Acceptance with External MA

[runonsentence]

I mean, my source is not only faculty in my department, but also a number of professionals from grad student workshops at conferences. Either it must just be one of those things where there are just wildly different opinions out there, or it's because the advice I've been receiving is with a mind toward the longer-term goal of the job market, not a shorter-term goal of preparing for PhD admissions.

[Timshel]

I think it's one of those things, like many things in departments, where some schools like it and some don't. Just like some schools like it if you have a Master's already, and some don't. Or, some like that you have previous teaching experience and some don't. All I know is that I've been advised that my thesis, if edited down, is publishable, and I intend to listen to those advising me. Now, I'm not going to send it off to any crappy journal that will take it, but I'm not going to hold back on my work if what I have is publishable. I'm not doing it to "pad my CV." I don't need to do that. My CV looks great as it is.

[Phil Sparrow]

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!)

If we're talking about English, and top-20ish programs,* Well Spring is spot on. Spot on.

When I mentioned the more rigorous standards before for MA students, I meant in terms of writing sample and SOP. CV is a whole different story, and it's quite debatable.

Not to mention that there is some credence to the idea that some PhD programs want to "grow their own," though they are less likely to admit that. After two-ish years of grad school, many scholars are pretty well set in their ways and methodologies, and that can piss off some faculty in PhD programs (a reaction that is in some cases very justified, and in some cases completely unfair). It's not true for everywhere, but some really prefer to mold fresher minds. Or they simply prefer someone more open, which they may think (wrongly, sometimes) corresponds to having done less graduate work so far.

Rhet/Comp and/or adjacent disciplines might be different. So might programs that are not as well established.**

* Yes, I know rankings are suspect. But you all pretty much know what someone means when they say "top-20ish," even if you agree, as I do, that USNWR is BS.

** Also yes, I recognize that "well-established" doesn't necessarily correspond to program quality and it superficially discounts up-and-coming-ness.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Phil Sparrow

[Timshel]

I guess there is no way to agree on this because some of the people who advised me that publishing looked good were accepted to or sat in on adcomms of top 20 schools. So I don't think you can really make broad generalizations about all schools.

[Phil Sparrow]

I guess there is no way to agree on this because some of the people who advised me that publishing looked good were accepted to or sat in on adcomms of top 20 schools. So I don't think you can really make broad generalizations about all schools.

Or they might think you're good enough to apply to a great journal!

(Ack! Edited for typos)

Edited September 16, 2011 by Phil Sparrow

[Timshel]

Or they might think you're good enough to apply to a great journal!

(Ack! Edited for typos)

LOL. I guess that never occurred to me.......but like I said, I had not planned on sending it to some random journal that meant nothing.....

Edited September 16, 2011 by Timshel

[0000000000AAA]

If we're talking about English, and top-20ish programs,* Well Spring is spot on. Spot on.

When I mentioned the more rigorous standards before for MA students, I meant in terms of writing sample and SOP. CV is a whole different story, and it's quite debatable.

Not to mention that there is some credence to the idea that some PhD programs want to "grow their own," though they are less likely to admit that. After two-ish years of grad school, many scholars are pretty well set in their ways and methodologies, and that can piss off some faculty in PhD programs (a reaction that is in some cases very justified, and in some cases completely unfair). It's not true for everywhere, but some really prefer to mold fresher minds. Or they simply prefer someone more open, which they may think (wrongly, sometimes) corresponds to having done less graduate work so far.

Rhet/Comp and/or adjacent disciplines might be different. So might programs that are not as well established.**

* Yes, I know rankings are suspect. But you all pretty much know what someone means when they say "top-20ish," even if you agree, as I do, that USNWR is BS.

** Also yes, I recognize that "well-established" doesn't necessarily correspond to program quality and it superficially discounts up-and-coming-ness.

yes I agree. I should have qualified my statement about the range. I'm really only talking about top 20. Nearly every grad student gets a paper back with notes that say "publishable" and lots of professors tell students such things. It's flattering and means they take your work seriously and that your work is serious. But publication and publications are very elitist. You can damage your brand. And by and large, the time it takes to prepare an article for publication in a top journal is longer than a master's student can realistically expect.

I had a paper that was "publishable." I asked the prof what I should do and his advice was wait:when you have time, more experience, more reading under your belt, and (importantly) contacts at serious journals, then do it.

Good luck to all! Do yo feel time getting short? I DO.

Edited September 16, 2011 by WellSpring

[Grizbert]

Texas used to prefer fresh BAs, but in recent years has admitted 2/3 of each new cohort with MAs in hand.

This is due to a culture change resulting from the ever-changing makeup of the GC.

$0.02

[isol3]

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!

Is this really true? What about a 3.88?

[bfat]

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.

Okay, this is the most goddamned depressing thing I've ever read in my life. I think maybe I should just give up now...

