Acceptance with External MA

[Timshel]

Okay, so I'm sort of in crisis mode here. Every time I think I have my list of schools solidified, I find out something that I didn't know beforehand that is changing my mind. The biggest issue is that some of the schools I have thought about applying to apparently don't take many PhD candidates who already have an external MA. Two of those schools that I have read about (on here) are Penn State who usually only take 2-3 and Boston University who usually only takes 1.

First, can anyone confirm or deny these statistics?

Second, can we use this thread to add other schools that are known to not take a lot of PhD students who already have an MA.

I have an MA already, and I really don't want to waste my time applying somewhere that usually take people with MA's in hand.

Thanks!

[HaruNoKaze]

I totally feel you on revising my lists at the last second b/c of programs that don't want MA applicants. I've been calling each school or emailing them to ask specifically if they want only students coming in with BA's. I've talked to Princeton, Berkeley, UT Austin and WUSTL, and all SAY they consider MA in hand applicants just like BA only applicants. Dunno how much of that is the truth b/c I've heard Princeton likes to get them early and shape them, but that's what they said over the phone/email.

[indalomena]

seriously??? Why would it be a disadvantage coming in with an MA?! And how do you find out if the departments you're looking at want them or not?

This is something that I've heard but never knew whether to take seriously ... that US universities like to take their PhD students and train them in their own way and sort of brand them ... unlike here in the UK where it's more about supervisor than institution. All this makes me think more and more that I'd rather stay in the British system. This whole thing is so ridiculous -- having to take a stupid exam as if my British education counts for nothing, having to retake coursework as if my MA is meaningless ... GRRRRRRRRRR.

\rant. Sorry

[Phil Sparrow]

If this helps, indalomena:

The MAs that are at a "disadvantage"* in American PhD applications tend to be American masters degrees in English or some adjacent field (i.e., comp lit, American studies--fields in which you'd take a lot of English coursework). Masters degrees in fields that are farther from English as a discipline, as well as foreign degrees (like a British MA), are usually exempted from the quotas or what have you that make it more difficult for MA-holders to gain acceptance to PhD programs.

Also, some bad news: even for programs that accept lots of MA-holders, it's uncommon to be able to transfer many credits to your new program. With some rare exceptions, most PhD programs require you to start over (or almost start over) again in coursework, no matter what.

* Some might disagree that there is any disadvantage at all (this is not my personal opinion, just what I understand from talking with faculty). The logic for programs that accept few MA-holders, as it has been explained to me, often boils down to this: if you have two years (give or take) of graduate work under your belt, you are expected to be a really, really good applicant. The standards are a lot higher, because--heck--you've almost already done the amount of work that will take most PhD students to candidacy. Therefore, your application needs to reflect that. BAs are screened for potential, but MAs have already had the chance to prove their potential, and the proof should already be in the application-pudding. Programs that take few MA-holders often don't think of the more rigorous application process as a "disadvantage" for MAs; it's more for them like calculating a handicap in golf.

seriously??? Why would it be a disadvantage coming in with an MA?! And how do you find out if the departments you're looking at want them or not?

This is something that I've heard but never knew whether to take seriously ... that US universities like to take their PhD students and train them in their own way and sort of brand them ... unlike here in the UK where it's more about supervisor than institution. All this makes me think more and more that I'd rather stay in the British system. This whole thing is so ridiculous -- having to take a stupid exam as if my British education counts for nothing, having to retake coursework as if my MA is meaningless ... GRRRRRRRRRR.

\rant. Sorry

Edited September 9, 2011 by Phil Sparrow

[truckbasket]

The logic for programs that accept few MA-holders, as it has been explained to me, often boils down to this: if you have two years (give or take) of graduate work under your belt, you are expected to be a really, really good applicant. BAs are screened for potential, but MAs have already had the chance to prove their potential, and the proof should already be in the application-pudding. Programs that take few MA-holders often don't think of the more rigorous application process as a "disadvantage" for MAs; it's more for them like calculating a handicap in golf.

