hashslinger

Redflight's not even worth voting down or reporting, as far as I'm concerned. Basically this person is either here to troll or has reached that mid-February breaking point when it becomes clear that one is not going to one's desired program. To get back to the topic at hand ... which is interesting ... I too often get annoyed with the "Top 20 or nothing" rhetoric on these boards. I hope that people honestly don't feel this way. There is a very big world outside of the top 10, top 30, or top 50. If you truly want to throw everything away because you didn't get into a certain caliber program, then that's kind of your loss. I saw some people in my own MA cohort take the attitude that if they didn't get into X kind of school they just weren't going. And a few made good on that promise. Years later, they work in insurance or graphic design or as stay-at-home parents. Some are perfectly happy with this decision and like the fact that they don't have to worry about the academic job market. I, however, would not have been happy throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I would have wanted to go on to grad school regardless of the status of my program. I have enjoyed the process thus far, and the experience of writing a dissertation has been worth it, regardless of whether or not I get my desired job. Most people in academia really do not get their desired job anyway; if you think that you're going to be courted by multiple universities just because you go to a certain school, you're probably mistaken. ArthurianChaucerian is absolutely right that people from lesser-ranked universities get jobs. Do you honestly think that grads from the top 12 schools in the country are the only ones getting hired? Do a little digging by looking at faculty pages outside the major flagships; you'll see PhDs from all walks of life and all types of different programs (and not just in rhet-comp). Maybe some people have a serious issue with working at a non-R1 or non-prestigious SLAC. If that's the case, then no, maybe you really shouldn't go to grad school. Lastly, I think it's pretty disenchanting that people here are set on perpetuating this same tired system of prestige. It's one thing to be aware that it exists (and believe me, after watching the hiring process at my own program, I'm quite aware that it exists); it's another thing to pronounce all programs outside the top 20 as obviously unworthy of anyone's attention and incapable of producing good scholars. I mean, seriously. Is that the attitude you're going to take when a CV from the perfectly good but non-Ivy Washington University in St. Louis crosses your desk? Are you going to refuse to have the grad student from UMass-Amherst on your panel because, gee, obviously if they'd been any good then they'd have gone to Harvard? This is getting a bit ridiculous. By the way, one of my best professors from my MA program went to WUSTL. She has produced scholarship and won major awards like you wouldn't believe.

Wow, rape and menstrual insults on the same page. Someone's got some vagina phobia going on. Tough week? However, I'd like this thread to remain up. I think it's got some great discussions otherwise.

I think it's really obvious that prestige matters--on some level. After all, we're sitting here talking about how one gets into a top program--not how one goes about getting into University of Northern Tip of Alaska. So while we all recognize that it's best to get your degree from a certain graduate program, we're uncomfortable with the idea that rankings and prestige matter when one is being vetted for that top program. There's a bit of a "disconnect" (I really hate that word, so I use it sparingly); I see people saying things like "I want to get into a top program; it really matters to me where I get my degree, but I don't believe that anyone should judge me by my pedigree (or lack thereof)." Of course no adcom member is going to come out and say that they are wowed by a BA from Yale. On some very real level, they probably aren't. In the end, Yale's writing sample is going to have to stand on its own two feet like everyone else's. But while I do think that there are people out there who enjoy "finding talent" in weird and obscure places, I also think that adcoms are made up of individuals with biases. I think it's naïve to not recognize that your undergrad degree carries its own currency.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to say. While it's absolutely possible to get into Prestige U with a no-name BA, you sort of have to "prove yourself" more. People with elite degrees get the benefit of the doubt. Because I've seen the same attitude in my own institution's hiring practices, I have a difficult time believing that it doesn't exist, on some level, in the admissions process.

