Can a MA be a bad thing?

[Scalia]

I"m considering doing a terminal MA due to my lack of background in research and psychology, but I've also heard that having a MA can actually count as a strike against you when applying to PHD programs. Can anyone shed any light on this subject or offer any advice.

[ironage]

I"m considering doing a terminal MA due to my lack of background in research and psychology, but I've also heard that having a MA can actually count as a strike against you when applying to PHD programs. Can anyone shed any light on this subject or offer any advice.

It depends on the type of master's degree that you obtain. A master's degree in experimental psychology will benefit you if it provides you with quality research opportunities. Plus, compared to applied degrees, they are not as heavy in the assessment and therapy courses which may be a plus in the eyes of some PhD programs because they want to form you from the beginning in their style of clinical practice.

However, you should still consider a master's degree in clinical psychology. Some of these programs are research-oriented. Granted they're uncommon, but they exist. Many master's programs in clinical psychology claim they can prepare you for a PhD, but don't believe it without evidence. Some programs provide consistent information about their alumni outcomes, which is a sign that they deliver what they promise.

Many people advise volunteering on a research team at a local university instead of a doing master's program, because they can be expensive, but sometimes you can't locate quality volunteer opportunities locally. In this case, a research-oriented master's program can help you put your foot in the door of a productive team.

[LJK]

Are you interested in clinical? Or is that an assumption the above poster is making?

I am currently pursuing a terminal masters at my undergraduate university. I majored in anthropology and other than knowing that I am interested in 'cognitive psychology', moving from 'cognitive anthropology' I didn't really know much about psychology. Regardless of whether it looks good in the admissions process, doing the MS was a great move for me to locate what I'm most interested in and from there figure out where and with whom I want to get my phd. Now I am applying to the 10 programs in the country where there are professors do the research I am most passionate about. If I had just applied out of undergrad, I don't think I would have been able to get into 'top' programs, and if I got in anywhere I probably would have more fallen into a research focus than centered in and chosen it myself.

If you don't have a formal background in psychology, have you done lots of reading? Do you know what sort of research you would like to be doing? The phd research forms the basis of what research you will be doing in your career, should you be going in an academic direction. I know less about clinical if that is the direction you are going, but presumably you are still going to become an expert in something that will guide your career. Do you know what something you want your expertise to be in?

As for whether it will be helpful in the admissions process we shall see! I am applying to programs that I would not have any confidence in being qualified for before my MS, but now I know that I have a great fit with one or more professors at each school. My current advisor suggested I do the MS on my first meeting with her. I didn't have psychology research experience and was pretty clueless on how psychology in general works. At that point I had just graduated undergrad but had a scholarship to stay for an extra year, and if I had been applying to phd programs I would have needed to get started right then on applications. She, as a professor who accepts students into a phd program in cognitive psychology, thought that I should get the research experience and the exposure to a greater range of cognitive psychology. A year and a bit later, I do know where I want to be going and what I need to do to get there. If the MS somehow counts against me, I know now what I love to do and I am determined about being able to do what I love and will keep trying if I don't get this cycle.

To sum up: regardless of its admissions utility, the MS was helpful for me in and of itself. Mine was funded so that may be a consideration.

[lewin]

My lay opinion is that an MA is generally helpful, but here are some scenarios where I think it might NOT be helpful, in order of descending importance:

1. Your MA major is completely unrelated to your proposed PhD. When applying to PhD's, a lot goes into convincing them that you have a persevering interest in the proposed topic, so you won't get bored after a year or two and drop out. Studying one thing in undergrad, then another at the MA-level, then a third for PhD might make you seem indecisive or unable to follow-through. Every time you change career directions you'll have to justify it later.

2. Your undergrad institution is really prestigious but your MA institution is middling. It shouldn't look like you're on a downward trajectory.

3. The PhD institution, for some reason, wants to train their graduates from scratch and doesn't like people who might have learned it "wrong" in their MA. I think this is more urban legend than fact.

My advice? Why not apply to, say, five PhD programs and three MA programs. If you get in, great! If not, the MA is a backup. In your case the MA might be a significant advantage because, if you have little psychology experience, getting your feet wet with a MA might show PhD programs that you're serious about studying psychology.

