does having a master's help?

[lily_]

Ok, so I'm facing reality that I got one reject and am fairly certain the other is on its way.

Plan B: get a master's first. There is a reputable school I think I have a shot at getting in (application for fall 2010 not due until April 1st, already notified letter writers and started it). Say I am able to get accepted there, write a thesis and publish it, pull out with a 4.0 GPA, will that make me a competitive candidate for future admissions to PhD programs 2-3 years down the road?

My stats are:

2 years community college GPA: 3.3

Bachelor's degree Purdue University 2006: 2.68

1 academic year as a non-matriculated student at University of Chicago: 3.8

3 years of field work, 1 of which in a supervisory role

GRE: 660v/640q 6.0aw

Will a great thesis, new recommendations, a 4.0 GPA as a master's student help make me a competitive PhD candidate?

Has anyone done this? Screwed up as an undergrad, worked their butt off, got accepted and lived to tell the tale? Or should I just apply to work at McDonald's? (joke...hopefully). My field is anthropological archaeology.

Edited February 27, 2010 by lily_

[urbanchic]

Yup, getting a Master's will definitely help you. What program are you interested in for your Master's?

Also, try to get some field work while you get your Master's and raising your v+q GRE scores could help too.

[liszt85]

Yup, getting a Master's will definitely help you. What program are you interested in for your Master's?

Also, try to get some field work while you get your Master's and raising your v+q GRE scores could help too.

My department also pays people with a master's degree at a higher level. So I get paid $200 more than the others which isn't bad either So doing a master's is not a bad idea.

[lily_]

New York Times Article: What's a Masters Degree Worth

The basic consensus? A Master's degree in anything but a technical field has questionable value. Enter at your own risk.

Don't get a Master's degree in a non-business or non-engineering field if your primary goal is to find a job that pays more than what's available to you now. Chances are you are not going to find a job that will pay much higher, if at all, to justify the cost of tuition. If you decide to go anyway, make sure you know how you are going to pay for it. Be realistic.

Some quotes from the debate:

"Some graduate degree programs can be very helpful for certain careers but many are not. And, remember, what is most interesting is not always most practical. Be sure you consider your motives and goals carefully. Do not simply assume that another degree after your name is going to open doors."

"One of the dirty secrets of many research universities is that they treat master’s students as cash cows that fund other activities. To make matters worse, with many faculty members uninterested in teaching, students cannot assume they will get what they are paying for."

"Not such a slam dunk: Master’s degrees. In some fields, such as business or engineering, a graduate degree typically boosted income by more than enough to justify the cost. In others — the liberal arts and social sciences, in particular — master’s degrees didn’t appear to produce much if any earnings advantage."

"Not all degrees are equal — a master’s in anthropology or art probably has less incremental earning power than a M.B.A. or advanced engineering degree.

If you are interested in getting a PhD, you need to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE that your program is not designed as a "terminal Master's" that cannot lead to a PhD. If your program is terminal, then chances are that you won't be able to transfer credits to a PhD program and you are going to have to start from the beginning. Also, it is very dangerous to go into a Master's program with the sole intent of getting a PhD because there are no guarantees you will even get in to a program. Then, you are going to be left with an expensive Master's degree in a non-technical field with questionable employment value. If you want a PhD, you should apply to a PhD and not a Master's.

Please don't be misled by people who say a Master's will "definitely help." Higher education in this country is not created equally. Be careful!

Yeah, it's a liberal arts degree, and I'm not pursuing it in hopes of increasing my income. It is a terminal master's, but a lot of graduates from the program have gone onto places like Yale and Berkeley for their PhD's, but yeah it's a long shot. It's also instate tuition, which keeps the cost down, however you make some valid points. I am just unsure if my profile is competitive enough to enter a PhD program even with all the extra coursework and fieldwork I've done.

Thanks for the advice.

[lily_]

Yup, getting a Master's will definitely help you. What program are you interested in for your Master's?

Also, try to get some field work while you get your Master's and raising your v+q GRE scores could help too.

Hunter College in New York, master of anthropology focusing on archaeology. I will definitely be continuing to work on two annual projects in the field while I'm getting the master's (unless there is are other options through the school). I will think long and hard about those GRE scores because I hate giving ETS more money!!! Haha, but yes you're right that could help as well.

[chemdoc]

Ok, so I'm facing reality that I got one reject and am fairly certain the other is on its way.

