Future role of the MA

[philstudent1991]

Anyone want to discuss?

 

Those that have the MA generally have a leg up applying to PhDs. They have shown a commitment to the field, shown they know what they are getting themselves into, and have more training and likely more writing ability than the general applicant from undergrad. My understanding is that something like 30% of offers from the top 30 or so go to students that already have the MA, and this may be substantially more than it seems, considering how few candidates have MAs compared to how many do not.

 

So, is this the direction the field is headed? Eventually, will all serious applicants need to have the MA first?

 

This seems like a terrible direction for the field to be going in. It disenfranchises poor applicants even more than they are already, and adds a year or two to the degree, since very few PhDs accept transfer credits (as I understand it). It seems like this would just alienate a lot of people and make the process of getting a degree yet even more difficult.

 

However, perhaps this would discourage applicants that aren't as serious as they should be...I don't know. For me, as someone that is as serious as anyone about philosophy, this would discourage even me. After studying philosophy in high school and then four years in college (I now have a college degree in the subject for God's sake), it seems ludicrous that I wouldn't be qualified to study at a PhD program and would instead need to go to an MA to "get my feet wet". That seems demeaning and absurd...just me though.

 

Thoughts?

[bar_scene_gambler]

I think it's a double-edged blade. On the one hand, it's a symptom of the professionalization of the humanities, something which I am absolutely against. And yet, given what I've seen of the typical education in philosophy, I can't say that I'm surprised. 

You're right that it disenfranchises poor applicants. Actually, it's much worse than that. It makes philosophy a rich-man's field again, as only some select MA programs have the money to fund their students' education. As such, those programs become the "place to be" if you're a good student of philosophy, and you see the field narrowing to only the best of the best. This may seem like a great thing, but it isn't. Consider the MA programs that don't fund. Only people with the means are going to be able to attend MA programs which don't fund, meaning that admissions will inevitably be decided by who has the money. Those without means will simply not attend, and, although there will inevitably be "good philosophers" with means, many will simply be buying their way into philosophy. This means a leveling of both the quality and perspective of applicants.

It also means "training" for would-be philosophers. I am absolutely opposed to the concept of "here is model x, and this is what philosophers should try to work towards". I think that MA programs will inevitably become training programs, programs which teach you the importance of "professional" work in philosophy. This means education in the importance of journals and conferences, pedagogy, etc. These things are all valuable in their own way, but be trained to be a model of a philosopher also levels creativity. In a sense, being trained to do philosophy, as opposed to being educated (and there is a difference), is the death of philosophical ingenuity.

On the other hand, as I have attended conferences and spoken with other undergraduates, I have come to notice that education at the BA level is generally quite poor, especially at the state schools I have been to. I'm not going to make too many generalizations save this, if the quality of philosophical education does not improve at the undergraduate level, then MA programs will be necessary just to make PhD applications worth looking at. I am not going to pretend what the real cause of the problem is, but there are some general trends that I find rather disturbing, such as focus on secondary texts to the point of not reading the primary text at all, too many survey courses and not enough intensive study of singular texts, and educators either not spending enough time with, or not spending any time at all with, their majors. I have had the privilege of studying at an institution where all of these are not issues, and I have benefited from it, but I've noticed that many other undergraduates have not had the same opportunities. 

So I think, on the whole, the popularization of MA programs is harmful to the field, but it may also be unavoidable given the poor quality of many philosophy programs. 

[dfindley]

Iran tell you that the quality of education for undergrad at university of Memphis was awful poor. the only decent courses I took were from my ancient Greek professor. (2).

I seriously want a refund for half my courses. even my existenilism class spent a third of the semester reading kafka. Pfft. we took little quizzes to see if we read the last few pages. pffffffffft.

my modern wasn't any better than if I had read wikipedia.

maybe masters are important. if I didn't do a few private reading and research, I would have graduated even more retarded in philosophy. . I might not have even known better.

....but isn't the writing sample more important than an ma? I remember nyu implied an ma is only important if you can write a better paper for it.

[MattDest]

Full disclosure: I am in my last semester at a terminal MA, so what I say here is likely to be colored by that fact. 

 

I'm wary of the claim that the popularization of an MA disenfranchises poor students (especially given many other MA students that I have met) Many of the people that are served by MA institutions are (1) people who came to philosophy rather late, or from another discipline and (2) people who went to relatively unknown or smaller schools. Many of the people in group (2) come from disenfranchised backgrounds (which is why they didn't end up at a notable program to begin with), and the MA serves as a sort of equalizer. 

 

I don't think that MA programs are burdensome in some way that undergraduate tuition isn't. Most MA programs will give people tuition remission, insurance, and a small stipend (many offers are around $10k a year). Unless you were offered an incredibly generous undergraduate stipend - you probably didn't make money taking undergraduate classes. So, why are MA programs being singled out as disenfranchising the poor when it seems that the undergraduate level is - usually - much worse? 