And I want to just follow up briefly about presentations and publications. First of all, presenting at a conference is really no big deal. Most of you could probably send an abstract to a conference right now and get it accepted somewhere. No one puts much stock in presenting at a conference unless it's a really prestigious conference. Even then, no grad school is going to admit you just because you presented at some big-name conference. I doubt it would even be a deciding factor if it came down to you and one other person. Conference presentations are just not considered a big deal. By the time you get to the job market, you should have presented at a few good ones, but that's almost considered a "minimum requirement" nowadays--not evidence of some special prowess. Publications--no one expects you to be published as an undergrad. No one expects you to be published as an MA student. No one even expects first- and second-year PhD students to be published. Frankly, any journal that accepts a paper from an undergrad or MA student is probably not worth the time of day. Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but I have seen a lot of book chapters and online articles from eager-to-publish beginning graduate students that are just total crap. When people rush to publish, they often don't put their best work out there or spend enough time revising their work. If something gets accepted the first time out, then you are either an extremely lucky natural genius, or the journal doesn't have high standards. If you have produced something really good, then you should be working closely with a professor to make it even better over the course of your grad career. Getting an article published in an esteemed peer-reviewed journal takes YEARS. If the journal is any good, then you will probably go back and forth with the editor for several months, making revisions. The process goes like this: you send out an article to one journal (and it can be under review only at one journal), the editor will send it to readers, they will sit on it for 4-6 months and then produce readers' reports. If the reports are favorable, then you will be allowed to make revisions. Producing a revised article could take another one to three months of consulting with advisors and doing more research. You send it back to the journal where it sits for another several months. If all goes well, then you get accepted. And then it sits in the queue for one or two years. Finally, about three plus years after you had the initial idea for the article, it gets published. And that's if things go WELL. There are also a lot of articles that get rejected their first time out, and you have to make changes and find a different journal and start the process all over again. So, as you see, it would be highly unlikely for an undergrad or MA student to be published. The peer review process alone takes months, possibly years. Though publication is a worthy goal for an undergrad or MA student--and though the process can be extremely helpful (you get honest feedback from professions in the field who have no idea who you are and therefore no reason to be "nice")--it's probably not something you can realistically achieve at the very beginning of your career.

From my own experience, I do feel as though there is a correlation between undergraduate reputation's prestige and the institution one ends up at for a PhD. There could be a number of reasons for this--better schools might offer more preparation for getting into grad school and more exposure to cutting-edge research; students who go to more elite schools have already been successful at the admissions game; and, finally, though it might be unpopular to admit this here, adcoms are probably more impressed with a BA from Swarthmore than one from U of Texlahoma State. There's nothing to say that the person from Texlahoma State *can't* get admitted; but they are probably going to have to stand out from the crowd. (I hope there's really not a school named Texlahoma State.) I don't go to an Ivy, but I know a lot of people who go to the very top schools--many of whom were accepted the same year that I was turned down. Based on what I've seen and experienced, the people who were successful did indeed have stellar profiles all around. They had high test scores across the board (they are a must), degrees from very good schools, and very well-honed interests. There was something almost ... professional about their presentation. Like, I thought I knew what I wanted to study, but when I look back on it, I realize that my interests were still a little inchoate (that's normal, if you ask me). The people who got into top programs spoke about their work as though they were already junior scholars. They weren't published (and most hadn't even presented a paper), but they were super confident about the intervention they were making--and knew enough to know it *was* an intervention. When I look back on it, I think that my statement was well-written and focused, but it lacked that elusive "it factor" that would have told the world that I was proposing something entirely new and cutting edge. Part of me thinks it's an unfair standard to hold people to. After all, a would-be grad student shouldn't have to be Guggenheim-worthy to move from an unknown undergrad program to a more big-name school. But that's the way it goes, and as the discipline gets more and more competitive, then you're just obviously going to have to deal with this kind of thing. And this is the thing that no one talks about because it's kind of unbecoming: there is always some behind-the-scenes jockeying going on. Of course there is--let's not be naïve. I know of at least a few people whose recommenders were "very friendly" with the adcoms at whatever school. I know one person in particular who very much had an inside track. But this person was also brilliant to begin with. So when his advisor placed a call to his old buddy--well, you could argue that this guy had already "done the work" by distinguishing himself as a student who justified that kind of phone call in the first place. And he was in the right place at the right time--which is the way life goes. Another small anecdote: I know someone who works on the adcom at a top-3 program. They admit about 7 to 10 people every year. He told me that they could easily take any one of 100 or 200 applicants and those people would do just fine. So, I say all this not to be discouraging but to let people know how random and messy this process is. And I can't stress this enough: it's really not over if you don't get into an Ivy League or top-10 program. I've done okay despite not going to one. My friend, on the other hand, got into her "dream program" and totally floundered and hasn't done well at all. If you want it, you will do what it takes to succeed when you're in your program, whether the program is in the top 10 or the top 70.