Plan B: get a master's first. There is a reputable school I think I have a shot at getting in (application for fall 2010 not due until April 1st, already notified letter writers and started it). Say I am able to get accepted there, write a thesis and publish it, pull out with a 4.0 GPA, will that make me a competitive candidate for future admissions to PhD programs 2-3 years down the road?

My stats are:

2 years community college GPA: 3.3

Bachelor's degree Purdue University 2006: 2.68

1 academic year as a non-matriculated student at University of Chicago: 3.8

3 years of field work, 1 of which in a supervisory role

GRE: 660v/640q 6.0aw

Will a great thesis, new recommendations, a 4.0 GPA as a master's student help make me a competitive PhD candidate?

Has anyone done this? Screwed up as an undergrad, worked their butt off, got accepted and lived to tell the tale? Or should I just apply to work at McDonald's? (joke...hopefully). My field is anthropological archaeology.

Hey Lily,

I know you. You live near me and we attended High School and worked at Borders together. SMALL WORLD!

I was kind of in the same boat as you. At UIUC I received my BA in History. I didn't really screw up per say, I had above a 3.0 cumulative. However, I did screw up a lot of my chem and bio courses and probably had a GPA around 2ish with those classes.

I went back to school for 2 years, worked my butt off and now have a 3.7 major GPA in biochem and I'll be graduating this year. I have been accepted into the chem phd program at OSU and am still waiting on decisions from 2 other schools.

I think what you said CAN be done, granted you get into the Master's program.

[lily_]

I realize a lot of people going to grad school say they don't care about making lots of money and they are just pursuing their dreams. It is a valiant pursuit, but sometimes you need to be much more realistic than that.

For example, you can't go to law school, spend 60k/year for three years, and then say you want to work the rest of your life helping low-income families. Yes, working for the common good is a great cause, but unless you have some sort of fellowship or on a loan forgiveness plan, it is simply unrealistic to spend 180k for a job that pay 40k/year. This isn't about getting rich, it is about saving yourself from total financial ruin.

I'm not saying some graduates cannot go on to PhDs from a terminal Master's, but you cannot expect that you will go to Yale or Berkeley because some graduates from the same program did. Your current GRE scores is indeed a bit of a roadblock to getting into these types of programs even if you did well in a Master's program. Yes, you can dream, but you have to prepare for the scenario that you don't get into a PhD program. How will you pay for a Master's program that most likely will not increase your earning potential in the long run?

Student debt is in the news now more than ever. Unless you have the financial means to pay for grad school out of pocket, it is unrealistic to expect much out of a terminal Master's degree if you plan on pursuing a PhD. It is an expensive lottery ticket and you can either win (get into a PhD program and secure funding) or more often than not lose and be left with a piece of paper and tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I appreciate your points, and definitely take it to heart. At this point in time, however, I'm not ready or willing to give up and pursue something else. I want to be a college professor in this field, researching, working abroad, etc. The only way to achieve that is by getting my PhD. If my record is not up to par, then I should at least do something to ensure that it will be. Furthermore, most archaeology jobs that make any money at all require you to have at least a master's degree. Maybe I am being foolish and should figure something else out, but for now I'm going forward with plan B. Where there's a will there's a way.

[lily_]

Hey Lily,

I know you. You live near me and we attended High School and worked at Borders together. SMALL WORLD!

I was kind of in the same boat as you. At UIUC I received my BA in History. I didn't really screw up per say, I had above a 3.0 cumulative. However, I did screw up a lot of my chem and bio courses and probably had a GPA around 2ish with those classes.

I went back to school for 2 years, worked my butt off and now have a 3.7 major GPA in biochem and I'll be graduating this year. I have been accepted into the chem phd program at OSU and am still waiting on decisions from 2 other schools.

I think what you said CAN be done, granted you get into the Master's program.

Thanks for the words of support! I think I know who you are and congrats on the acceptance to OSU! Great school. Glad to hear someone else has been through it and done it!!

[Roll Right]

Yeah, a masters can be more debt and more time taken out of your life. There is no point in getting one unless its a stepping stone to a PhD (assuming you didn't get into a school the first time you applied). Traditionally, masters programs have been a way of 'prooving' yourself to PhD programs when you have mediocre credentials. But you won't make much money in the job market with just a masters in the liberal arts, as seadub said. I'm currently using my MA program as a stepping stone, catering my thesis to the interests of PhD programs I want to attend, and networking with the departments. Look at the statistics for enrollment in major research institutions such as Penn State. The new 2009 cohort (for sociology) was completely masters level students and those who had been working in the job market. None were bachelors. Many in academia are talking of a shift from PhD's recruiting bachelors students to recruiting MA students who demonstrate research ability and hard dedication or work experience in their field. After all, research makes money.

