generic31290

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

Go to law school.

That says nothing about the degree itself. What it says is as follows:

1. People from higher income families tend to earn more than people from lower income families
2. Smarter people tend to earn more than stupider people
3. People with some measure of dedication and/or personal drive tend to earn more than people without those qualities

Crucial element: the MA itself does not confer any of those things

That claim is what I referenced above when I talked about selection bias and ability effects, which are terms I'm guessing you don't recognize. There has actually been a great deal of empirical work done to separate the value of a bachelor's degree from ability effects, and quite rigorously at that; those studies consistently find an advantage to a BA or BS that is greater than that conferred by pure ability. I'm unaware of any similar research concerning the MA, but I could look. Quantitative research on education and pedagogy are my particular academic focus, after all.

In any event-- those are big claims that you're making, without evidence.

Hi,

My undergrad GPA was 3.08. Major GPA (English) was even lower.

But my masters GPA is 4.0. So far I'm in at one top 20 program and a few others.

Hi,

My undergrad GPA was 3.08. Major GPA (English) was even lower.

But my masters GPA is 4.0. So far I'm in at one top 20 program and a few others.

Hi All!

I just came back from my first interview and thought I'd share what the experience was like. Naturally, not all our experiences will be the same but I figured this might be helpful to ease the stress...

There were 17 of us, and the school flew us in and put us up in hotel rooms that were within walking distance to the department building. We were 2 to a room, both roommates of the same sex.

We were encouraged to arrive on Thursday and our interviews were on Friday. I had 8 interviews: about 30 minutes with each member of the faculty who were part of the field I am interested in. Lunch included all the faculty and several current graduate students. I applied to a PhD program and 4 of the grad students - one from each of the last 4 or 5 cohorts gave a short talk about the program and what to expect in each year of it. During lunch we were free to mingle with the faculty and the other graduate students. Then interviews resumed after lunch.

After the interviews were over we had a few hours to relax and then dinner was at a faculty member's home. Again, this included faculty and graduate students. We met more of the grad students and they gave us info on what were cool areas to live in, what life is like academically and socially and things like that. It was very informal but of course, we were still being evaluated.

The next morning we were taken by a graduate student on a tour of the city and given a brief overview of life on and off campus.

Then we had lunch, again with the faculty and graduate students. Then.. the end. We packed and left.

All in all, it was great fun. It was stressful but at the same time loads of fun. I made friends with the other candidates and it did not feel competitive; rather, there was a sense of solidarity and friendship. We knew that at some point we'd probably all meet each other in the future.

If any of them are reading this... Yes, this is the girl with the Cat Hat.

Thumbs UP and Good Luck!

Because you've written a whole response colored with the idea that I'm from Towson and therefore look down on my opinion, I'm not going to be bothered to try to defend myself too much over this. A few words however are needed: No, I'm not from Towson, I've spent alot of time working in the city, and I don't need your opinion on how the city is. What you think of as beautiful is clearly the opposite of what I do. When you say "soulless architecture," it really throws out red flags about your own tastes and biases. Obviously being a History PhD you'd appreciate more historic buildings, but they're not for everyone, and to many people it doesn't speak to us the way it does to you and we'd prefer them out.

I am not going to be as assumptive as you are, but you seem oversensitive on the whole race issue-- being so quick to go to "racist" when other people would just call it prudent. Obviously you have not lived in an area where you are told repeatedly by people in authority to be alert at all times. In College Park, for example, where I live, we are sent crime reports by e-mail. In my four years living here, only once has there been a report of a strong arm robbery carried out by a white person. Is it racist of me to shed light on this fact? I don't think so. So when this is realized as the norm, what wrong is there in being prudent? Are you saying I should be oblivious to the environment I'm in at the risk of being politically incorrect? There's a fundamental difference there. At JHU, it had been reinforced to the grad students that the area was dangerous by the school, and so they responded prudently. Obviously I'm sure if they saw "someone in the streets" wearing scrubs they wouldn't be afraid to look at them regardless of their race, but because of the warnings of the department, they decided to be careful. It is not a race issue as it is an area issue-- it just so happens that many people living in that area may be of a certain race. If Baltimore didn't proudly wear the Murder Capital of the USA in recent memory, maybe this would not be an issue. However, they advised against looking at anyone in the streets (which you took to be a racist term), while several poor looking white people were there as well (I double checked this). So really, if anything they're classist.