My BA is in a different field, so I did very little--okay make that no work in literature as an undergrad. I tested out of all the writing and English requirements, based on HS classes and AP scores. The whole reason I came back for an MA was to build a background in English because I don't have one (it's in film--related, but certainly not the same thing). But instead of 4 years worth of reading, I will have 1.5, and a lot of it will be required courses in adjacent fields like history and philosophy that won't help these numbers for me at all. I'll be applying to study film/literature and theory in English departments, but I know for a fact that my Lit GRE score will be scraping the bottom of the barrel next year.

The only thing I can think of that might help me is that I won't actually have earned the MA when I'm applying--I'll be midway through my thesis, so my "highest degree" will still be a BA. Also, my MA is in "Humanities," not English (the university where I work doesn't offer an MA in English, and I'm just working through the program to help with my application). UGH. I feel like every day I learn something more discouraging. I was doing this program to HELP my chances, not to make the process more difficult...

Head, meet wall.

[jma310]

i will have my MA in may, my subject scores are still dismal, i'm using the same pretty good (almost 1400 combined) GRE scores, i have a clearly defined research topic/SOP, teaching experience, 5 conferences including an international one, i am responsible for coordinating a speaker on campus and i feel a hell of a lot better about myself than i did in my application round 2 years ago. how far will this get me? it remains to be seen...

that being said, a friend from my MA program last year got into 3 or so schools- 1 top 25, 1 top 40 and waitlisted at one top 20.

it's a crapshoot, dear friends.

[Loimographia]

Okay, this is the most goddamned depressing thing I've ever read in my life. I think maybe I should just give up now...

It seems depressing that schools require higher standards of MA students, but I think it's not only logical, but very desirable, for both MA and BA students. MA students have 2 extra years to develop their academic skills, 2 extra years to publish, go to conferences, and develop their ideas. If BA students were held to the same standards as MAs, no BA-only student would ever be accepted directly into graduate school. Then, every BA student would have to go to a terminal MA program. For BA students, this would be frustrating because of the limited availability of funded MAs: students who previously would be qualified for direct admission to PhD programs would (probably) have to pay for an extra two years of schooling.

For MA students, this would still be a disadvantage, because their extra schooling would no longer balance out the reasons they didn't go directly into a PhD program. i.e.Consider: right now, your humanities MA compensates for how you lack a humanities BA, and somewhat erases it (not that you should be ashamed of it, but this also applies to people who, say, did rather poorly as a BA, but then zoomed ahead in their MA). If everyone has an MA, then the BA actually becomes more important as a basis for comparison between applicants. Right now, the standards for MAs are higher, but that's only because they're essentially only competing among MA applicants. Require that everyone has an MA, and suddenly you're doubling your competition, and making it stiffer by drawing more attention to the differences in earlier education.

So all in all, while it feels unfair to be held to higher standards, I think it's a little necessary, if saddening. My two cents only, of course.

[yellowjackets]

... as I get older, I get less and less willing to jump through hoops to prove myself.

I think this attitude is not what the English grad programs want to see. I've heard so many English PhD students complaining that they're treated like little kids by their professors or supervisors. Applicants already with an MA may indicate that they have already been molded into a certain literary position, so it's hard to tailor their research interests to those of their supervisors, on which a large part of their success in an English PhD program depends on. Some complain that it's like writing a dissertation to meet the interests of their supervisors. Some people can't do this and so leave. Some are better at this, who often turn out to be young students who enter the program with only BAs. Well, this is just my theory.

[bfat]

MA students have 2 extra years to develop their academic skills, 2 extra years to publish, go to conferences, and develop their ideas.

For many people--those who have both a BA and an MA in English--these may be an "extra" 2 years. But for me, they are essentially the only 2 years, since my (cough) 5 years of undergrad were in a different area of study. Instead, I feel like I'm at a double disadvantage--not having the 4 years of undergrad study in English AND being held to a higher standard. A blanket statement/philosophy like "all MA holders should be held to higher standards" seems a bit unfair, since everyone's backgrounds are different.

[Grunty DaGnome]

For many people--those who have both a BA and an MA in English--these may be an "extra" 2 years. But for me, they are essentially the only 2 years, since my (cough) 5 years of undergrad were in a different area of study. Instead, I feel like I'm at a double disadvantage--not having the 4 years of undergrad study in English AND being held to a higher standard. A blanket statement/philosophy like "all MA holders should be held to higher standards" seems a bit unfair, since everyone's backgrounds are different.

I'm in this boat. I have an undergraduate degree in German Lit, AND I've been out of school for 10 years. While in some ways I think a recent B.A. student might say, throw around the lingo better than I do, [i KNOW they proof read better], there is just no way to compare our applications. It only makes sense that a department would want a few younger applicants, who have yet to discover their interests and unique point of view and some older students with more school, all different faculty perspectives, work/life experience and very poor spelling abilities. That's my hope, anyway.

[indalomena]

I think this attitude is not what the English grad programs want to see. I've heard so many English PhD students complaining that they're treated like little kids by their professors or supervisors. Applicants already with an MA may indicate that they have already been molded into a certain literary position, so it's hard to tailor their research interests to those of their supervisors, on which a large part of their success in an English PhD program depends on. Some complain that it's like writing a dissertation to meet the interests of their supervisors. Some people can't do this and so leave. Some are better at this, who often turn out to be young students who enter the program with only BAs. Well, this is just my theory.

