@CatBowl Yeah, if you know your GRE is a weak spot (indicated by the provisional acceptance you pointed out) I think you're on the right track trying to better your score. What helped me was finding a few pirated study guides floating around the interwebs. If you dig deep enough you can find them. Just live with one attached to your side for a month or two. Make enormous lists of vocab, practice the different types of questions. You'll do great! I wish I could definitively answer your question about whether it's wise or unwise to reference specific scholars and works. I think there's quite a broad range of opinions on this. Personally, I think it's okay to mention specific work or scholar if it's done so seamlessly, but the last thing you want to do is detract from yourself. You don't want to give them the idea that you're piggybacking off some other work, or that you don't have original thought. The SoP (obviously) should be about you--your ideas, your grand plans, and your pending scholarship. If you somehow launch into a paragraph-long lark about this one guy you read, that's going to come off poorly. In my successful applications I have mentioned authors and genres of interest, but I have not folded in scholars or their works. I feel that in a medium as confining as a SoP, the focus should be kept on you. Then again, in the end, you know best. If a one-sentence reference really knocks home your point, toss it in there! And yes, I've been on the receiving end of that "crazy" look too. I told one of my most treasured mentors that I was applying to three schools, and he gave me some side-eye. Ha. Side note: I love ecofeminism, and I think that if you're passionate about it you can't really go wrong angling that direction. It shows, if nothing else, that you're capable of zeroing in on a specific topic. It's not like it's etched in stone anyway. Thanks, too, for your kind words. I'm really excited about starting my program this fall! Keep us all updated on your progress!

Seconded. Unless you've been in contact with them and they've agreed to work with you, it's highly unlikely that they'd be around enough to take on any kind of advisory role. I'd shy away from even mentioning them in passing, like "I really enjoy Professor XXXX's work" because you never know how that professor was viewed within the department, or whether the department is moving in a different direction, so on and so forth. Others may feel differently, but I've always heard that you should avoid name-dropping any faculty members, period, unless you've been in contact with them and they've at least implied that they might like to work with you. All of my successful applications avoided mentioning specific people.

Hi hi hi! +1 for the username "CatBowl." Not sure why. Reading through your post, it's clear that you're doing everything you can to maximize your chances heading into a PhD application. Having a 4.0 MA and 3.8 undergrad GPA is fantastic, having strong letter-writers will be a huge boon, a great writing sample is key, and your full-time teaching experience will likely seal the deal if the program fit is right. The GRE, in my opinion, is probably not that important in your situation; with all of your experience and the fact that you've already completed a graduate program with a 4.0, I'm not so sure the GRE will devastate your chances. How "laughable" are your scores? You don't have to answer that if you don't want--but consider that your scores probably aren't that bad if they got you into a M.A. program. By all means, retake, but I find that most people's scores aren't as bad as they think they are. If you've got a... 160 V and a 5.0 AW, maybe it's not worth it. That's just my two cents, and higher is definitely better if you have the money and confidence that you'll improve. That leaves your SoP, which is the hardest part for almost everybody. Good luck. With your personal experience and education I don't think it will be too hard to weave a compelling tale. You've already figured out what your interests are, just lay it out convincingly and don't stress. To try and chime in on your questions: 1) My opinion is that 14 schools is too many. Many people do the shotgun approach, but I think it's prohibitively expensive and a bit absurd. If somebody can't narrow it down to 6-10 on fit alone, maybe it's worth vetting the fit of the schools they're putting on their list. Some hold fast to the notion that the more applications you throw out, the higher chance you've got of getting accepted. I'd argue that's poppycock. If you're putting together 14 applications you're likely half-assing most of them, and more than a few will get cut because they're cookie-cutter. Find 6-10 schools you love. Look at location, funding, placement, and most importantly FIT. Spend real, hard time putting those applications together. Reach out to people you'd like to work with. Make them shine. Show the adcomm that you're clearly applying to their school and not 14 schools with the same SoP. I only applied to three schools this time around. I got outright rejected by one of the most prestigious English departments in the country, accepted by my UG alma mater, and accepted into the fully funded PhD program at my top choice school (which, please note, was not the super prestigious school). Also, you're definitely not shooting too high, because there is no such thing. If you're a top-prospect scholar they'll see it in your writing sample and your SoP. The only caveat to that is that some schools are hyperselective, and even if you belong there, you might not get in. Keep this in mind, and make sure to hedge your bets with a few schools that accept more than 1% of applicants. Less "prestige," maybe, but just as good. Prestige is overrated anyway--fit, program, opportunity, and placement are where it's at. 2) Yes! My undergraduate niche was ecocriticism and environmental literature. Love it. It's where I feel comfortable, and it's where my passions lie. I'm also a huge rhet/comp nerd, and I want to research the rhetoric of science/writing across disciplines--so I ended up seeking out a perfect fit, top-tier research school where I could do both within an English program that had great multidisciplinary ties to many other departments. From an ecocriticism perspective, I think your list is great. University of Oregon is wonderful, and at the top of the field, but if you're applying as a declared ecocriticism candidate, be prepared to knock their socks off, because it's competitive. Oregon was my top choice school for a long while, until some perspectives shifted. The same goes for UC-Davis, UC-Santa Barbara, and UCLA. I hear UC-Davis is a tough program to get into. Iowa's a great choice! There are a TON of other strong ecocriticism programs (or programs that have strong ecocriticism wings) that don't make your list. Look up Carnegie Mellon's English or Rhetoric PhD programs (Dr. Linda Flower is a hero of mine, and she teaches environmental rhetoric there), University of Idaho has a great program (but Idaho, you say? It's gorgeous! And ISLE!), University of Michigan, University of Montana, and don't forget Ohio State (you can design your own program if you convince them to let you in). Also, a tip that was given to me when applying--find a specific interest within the broadening discipline of ecocriticism. Consider something like ecofeminism, environmental history, animal ethics, environmental ethics, etc. Even if you change your mind after entering, show them up-front that you can find a wonderful little niche to blossom in. Hope I didn't ramble too much. Best of luck to you!