Wow, your response to the student is indeed gracious beyond all measure. You're much more generous with your time than I would have been, and you really go above and beyond the call of duty to explain thoroughly how the student's work wasn't quite up to par. It's quite a nice answer, and I think that the concluding part really drives home the fact that the whole discussion is a rather meaningless waste of the student's time and energy. To be honest (and this is just my perspective, so everyone's mileage may vary), I wouldn't have given this student even half the time and effort. I probably would have just said something like, "I marked X points off because of Y; this was clearly explained in [whatever document or lecture or assignment]. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to see you in office hours. My best." If I'm TAing in a large lecture, I might actually and visibly CC the response to the professor just to let the student know that I'm willing to stand by my answer in front of whatever authority (and, on a more practical level, to keep the professor informed of what's going on). Your response is gracious, though. The only problem I can see is that undergrads tend not to appreciate this kind of generosity (at least not the type of undergrads wiling to write such an email in the first place). By replying with such patience, you sort of run the risk of seeming "too available." I personally try to let my students know that I'm very busy and that my time is very valuable; if they have a complaint, they need to pull it together and make it snappy. Again, these are things I picked up (or liberally distorted) from the Greg Semenza book. The only thing I'd quibble about is your statement that you are sorry, and that you strongly disagree. First of all--I wouldn't apologize to a student for their fuck-up. (Resist the urge to apologize.) Second of all, you don't "strongly disagree" about the answer because the answer isn't a matter of opinion. This person got the answer wrong, end of story. This isn't a matter of "disagreement." I also teach a subject that students love to regard as a bunch of "opinions" and "feelings" (the humanities), so I always try to stress that my grades aren't a matter of "agreement" or "opinion" but of reasoning and evidence and how well they fulfilled the goals set out by the assignment. But other than that ... if your students still think you're rude and condescending, then they're just delusional.

This just makes me laugh. They record their video on an iphone and still want an A? I'm guessing that Anderson Cooper didn't use a cheap camera when he was at Yale. Even at my university we had the decency to rent our equipment from the library. I get emails like this periodically. I usually just 1) redirect students to the assignment sheet or rubric, and 2) tell them that if they have specific concerns they can come to office hours to discuss how they might improve their work in the future. The "office hours" thing was a tip I picked up from Greg Semenza's book. He makes some good points about not getting into lengthy discussions with students over email. Email is their realm; confronting them there is like trying to do an exorcism in the nighttime on non-consecrated ground. By recommending that they bring grade "issues" to office hours, you send the message that the discussion is going to unfold on your terms. Then you steer the discussion away from a "debate" and instead make recommendations about what they might do better in the future. I nod when they complain, letting them have their little say. Then I point out some things that they could improve on. I conclude by once again emphasizing my availability--and hinting that they could have gotten a better grade if they'd just made the effort to meet with me BEFORE the due date. Sometimes I even say just that: "These are problems we could have headed off if you'd come to see me with a draft beforehand." This puts the responsibility back on them. When I get emails like this, I also sometimes play the "rest of the class" card. "Many other students produced outstanding, high-quality work; their grades reflected their efforts. Your B- is not a bad grade; however, this class is highly competitive and the A grades went to those who produced truly noteworthy work." That usually shuts them up.

