For those who got a Masters first...

[kikiD]

Hi all. I have some questions for those who have Master's degrees and now applied to PhD programs. I never considered doing a Masters first and later applying to PhD programs, but with the results of my applications this round I am beginning to seriously consider my Masters option. My question is this: if you have a Masters already, what made you decide to take that route first? What kind of luck have you had in getting into PhD programs this cycle? At what kind of programs (ranking-wise) did you get your Masters?

Despite my unfortunate luck this round, I am still committed to attending at least a top-30 PhD program. Right now I'm trying to gauge whether I should simply try again next year, or do a Masters and then try again. I know very little about the Masters route, so I'm trying to gather as much info as possible. (And don't worry, I don't plan to do a Masters without funding)! Thanks in advance for the insight.

[That Guy]

I got my MA and recently was accepted at 2 PhD programs for this upcoming fall (yet to decide which one I will go to). I chose the MA route after applying to PhD programs straight out of my undergrad with no success. That March I scrambled to find terminal MA programs in my region that had rolling admissions, or late deadlines. Ultimately the school I chose was able to give me some funding for my first year and a promise of funding for my second year of the program.

I got my MA from an unranked agricultural school where the MA is the terminal degree. It was nice being at the top of the student food chain as an MA student and not have to fight for attention as I navigated the process of developing my own research. Additionally the cohort size of 5 allowed ample opportunity for collaboration without competition.

As I applied to PhD programs I had ample support from the faculty and my advisor helped to develop an application strategy for finding PhD programs that fit my interests and had personal network connections to the faculty at my school. Coming from an unranked terminal MA program, we felt that networking seemed to be especially crucial. I felt like I had to overcome the (lack of a) reputation for the school I was at when applying this year.

Ultimately, I found the MA process was incredibly beneficial and helped me with two major aspects of professional development.

1) I improved my CV substantially. I gained experience as an RA and TA, I published, and ran my first independent research project.

2) I began to develop my professional identity, substantive interests, and a long term research agenda with an eye towards entry into a PhD program and eventual entry into the job market.

My advice to you if you are considering a terminal MA program:

1) Investigate what their student outcomes are. Do they typically prepare students for non-academic jobs (my school) or are they set up to feed students to PhD programs?

2) Thouroughly check out the faculty, just as you would at a PhD program. Who do they seem to be networked with?

3) What is the reputation of the school at the places where you would like to be for your PhD. Is its reputation local, regional, or national? This factor is likely to influence what schools will respect a degree from your chosen MA program.

4) Be prepared to repeat coursework when you get to a PhD program. I have found (at the 3 schools I have talked to) that having an MA from another school rarely helps to accelerate the timeline of how long it takes to get a PhD from whichever school you end up at. (Schools want the time to mold you as one of THEIR students).

I hope this rambling mess helps.

[sociologygradgirl]

I decided to stay at my undergrad institution for an MA. I did not get into any "good" PhD programs from undergrad. I thought that if I stayed, it would give me a leg up. I already knew the faculty, so I would have people to work on research with immediately.

For me, this was the best decision. I got an RAship and was able to work on two other research pieces in addition to my thesis while I was here. One turned into a co-author pub, the other was just a presentation, but filled in a CV line nonetheless.

This application cycle, I got into 3 out 5 programs, all in the top 50 or higher. I know the research helped, I think putting up some grad grades helped as well. Also, most of the schools that accepted me are willing to take some of my MA classes (Stats, Theory), so it wasn't really time wasted and I'm not repeating anything from having done it.

[sociologygradgirl]

oh, to answer the question about my MA: it is at an unranked R1 school.

[sociologo]

I decided to go into a Masters after I didn't get into any PhD programs the first time around. I went with my current program rather than the other two Masters programs I was admitted to because the school I'm at provides full funding. It's a terminal Masters program at an unranked state school with little name recognition. However, the program generally met my research interests, and I was happy to be funded. The program is small - about 18 people total. I was challenged in my classes and was able to put together a much better writing sample than I had the first time around. I was able to better fine tune my interests. I also had the opportunity to build up my CV by presenting at conferences, research, RA/TA work, etc. At my current institution, I was able to teach two undergrad classes entirely on my own this year. I had a much better time applying this time around - 6 acceptances, 1 waitlist, and 4 rejections. If you want to know anything else specifically, just ask! I think there can be a lot of benefits to it, even if it's not the most appealing idea at first.