Yes, you're definately not garaunteed a spot in a PhD after a masters either. But you're not garaunteed a spot in a PhD after a BA either. A BA in the liberal arts won't get you more than a managerial position in the periphery of the economy, and if you had to pay for the degree with loans, its not worth the investment to begin with. At least with an MA you can work for institutions like the Research Triangle Institute or other government agencies, which pay more than at a BA level. So its not a complete waste if you don't get into a PhD after a masters.

Another point of advice: Dont enter into an MA program unless they give you partial funding. Its not worth it. If you know you can secure funding once youre there, go for it. Otherwise its not worth the debt.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Roll Right

[lily_]

OK go for it, though you got to get into the MA program first.

I realize that, but thanks for pointing it out anyway

[JerryLandis]

I think the whole cash cow thing is a moot point. I don't think that admissions committees evaluating PhD candidates say to themselves "well, this MA doesn't count, because it's from a cash cow kinda place." Judging from what I've read about it (which is quite a bit, since I'm considering the path myself), participating in such a program requires a large amount of drive and motivation if you want to emerge successful. Personally, I intend to use my time in an MA program to work on my languages, and also to establish contacts with well-known American professors.

I know that a lot of people decide to do an MA in whatever liberal arts subject they majored in as a way to put off real life for another two years. I think it's pretty foolish to do that, what with the cost of such programs. But I don't think it's foolish to pursue an MA if you'd like to reapply for PhD programs, especially if you had a rocky time as an undergraduate and don't have the best grades.

Now, I have no personal experience to back this up. But judging from what I've read about other people's experiences, I would definitely say that working towards an MA is a much better way to improve your future PhD chances than, say, working for a few years. More experience in the field cannot hurt.

[urbanchic]

I've noticed that this board is a bit Anti-Master's/Pro-PhD, so the answers you get in this thread are a bit biased.

I'm all for getting a master's before a PhD if the person thinks it will help them be more prepared for the doctorate.

1. It doesn't have to be expensive. Try a state school. Work up and save money. Many employers will pay for your degree. Some schools do fund Master's students. Look for one. If you have to get some loans, it's only for 2 years max (hopefully.) You can work and start paying them off before you start your PhD. Peace corps?

2. Getting a job. Actually, having a Master's over a BA/BS can help you get a job...and get paid MORE. For the jobs I want, having a Master's would be a great asset and they even say graduate students get paid more. In fact, I applied to one job a few months ago that was open to both undergrads and grad students, but they turned me down because they told me they only want grad students now.

3. Almost everyone has a bachelor's now. Having a grad degree will help. Saying a Master's will not help is like saying a PhD will not help. The article fails to mention how having a PhD does not automatically equal high pay or employment either.

4. Experience. Getting a Master's and taking some time off will give you great experience and academic training to prepare for the PhD. It shows that you have the ability to complete graduate level work and conduct research. I'm sure you'll go into the application process with a lot more confidence too. Although I've applied to a few PhD programs, I feel more comfortable starting a Master's program this Fall. Getting my master's will help me clarify what I really want to study before I make a long-term commitment to start the PhD. I can also get plenty of work and life experience that will help make the PhD experience more meaningful. In fact, I even met with some schools and they questioned why I wanted to go straight to the PhD. They highly recommended I get a Master's first.

5. A waste of time? How is getting an education (Master's) a waste of time? It's what you make it. I never understood this rush of wanting to hurry and get the PhD over with. Why not just enjoy life as it is? You'll still be 40 whether you get your PhD at 26 or 28. If you're in a hurry to get the PhD process over with, you make it seem like a horrible experience. Why try to get one in the first place?

If you have thorough research experience, have successfully taken many graduate level courses as an undergrad, and know exactly what you want to research then going straight to PhD may be good for you. If you want more academic training and assurance that getting a PhD is for you, then getting a Master's may be the better option.

Overall, I really don't understand the discouragement towards getting a Master's and don't think it's necessary to knock those that want to get a Master's before a PhD.