I heard the same thing from virtually every program I talked to last year. Undergrads simply don't have the same degree of exposure to the field that existing grad students have, which allows for a certain intellectual pardoning. MA-wielding applicants can define their projected research, methodologies, and target advisors in a far more salient way, and are expected to demonstrate the chops they've gained thus far in the coursework. Furthermore, the quantifiable metrics are weighed much, much higher: MA GPA is expected to be pristine and GRE scores are to be through the roof. (Three separate programs told me that an MA's more widespread reading and writing exposure upped the requirements from a standard BA's mid-600s subject score / high 600s or lower 700s verbal closer to that of a mid-750s subject with verbal scores in the vicinity of (gulp) an 800.) Lastly, an MA candidate is expected to have more along the lines of publishing, conference, and teaching experience than a lowly undergrad.

I've definitely heard the argument that programs prefer to shape their PhD students from BA, but I doubt many of them would admit to such a tyrannical approach. Both situations seem plausible, but the setting of a considerably higher standards for the MA applicants to level the playing field would make sense as they certainly have the additional leg up in reading in the field, publishing etc. Everything else in the above paragraph came straight from the mouths of several top-tier horses.

[Timshel]

Well, I have my MA in English. I have been told that some schools prefer to take applicants who have an MA and some prefer to take students who do not already have one. For example, I have been told by MANY at Buffalo that they prefer their students to already have an MA-most of whom they accept do. There are even some schools that require an MA already in hand. However, some schools rarely take students who have an MA, and from what I've been told, two of those are Penn State and Boston University. These are just statistics and preferences, and I was just hoping that others might be able to add if they know other schools who also have a tendency to not take a lot of students who already have an English MA.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Timshel

[Tybalt]

Well, I have my MA in English. I have been told that some schools prefer to take applicants who have an MA and some prefer to take students who do not already have one. For example, I have been told by MANY at Buffalo that they prefer their students to already have an MA-most of who they accept do. There are even some schools that require an MA already in hand. However, some schools rarely take students who have an MA, and from what I've been told, two of those are Penn State and Boston University. These are just statistics and preferences, and I was just hoping that others might be able to add if they know other schools who also have a tendency to not take a lot of students who already have an English MA.

Rochester seems to be mixed--Half of the new cohort has a masters in hand, half don't. University of Maryland also seemed to take this kind of balanced approach. While they don't really say anything directly, Delaware NEVER seems to accept PhD applicants with a MA in hand, so I'd avoid UDel if I were you.

[indalomena]

If this helps, indalomena:

The MAs that are at a "disadvantage"* in American PhD applications tend to be American masters degrees in English or some adjacent field (i.e., comp lit, American studies--fields in which you'd take a lot of English coursework). Masters degrees in fields that are farther from English as a discipline, as well as foreign degrees (like a British MA), are usually exempted from the quotas or what have you that make it more difficult for MA-holders to gain acceptance to PhD programs.

Also, some bad news: even for programs that accept lots of MA-holders, it's uncommon to be able to transfer many credits to your new program. With some rare exceptions, most PhD programs require you to start over (or almost start over) again in coursework, no matter what.

* Some might disagree that there is any disadvantage at all (this is not my personal opinion, just what I understand from talking with faculty). The logic for programs that accept few MA-holders, as it has been explained to me, often boils down to this: if you have two years (give or take) of graduate work under your belt, you are expected to be a really, really good applicant. The standards are a lot higher, because--heck--you've almost already done the amount of work that will take most PhD students to candidacy. Therefore, your application needs to reflect that. BAs are screened for potential, but MAs have already had the chance to prove their potential, and the proof should already be in the application-pudding. Programs that take few MA-holders often don't think of the more rigorous application process as a "disadvantage" for MAs; it's more for them like calculating a handicap in golf.

Great post -- I appreciate it. This whole thing is more of a culture change than I realised and it's starting to feel pretty exhausting... as I get older, I get less and less willing to jump through hoops to prove myself. It's that weird sensation of actually developing self-confidence -- nice, but makes applications much more annoying!!

[truckbasket]

The UC system out here on the west side appears to take a healthy smattering of both BA and MA applicants -- probably because they need as many MA level TAs as possible to teach incoming freshman comp. That might actually be a practical strategy, Timshel, to try and find out which of the good state schools have a huge amount of 1A, 1B, 1C sections, or are perhaps are working under some financial constraints that increases their need for adjuncts.

