Help: lower-tier PhD (funded) vs. top-tier MSc (unfunded)

[aargauer]

I have been trolling here and in the results section for a number of weeks now, and feel like I could use some of your collective advice. Many of you seem rather knowledgeable, and, to be honest, I would appreciate almost any input at this point in time (even if you're not). Having followed the admissions, and read the latest UMN post here, I am going to guess that I will be rejected from three of the four PhD programs from which I have yet to hear... That being the case, I feel as if I am in a bit of a corner and am really torn.

This round I have been accepted to an MSc program at LSE and to the PhD program at UMass Amherst (I did not post in results). The UMass admit included money, and quite a few emails. However, when I was applying to programs, my favorite undergraduate professor went so far as to discourage me from even considering it. She stated that my resume would land in the trash, without any consideration, because it was from UMass... It has me rather worreid about career prospects (despite speculation elsewhere here about the expansion of the UMass department and the possibility of it rising). That being the case, I am considering taking out substantial loans and going to LSE, with the explicit hope of gaining admission to a better program in the 2013 round of admissions. LSE would also make it possible for me to apply to programs in Germany, e.g., Max Planck in Cologne, and Switzerland, e.g., the ETH Zürich.

I am really confused and torn. Would the *chance* of gaining admission to a better program be worth taking out the $20,000+ in loans? Or should I accept the offer I have and remain debt free?

I am older than most -- in my late 20s -- and do not have much "professional" experience I presume to be applicable to most admissions committees (other than two years in Switzerland and fluent German; I will guess that dropping out of a T20 law school counts against me). My references have insisted that I belong in a top program, but I have personally been skeptical about my odds of gaining admission given where I presently am in life (and rightly so it would seem). Would the MSc from LSE boost my chances the next time around? Would it be worth the money?

Edited February 29, 2012 by aargauer

[brent09]

This is a tough call. You might want to provide more information (if you're comfortable doing so) such as:

What are your stats (GPA, GREs)? What're your interests? What were the full results this round (as in, range of programs to which you applied)? Do you already have a lot of student debt? Why did you drop out of law school and did you explain that well in your applications?

The fact is: you could get into a better program out of LSE or UMass, with the higher probability favoring the former. I'm always hesitant about paying for a master's, but it works for some people. Transferring also works for some (me!). A little more information might make it easier to fully consider the options you have, yanno?

[justanotherperson]

What about going to UMAss and getting your Master's and reapplying for higher ranked phd programs later? Saying this as someone considering choosing a lower ranked program over a higher one for some personal reasons.

Gluck!

[RWBG]

I don't think anyone can tell you whether an MSc is worth the cost, but it's definitely true that LSE has placed a lot of people in Ph.D programs successfully, including many who were not successful with Ph.D applications the first time. I also think it is harder to get letters to transfer from a Ph.D program without something "unexpected" happening (the people there generally will want their good students to stay), and admissions committees tend to be a little more reticent about admitting people from other Ph.D programs (at least that's what I hear). Doing well at LSE should help to deal with any inconsistencies up until now (including the law school thing), and generally people find their applications improve a lot the second go around. So the LSE MSc would help, it's just a matter of whether or not the time and financial costs are worth it to you, especially given that even a Ph.D from the best of programs doesn't ensure success on the job market.

[aargauer]

What are your stats (GPA, GREs)? What're your interests? What were the full results this round (as in, range of programs to which you applied)? Do you already have a lot of student debt? Why did you drop out of law school and did you explain that well in your applications?

GPA: 3.61/4.0 (almost a 4.0 my last year; GPA dragged down by my freshman year and exclusion of year abroad... A+ on my senior thesis)

GRE: 98th percentile V; 87th percentile M; 5.0 W (I use percentiles as I retook the GRE to improve my math score and the grading changed)

Interest: Comparative (Social Policy to be even more exact); the MSc is in Social Policy.