Just to give some encouragement for some of the people who feel overwhelmed and underwhelming. I did well in undergrad, but I didn't have any laurels or prizes or special summer schools. I took several years off to work, so I was woefully far away from old professors when I went to write my essays and prepare for the GREs. I wasn't a very distinguished candidate at all. When I applied the first time out, I got rejected from everywhere except one slim MA program. When I applied the second time out, I got rejected everywhere except one PhD program. It's a good program but not an Ivy. I didn't get any special funding packages or anything. Flash forward a few years: I have a good dissertation and have outperformed everyone else in my cohort. I now have a publication forthcoming from the biggest journal in my field. I've presented at all the top conferences. The future is looking pretty good (or, as good as it looks for anyone in this field). My point is that some people don't really excel until they're actually in a program. I was not one of those polished applicants--over the course of two rounds, I don't think I ever really got the statement of purpose "lingo" down or figured out how to really articulate my suitability for a particular line of study. I could never figure out how to "sell myself" or set myself apart from the crowd. I was always awed and intimated by people who fielded multiple offers from top schools and seemed to have these brilliant little dissertation ideas all ready to go. However, when it counted, I could do it. Your fate isn't decided the moment you get into a program--there's still a lot of time.

Oh yes, it's absolutely a long journey. And you don't want to think too much or obsess about it. Students are generally never going to like the person who's giving them grades--even if those grades are ostensibly fine. If your professor were the one giving the grades, then she would be on the receiving end of their complaints. One time I served as an assistant to a professor in a low-level class. I wasn't responsible for giving the grades--just a few lectures. Surprise, surprise--the students loved me and hated the professor. They saw me as an ally and wrote on their evaluations how much they wished I had taught the class instead. Lol. Grade inflation is a huge issue these days, and fueled by a consumerist attitude toward higher education. As students are required to pay more and more for tuition, they have begun to see their instructors as people they have hired to work for them. They're also under a lot of pressure to maintain high grades--many of them think that high grades will get them a job. (That's usually not the case--employers are often indifferent to GPA--but try telling them that.) And as grades continue this huge upward swing, students feel more and more resentful of the lone instructor who won't just give them what they want, thereby "ruining" their GPA and any shot at a comfortable upper-middle-class life. Further compounding our situation is the administrative obsession with student evaluations. Large public universities have a huge "administrative class"--people who are paid to ensure that students are happy tuition-payers. So, students get a lot of conflicting messages. From us they hear that they have to perform well to meet certain standards. From the administration they hear that their own satisfaction is paramount, and that they should fill out evaluation forms in order to weed out their difficult professors. My administration sends students email reminders to fill out evaluations with taglines like, "Now it's YOUR TURN to give the grades!" or "You may have already made comments about your professors on Facebook or Twitter; now put them where they count!" Basically, they feed into this consumerist mindset and further portray professors/TAs not as experts to be learned from but as employees to be disciplined or fired--or, even worse, to be slandered and gossiped about online. I would actually modify one piece of advice I gave, though. Sometimes it's best to give your students more "honest" grades on their first assignment with feedback as to how to improve. When they then receive "gentler" grades later in the semester, they're inclined to feel like they've really earned that positive grade. I've had a lot of success with that approach and gotten evaluations about my "high standards" or "thorough feedback." But really, nothing eliminates the bad evaluations from sour grapes. Even when the majority of my class is doing fine, there's always a segment that absolutely hates everything. And yeah, speaking of twitter--I try to avoid their accounts. One student last semester tweeted something like "Hashslinger is a cunt who deserves to die, worst TA ever." I found it by googling my own name. I had just given the student a C on a really terrible paper. So, yeah, you're always going to be the target of their own unprofessional, hateful behavior.