[the giaour]

Just to add an additional witness to this thread, I'd have to say that everything from truckbasket's first post is 100% in accordance with what I learned when I was applying last year, at least as far as top programs are concerned. If you want to get in with your MA already in hand, your cv must be stellar: 4.0 in your area of interest, clearly articulated (and nuanced) statement of purpose, obvious evidence that you are capable of excellent work and that you've already done some noteworthy things.

But if you've done those things and you do your research well enough, an MA is certainly NOT a disadvantage (obviously). Everyone in my MA cohort who applied last year was accepted to multiple programs... and one of them did get in to Penn State, though I do think it's true they usually only take a couple MAs. Best of luck!

[Timshel]

The UC system out here on the west side appears to take a healthy smattering of both BA and MA applicants -- probably because they need as many MA level TAs as possible to teach incoming freshman comp. That might actually be a practical strategy, Timshel, to try and find out which of the good state schools have a huge amount of 1A, 1B, 1C sections, or are perhaps are working under some financial constraints that increases their need for adjuncts.

That's a good point. I am applying to UC Riverside, and I am currently working as my second year as a "part-time" (I actually teach 4 classes a semester, which is technically full time) after being a TA for two years working on my MA, so I definitely have the teaching experience.

[lolopixie]

It all boils down to the specific school. While it may be true that some schools prefer to take in the BAs and not so many MAs, they do still accept MAs. Some schools DO require you have an MA in hand first. Here is a direct pull from the Purdue English PhD Admissions site:

Admission Requirements: Admission requires a Master's degree from a college or university of recognized standing with a GPA of 3.0 or other academic indices of outstanding performance. The program requires GRE scores. Nonnative English speakers must also provide a TOEFL iBT score.

Contact the programs you are interested in directly to gain perspective, if the website does not provide you the direct details you are looking for. PhD programs are looking for more than just teaching experience because they are going to "teach you how to teach" when you get there. Most first year program requirements include at least one pedagogy course. They are also looking to see what you have been doing in your MA program - have you attended conferences, published, attempted to publish, community involvement, educational involvement (did you participate in the grad school "club" at your school - brain fart right now and can't think of the word). Obviously, these are not REQUIREMENTS of the program, but will be what makes a MA candidate show their ability because they are already participating in what will be expected in the PhD program.

[Timshel]

It all boils down to the specific school. While it may be true that some schools prefer to take in the BAs and not so many MAs, they do still accept MAs. Some schools DO require you have an MA in hand first. Here is a direct pull from the Purdue English PhD Admissions site:

Admission Requirements: Admission requires a Master's degree from a college or university of recognized standing with a GPA of 3.0 or other academic indices of outstanding performance. The program requires GRE scores. Nonnative English speakers must also provide a TOEFL iBT score.

Contact the programs you are interested in directly to gain perspective, if the website does not provide you the direct details you are looking for. PhD programs are looking for more than just teaching experience because they are going to "teach you how to teach" when you get there. Most first year program requirements include at least one pedagogy course. They are also looking to see what you have been doing in your MA program - have you attended conferences, published, attempted to publish, community involvement, educational involvement (did you participate in the grad school "club" at your school - brain fart right now and can't think of the word). Obviously, these are not REQUIREMENTS of the program, but will be what makes a MA candidate show their ability because they are already participating in what will be expected in the PhD program.

Well, I'm hoping that I'm doing all the right things. I have presented at 3 conferences and will be presenting at two more this year, I have an article out for consideration right now, I was the vice chair my first year and the co-chair my second year of our Graduate English Association, I was the English grad student liason for the university's Graduate Student Association, and I was the grad student representative on our graduate ad comm committee; my Master's GPA is a 4.0, and I received the Outstanding Graduate Student Award (awarded by the English department faculty for the student who contributed the most to the department and showed the most potential to contribute to the field) at our departmental graduation. And like I said, I was a TA those two years, and I now work there as adjunct (this is my second year), I've taught the intro to comp, intro to lit, and I've taught online sections. I also tutored at the writing center as an undergrad and graduate student, and I now work at the university's writing center as a Professional Writing Consultant where I tutor, train tutors, conduct tutor training workshops, and mentor and observe other tutors. I really hope that all of that is enough to demonstrate that I worked my butt off while getting my Master's. I would just hate to think that I did all of that only to still not get in anywhere this year.