Yep. +1 to this. Many universities use their MA programs as cash-cows to fund their departments/Ph.D. programs. I know (from experience) that Carnegie Mellon's Rhetoric program takes the top few percent of applicants that didn't get into their Ph.D. program and offers them unfunded or half-funded 1-year M.A. spots, but that they don't have fully funded M.A. spots. I've been offered one of their 50-60% tuition waivers twice, but with that insane private tuition it's still prohibitively expensive. I've made a few friends within their department over the last few years and they've told me that they almost never bring people into their Ph.D. program who don't already have an M.A., and that they prefer to field their Ph.D. cohorts internally, out of their own crop of M.A. students. I know of a few other schools, notably the ones that Warelin mentioned, who do much the same.

I always feel compelled to address people's impostor syndrome fears before anything else: Everybody feels this way. If they claim they don't they're lying. Academia is an enormous, nebulous, vague, intimidating, initially uncertain place, and it's absolutely normal to feel this way. I'm getting ready start a Ph.D. program this fall after sinking 10 years into two divergent careers and another half-dozen into two undergraduate programs. I'm now in my early thirties and I've felt like an impostor in every career position I've held and every program I've attended. In some cases the feelings tapered off after a while, in others they hung around and plagued me--and I've ultimately excelled in all venues. I feel like impostor syndrome is a healthy, productive (albeit completely terrifying) mental tempering tool. It keeps you humble, it drives you to keep up and keep relevant, it reinforces the notion that you should never stop learning and growing as an academic or as a part of society. If you can harness these feelings of inadequacy to motivate yourself and not let it tear you down, it can only make you stronger and more prepared. My advice is to simply be the intelligent, inquisitive person who was awesome enough to make it this far, and let the rest fall into place. As to your question about research interests--I'll keep it as short and sweet as I can: Work on what fires you up. Do what you love. Pursue your passion. Grab a shovel, dig yourself a nice little niche (with room for a bookshelf), and let the field settle in around you. There's certainly something to be said for bolstering or fleshing out existing research within the academic boundaries of a field/subfield that has already been well-defined--and if that's where your interests lie, that can be a win/win situation. If you don't fall directly into one of those molds, that's great too; find a vein that piques your intellectual curiosity and follow it until something unique catches your attention off to one side or another. If you don't fall anywhere near any mold, refer to my advice about the shovel. Choose your field based on your strengths and interests, but choose the trajectory of your research within that field based on your passions. Following your passion will lead to a happier life, as well as a stronger, more inspired body of work. This advice won't work for everybody, and I'm positive that some people disagree with the stance (because they have before)--but what is the point of dedicating our lives to the pursuit of knowledge and empowered education if we're not absolutely enthralled with what we're diving into? This advice might also be a bit dangerous to take when initially applying to graduate programs, because you really have to watch your audience and make sure you're not flying off on a lark. In that case I'd recommend taking a more tempered approach and only revealing the depth of your lunacy after you've been accepted. Personally, I've always known that my passions are splattered across a broad spectrum of science disciplines, as well as linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, ethnography, climatology, and a number of other fields. I've also always known that my skills, strengths, and general interests are deeply rooted in English and composition. So, because I always felt like an academic outsider that never really belonged any one place in particular, I just grabbed a shovel and dug myself a niche in the Rhet/Comp wing of a great English department, and I now plan to spend a huge chunk of my life trying to deep-dive into rhetoric of science for the good of humanity (or so I tell myself). Without getting into too much detail, my primary research goals involve the intersection between climate change, ecocriticism, rhetoric, public policy, and writing across the disciplines. When I arrived at this conclusion and wrote my SoP and writing samples, I often felt like this was an uninhabited space in the void of academia--which was both gratifying and petrifying--but I've since encountered a solid handful of others whose research interests and published works align very closely with mine, and I could tell they also used shovels to get where they were. I also have about ninety thousand other interests that will inevitably try to swallow me whole, but I've been told that a huge part of graduate school is learning how to pare down your scope to focus in on a sensible, defensible topic, and I look forward to that. TLDR version: Stop trying to cram yourself into a sardine can with five million other people. If you like that sardine can, that's wonderful--but why try to block-format your intellect to fit a mold? Find your niche and stand your ground. Figure out how to shape your interests to fit the field you intend to enter. Find a program or department that aligns itself with the way you see the field. Figure out what truly excites you academically and chase it. You'll either succeed splendidly or you'll crash, burn, fail, be miserable, and give up on life. What do you have to lose?