[avee]

I am finishing my M.S. this semester, and it has been one of the best routes I have taken not only for my academic career, but for my own personal growth. I think your question needs to reposition itself not with just getting into a program, and whether a master's will aid you in appearing as a more competitive applicant, but rather what you can gain academically from a master's program. I think first and foremost, a strong sense of commitment and desire to be in sociology is key, and is reflected in your statement of purpose, previous research, conference attendance, teaching in the field, service (academically and maybe even publicly), and so on. If a master's can help you solidify your sentiments toward staying in the field, and impassion you to conduct meaningful sociological research, then you should certainly enter a master's program. Personally, though I went to a theoretical- and research intensive private university for my undergrad, I still think the master's--for myself and many--aids in truly understanding where to position yourself within the field. I personally wouldn't feel ready for the PhD right after my undergrad. But that is just me. So I think you really need to make this question to attend a master's program as what you will gain from attending, regardless of how it makes you look on paper. In a perfect world, how it makes you look to a PhD acceptance committee is an afterthought

Good luck!

[Chuck]

I'm with avee on this one. I think the culture is slowly changing, even though there are still many students who, for whatever reason, go straight-through to the PhD. But I think this is becoming less and less the norm.

My professional background and master's degree (in a different field) have absolutely been assets in the admissions process. I have several years of high-level research, teaching, and leadership experience. I'm older, more mature, and know exactly what I want out of my PhD. Arriving at this decision has not been easy (I'm now at the point where it would be much easier and financially more rewarding in the short term to remain in my "real job"), but sociology has welcomed me with open arms. I've been admitted at all my top-choice programs. I credit this success to the fact that I have demonstrated the necessary perspective and inside-out understanding of my topic to be able to jump straight into my dissertation. When I've expressed concern about my background to potential advisors, I have been met with nothing less than wholehearted enthusiasm and encouragement. Since I have a positive track record in academia, I'm a known entity. I have already proven my ability to succeed as a grad student. Professors don't have to worry about whether I can do research, apply for grants, and generally hack it as a graduate student. I feel ungodly lucky in that I have my pick of several amazing advisors. A number have expressed that they prefer to work with older, more academically experienced students. A few have lamented that there is not an explicit MA requirement for admission to PhD programs. My prediction is that we will see this change over the next 10-20 years.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Chuck

[FertMigMort]

My advice to you if you are considering a terminal MA program:

1) Investigate what their student outcomes are. Do they typically prepare students for non-academic jobs (my school) or are they set up to feed students to PhD programs?

2) Thouroughly check out the faculty, just as you would at a PhD program. Who do they seem to be networked with?

3) What is the reputation of the school at the places where you would like to be for your PhD. Is its reputation local, regional, or national? This factor is likely to influence what schools will respect a degree from your chosen MA program.

4) Be prepared to repeat coursework when you get to a PhD program. I have found (at the 3 schools I have talked to) that having an MA from another school rarely helps to accelerate the timeline of how long it takes to get a PhD from whichever school you end up at. (Schools want the time to mold you as one of THEIR students).

I think That Guy's advice above is excellent. I would add that if you have an idea of where you want to apply for your Ph.D. program you should also check out how they treat M.A. students versus B.A./B.S. students. Every department has a different culture. I agree with Chuck's sentiments:

Since I have a positive track record in academia, I'm a known entity. I have already proven my ability to succeed as a grad student. Professors don't have to worry about whether I can do research, apply for grants, and generally hack it as a graduate student. I feel ungodly lucky in that I have my pick of several amazing advisors. A number have expressed that they prefer to work with older, more academically experienced students.

HOWEVER, in my own department Masters students are still unfairly penalized in some ways. They are given fewer years of funding, despite having to repeat classes or asked to do their Masters degree over again at our institution with an additional year of funding. They are less likely to be given RA positions initially and seem to be more socially isolated from their cohort. They are also pressured to take their comprehensive exams earlier. I don't have a sense of how widespread this phenomena is though. Perhaps my school is in the minority and the field is generally trending towards separate Masters and Ph.D. programs. I would just do some investigating about your ultimate Ph.D. schools you want to get into before you make this decision. Are most of their Masters students much older than the rest of the department? Do they ever make people with incoming Masters repeat coursework or worse their entire Masters? How are students with incoming Masters funded compared to those with just a Bachelors?

That said, I think that the Masters option is better for a lot of students. It takes longer and usually costs more, but by then you're sure that you want a Ph.D. and if you don't want one, you won't waste another 3-5 years of your life getting one. I advise recruits with a Masters about this culture and let them make up their own mind. I don't know why our culture is so biased, because I work with lots of outstanding Masters students and lots of dipshit Bachelor students.

[kikiD]

Thanks so much for all of this great information, everyone. You've given me a lot to think about before decision deadline in 2 weeks!