Having a Master's does help.

off soap box. lol

[anxiousapplicant]

I've noticed that this board is a bit Anti-Master's/Pro-PhD, so the answers you get in this thread are a bit biased.

I'm all for getting a master's before a PhD if the person thinks it will help them be more prepared for the doctorate.

1. It doesn't have to be expensive. Try a state school. Work up and save money. Many employers will pay for your degree. Some schools do fund Master's students. Look for one. If you have to get some loans, it's only for 2 years max (hopefully.) You can work and start paying them off before you start your PhD. Peace corps?

2. Getting a job. Actually, having a Master's over a BA/BS can help you get a job...and get paid MORE. For the jobs I want, having a Master's would be a great asset and they even say graduate students get paid more. In fact, I applied to one job a few months ago that was open to both undergrads and grad students, but they turned me down because they told me they only want grad students now.

3. Almost everyone has a bachelor's now. Having a grad degree will help. Saying a Master's will not help is like saying a PhD will not help. The article fails to mention how having a PhD does not automatically equal high pay or employment either.

4. Experience. Getting a Master's and taking some time off will give you great experience and academic training to prepare for the PhD. It shows that you have the ability to complete graduate level work and conduct research. I'm sure you'll go into the application process with a lot more confidence too. Although I've applied to a few PhD programs, I feel more comfortable starting a Master's program this Fall. Getting my master's will help me clarify what I really want to study before I make a long-term commitment to start the PhD. I can also get plenty of work and life experience that will help make the PhD experience more meaningful. In fact, I even met with some schools and they questioned why I wanted to go straight to the PhD. They highly recommended I get a Master's first.

5. A waste of time? How is getting an education (Master's) a waste of time? It's what you make it. I never understood this rush of wanting to hurry and get the PhD over with. Why not just enjoy life as it is? You'll still be 40 whether you get your PhD at 26 or 28. If you're in a hurry to get the PhD process over with, you make it seem like a horrible experience. Why try to get one in the first place?

If you have thorough research experience, have successfully taken many graduate level courses as an undergrad, and know exactly what you want to research then going straight to PhD may be good for you. If you want more academic training and assurance that getting a PhD is for you, then getting a Master's may be the better option.

Overall, I really don't understand the discouragement towards getting a Master's and don't think it's necessary to knock those that want to get a Master's before a PhD.

Having a Master's does help.

off soap box. lol

That's what I was thinking. I have no experience yet, but common sense tells me that an MA would help because it proves you can do graduate level work and gives you the opportunity to conduct real research and to hone your writing skills and to clarify what exactly it is you want to study. Even if you enter a Ph.D. right off the bat, you still need to pick up the MA along the way, so MA's are not irrelevant degrees. I personally hope to attend an MA first myself, because it will improve my record because I come from a very low-ranked undergrad, so I still need to prove myself. I'm sure it doesn't help in all cases, but I don't think it would hurt. Most of my professors did their MA's at different schools than their Ph.D's.

[lily_]

I think the whole cash cow thing is a moot point. I don't think that admissions committees evaluating PhD candidates say to themselves "well, this MA doesn't count, because it's from a cash cow kinda place." Judging from what I've read about it (which is quite a bit, since I'm considering the path myself), participating in such a program requires a large amount of drive and motivation if you want to emerge successful. Personally, I intend to use my time in an MA program to work on my languages, and also to establish contacts with well-known American professors.

I know that a lot of people decide to do an MA in whatever liberal arts subject they majored in as a way to put off real life for another two years. I think it's pretty foolish to do that, what with the cost of such programs. But I don't think it's foolish to pursue an MA if you'd like to reapply for PhD programs, especially if you had a rocky time as an undergraduate and don't have the best grades.

Now, I have no personal experience to back this up. But judging from what I've read about other people's experiences, I would definitely say that working towards an MA is a much better way to improve your future PhD chances than, say, working for a few years. More experience in the field cannot hurt.

I think it is as well, and maybe the only way the cash cow thing counts is if you do a master's abroad in an institution that doesn't have the best (or any) credentials. And that's not what I'm talking about doing. It's also not motivated by an immature to desire to continue living a college lifestyle - I haven't lived that since 2006 when graduated! Not to mention this particular program I could work with respected members of the field, which can only help if I can get them to write LOR's down the road.

