There are a lot of wide ranging opinions about MAPH, and as a recent graduate of the program, it is certainly a to each-his/her-own type of program. Namely, there is UofC and then there is MAPH. The program does not garner respect from the university faculty at large. Many regard it, quite accurately, as a cash cow intended to finance research. As such, many members of the program get the occasional supercilious glare from faculty. Yet, the program still distinguishes itself for its usefulness to certain "buyers."
I was one of those buyers. Out of a highly ranked northeast liberal arts college, my gpa suffered due to early collegiate merrymaking. The Ph.D. applications were a bust despite near perfect GREs, but I got a 1/2-off MA scholarship offer at Rochester and a not-a-dime-off offer at UofC. I could take the discount at Rochester, but be left with a mid-range MA and some debt. Or I could attend the cash cow, but have the luxury of proving that I could handle the rigor of a top-tier university. I chose MAPH because of the upside: it could give me a chance to show doctoral programs that I was serious about improving my gpa while also amassing more experience in my field. The 9-month pace and austere surroundings nearly broke my spirits on many occasion. My emotional health, though awkward to discuss here, was not well because of the pressures of taking 8 courses and finishing a thesis in such a short window. But in the end, I found an advisor who encouraged me and I developed a thesis that would eventually serve as a strong writing sample. My advisor even went so far as to critique my paper post-MAPH. With his support, I am now attending a top 10 doctoral film program with full funding.
So choosing Chicago was the right one for me, despite the debt I incurred, because it opened up the potential of pursuing a Ph.D. at a top university.
However, MAPH is not deserving of this praise. It was my advisor who took an interest, not MAPH. When I asked a member of the MAPH department if she would be willing to help my application by drafting a letter of recommendation, she acted abrupt and rude in her refusal. She said it was not her place to help, but the faculty's. With such a short program, getting letters is a difficult endeavor; thus, having the comfort of one coming from the program would certainly be appreciated. But MAPH would not deign to help, while at the same time, film professors within my chosen field were very willing despite their short time knowing me. This made me lose respect for MAPH, yet gain respect for Chicago professors at large. MAPH is there to generate cash and they act accordingly. If you attend MAPH because you expect it to help you, it will not. For example, a friend and member of my cohort also got no support from the program, but managed to get into an Ivy Philosophy program because of the caring support of one professor. This trend of individual professors stepping up in the place of MAPH is common.
Furthermore, be warned that the MAPH CORE course can serve to derail your transcript. This "edifying" course is by far the most frustrating because of its vague and unwieldy pedagogy. It neither elucidated scholars nor provided us the tools to elucidate these scholars to others. And in this failure, the required course also had the added bonus of "rewarding" students with harsh grades. In more simpler terms, this is not like the UofC version of gym class -- it is the most difficult for many attendees despite being a required course. My Chicago transcript, along with my friend's, found its only blemish in this non-discipline requirement. We were among many. How the program justifies giving out B's and B-'s to students getting A's and A-'s in their chosen fields is appalling considering this B or B- can irreparably damage an otherwise impeccable transcript. It is as if this one slipshod class is designed to keep students back from doctoral success, not to urge them forward. As a sidenote, the course's harsh/arbitrary grading criteria makes no sense from a business point of view. Shepherding more students onto doctoral success via clarity and consistency in CORE would make MAPH more desirable to applicants, not less. Hence, wouldn't improving the quality and grade distribution of CORE be a pressing priority because of its benefit to the program long term?
To reiterate, it was Chicago's faculty, not MAPH itself, who I credit with my doctoral success. Keep this in mind if you attend MAPH -- do not get bogged down in the program's song and dance. Play your own game at Chicago and you will get ahead. Doing things the "MAPH way" will lead you astray.
If you are looking to improve your application for the purposes of doctoral aspirations, MAPH is very much worth considering. Just don't look to them for support; get it elsewhere. And if you are looking purely at the M.A., you should reconsider. Attending MAPH for an MA without any intention of pursuing the Ph.D. indicates that you are willing to spend $60,000 on a non-technical/skill-based education that barely hones an undergraduate B.A. Putting this type of money on the table for such a small upside is not a wise investment in such a difficult economy. Yet this is what many of my cohort did -- attend with no aspirations towards the Ph.D. And now they are shackled with debt and underwhelming job choices. I hope those of you not looking to explore academia post-MA avoid this program, because it is not right to be saddled with such debt without a developed skill-set to show for it.
