MA vs PhD - psych version

[psychdork]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I really want to hear the psych perspective.

I applied to 8 PhD programs, and so far have 5 rejections, and 1 waitlist. Last week I applied (at the last minute) to a MA program at my undergrad as a back up - this was before I found out about the waitlist. I want to get my PhD in social psych, and the MA program is in health psych, so it's not my preferred field but I do find it interesting and think that it could be really helpful down the line if I want to do physiological research. I talked to the program director and she said that based on my application stats I'm pretty much guarateed admission to the MA program. They would also help with funding.

Now, the program I'm waitlisted at is not exactly one of my topic picks. It's a decent program, but definitely not my first choice or anything.

Let's say I get into the PhD program and that funding is adequate - but not great. Would it be better to get my MA and then reapply for PhD programs? My thought is that with the economic situation (hopefully) better by then, I might get into a better program. But on the other hand, how stupid is it to reject a PhD offer for a MA?

Now keep in mind I don't have any acceptances yet, so I don't know funding details or anything, but I like to overanalyze everything.

What are your thoughts?

[eucalyptus]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I really want to hear the psych perspective.

I applied to 8 PhD programs, and so far have 5 rejections, and 1 waitlist. Last week I applied (at the last minute) to a MA program at my undergrad as a back up - this was before I found out about the waitlist. I want to get my PhD in social psych, and the MA program is in health psych, so it's not my preferred field but I do find it interesting and think that it could be really helpful down the line if I want to do physiological research. I talked to the program director and she said that based on my application stats I'm pretty much guarateed admission to the MA program. They would also help with funding.

Now, the program I'm waitlisted at is not exactly one of my topic picks. It's a decent program, but definitely not my first choice or anything.

Let's say I get into the PhD program and that funding is adequate - but not great. Would it be better to get my MA and then reapply for PhD programs? My thought is that with the economic situation (hopefully) better by then, I might get into a better program. But on the other hand, how stupid is it to reject a PhD offer for a MA?

Now keep in mind I don't have any acceptances yet, so I don't know funding details or anything, but I like to overanalyze everything.

What are your thoughts?

I think it really depends on how much of an edge completing your Masters will honestly give you for admissions next time around. Will the MA give you the opportunity to amass a significant amount of independent research experience - enough that it will sway admissions committees? Will you publish and present your work? Will you gain experiences and skills that will make your application really stand out next round? Will the year(s) of further study give you the background to come up with a really stellar idea to pitch in your SOP? I think, depending on a combination of yourself and the MA program in question (with special consideration of the fact that it's not in your chosen field), the answers to these questions could really go either way. But if you think the MA will greatly increase your chances of getting into a great PhD program, I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about taking that chance.

You might also want to think about how much and why you want to attend a "better" PhD program, as well as whether you feel any time pressure to finish your PhD and get a "real job" quickly. Those things are also likely to change from person to person.

My personal data point is that I took the MA route, although accidentally. I graduated undergrad in 2007 and applied to 5 PhD programs in Dev/Cog Psych; I got rejected from the three American schools (Harvard, Yale, ... and I'm blanking on the other one) but got into one school in Canada and another in the UK. I decided to attend the British school, and spent a year and a half there doing full-time research towards my thesis (my PhD program had zero teaching or coursework components) before my supervisor got a new job in Austria. I decided not to follow him and instead handed in my work to date as a Masters thesis. When I applied again this year, my CV looked tremendously different than it had last time around: a handful of presentations, a couple papers under review, two months of fieldwork, and a stack of research experience. Looking at my SOPs from 2007 is almost embarrassing; I clearly had NO IDEA what I was talking about back then, whereas I can confidently talk about my own experience and ideas now, as well as the field at large (this also meant I picked schools and supervisors much more intelligently this time). It's really like night and day. Anyway, in my case, the Masters was clearly a good idea: I'm going to Harvard next year. This may be a reflection of just how unprepared I was for a PhD in 2007, and I don't think my Masters experience was typical, so clearly YMMV.