I had the same issue when I first started TAing. I came from a very different place--I attended a really strict high school where unearned praise was not a common thing, and then I went to a college that was pretty much the same. TAing my first year in graduate school was the first time I ever bumped up against the "automatic A" culture. I was completely perplexed when students would flip out over getting a B (I got plenty of B's in college, and I worked hard for them too). And it was difficult to not be condescending when they would expect such high grades for work that was so lousy, or when they would expect to be treated with patience and respect despite not treating me or the class with any respect. I'm not naturally a cheerleader type of person--and that's the kind of person the students at my institution really gravitate toward. Not to generalize, but my institution is in an area of the country where people really value the social, friendly, genteel personality type ... and especially in women. Beyond regionalisms, undergrads seem really like people who are sweet and kind and put them at ease. Often, they seem to put "likability" ahead of a person's perceived expertise. "Bedside manner" is quickly becoming the most important aspect of how a teacher is evaluated--my school's evaluations now include a lot of questions like, "How did you feel the TA respected the knowledge you brought to the class?" (this assumes that undergrads bring a great deal of knowledge to class), or "Rate how well the TA seemed genuinely interested in helping students learn" (this is often interpreted by undergrads as "How well did the TA bend over backwards to make me want to actually come to class to learn this incredibly boring/challenging material?" Answer: not well at all.). And I think that this approach is really doing students a disservice. TAs should, of course, treat all students with basic respect and kindness, but some of my own undergrad institution's most interesting and provocative professors wouldn't have done well in a personality contest. By allowing students to value personality and likability above all else, we're not exactly preparing people to negotiate the more "colorful" personalities in the workplace and in life. Having said all that, I think there are some really minor adjustments you can make in order to come across as more likable and invested in their success. You can tell them upfront that you will be taking their work seriously and evaluating their work according to high professional standards--and then you want to make those standards crystal clear in the form of written expectations, rubrics, sample papers, etc. Additionally, I often have students into my office hours at the beginning of the semester for a little "stop and chat" to figure out how the course is going for them. These little conferences help them see you as a human being. They also know that you see them as a human being. By asking them to talk about themselves and articulate how the class is going so far, you're helping them feel like they have some kind of agency in the situation. Related to that--try to learn their names as best you can, and then use them when calling on them in class. Using students' names seems to go really far at a large state school where everyone feels anonymous. I also stress my availability, using every opportunity to remind students that I have office hours. (Most don't use them--but by constantly reiterating that you have office hours, you remind them that you're doing your job and "working hard" for them.) If you can stomach it, grade a little easier. I sometimes go back over all the papers (before I give them back) to see if I can't make a few minor adjustments (raising the B-minuses to a B, for instance.) Think of it this way: it's not a big deal for you to make this small concession, but it might be a big deal to them to get that B+ instead of a B, or that B- instead of a C+. But never adjust grades AFTER you've given them back, no matter how much they wheedle and beg and whine. I know it's difficult to not be sharp or condescending when they approach you with this attitude of egregious entitlement about a paper that was total crap, but you just have to smile sweetly, emphasize that the grade is final, and tell them that it's best to talk to you BEFORE assignments are due, rather than after, to avoid making mistakes. I absolutely refuse to enter into a debate with students about their grades. However, if students come to me with very honest and respectful questions about their grades, then I will sometimes allow them to rewrite for a different grade. (Then I look like a hero.) There are also really small things you can do to show them that you're invested in the class. I occasionally drop little verbal cues about how much prep work I've put in (even if I haven't done anything), or how much I enjoy teaching them. ("When I was doing research to prepare this lesson, I knew you guys would probably find x, y, and z interesting because you seemed to like a, b, and c.") I also stress that "most people did well" on whatever quiz or paper or test I've just graded. If someone got a hundred on the midterm, I tell them that the highest grade was 100, and there were "many A's." The students who didn't do well know that they're outliers, then. If they didn't do well, then your teaching or grading isn't the thing to blame. If most people didn't do well, then I don't tell them this. In a very neutral way, I outline some strategies for improvement. When I write comments for papers, I use the "shit sandwich" approach. No matter how crappy the paper, I try to find something nice to say about it. Then, in very neutral language, I tell them what "didn't work." When criticizing, I always say "the paper," not "you." ("The paper's thesis sets it up to discuss x; the body paragraphs, however, all discuss y, and there is a lot of plot summary throughout.") Then I conclude with suggestions for writing the next paper. I resist the impulse to tell them how I really feel about their work, no matter how much they've disregarded the assignment, or how disengaged they are in lecture or class. (The texters really piss me off, and their assignments reflect their lack of attention. But I manage to swallow my discontent--most of the time.) Finally, I found this article helpful: http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/tomprof/posting.php?ID=1047 It has some tips on how to teach the millennial generation. I realize that most of us here are probably part of the millennial generation and might feel a bit miffed by the sweeping generalizations, but I do think that there is some good advice here: be aware of their heightened sensitivity, desire for structure, need for constant feedback and praise--and use these traits to your advantage.