[lily_]

That's what I was thinking. I have no experience yet, but common sense tells me that an MA would help because it proves you can do graduate level work and gives you the opportunity to conduct real research and to hone your writing skills and to clarify what exactly it is you want to study. Even if you enter a Ph.D. right off the bat, you still need to pick up the MA along the way, so MA's are not irrelevant degrees. I personally hope to attend an MA first myself, because it will improve my record because I come from a very low-ranked undergrad, so I still need to prove myself. I'm sure it doesn't help in all cases, but I don't think it would hurt. Most of my professors did their MA's at different schools than their Ph.D's.

Agreed, I feel that her reasoning is pretty much the same as mine. They say that GPA is the best indicator of graduate success, but if you can prove that you can be a successful graduate student it should (in theory) eliminate or assuage the part of your profile that says otherwise. At least I hope so!

[iwantphd]

just something about money concern:

would u consider a part time master degree? i am doing that in singapore, basically i get salary and pay for tuition fee, quite nice arrangement, i get to save some money too. i am not sure if US schools offer this kind of arrangement... or wat about overseas? if i am not wrong, national university of singapore waives tuition fee for staff:)

i am expecting my master in few months time, whether master helps or not, i think it really depends on which direction u want to go, relevant industry/research should be +ve, but switching fields like to finance/investment might be -ve, u must be prepared that people will ask u why.

talking about research experience, i used to think master is like optional, but now i think my master has given me a very good time of understanding wat research is and closing up the gap between undergraduate courses and state of the art. at least comparing myself now and 1.5 years ago, i would say i have a much better idea of wat research is and wat the potential problems are. so i can really go on to implement my ideas/do something and save the time of reading.

also publication, if i start phd after a master, i would have almost 2 more years of time for publication. i am less stressful, also it is more likely that i can produce much better publication. i guess people are not so concerned with whether u get ur phd +2/3 years from the rest, but more about ur publications.

just my personal comments, no offence to direct phd candidates:) i just think that i am not good enough to do a direct + good phd.

Edited February 28, 2010 by iwantphd

[Medievalmaniac]

Just a heads up based on my most recent experience -

I had a 2.66 GPA undergrad, in the 1990's, from a brand name school.

I went on to complete a Master's degree with a 4.0 in my desired field of study, and also to complete further A level coursework in my field at the graduate level. The Master's degree was earned just last year, in 2009.

My GREs were reasonable, if not stellar - I did get a 6 on the writing section.

I also have published both in an organizational journal and in subject encyclopedias; I have a chapter coming out in an edited book in the next few years as well as other publications in the pipeline.

With that record, I have been accepted at one program. The other program said that firstly, they are doing away with the admission of those with MA's in hand, so that you will only be able to get into complete the full PhD program. They were also very clear that nothing I have done since the undergraduate transcript is sufficient to compensate for that GPA.

So, in my experience, this is all a craps shoot...some departments will accept your most recent (master level) coursework as representative of your academics, others will insist that only the undergraduate GPA counts.

I know that only complicates things concerning the question at hand - but in the end, I think it all depends on the individual admissions committees at individual programs. You're just going to have to do your homework.

[JerryLandis]

What sort of ranking was the university that told you this, might I ask? Do you think that they are unable to let an MA compensate for a low undergrad GPA simply because they are already inundated with applicants whose GPA's are perfect, or is it that they want all their entering students to be at the same level? Also, you are in Literature/English, right? Or are you in history?

[lily_]

Just a heads up based on my most recent experience -

I had a 2.66 GPA undergrad, in the 1990's, from a brand name school.

I went on to complete a Master's degree with a 4.0 in my desired field of study, and also to complete further A level coursework in my field at the graduate level. The Master's degree was earned just last year, in 2009.

My GREs were reasonable, if not stellar - I did get a 6 on the writing section.

I also have published both in an organizational journal and in subject encyclopedias; I have a chapter coming out in an edited book in the next few years as well as other publications in the pipeline.

With that record, I have been accepted at one program. The other program said that firstly, they are doing away with the admission of those with MA's in hand, so that you will only be able to get into complete the full PhD program. They were also very clear that nothing I have done since the undergraduate transcript is sufficient to compensate for that GPA.

So, in my experience, this is all a craps shoot...some departments will accept your most recent (master level) coursework as representative of your academics, others will insist that only the undergraduate GPA counts.

I know that only complicates things concerning the question at hand - but in the end, I think it all depends on the individual admissions committees at individual programs. You're just going to have to do your homework.

