TheCrow

We've already have this conversation via private message about 18 months ago. Given the organization of the field, it makes no sense for me to take large amounts of debt for the MSW, a degree that on average would pay much less than my undergraduate degree, and would not teach me to research skills I would need for the type of job I would want if I don't eventually get a job in the academy as I intend. Should I do so and then go to a PhD program, those loans would continue to accrue interest while in the PhD program (since subsidized loans have been eliminated at the graduate level). You could--and have--advise to go to a cheaper regional public school, but these programs not only seem not to pretend to offer macro work, but indeed have lower acceptance rates than flagship public and top private universities that offer macro-level courses (and offer PhDs, meaning there's more research to get involved in). Such programs mostly intend to take those working full-time in social services in the area, train them up to the next level (usually almost exclusively in clinical methods), and then return them to the local environment. Their acceptance criteria follow from this mission, so I may not even be particularly competitive. In fact, one of the full professors at the MSW program at a regional public university in my state that you recommended (as I have already mentioned) told me not to come to their program because I will not find the training I'm looking for, and recommended her alma mater instead.
 
It would make far more sense for me to do one or two years after the MSW while I work on my dissertation (even if it extends my PhD program), or even do two years of practice after the PhD.
 
According to Unfaithful Angels, there's a big division in social work between faculty interested in clinical methods and those interested in research and policy--and both need each other. Policy and research needs the clinical people because that's where most of the demand is, as well as external grants; clinical people need the policy and research people to legitimate that the field is not just psychology under a different name (and lower price tag).
 
Social work also seems to suffer from a lack of specialization and division of labor that other fields (e.g., education, law, business) have long since arranged. How much sense does it make to do at least two years of full-time work after a bachelor's degree (to qualify for many regional public MSW programs), take on debt for a two-year MSW (sold as an "investment in your future"), work two more years full-time, then move way off to get a PhD, then move way off again for your first faculty position?

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

It depends on whether you're viewing higher education from a human capital perspective or a status-conflict perspective. For the majority of college applicants, their application to baccalaureate programs is an exercise in instrumental rationality (i.e., a means to another end). The tired argument that you can get just as good of an education at a less selective school as you can at an elite school is moot if students are ultimately being hired and admitted to graduate school due to factors other than the quality of the education itself. Our current system of rankings rewards those who enroll top students and makes little if any effort to assess the quality of the education itself.
 
 
 
 
I would push back a bit against this narrative of personal merit and individualistic competition. Your SAT and GPA are near perfect (perhaps even above the 75th percentile at the institution you applied to); you have significant extracurriculars and strong letters. When you don't get in, it wasn't necessarily because you didn't try enough or because other people were better. It often means that you just didn't have enough of what the dominant subgroup values: financial capital (and correlates thereof), cultural capital, social capital, etc.
 
Learning how to accept rejection is positive, but it doesn't follow from that premise that schools ought to be excused from their participation in replicating inequality from one generation to the next.

As far as I understand, you can still become an LCSW, even if you follow the macro (research/policy) track.

This is very dependent on your program! But if you want to hear comparisons, 1 credit = 1 expected hour of work per week at my school. Most of my courses at 9 credits, so this means 9 hours of work per week. 3 hours is lecture, I probably spend 5-6 hours on homework. This means I usually skip most of my reading except for whatever is required to do the homework. Some weeks there are no homework, or an easier homework, so that leaves extra time to study for finals or work on a class project. We usually take 3 courses per term in the first year, so that's 27 hours for classwork. We also had to do 2 projects in the first year, so I spent about 20-25 hours per week on research. I try to operate on the principle that classwork should only be completed to "good enough" but that is a LOT harder said than done. In fact, even though the math works out here, I am pretty sure I actually spent more time on classes some weeks!
 
Also, our profs here told us that if we got all As, then we were working too hard on classes, but a B+ average might mean that we need to spend more time. Unlike other schools, our current program will grant credit for any passing grade, I think. So, I think most students here aim for an A- or A, to get an average in between, so an occasional B+ is okay. 
 
But this is all calibrated to my school, my program. It's not going to be directly helpful to you at your program, other than a perspective on how it might work at other places!

I think it's unfair to equate extreme focus on LGBT issues with liberalism per se. I'm sure there are many liberal schools that provide a well-balanced education. I'm only a prospective applicant, but my anecdotal experience is that the higher ranked a school is, the more likely it is to be liberal. Conservative schools are more likely to be religiously affiliated (e.g., Asbury University).

Of course, that depends on how much overlap there actually is. Looks like 6 hours from the education side (http://ced.ncsu.edu/academics/departments/cice/new-literacies-and-global-learning/masters/nlgl-secondary-english).
 
It looks like it's also possible to apply to the MFA and the MEd at the same time:
 
http://ncstategraduateschool.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1227/kw/multiple/session/L3RpbWUvMTM4MjQ4Njc0MC9zaWQvQ3E0U2p0RGw%3D

After completing an MSW program, you are usual eligible for something like an LMSW (Licensed Master Social Worker) or LSW (Licensed Social Worker) designation. To receive the LCSW (or equivalent licensure) and practice clinical work independently, you need a certain number of supervised hours (which usually takes 2-3 years post-MSW, depending on your state).

"I will have to pay unless I want to declare bankruptcy and ruin my credit rating forever."
 
Actually, I do not believe you're allowed to discharge your student loans in bankruptcy.

A rep from UNC 's MSW program came to our campus and I spoke with her about the scary GRE (math portion in particular). I suggested they test on Mandarin Chinese rather than algebra/geometry...as many of us would do about the same score-wise - and maybe even better. I'm feeling your pain because I knew going into the GRE that my score would be pretty pathetic. AND it was!! But my verbal was pretty high... The contact at UNC asked me how I did in statistics and I did well in that, so she said that they would look at "the whole picture." I also saw a blog from a current student whose standardized testing ability was not her forte... I guess the short answer is: um... ohgosh, anybody's guess. Hopefully, they do look at GPA, references, statements, etc. And with that said, I miss terribly the snail-mail days (I'm an old girl) when one only had to check ONCE PER DAY for "the coveted letter / packet". I seriously have a growing obsessional neurosis at this point, checking e-mail way, way, way, too often.