Oh my God, don't feel bad. These are the type of evaluations that a lot of TAs get. I assume you're TAing a big lecture class? Then this kind of response is pretty expected. You're bad cop. You do all the grading and give all the assignments. You do the grunt work. The professor gets to breeze in and seem like a smart, elusive expert. You're the one who delivers the bad news--that they have a quiz, a paper assignment, that they have to actually read and discuss the assignments (oh, horror), or that they got a bad grade (and these days that's anything lower than an A-). Being a TA in a large class is the worst of all worlds. You literally have no control over anything. You don't get to set the agenda or teach what's interesting to you. You have to do what the professor says, and then you get blamed for all the ways the undergrads are failing to live up to their end of the bargain. The TA is always an easy scapegoat. You're the messenger they love to shoot. If they succeed in the class, it is because they are awesome, special snowflakes who are naturally brilliant and didn't need your assistance at all. If they fail, then it's all your fault, you miserable human being, you. You made things "unfair." You had it out for them, of course. You sat around in your apartment thinking of ways to make their lives so difficult. The things they're complaining about here? These are the things that whiny, entitled undergrads love to complain about. You're grading too harshly and assigning too much work. (waah) You, gasp, actually take everything too seriously. (Yes, you take your job seriously. Good.) You teach a class that should be an easy A--"everyone knows" this should be an easy A. (No class in college should ever be an easy A.) You made them work. (cue the violins) As I read through these evaluations, a very interesting picture of you emerges: you actually take your job seriously, expect them to learn, and hold them to standards. You didn't give out A's like candy. Maybe you didn't give out candy, either. And, oh yeah, they want you to smile more. Soften your approach. Be nice and sweet. Perhaps they want you to be more ... sisterly. Motherly. Feminine. This isn't surprising, either. A strong current of sexism runs through a lot of undergrad evaluations. Other people have documented this much better than I ever could: http://www.policymic.com/articles/66641/why-students-judge-female-professors-more-harshly http://www.awm-math.org/newsletter/199009/koblitz.html Are you an international student? Undergrads don't like people with accents, either: http://h11.cgpublisher.com/proposals/111/index_html Finally, I noticed that you're located in College Park. I assume that you teach at the University of Maryland. These large state universities are sometimes the most difficult to navigate in terms of undergrad culture--especially if you came from a different type of school (more demanding, liberal arts centered, higher standards). Even if you didn't come from a different type of school, you probably had different aspirations and didn't brush up against that culture too often. I've been teaching at my large R1 state school for years, and I still sometimes find myself at odds with the anti-intellectual sports-obsessed bro culture. You just have to remind yourself that a lot of the students aren't there to learn. They're there to 1) party, 2) get a credential so that they can get a job as middle-management at the big area financial firm and makes tons of money, and 3) find someone attractive to possibly marry. They aren't there to cultivate a life of the mind. They want you to make things as easy as possible and not slow them down with all that thinking stuff. Anyway, you've got a few ways to go forward. You can 1) embrace your teaching persona for all the ways they might find it problematic (fuck 'em) and just ignore your evaluations, or 2) soft-pedal a bit--make things easier, smile more, grade easier, don't ask much of them, praise them, be understanding when they want to turn in late work or do something over again. I've experimented with both approaches over the course of my graduate career, usually depending on what mood I'm in that semester, or how much time I can devote to grading. Oddly enough, I sometimes find that things work out more when I'm honest and upfront with them and very blunt in my grading--as long as they know this from the beginning. Other times, I just find it easier to be kind and generous and easy-going. In either case, you have to set the tone really early on and then be consistent. You have to provide them with a syllabus that's very explicit about your expectations. You have to use grading rubrics to let them know how you're evaluating every little piece of their work. No matter what approach you take, you're always going to have some students who give you bad evaluations. Remember that these evaluations say more about them than they do about you. They're really not about you at all.