You're absolutely right about doing your homework. I actually started out with a list this round of applications of 6 potential schools and departments I wanted to apply to. I visited all of them, met the people I would want to work with, and talked to current graduate students, and narrowed the list down to 2 based on which were the best fit for me and my interests (for example, I found it useless to apply to a program that required me to learn ancient Greek when I want to study Bronze Age Mesopotamia). I thought meeting with people and showing up in person would help a little.

There's still a chance I might get into this other PhD program, but I'm not holding my breath. Congrats on your acceptance. That other program is ridiculous if they won't take your MA, especially with publications into account. I always thought (at least in liberal arts, probably other fields too) that academia had the mantra "publish or perish" and it would be better to accept a student who had publications already under their belt, instead of a novice, but I'm not on an admissions committee!

[lily_]

Yeah, a stellar degree in your MA program won't necessarily reconcile your undergraduate GPA, especially since grading at the graduate level is even more varied than with undergrads. Plus, you will be competing with many PhD applicants who only hold a bachelors degree, and thus the only way to "compare" candidates fairly is through common data sets i.e. UGPA/GRE.

In some departments, you're absolutely right, it won't matter. However, as I'm sure you know, not all departments are the same. I titled this thread will a master's degree help, not will a master's degree be a guarantee. You have argued eloquently, even with sources, that it's not a guarantee. I understand it's a gamble, but I'm still willing to take my chances while I'm still young.

Edited February 28, 2010 by lily_

[pea-jay]

All right so how does it work in my scenario? I am hoping to get a Masters in Public Administration, something essential for moving upward in my career and a guaranteed lift in income. I plan on working for 20 years or so before trying to get into a PHD program and teach (as an adjunct professor) at the university level. Will I have to redo a masters?

[JerryLandis]

I wouldn't think an MA would expire after 20 years. But I don't know what the expectations are for that field.

[Medievalmaniac]

"Yeah, a stellar degree in your MA program won't necessarily reconcile your undergraduate GPA, especially since grading at the graduate level is even more varied than with undergrads. Plus, you will be competing with many PhD applicants who only hold a bachelors degree, and thus the only way to "compare" candidates fairly is through common data sets i.e. UGPA/GRE."

My BA is 15 years old. My MA is less than a full year old. When I applied to the program, I was applying with a 4.0. It really should be that simple. I'm sorry, but I was specifically applying for the PhD program, not the MA to PhD program. I am more than qualified except for grades earned 15 years ago. So, I categorically disagree with you on this. I should have been evaluated at face value with everything I brought to the table; I wasn't, but rather was summarily rejected for reasons you cannot hope to understand as concerns my undergraduate experience. But, we already know I always disagree with you on these things.

"What sort of ranking was the university that told you this, might I ask? Do you think that they are unable to let an MA compensate for a low undergrad GPA simply because they are already inundated with applicants whose GPA's are perfect, or is it that they want all their entering students to be at the same level? Also, you are in Literature/English, right? Or are you in history?"

The university is a top 25 school. I think they're unable to let the MA compensate because of numbers. I think the graduate admissions office refuses to allow for the possibility that a Master's earned after the BA have any bearing over the BA, no matter how old the BA is, because "they always go by your undergraduate GPA" - it's tradition. I think it's a program mired in tradition. I fail to see how the work I have done since then does not demonstrably show that my performance improved, which is one argument I received. How is earning a 4.0, in harder upper level classes, not indication of improvement from my bachelor's score? That doesn't really make sense to me at all, but that was the official response.

I think it is also because the department in question happens to phasing out the direct-admit element of their program - from next year on, you can only apply to MA to PhD and they won't accept MAs at all.

Which also only makes sense from an economic standpoint, because I think (myself completely aside) they are really going to lose out on top-quality students, people who maybe didn't do so hot as undergrads, but who have real-world experience and the maturity that comes with age and living to bring to the table. But, I mean, that's my opinion, doesn't matter what I think. They'll never hurt for applicants, and I wish everyone the best of luck.

In the end, departments are going to accept or reject us for their own reasons, but it has become very clear to me through this admissions season that those reasons vary as widely as do the colors in a 120 box of Crayolas.

[Medievalmaniac]

Yes, life isn't fair. Is that still surprising to you?

You know what? I'll probably get banned for this - but frankly, right now I don't care, because you are not helping anyone on this forum and we've all had it. So I'm just going to say this once and very clearly:

F-CK OFF, Mate.

[JerryLandis]

I think you're missing a letter in there somewhere.