It's not like I'm putting this "attitude" all over my application forms for these people to see. And nobody has molded me into a particular literary position, nor would I want to go to a university that tried to do this. My strength is my originality. All I meant was that I'm tired of proving myself in ways that are ultimately meaningless. Aren't we all? Obviously we have to put up with it for a bit longer, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant. And I am a "young student", but I went through the British system, where an MA takes half the time..

[0000000000AAA]

Not to defend the practice of MA prejudice (after all, I've got one!)...but yes, you have been molded by your professors. Originality is great, but if it exists in a vacuum then it's useless. I think the reality is that we are not artists: we write for the approval, satisfaction, and (with hope) edification of our professors; we do not for ourselves, or even an amorphous audience. If we can't satisfy our professors, those who should be our peers one day soon, then we should try doing something else.

Edited January 24, 2012 by WellSpring

[indalomena]

I don't know if that was aimed at me, but I don't think it's very meaningful: obviously, originality can't exist in a vacuum. Our ideas are formed by a multitude of influences, some too subtle to discern clearly. I just think that "molded" is a strong word to use in this context. Remember, I come from the British system, which typically involves a much more independent style of learning.

I have no problem satisfying my professors, but I absolutely disagree about your characterisation of the purpose of writing. You seem to suggest that artistry and satisfying professors are mutually exclusive. I don't write for approval. My writing gains approval, and it needs to, but that is not my prime motivation. I'm not striving for a brilliant career as an end in itself, but rather as something that will enable me to pursue those goals that go beyond that constant striving for approval.

I hope that made sense. I may have misinterpreted your post. I was a little offended by it.

[yellowjackets]

All I meant was that I'm tired of proving myself in ways that are ultimately meaningless. Aren't we all? Obviously we have to put up with it for a bit longer, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Some of the PhD requirements are pointless, but you're forced to jump through the hoops to prove yourself again and again. Yes, it can be unpleasant, or in some cases, miserable. For example, a PhD student already with an MA from another school might be asked to take a teaching comp course even though s/he took the same course at the other school and already have years of teaching experience. They set up these hoops specifically to weed out the people they don't want in their program for whatever reason. Remember the completion rate of a top English PhD program is around 50%, much lower, as low as 20% at some programs that don't offer a multiple-year guaranteed funding package but make their PhD students compete for funding each year. What I'm trying to say is there are many ways to knock you out of the program over the course of several years. They set up this system. The most successful people (I've seen so far) in English PhD programs are not the "original" genius types but the spineless suckups who will do anything to please their professors and defend their program, often at the expense of their fellow graduate students.

[0000000000AAA]

Indeed. It does a disservice to see think of ourselves too highly. Not that our work isn't good or worthwhile. But brilliant scholarship which isn't useful to the discipline--engaged and forward thinking--is not a meaningful exercise. Scholars produce a product. They are judged on the utility of that product. The utility is defined by the rest of the discipline--do they find it useful. A beautiful hammer (elegant, balanced, poised, original) that doesn't hammer nails is useless.

[perrykm2]

I'm sure this varies school to school, and has a lot to do with how willing the dept is to accept transfer credits.

The only school that I looked at that explicitly said they prefered students without an external MA was Penn. Interestingly, they only want incoming students to apply to the MA, so who is applying to their PhD program? Additionally, they encourage students who did an undergrad and masters at Penn to go to another university for their PhD, but an external student with the same degrees wouldn't be wanted? I don't know; someone is smoking crack over there.

[indalomena]

I guess I just see things differently. Maybe we have a different definition of brilliant scholarship -- I've never read anything I thought was brilliant but not engaged and forward thinking.

I also don't think utility is the most important way to judge literary scholarship.

Thinking about the profession, and impressing professors, and creating a product, is very important, and a good antidote to those naive attitudes we might have held as undergraduates. But it is possible to balance a sense of the artistry of criticism and the somewhat loftier aims of scholarship with the drive for success in a PhD program, and following that, in the academic profession. I don't think I am thinking of myself too highly when I try to do this.

[Phil Sparrow]

Are you talking about Penn State? Penn is a different school entirely.

Penn State's MA/PhD division (which is not really a division at all: incoming MA students are funded for 5-6 years because they are expected to continue with the PhD) is confusing, but once you get past that it is just as logical and non-crack-smokish as any other program. Which, depending on your viewpoint, may still appear less than fully logical.

I'm sure this varies school to school, and has a lot to do with how willing the dept is to accept transfer credits.

The only school that I looked at that explicitly said they prefered students without an external MA was Penn. Interestingly, they only want incoming students to apply to the MA, so who is applying to their PhD program? Additionally, they encourage students who did an undergrad and masters at Penn to go to another university for their PhD, but an external student with the same degrees wouldn't be wanted? I don't know; someone is smoking crack over there.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Phil Sparrow

[perrykm2]

Sorry, I call Penn State "Penn" and University of Penn "UPenn," so I meant Penn State, yes.