I had worse things happen to me when I applied to grad school--one program lost my letters of recommendation; another program sent me an acceptance letter by mistake; another program accepted me, promised funding, and then revealed that they had underestimated the number of people who would accept their offer and therefore had to rescind the funding. A couple of other programs were not up front about their preference for BA candidates (I had an MA). And this was all in spite of the fact that I paid $70-$100 app fees. There are a lot of unprofessional graduate programs out there. Having said that, I agree with Loric: Berkeley is overrated.

I can't believe UMN is still doing this. They did it four years ago when I applied. So vague and unprofessional!

Seriously, don't beat yourself up over evaluations. Don't obsess about the bad ones. If the majority are good, then you can write the bad ones off as sour grapes. Certain people are predisposed to never be happy about anything.

As far as grad school advice goes, that is the one piece of advice that I will absolutely stick to. No one should do an unfunded MA. Not just because the job market is so terrible, but because there ARE tons of MA programs that will fund you. Tons. Go to one of those. Unless you're independently wealthy *and* can't relocate. I am sympathetic to people who don't have stellar undergraduate records and therefore have to do a master's in order to make themselves appropriate for a PhD program. I was one of them. I got an MA at a no-name (but funded) program. I managed to take my no-name-but-funded MA and get into a PhD program. But let me tell you, the job market is a total slaughter, and I'm really glad I don't have a bunch of MA debt around my neck. I'll probably be on the market for about two or three years, which is average for a lot of people these days.

If you're trying to get into PhD programs, then your goal as an MA student should be to write the best writing sample possible. If writing an MA thesis helps you do that, then go for it. If working more closely on a seminar paper helps you achieve this, then do that instead. From the admissions side of things, I don't think it matters either way. The year I got in, my program admitted people who had done MA theses and people who hadn't. I didn't do one and instead submitted a heavily revised seminar paper as my writing sample.

Yep, bingo, this is absolutely the case. If you're at a top program, your eggs are all in the research basket and you don't necessarily get a lot of teaching experience--or teaching experience with the kinds of students that represent the 99% majority of college-going people. If the research doesn't quite come together the way you want it to, it's best to get experience adjuncting at other types of schools.

It's not just about the fear that an elite PhD grad will go job hopping--it also has to do with fitting in with the "culture" of the institution, understanding how to reach certain types of students, being able to engage in the institution's service activities, etc. Also, remember that search committees are trying to hire a potential colleague, and in that case they're looking for "fit." Look at any faculty page for any type of institution, and you'll notice that a lot of the professors have similar backgrounds. It's also how lesser-ranked programs sometimes manage to have placement rates of 90% while really top schools hover around 50 or 60%.

To be honest, I'm not sure that top programs send their graduates into the world with more options. They definitely might have more prestigious options--options along the lines of what the OP is looking for--but they don't necessarily have more options. It is perhaps unfair, but there are a lot of lower-tier and regional schools out there who do not want to hire from the Ivy League. I've said before here, and I'll say it again: the job market works both ways. The most elite PhDs are often times shut out from job searches when their pedigree is perceived to be at odds with the committee doing the hiring. I have a friend who's served on search committees for a lesser known state school, and he told me that they simply toss out all the CVs from Ivy League schools. They don't look at them for more than a second.