Now that I've written all of that out, I'm starting to feel maybe a little more hopeful, but still.....This whole process is enough to make you totally doubt yourself.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Timshel

[lolopixie]

You defintely have a strong background. I think you will be fine

[indalomena]

congratulations Timshel, you seem in great shape for your applications! Really doesn't seem like you could have done anything more. I completely understand what you mean though. I have worked so hard on my MA, and really feel like I have achieved a lot, beyond perfect grades ... I think if you view your MA as part of your professional preparation, you are naturally going to find yourself going above and beyond ... but then when you have to write it all down, everything you did and achieved to try to get one step closer to your dream career, and risk someone saying "thanks but no thanks" ... the dread and the doubt really kick in. You must fight it! You sound like a perfect applicant!!

[truckbasket]

Now that I've written all of that out, I'm starting to feel maybe a little more hopeful

And so you should. You're in great shape!

[0000000000AAA]

I don't think it matters as much as some numbers suggest. And also, I've had 3-4 professors tell me that there is no essential difference between candidates with MA and without. The question remains, should this person be here? And they mock those MAs who have filled up their CVs with tiny, frivolous conferences and the ones with publications (apparently a no-no unless it's a top tier journal, otherwise it looks like you're trying too hard to fill out..your CV!)

[Timshel]

I don't think it matters as much as some numbers suggest. And also, I've had 3-4 professors tell me that there is no essential difference between candidates with MA and without. The question remains, should this person be here? And they mock those MAs who have filled up their CVs with tiny, frivolous conferences and the ones with publications (apparently a no-no unless it's a top tier journal, otherwise it looks like you're trying too hard to fill out..your CV!)

I've actually had a lot of professors tell me the opposite. They say that if you have an article published or under consideration, it shows your commitment to the field and your ability to write of publishable quality.

[runonsentence]

FWIW, I've never actually heard anyone say a publication was a bad thing, either. In fact I was very strongly encouraged to publish an essay as a second-year MA student.

[Timshel]

FWIW, I've never actually heard anyone say a publication was a bad thing, either. In fact I was very strongly encouraged to publish an essay as a second-year MA student.

Same here.

[lolopixie]

Maybe if the publication was not in a peer reviewed journal? I don't know. I've never heard that a publication from a MA was a bad thing, and have also heard the same as timshel that being under consideration looks good too because it shows your ambition to publish.

[Timshel]

Maybe if the publication was not in a peer reviewed journal? I don't know. I've never heard that a publication from a MA was a bad thing, and have also heard the same as timshel that being under consideration looks good too because it shows your ambition to publish.

Yeah, I mean, if it's not peer-reviewed, then forget it. But I have been encouraged my all of the people who are writing me letters to at least have something out when I apply, especially since I have something worthy of sending out. (They all want me to turn a part of my thesis into an article, so that's what I'm sending out, once I'm done working on it.)

[0000000000AAA]

But getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal isn't hard. In a great number of them off the beaten track, the writing is actually very bad. I was told that if it isn't a "name brand" journal, that is one that people have heard of, then it looks silly. Or more to the point: no one is impressed and they might think you don't have a sense of the field.

If you're in MLS or one of the top 1 or 2 journals in your field, then it's a different story.

Edited September 16, 2011 by WellSpring

[the giaour]

The problem with publishing early is that once it's out there... it's out there. Forever. You can't take it back. WellSpring isn't the only one who's been told that publishing early isn't always the best idea. I was told that a good first publication would be 1) a chapter from the dissertation, perfected 2) in a kick-ass top journal. None of my friends with MAs had publications, and they all had successful application seasons.

[0000000000AAA]

And this is slightly off topic, but I think relates. A few professors have warned me about the risk of looking desperate. Especially for top tier schools. We are not professionals and any attempt to mimic that is seen as mimicry. Unsolicited emails introducing yourself to an already very busy professor, 2nd or 3rd rate publications, etc are relatively transparent to a lot of adcoms.

The advice I've gotten is to do the appropriate things well: 700+ on gres; clean, clear SoP; appealing, readable writing sample; LORS from viable professors.

Now of course, like I said about, it seems that if you're in MLS or "kick-ass top journal" (well put the giaour) with very high name recognition, then that's pretty impressive!

Edited September 16, 2011 by WellSpring