[Scalia]

Several points of clarification:

1. I'm interested in Cognitive and Social, not Clinical

2. I'm not debating between applying to just MA programs and not any PhD programs. I'm debating between spending another year in undergrad and applying to a MA in experimental program at my undergrad institution.

What I'm having a difficult time deciding is whether I will be able to develop enough background information and research experience to have a shot of getting into the top programs in 10 months if I decide to apply in 2011, or should I go with the MA and would have time to do a MA thesis, develop my research interests, and provide evidence I'm prepared for a research degree. I will have research opportunities regardless of which path I choose, but will 10 months allow me to reap sufficient rewards from that research in terms of presentations, articles, etc. However, the MA would take longer and I've heard that it can actually be harmful in the admission process.

Anyways, that's what I'm contemplating.

[LJK]

It really depends where you are mentally in your preparation for graduate school. If you know what you want to do, I would say apply to phd programs and the MA program at your undergraduate institution. Maybe you will get into the phd programs with your current level of experience based on fit and directed-ness if you can clearly communicate your resolve and focus. Your lack of experience will work against you, but many people do move straight from undergrad to phd programs so its not necessarily a fatal flaw.

In terms of presentations and articles etc. unless you have something that is ready to get written up now, you probably won't get a publication within 10 months. If you are able to get data collected early that show a result (which you don't always get the first time) you may be able to do a presentation at a conference in time to put it on your CV.

You will definitely develop your research interests in the time it takes to get an MA, and you will be able to show that you know what graduate school is really about and that you want to actively remain on that path. There is this 'urban legend' (I like that characterization!) that MA or MS degrees are harmful in the admissions process but I can't really understand why: if the admissions process is a gamble for the school, knowing that a student has moved beyond thinking like an undergraduate student to thinking like a graduate student should be beneficial not a deterrent. The departments you are applying to want to know that you will finish, that they aren't 'wasting' funding on you, etc. If you have experience being a graduate student and are looking to sign up to continue to be one, you should be less of a gamble. You would also come in with a clearer understanding of what research is about and would be able to jump in rather than needing a lot of time to get your footing.

If you don't apply for the MA and don't get into the phd programs you apply to, what would you do with the time before the next application round? If it was something like getting a job unrelated to your interests, I think that would be considerably more harmful to your prospects than being actively involved in the field and continuing your education. If you had an alternate plan to the MA that would make you a more qualified applicant, I could understand not going for the MA. But at this point don't you want that option?

[lewin]

I agree with everything LJK said. That is what I meant about applying to both types of programs: Apply to your local MA and to a few PhD programs. The only harm is time and application costs. If you get into a PhD now, then great! If not, stay and do the MA.

One thing they say is that you shouldn't do ALL your degrees at one institution. Somebody who does a BA, MA, and PhD at the same place doesn't look well-rounded. It makes one suspicious that the student can't flourish in another environment where people might do things differently. Going to different universities shows that you can cope in different settings where people have different expectations. (An exception to this rule is if your graduate program is well known as the best in its area. If you're already at the best place, why move?)

In social, ten months will not get you a publication unless you are the type who works 16-hour days or craps horseshoes. Even assuming your first studies all produce significant and interesting findings, most social journals have a 3-6 month review/resubmission process. The ones with shorter review times (e.g., Psychological Science) have high rejection rates (~90%). BUT, it could get you started on something that produces a publication in the first year or two of your PhD.

Edited November 22, 2010 by lewin00

[Scalia]

I definitely will apply to PhD and MA programs (including the one at the institutions I'm already at) but what if it comes down to staying another year in undergrad and doing the MA, and now I realize that a publication is highly unlikely, I'm getting the sense that doing the MA would probably be the most beneficial in gaining acceptance into the best graduate school possible. It appears that 10 months before the application deadline of the 2011 cycle might not be enough time to demonstrate my commitment to psychology, refine my research interests, and put forth an attempt of legitimate academic work. One other question, would doing a summer research institute be a good idea to get to work with some different faculty on research still be game changer if I decide to do the MA?

