Guillaume

I had almost given up on this thread...guess I posted a bit too early. It's lovely to hear from you all!

Out of upvotes. +1

Out of upvotes. +1

It's the end of December... Anyone already applied? Applying soon? My first, and possibly only application, is due on January 15th.

More than likely, unless your program in India was affiliated with an American institution, none of the credits from India are likely to transfer. I think the route suggested by Between fields above is a good option (i.e. complete your B.A. in India and apply to an M.A. program in the U.S.). If you do not want to go that route, or are interested in getting a B.A. in the U.S. then, knowing that it is unlikely that any of your credits from India will transfer, I think you need pare down the reasons you want a B.A. What do you want to achieve? What field are you interested in pursuing? Are you a U.S. green card holder? Will you establish residency in the States? Do you plan to work while you study? etc. All of this will be important in determining the most efficient route for you to pursue your degree.

"I found out that there is not much phd programs in Women studies" - There are actually quite a few programs. A list can be found here: http://www.smith.edu/swg/graduate.php But to answer your question, "What I want to ask is, is it possible to change majors in phd after doing Women studies as an M.A?" While I can not speak to other graduate programs in other countries, in the United States, the answer would be yes. A M.A. in women's studies, depending on the program, will increase your theoretical understanding of a significant body of work. You could then apply to a number of different Ph.D programs including sociology, anthropology, English, history, etc. "I heard that Some programs require certain amount of credits in that major from university level studeks." Most Ph.D programs, which are advanced study, do require you to demonstrate competence and a basic understanding of the field. Which...makes sense. For example, if you have never taken a philosophy course in your life, it would be almost impossible to be admitted to a philosophy Ph.D program. Most universities outline the prerequisites for admission on their site. If you are interested in a particular field, consider taking courses in that field during your Women's Studies M.A. I would say apply to universities that have women's studies' programs and programs in the other areas of which you have interest (cultural studies, literature, religion, etc.) and use your time in the program to refine you academic interest.

Looking at the schools to which you are planning to apply, I am going to assume you are applying for an MA? Will your writing sample being in the area of Women's Studies?

It's already mid September... Is anyone else on the forum applying to Women's Studies programs for the Fall 2015 semester?

I think this might also be the case, particularly for women or URM applicants who might be a bit easier to distinguish in a pool of applicants.

Her central point: Attend a PhD program in the country where you intend to work. If you intend to work in Europe then get your degree there, if you want to work in the U.S. then get your degree in the U.S. She had a number of reasons for why she suggested this, none of them new or novel, and her comment about the biases towards Oxford and Cambridge graduates came after I questioned whether or not there were universities whose graduates are universally hire able. She restated her earlier point, "Get a PhD in the country..." and said that Oxford and Cambridge graduates face some discrimination in the hiring process. The punitive nature of hiring department's action is not targeting the student but the other university. (NOTE: I fully understand the circular nature of the department's logic...but it's not my logic). Some, not all, American universities (apparently including some departments in my own Alma mater ) find it insulting for Oxford and Cambridge to admit some of their best students and then not fully fund them. Where a university's undergraduate students attend graduate school and the funding they are able to secure matters to these departments (they believe that the funding is available, that Oxford and Cambridge, have the resources, but that they are making a choice not to fully fund these American students). As does where a university's graduate students get hired and what kind of of position they are offered. Leaving aside the debate as to whether or not these graduates are better prepared than other candidates, the decision not to hire graduates from Cambridge or Oxford ultimately impacts those universities by signalling to U.S. undergraduates, who would pay them money (the students ability to do so comfortably or the need to take out loans isn't at issue), that those degrees are not as likely to secure you job placement in the U.S. This is really the most detail I can offer, or care to offer/discuss, as I am obviously not the hiring department and neither is my dean. In response to your points... 1) See my above comment. The punitive nature of their actions is directed at the other university not the student. For the hiring university, it's about long term not immediate impact. 2) Yes, but this really isn't at issue here. Whether or not the student can afford to pay for their education isn't of importance. What the unversities cares about is another university's choice not to fund some of their best students. They find it insulting as they believe financial commitment to a students signals the university's (Cambridge or Oxford) confidence/commitment to the future success of those students. Not funding them suggest that they are not as committed to the future success of those students. This materially impacts the American universities if after graduating and attening graduate school, some of their best students are not employed or doing well because they did not complete their graduate degree or have adequate support from Oxford/Cambridge to find employment afterwards. (NOTE: Again, I understand the circular nature of this logic...again, it's not my logic.) 3) It isn't surprising that they were hired at an LAC. (NOTE: This conversation is not about whether or not students with foreign MAs can get into American PhD programs but the biases some American hiring committees (departments) have towards Oxford/Cambridge PhDs.) Your friends went to two very well respected programs and LACs like to hire PhDs from schools with good academic brands. That's what they sell their students. 4) This is all the information I have to offer about our conversation. I doubt she imagined it being discussed at such length. I don't really care to continue discussing it as I don't think this comment from by my dean about some departments can really offer anything substantive to be extracted, applied broadly, or become the basis upon which anyone other than me, for whom the advice was intended, to make decisions. (Note: That in my post this comment was not offered as evidence or reason by which someone should make a choice or decision but simply as a way of possibly explaining an event that had already occurred.