Most schools I've encountered offer funded English MA programs, though that funding is rarely guaranteed (i.e. they don't fund all of their incoming MA students). In these cases, you're typically either competing against all English applicants for a few funded spots, or you're tossed into a larger, even more competitive pool for university-wide funding. What's rare is finding the school that funds its entire incoming English MA cohort. Those are typically the more prestigious or widely respected schools, and they're more competitive still. Everybody who's posted here has provided great feedback and listed most of the MA programs that I'm familiar with.

Mostly tangential, but my grandfather was born in Aberdeen and moved to Edinburgh when he was very young. He attended the University of Edinburgh and loved it. He later moved to the U.S. and always talked about how much he missed Scotland, Edinburgh in particular. It's been one of my life's dreams to visit and wander around the city (particularly Old Town and the university campus). It's gorgeous, it's ancient, and it's plenty prestigious.

I feel that it's worth reiterating what @Dogfish Head brings up just to emphasize that there's no defined, recommended path to a PhD program (or graduate school in general), and most admissions committees are cognizant of this throughout the process. Even in PSU's own response, while they admit they have a preference, they state that they take people from all walks. I've heard similar things from other programs, and the program I'm joining said that they try to bring in a mix to maintain a diversity of perspectives. Some people go directly from high school to undergraduate and then apply to MA/PhD programs with a full academic year left before graduation; others take years off after high school, years off after undergraduate, and even years off after a MA; still others make mid-career shifts and successfully apply to MA/PhD programs in unrelated fields. There's definitely something to be said for checking all of the important boxes on an application, but, in general, I think that people need to back away from the notion that unless you've freshly popped out of the mold you're going to be outclassed or under-qualified. Everybody knows that these programs are hypercompetitive, but what matters most isn't that you followed some socially acceptable educational timeline--it's that you're bright as hell, you have a strong grasp on the field you want to be a scholar in, you're passionate about devoting a huge chunk of your life to academia, and you're adept enough at your craft that you're able to demonstrate to a group of complete strangers, in writing, all of the above. Poring over these forums for years now has only reinforced this perspective; I've now read countless stories from more people than I can recall, and although there are certainly a lot of traditional students, there are just as many who take their own paths and succeed. I'm one of those oddball stories. I'm a nontraditional student with undergraduate degrees in two fields from two very different universities from two points in my life that now feel like distant worlds. I was several years into my second serious career when I applied (last year) and was accepted directly into a PhD program. I applied to PhD programs because I knew (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that my end goal was to get a doctorate and teach. If I was less sure about that, I might have applied to a bunch of MA programs instead. To segue back and try to answer @katie64's original question: The only person who can answer the BA to MA or PhD question is you. I know it's a cop-out answer, but it's true. If you're unsure about whether you want to spend the rest of your life as an academic, the MA is probably the best choice (if funded). It gives you a bit more exposure, it lets you get a better feel for what you're doing within the field, and it gives you a bright red "EXIT" sign after two years; it also has the added benefit of making you a (theoretically) more appealing PhD applicant down the road. Contrarily, if you're dead-set on a doctorate and you know that's where your career goals lie, why NOT apply for the PhD programs? As people have mentioned, it's typically possible to bow out after getting the MA, you usually have a better shot at funding, and some programs prefer applicants straight out of BA programs. The downside? Way more competitive. There are countless factors to consider, including location, prestige (arguably not that important), funding (arguably the most important), climate (both academic and meteorological), research specialization, on and on--but all of these are rooted in questions that only the applicant can vet and answer. In my opinion, the bottom line is that anybody asking themselves this question needs to do some serious soul-searching about where they see their lives headed and which degree best supports that direction of travel.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean you've been rejected, but I think it's safe to say that a majority of decisions have already been made. I've heard of people getting in off the waitlist in May, June, July, and even early August, but those are rare, isolated instances. Have you been in contact with your program at some point this month? If not, I strongly recommend sending a polite, concise email asking for a status update. The waitlist may well be active and you might be at the top of it--who knows. It's equally plausible that the process is over and they just didn't make a formal notification. Either way, it can't hurt to get in touch and express your continued interest. Keep in mind that if you've already talked to them in the last few weeks, it's probably best to just wait it out. Best of luck--the whole process is very taxing.

Thanks very much, and I'm looking forward to it!