Claremont Graduate University

[feraleyes]

I am an International applicant and needed some feedback and opinions regarding the English Program at Claremont Graduate University. How would you rate it? Are there any applicants on this forum who are applying there?

[1Q84]

I was going to apply and talked to some very kind faculty there. The Chair of the English Dept there is really quite nice.

 

I only decided against it because they don't have any funding for international students, which is a dealbreaker.

[Dark Matter]

They don't have any funding for anyone. It's a tuition-driven, for profit "graduate university." No one should ever pay tuition to do a PhD in English, and barring exceptional circumstances, no one should ever go without a stipend and guaranteed TAships either.

[wreckofthehope]

They might not have funding for anyone, but they aren't a "for profit" school. I think "for profit" has a very specific legal meaning, correct me if I'm wrong?

 

Of course, it would likely be unwise to pay for graduate school, so yeah, you're right to warn people about the likelihood of that should they be interested in Claremont, but asking your students to pay tuition doesn't automatically make you a "for profit" school. 

[Dark Matter]

Wreck is right. CGU is not technically "for profit" in the sense that, say, the university of phoenix is. I meant it in a looser, metaphorical sense. They want you there to pay tuition. The same is the case for all those MA programs that places like NYU run, technically not "for profit" but designed for generating tuition revenue more than training students. And the same for the Chicago MAPH program. CAVEAT EMPTOR. Paying tuition for graduate school in the humanities is not something to do lightly and is rarely a good idea.

[Swagato]

I really have to object to including Chicago's MAPH program in this sort of category. My past posts provide more detailed accounts, but the capsule version of it is that Chicago's MAPH is definitely not a cash cow. It has jumpstarted the PhD career of many, many people across the humanities. The thing about MAPH is that it targets two broad types of students: those who already know the ins and outs of graduate application and can make MAPH work for them (and, a sub-type, those who do not already know this BUT can develop these skills during the MAPH year), and those who want to dabble in graduate work but are quite unsure of whether they really want to continue.

 

Those who can make use of MAPH not only get to develop a fantastic writing sample and win recommendations from major scholars, in addition to an immersive experience within graduate work at the top levels. Others may find that graduate work is not for them and thus utilise their MAPH training toward more alt-academic or even non-academic ends. I've had friends find excellent positions in nationally-renowned museums and galleries, while others have gone on to academic/administrative careers. Still others have landed PhD positions at places like Johns Hopkins, Chicago itself, Boston U., and various other highly competitive places.

 

Rather than perpetuate the false notion of MAPH as a cash cow, it's high time people recognised what MAPH's vision is, and what it does. Also, it is not true that as a MAPH student one would not receive faculty attention, or be treated as some sort of second-class citizen. Once again, the onus is on you. Speaking for myself, I can say that I was astounded at the generosity I received from various professors across departments (coming from a modest SLAC, the culture of a major research university was indeed a daunting thing initially). But I also know students who were vague and purposeless in their approach, and were accordingly brushed off--albeit nicely. MAPH provides a platform, but it won't work magic.

 

I realise this may come off as a cri de coeur, but I'm simply speaking based on my own experience and what I've known of others'. I may or may not ever end up in the kind of PhD program I've aimed for--I may simply not be that good. But I'm aware that without MAPH's role in developing myself intellectually, professionally, and personally, I would not even have come as close as I have. 

[Dark Matter]

I'm not disputing that Chicago's MAPH program might have a net positive effect for some. But it is without question designed as a cash cow for the university. It is very similar to the NYU Draper program in that respect. It is expected that one pays (often quite a lot of) tuition for a BA. That is an entry-ticket into the adult world. It is also expected that one pays (often quite a lot of) tuition for professional training, such as law or medical school. Those degrees are credentials for jobs that pay well enough to cover undergraduate or professional school loans. However, post graduate degrees in the humanities traditionally offer stipend and teaching support. And for good reason: they take 6+ years and starting salaries are typically not of the order to cover large loans, and these days are sadly not at all guaranteed. When Chicago and NYU introduced new MA programs in the humanities and social sciences (along the lines of already existing programs at Columbia and UVA) they did so to leverage the cost of (among other things) running their PhD programs. I think in the current academic job market these programs are arguably unethical. But that is emphatically not to say that they don't work well for some. My point again is simply this CAVEAT EMPTOR. The one guarantee MAPH or NYU or Columbia offers is a bunch of debt. Some go on to elite programs, many others do not. Paying for a graduate degree in the humanities is a huge risk.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Dark Matter

[asleepawake]

It is also expected that one pays (often quite a lot of) tuition for professional training, such as law or medical school. Those degrees are credentials for jobs that pay well enough to cover undergraduate or professional school loans. 

 

This is increasingly not true of law school. The market is over-saturated, just like the PhD market: Only slightly over half of law school grads are getting decent, long-term jobs in the field, and almost all are leaving with extensive debt.

Edited January 7, 2013 by asleepawake

[Swagato]

I definitely agree that paying for "a graduate degree" in the humanities is a big risk and not one that should be taken simply because there's an attractive brand name behind it. But, again, I have to disagree (and this is more than likely due to my experience at MAPH). Does it provide cash for the university? Well, yes. But I'm not sure I agree that it was designed as a cash cow.

 

When I was at MAPH, I encountered a level of support from its administrative staff, and the University's faculty and career services staff that made it very clear that this is something everyone takes seriously and in good intent. I don't recall ever hearing people sugarcoat the reality of the academic market. If anything, MAPH emphasises the urgency of preparing for non-academic options (whether as a safety plan or as a wholly alternative career track). It offered opportunities to network with recruiters from dream firms across industries. The MAPH internships are a fantastic way forward after your 'useless' humanities MA degree. Plus there are the MAPH mentorships which you can be hired into after completion.

 

But, honestly, listing the possibilities is not my intent. I can't speak for other programs elsewhere, but while I certainly won't deny the financial benefit to the University from MAPH, I'll stand by my position that it was not designed solely to exploit witless students into paying for a "Chicago degree." I'd really urge everyone to read http://tableau.uchicago.edu/articles/2012/10/bringing-humanities-world Don't dismiss it just because it is written by a former MAPH program mentor. Instead, evaluate what he writes on its own terms. Then decide whether Chicago's initiative is really so unethical or not. I'll conclude by saying that one should be extremely careful when deciding whether to pursue such options at not, regardless of Chicago or Columbia. I was able, with a fair bit of trouble, to finance myself. I chose to do it because without it, I really had negligible chances of breaking into a top-tier PhD program, and that meant my academic ambitions would basically need to be ditched. I'm glad I did it, whether or not I find success in academia. At the same time, it should be underscored that people should not risk such things unless they really know what they're doing and understand how to make the best of such programs and the leverage they (can) offer. 

[capn2013]

Feraleyes, 

 

I am an MA student (in Eng) at CGU and I can tell you everything you need to know (and then some) about the English program here, including the faculty, tuition information, etc.

 

You're welcome to contact me individually and I can answer whatever questions you may have. And if you are thinking of applying, let me know your field of study so I can relay to you the professors with whom you can work. 

[Riotbeard]

I had an undergrad English prof who got her PhD at Claremont.  She has had a very good career.  Other than that i cannot say much.