Interesting...I recently spoke with my dean from my undergraduate university (an Ivy) and she stated that quite a few departments within the university, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, have biases against UK (Oxford & Cambridge) PhD graduates because UK universities don't fund American PhD students but American colleges and universities fund UK students.

1) HHH is correct about the perception of the b.phil There is a difference between a M.Phil and an M.St at Oxford and their admissions requirements and rates of admissions are different. 2) *Dead* While I certainly appreciate sacklunch's desire to be helpful, posters like this are exactly why I stated, "Also, for what it's worth, the gradcafe is filled with well meaning people who are all too willing to offer advice about various topics of which they have a varying degree, if any, expertise. Take it all with a grain of salt and learn from people who've actually already been there ie. MattDest."

1) I already responded to this in my previous post. See MattDest. See ZiggyPhil. 2) I didn't find this statement to be productive as it fails to acknowledge that the OP is already doing this AND enjoys it. 3) I would not suggest this course of action. Several thoughts... A. The benefit of attending a "Leiter ranked" MA program is that the faculty there are better known which theoretically provides an admissions committee with a better understanding of the quality of your preparation for PhD work and the ability of your recommenders to evaluate your ability to do PhD level work relative to other graduate students. B. If the OP is interested in doing analytic philosophy and is not interested in the continental tradition, his options in Europe are fewer and he may unfortunately be mislabeled by American analytic departments as "continental" due to his European degree. C. Why would you presume that the OP, with his "lackluster GPA," does not stand a very good chance of admission to a U.S funded M.A program but that he would have a shot at "big name European schools?" It seems like you could only argue this if you assume that the admissions standards in Europe at "big name European schools" are lower. If this be true then... D. This suggestion is kind of a link turn to your original argument. You don't see the benefit in attending a "low ranked" (read: unranked) MA program in the U.S., presumably because you question their rigor or reputation, but you then suggest he or she go to Europe, where you perceive the admissions standards to be lower than the U.S., as a way to improve his or her chances at being accepted to an American PhD program? I have to admit, I found this line of thought to be highly inconsistent. . OP, best of luck to you. I stand by my previous statements.