All those institutions are fine, and none of them will keep you out of the running for an R1 job when you're on the job market. However, what gives me pause here is your attitude toward the field and the job market. These days, I hardly know anyone who's going to grad school with the expectation that they will work at a a top-tier R1. NO ONE expects to work at a top-tier R1 these days--not even people graduating from Harvard. Why? As others have already emphasized, there are hardly any jobs at top-tier R1 institutions. Or: there are more PhDs out there from prestigious schools than there are jobs at prestigious schools. It's a lottery. If you want an R1 job, getting into the right school is only the half of it. You will also have to work very hard to publish, present, network, win national fellowships ... and then you will have to be very, very lucky. In fact, I can't stress how much a difference "luck" makes. I know people with Ivy PhDs and publications in major journals, and they still aren't getting hired. I would recommend approaching this thing with a different attitude. The most successful people I know went into this field because they love what they do--writing, researching, and teaching--and they just want to continue. They don't care if they continue their work at Columbia or Wisconsin or a branch campus of a second-tier regional school. At the end of the day it's the actual work that has to pull you through--not the dreams of working at a certain type of institution.

I agree that having first-hand experience at more than one program is particularly advantageous. You get see how different programs work and what they value. I moved from a program very invested in cultural studies to one focused more on poetics, and the contrast was interesting. I also got to see how different programs approach teaching and professionalization. However, I'm not sure if it worked out for me in terms of networking. I turned down a PhD spot at my MA institution to go elsewhere ... and that can be uncomfortable. Sometimes professors are a little distant when you leave their program for another one--not in a way that's grubby or unprofessional ... but obviously they're more invested in seeing their own PhDs succeed rather than the MA who "traded up" for a better program. And at the end of the day, you're known by your PhD institution, not your MA institution. Basically, it was difficult for me to keep in touch with the professors at my MA institution, but maybe I'm just terrible at networking. Of course, it never hurts to have friends from multiple cohorts. But in terms of the job market, I think you want to just do what you can to get into the best program for your interests. And agreed on funding. Don't listen to people who say that you have to pay for your MA. There are so many out there with stipends and TAships that no one should ever have to do an unfunded MA.

It's really a toss-up. An MA does great things--it helps you figure out your interests, hone a writing sample, and get a taste of grad school. Really, a student who already has an MA should be looked at as lower risk for dropping out since he or she already knows what grad school requires and is perhaps older and a little more mature. Personally, if I were making the decisions about admissions, I would prefer to see an MA. However, the highest ranked and most "elite" programs seem to prefer people without MAs. And if they do entertain candidates with an MA, they typically hold the MA to higher standards. I do know people at top programs who got MA degrees. But not a lot of people. Like, I can count them on one hand. (And I'm not counting people who got a master's at Oxford or Cambridge. You will see a lot of those in the Ivies.) In addition, my own program used to accept MAs but now prefers to accept BAs straight into the PhD program. And we're not the only ones. During the time I've been in grad school, I've seen a lot of programs phase out terminal MA programs in order to be more like the Ivies. (To be honest, I'm glad I got my MA before this whole trend started. I think it might be tougher out there for an MA these days.) If you're an MA looking to move up in the world, the best thing you can do to maximize your chances is write one really great seminar paper, one you market as a potential dissertation chapter. And then, revise the hell out of it. And make sure that the rest of your application is equally stellar--numbers, recs, CV.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that Northwestern, Brandeis, or NYU offer funding for their terminal MA programs (if that's what you're applying for). This will make these programs easier to get into. However, you shouldn't do an unfunded MA degree--especially not in a city like New York, Boston, or Chicago. If you don't get funding, you're better off applying again next year.

No one here said that they punish or "censure" students who are rude or disrespectful--just that they don't owe them a reply. Some wrote that they feel the need to gently correct students' behavior--something that hardly qualifies as "censure" or manipulation or taking advantage of a power imbalance. (In truth, one could easily say that enabling students to conduct themselves unprofessionally is actually doing them a greater disservice, since the post-school world isn't as forgiving.) Similarly, you are not owed a kind or gracious response when you write a snarky post. That's not to say that you aren't permitted to "disagree strongly" with whatever anyone says. Disagree away. No one's deleted your posts here. But reacting with passive-aggressive indignation when you get responses you don't like just makes you look foolish. You're welcome on the job market tip, by the way.