I studied abroad at Oxford for a year, and, as I said, speak fluent German (and a smattering of Swiss German, which I understand)

Debt: None at the moment

I left law school because I did not want to be a lawyer. I was married and felt that an academic career would be incompatible with the marriage (to a non-American then still at university in Switzerland); meanwhile, the marriage fell apart during the first year! Ridiculous, I know. I applied extremely late because I was so resigned, but still got in where I had wanted to go. I then waited until the last day to send the deposit, as I already knew it was a gigantic mistake. I did have an A+ in the legal research and writing course; I withdrew before final exams, so I do not have many other grades on the transcript (but did middle out with Bs during the first round of exams / midterms as I was rather indifferent to even being there).

If my favorite professor had not been so adamantly opposed to me applying to UMass in the first place, I would not have these doubts. However, the fear of completing a PhD and finding myself unemployable / at a distinct disadvantage is something I find rather disconcerting. UMass also only guaranteed *three* years of funding. Given my interests, the lack of a social policy specialist is also a major strike against the program.

I will be discussing a lot of what I've posted here with the department when I visit, and am going to be spending a lot more time weighing things. Comments here are really helpful, so I appreciate you guys responding a lot. Thanks!

Edited March 1, 2012 by aargauer

[aargauer]

I should add that I regret listening to this particular professor once before. I was admitted to this program and almost went five years ago, but decided that it would be "useless." Little did I know what the ETH's reputation was outside of Switzerland, inside of Europe itself (Americans do not know it)...

Edited March 1, 2012 by aargauer

[Otherworlder]

A Masters from LSE is definitely worth a lot of salt and not just to PhD admissions committee. Have you thought about doing a masters and then get involved with government organizations, policy research, and think tank kind of stuff? If you are considering this route, I think definitely go with LSE. Though I personally wouldn't go to LSE just to try again at a top PhD program. It just seems to drag out an already too-long process, and the financial burden just seems too much.

[Penelope Higgins]

My sense is that as your adviser says, for jobs in the US, particularly in the field of interest you describe, the UMass name will not help you get jobs. Here is all the placement info I can find on UMass: http://polsci.umass.edu/graduate/prospective_students/placement/ I would make sure to get something more systematic from them when you visit; something that reflects the outcomes for all students entering the program, or at least all students completing the PhD. That said, the idea of doing a (funded) MA there and then applying to PhD programs again is a reasonable one. If you're interested in staying in Europe long-term, the LSE option is a clear winner. If your interest is finding a PhD program and a job in the US, the choice is tougher.

[washdc]

I think the better question is whether you want to take out the loans or not.. Not only is your tuition going to be unfunded, but London is a more expensive city to live in. So you'll have high rent, food, transportation costs, etc.

I don't know, that's just my opinion. I didn't look at LSE or any schools in the UK for that reason alone (and I have a scholarship which provides a $1450 stipend/mo and $18K in tuition per year, USD from an outside scholarship).

Especially because you don't have professional experience.. you'd be funded, Amherst has a cheaper cost of living, you're late 20s.. I would go the PhD route.

[aargauer]

A Masters from LSE is definitely worth a lot of salt and not just to PhD admissions committee. Have you thought about doing a masters and then get involved with government organizations, policy research, and think tank kind of stuff? If you are considering this route, I think definitely go with LSE. Though I personally wouldn't go to LSE just to try again at a top PhD program. It just seems to drag out an already too-long process, and the financial burden just seems too much.

In addition to applying to PhD programs, I was planning on applying to policy research and think tank positions. That was very much on my mind as a fall back, although I would prefer to study further and teach. However, policy / think tank work would certainly be nice. My brother has worked in Congress, the Senate, and on K Street, but was rejected two years in a row from LSE (and he studied abroad there as an undergraduate!)... So I was rather shocked to get in like this.

To make the PhD path "more direct" if I choose to attend LSE, I plan on applying to Max Planck in Cologne (which would probably have been my first choice, if it accepted individuals without advanced degrees in the field) and the ETH (the PhD program at the MA program to which I linked above; I also have a guaranteed reference from someone who researched and taught there for fifteen years) in Switzerland in addition to American programs. I would not mind remaining in Central Europe, but universities there are not necessarily in the best of shape (particularly in Germany; I know, as I follow things as much as I can in Die Zeit, SZ, and FAZ).