I would not support this course of action. The OP would be better advised to spend the money that would be spent on a second BA (as funding is not widely available) on a unfunded Masters program with in-state tuition. The benefit here is two-fold in that 1) even if the OP has to borrow money to pay for this additional education, which is generally not advisable in philosophy, the funding options for a Masters program v. a second BA will be more widely available AND cheaper; with some teaching experience the OP might even qualify as an RA and/or a TA in another department. 2) If the OP decides the he/she does not want to continue in Philosophy after continued study, an MA would give the OP the opportunity to teach more widely at the community college level (which is something he/she is already doing AND enjoys) where as the second BA would not provide any new credential. While I don't inherently disagree with anything in this post, the only thing I really agree with is the suggestion that the OP cast the MA net widely. OP, if you are genuinely interested in philosophy and believe that you have found measures to correct the problems you faced as an undergrad, AND have the support of faculty members, then I would continue your present course and apply. Cast your net widely, apply to some cheap unfunded programs, some lesser ranked/unranked funded programs, AND funded programs. Also, for what it's worth, the gradcafe is filled with well meaning people who are all too willing to offer advice about various topics of which they have a varying degree, if any, expertise. Take it all with a grain of salt and learn from people who've actually already been there ie. MattDest. No doubt, someone once told him that he didn't stand a fighting chance with an 2.9X and he ended up at a good, funded MA program, and in a good PhD program.

Fulbright funding for international students is only for two years and students are required to return to their country of origin following the completion of their studies. Even if you married an American, you would be ineligible to apply for a U.S visa following the completion of a Foreign Fulbright for two years. If you are a foreign student with an interest in studying in the U.S. following the completion of a Masters degree, a Fulbright would not be the way to go unless you were okay with not continuing your studies in the U.S. for at least two years.

This is unfortunate news. Although I may not have always agreed with you, I have always appreciated the sincerity of your contributions to this forum and your website. I wish you the best of luck with your legal future. You have some enviable law school choices (I have good friends who have graduted from all of the institutions you mentioned) and I have no doubt that could enter legal academia; something I have considered myself and it is 1) easier to publish and 2) better paid. If you have any questions about Cornell, Ithaca, the University of Pennsylvania, or Philadelphia, please feel free to send me a PM as I am an alumni of one of those institutions and will be taking classes in the fall at the other.

I graduated in 2008 and did something similar; opened a restaurant, taught English in China, and have some overlapping areas of interest. I will apply during the next application season and look forward to hearing more from you.

Fixed for accuracy.

1) I'll concede that this might be the right choice for some individuals...just like practicing law is a good choice for some individuals. However, I think, in general, I'm still leaning towards "no" for people who would prefer academic philosophy to law. 2) Yes. 3) I believe it has. 4) Agreed. 5) *upvote*

I think this thread has taken a marked turn that I find somewhat problematic. The thread started with Wilson, who was admitted into an excellent JD/MA program WITH FUNDING, asking whether or not it would be a good idea for him or her given his or her interest in legal philosophy. Several people offered responses. (NOTE: The ONLY reason I think it is possibly a good move even if wilson isn't interested in practicing law is because it is FUNDED.) However, towards the end of this thread there seems to be a strong advocacy for law school as a back up plan. I think this is absolutely the wrong sentiment. I think it would be incredibly difficult to find an attorney, practicing or otherwise, who would advise someone to go to law school if they don't WANT to be a lawyer (have an interest in practicing the law). Even if you are interested in legal academia, you will need to clerk and thus practice the law for at least a year. I attended and Ivy undergrad and have numerous friends who went to law school for different reasons. It has been my experience that the only people who were happy with this decision were people who wanted to practice law; and that includes people that were successful (first in his class at our T14 law school)...they were smart and did well, but they didn't WANT to be lawyers and eventually end up doing something else. Seriously, just Google "Don't Go to Law School." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tucker-max/law-school_b_2713943.html " 3. "It's the only way I can use my humanities degree." ianfaircloud, I understand that going to law school may be the right decision for you given your apparent interest in practicing as an attorney, but I believe that it is strongly ill advisable to generally suggest law school as a backup plan for anyone who has not expressed a clear interest in being an attorney.