[TheDude]

I was here last year and already had a project 3 months underway. I was naive enough to think I'd have one publication for sure and a second one under review by the application cycle this year. The review process takes forever. I put 15 months into a project and in that time frame managed to do the following:

Found a fellowship to support the work

As of today have 4 conferences. Basically it is a variation of the final research themes I was/am working with. All of the conferences are refereed, but I started local and last week was accepted into the biggest conference in the world within the field.

One invited talk: It was to my University so it isn't that great of a CV booster

Have the manuscript under-review for a real high tier journal. It still might get rejected because I wanted to reach for a journal a little outside of the specific field I am in and to something more policy orientated.

I busted my ass collecting data and networking with people to gain access to new data pools. Most of the lag time was because advisors are busy and need a ton of time to go over what you've accomplished with stats, conference proposals and manuscript proposals.

The bottom line is it takes a ton of time to gain serious research experience. If you have a proposal get to work now gathering data and you'll have some posters on your CV by 2011.

I still haven't received my rejections or acceptances this year so I can't tell you what constitutes "enough" work for grad school admission. I will say participating in research, in a really serious and involved way (i.e, more than a data monkey) will make you a far better interviewee as you will have little issues handling questions in grad school interviews. At least that has been my experience thus far and I tend to be diffident.

Edited November 22, 2010 by musicforfun

[LJK]

Doing a summer research program would never be a bad thing: You get more research experience, which may turn into presentations/publications down the road, and you have more professors who know you well (aka LOR writers).

At the same time, if the summer institute costs rather than is funded, I don't know if it would make enough of a difference to be worth it if paying for it is at all a struggle.

[Scalia]

I know that some posters have called the notion that PhD programs prefer to train their own students and thus have a bias against students with MA's as an "urban legend," but can anyone currently in a PhD program speak to this either through comments from faculty or incoming cohorts?

Also, what is the level or research experience and academic work necessary to gain entrance into a say a top 25 program? Would an excellent stats and a research agenda that parallels that of faculty be sufficient?

[lewin]

I know that some posters have called the notion that PhD programs prefer to train their own students and thus have a bias against students with MA's as an "urban legend," but can anyone currently in a PhD program speak to this either through comments from faculty or incoming cohorts?

I'm a PhD student in a top 25 program. We admitted somebody with an MA last year, but I have no information other than that. But let's reason this through: In what ways could an MA be a liability?

First, if it signals a downward trajectory. If one's BA is from Yale, then MA is from Podunk College of Idaho, it raises the question, "Why?" It suggests that student couldn't succeed in a rigorous program and had lower their standards, or that the student couldn't get into a more prestigious program. For the OP, the thing to avoid is looking like the local MA was his/her only choice. That also looks like a "downward" move. Don't say: "I needed to bulk up my experience in order to get into graduate school." Instead, say: I was really interested in the work I began during my BA and wanted the opportunity to see some of those projects through and, as a graduate student, increase my direct involvement in the research."

Second, if the MA suggests a lack of direction. If one's BA is in psychology but the MA is in underwater basketweaving, it might be harder to convince PhD programs that one is, now, really interested in psychology. If a student misjudged his/her interests once already, it might happen again.

Also, what is the level or research experience and academic work necessary to gain entrance into a say a top 25 program? Would an excellent stats and a research agenda that parallels that of faculty be sufficient?

Hard to say because programs rarely report that information. Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by "excellent stats" and "a research agenda". People in my program often have psychology GRE's > 95th percentile, general GRE's > 1300, > 3.5 GPA, 2-3 years research assistant experience (sometimes a full-time year post-BA), and maybe a couple conference posters. Probably half arrive with government fellowship funding. I don't know how that compares to other places.

The tangible things on your CV (e.g., GRE scores, grades, recommendation letters, experience) will get your application reviewed by a prof. What eventually gets you in the door, however, is often good fit with your potential advisor. Profs think about what research direction they want to take in the next five years and admit somebody who seems to have interests similar to that. Let's say they get a grant for a particular idea--they'll look for a grad student who can help them on that idea.

Edited November 23, 2010 by lewin00

[digits2006]

I don't think a MA is a bad thing. I am currently in the MA program and I have spoken with Doc programs I was waitlisted at and they say it makes me more competitive because I will have to more years of research experience under my belt when I apply. If you get into a MA program, I say go for it.