Edited March 1, 2012 by aargauer

[Hotspur]

Hello. I can't tell you anything about the value of the PhD, but I can tell you a bit more about UK master's degrees. I'm doing a masters at King's College London now, mostly because I have been out of the academic game for a while and because undergraduate wasn't in political science so I felt I needed the experience. However, you should be aware of a couple of things for UK master's. First of all, the term starts late--usually the start of October--which means you won't have much time to establish strong relationships with professors or likely produce anything to add to your application, with the exception of just the LSE name (although that name does carry a lot of weight!) While the European universities have later deadlines, many often do (unannounced) rolling applications, so you will need to balance anything you want to add to your application from LSE with trying to get your application in early.

The other thing you should be aware of is the expense, not just the Msc but also the living costs. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in; US students loans won't even remotely get you started towards the year's costs, so you will need to make sure you have the finances for it. I'm not sure what the deadline is for responding to LSE, but it might be worth hunting around research/intelligence positions until you have to commit to see if you could get experience to add to your application while actually earning money, even if it's not well paid. A tough decision--good luck!

[AuldReekie]

Hello. I can't tell you anything about the value of the PhD, but I can tell you a bit more about UK master's degrees. I'm doing a masters at King's College London now, mostly because I have been out of the academic game for a while and because undergraduate wasn't in political science so I felt I needed the experience. However, you should be aware of a couple of things for UK master's. First of all, the term starts late--usually the start of October--which means you won't have much time to establish strong relationships with professors or likely produce anything to add to your application, with the exception of just the LSE name (although that name does carry a lot of weight!) While the European universities have later deadlines, many often do (unannounced) rolling applications, so you will need to balance anything you want to add to your application from LSE with trying to get your application in early.

The other thing you should be aware of is the expense, not just the Msc but also the living costs. London is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in; US students loans won't even remotely get you started towards the year's costs, so you will need to make sure you have the finances for it. I'm not sure what the deadline is for responding to LSE, but it might be worth hunting around research/intelligence positions until you have to commit to see if you could get experience to add to your application while actually earning money, even if it's not well paid. A tough decision--good luck!

Just to add that lots of Faculty I know advised me against looking at LSE for a masters. Very much a big money spinner with large incoming classes.

Undoubtedly they have some great staff but I think your access is limited and some discussions are led by PhD students. Good, but not what I'd expect for £14,000+!

[flyers29]

Why not just take the UMass offer and leave open the possibility of just taking the fully-funded MA there (and then go elsewhere for the Ph.D)? Yes, the academic job market is tough in general, but I also think the "you'll never get a job if you go to UMass" argument is overblown as well. The lack of fit is a valid concern though, which is why it might be best to consider the first option I mentioned.

[saltlakecity2012]

There's a little section on the U Chicago MAPSS website that says the following, which might be useful for you:

Financing the MAPSS degree will require serious sacrifices. How can I determine if it's a wise investment?

Individual circumstances vary so much that it's impossible to give one answer equally good for all prospective students. However, we suggest you make the following calculations for yourself. How fast will you make back your investment in your graduate education after you re-enter the job market with a University of Chicago MA, as against what you will earn in the same field with your current BA? If you instead decide to go on to a Ph.D. program, how fast will you make back your investment in MAPSS if you enter with a fellowship for doctoral study, as against the level of aid you have presently been offered?

The remarkable growth of the MAPSS program in recent years and the development of clone programs in the University's humanities and physical sciences divisions testify to the positive outcome of such calculations for most Chicago students in today's career and graduate admissions environments. Once again, the April Campus Days offer the opportunity to discuss these matters with current students and recent alumni.

[chaetzli]

I should add that I regret listening to this particular professor once before. I was admitted to this program and almost went five years ago, but decided that it would be "useless." Little did I know what the ETH's reputation was outside of Switzerland, inside of Europe itself (Americans do not know it)...

I guess your professor was right. This program was useless at that time. However, they are building up their reputation now (especially with L.E. Cederman as director -> if you want to go to Stanford ).