I think it depends on the career goal. If you want to be to teach philosophy in a philosophy department this route doesn't seem like a bad idea. However, if you wan to be a law professor, then a PhD after a JD is tougher than a PhD and then a JD, a JD/PhD, or a JD/MA (you don't need a PhD to be a law professor...an MA would suffice) because of the time you spend off the academic legal market. If you want to work as a law professor, you'll also need to clerk for at least a year after your JD before you can go onto the legal academic market. If you pursue a PhD then you will spend at least four, more than likely five, more years not on the legal academic market in a philosophy program. While you spend that time in a PhD program, the people you will be competing with for law professor jobs (t-14 grads, particularly from Yale/Harvard/Stanford; Yale grads take a disproportionate number of legal academia jobs) will spend that time clerking or working in firms. However, this is true. Duke is t-14 AND they're funding... I wish you the best with this decision as it is definitely a tough but enviable choice to have to make. Is there any chance that you are interested in Duke's PhD program? If so, then maybe there's a third possibility lurking out there?

This.

For me to provide meaningful feedback (i.e. this is what I might do, if I were in your position) I would need additional information... 1. If you decided not to pursue a PhD or a JD, will this program have been "worth" the time and money you invested in it? While there may be some increased job mobility associated with having an advanced degree (not specific to a M.A. in philosophy) it is marginal, so this question is really prompting an inquiry as to the personal enrichment or satisfaction you will receive having attended this program. 2. Are you in a position to make this financial investment? You mentioned that you have a child... 3. Are you interested in pursing the part time program so that you have time to spend with your child or are you planning to continue working full time while pursing the M.A. degree? While most programs are advertised as "full time" and only fund the first two years, the time to degree completion in many programs is longer and most only require that you complete the program within five years of your formal matriculation in the program. 4. Are you tied to the state of Wisconsin or the city of Milwaukee? (custody agreement, familial support, etc.) - If the answer to this question is "yes," and you wish to remain in Wisconsin and/or Milwaukee, why not take classes at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee as an non-degree candidate in the fall and apply for admission into their funded program in the spring? (I didn't want to speculate, but in developing my response, I understood that there was a chance that this was the funded program to which you previously applied.) This would give you the opportunity to decided whether or not you are interested in pursing the M.A and PhD at a lower price point (this assumes you qualify for in-state tuition), provide you with better letter of recommendation if you do decide to continue with an M.A. program, and put you in a position to get funding if you are admitted into their program full time. http://www.graduateschool.uwm.edu/students/prospective/admission/non-degree/ - If the answer is "no" and you are not tied to the city of Milwaukee or the state of Wisconsin, it still seems like taking classes as a non-degree student at UWM and then using that additional coursework, stronger letters of recommendation, and improved writing sample to apply to funded M.A. programs still might be a good option to consider. 5. Do you have a strong position against applying again next year? 6. Do you have a greater interest in law or philosophy? Many JD programs, upon admission, allow you to pursue a joint MA in philosophy without the need for an additional formal application to the school within the university offering the M.A. Again, for me to suggest exactly what I would do if I were in your position is difficult without having additional information. From what you have already shared, it seems as though there is still a lot of indecision on your end. For that reason, I can say that I would try to limit my financial exposure while I sought to clarify my real interest in pursuing the degree and further refine the ideal outcome of my participation in such a program. Financial considerations aside, while I don't think your participation in this program would "hurt you," unless you performed poorly, depending on what your ideal outcome is, it seems like there might be slightly more strategic options available to you. Edit - In rereading your post again, it seems like you might be at the point where you are tired of not knowing exactly what you want to do/pursue and are just looking for a way to "move forward" in areas where you have some degree of interest. If this is the case, I understand. I have been there...perhaps I'm still there. If that was a complete misread, then you have my apologies and I wish you the best with your decision.

I think many applicants would be less likely to share this information: 1) For the very reason that some of you have previously put forth...that it is potentially highly identifying and 2) because it might be used to subtly undermine the "legitimacy" of their acceptance.