 

There are a few things an MA does well that shouldn't be overlooked. The first is that it gives you a sense of what a PhD program might be like, but without the long-term commitment. It gives potential philosophers a chance to "test the waters" at graduate school, and decide if they really want to devote the next 5-7 years of their life to this sort of study. Second, it provides you with graduate-level preparation that might be lacking at smaller, unheard of philosophy departments. If you went to Small City Community College and then transferred to Small City State University - you might not have had a background sufficient for beginning graduate school. A terminal MA at a respectable institution can provide that. 

 

I find these claims that getting an MA before getting a PhD is "demeaning" and that MA programs are just "training programs" to be absolutely mistaken. There is nothing demeaning about getting an MA from a respectable program. It doesn't mean that you weren't "ready" to go to a PhD program right off the bat - just that the dice didn't roll your way. Also, while MA programs do spend non-class time helping people with the professional aspects of the profession (the importances of things like journals/conferences, pedagogy, etc. - which are really important, by the way), it has not been even remotely close to the focus of my program. I see no reason that this would become a trend if MA institutions were to become more popular. 

 

[jamc8383]

On the other hand, as I have attended conferences and spoken with other undergraduates, I have come to notice that education at the BA level is generally quite poor, especially at the state schools I have been to. I'm not going to make too many generalizations save this, if the quality of philosophical education does not improve at the undergraduate level, then MA programs will be necessary just to make PhD applications worth looking at. I am not going to pretend what the real cause of the problem is, but there are some general trends that I find rather disturbing, such as focus on secondary texts to the point of not reading the primary text at all, too many survey courses and not enough intensive study of singular texts, and educators either not spending enough time with, or not spending any time at all with, their majors. I have had the privilege of studying at an institution where all of these are not issues, and I have benefited from it, but I've noticed that many other undergraduates have not had the same opportunities. 

So I think, on the whole, the popularization of MA programs is harmful to the field, but it may also be unavoidable given the poor quality of many philosophy programs. 

 

Bingo.  For many, bachelor's programs function more-or-less as disciplinary "surveys," which in many cases (and, I won't speak to yours philstudent, as your experience may have been entirely dissimilar) do not prepare a student for study at the graduate level.  Before switching to the Humanities, I did an undergraduate business degree (at a very reputable university) and even two years out I would have been hard pressed to solve a financial equation or create a passable accounting ledger.  So it goes.  The level of instruction was so superficial.

 

And, again, I think the state of affairs of both the Humanities and the economy have a not-insignificant affect here.  Programs have less funding to go around.  In some ways, students coming in with an MA are safer bets.  They've proven they can do graduate-level work and they generally have a better sense of direction (in terms of their own research interests and preferred methodological approaches) so they won't be hanging around longer trying to "figure it out."  To be clear, I'm not putting a value judgment on this; it is what it is.

 

For my circumstances I HAD to do an MA; I just wouldn't have been a competitive Phd candidate otherwise.  This was not something I was in a position to pay out of pocket, especially considering that I had to take a drastic cut in work hours (and wages!), so I cobbled together funding through government loans (unsubsidized, god help me) and a number of scholarships, fellowships and travel grants that I picked up along the way.  It's possible to make it work financially, but I agree completely, it should be WAAAAYYY more accessible.

[dfindley]

one problem about raking out loans for an ma, and then if you're LUCKY going for your phd, and then if you're LUCKY to get a decent job, is being able .ro pay off your loans before you're... what... 35-40??? ....

[dfindley]

that's what my prof said.

frankly I don't give a damn. I'm muscular so as long as I can afford a car and an apartment I can always get laid .

thlose are the only things money is good for. sex and philosophy. am I right???

[bar_scene_gambler]

I don't think that MA programs are burdensome in some way that undergraduate tuition isn't. Most MA programs will give people tuition remission, insurance, and a small stipend (many offers are around $10k a year). Unless you were offered an incredibly generous undergraduate stipend - you probably didn't make money taking undergraduate classes. So, why are MA programs being singled out as disenfranchising the poor when it seems that the undergraduate level is - usually - much worse? 

You're neglecting the obvious fact that if you had to take out money for your undergraduate degree, you're already in the hole. And I'm sure that it isn't the case that most MA programs will give one assistance in the manner that you describe. U Wisconsin at Milwaukee, arguably one of the best MA programs out there, only offers it's students a little over 8000 for 9 months. And places like Tufts don't even do that. It's a rarity to find an MA program that funds as well as somewhere like Georgia State. And to be honest, it's not that these programs disenfranchise the poor, because the poor usually get need-based aid. It's the middle that gets squeezed (those who have too much money to qualify for aid and too little to fully fund their education).

 

 

If you went to Small City Community College and then transferred to Small City State University - you might not have had a background sufficient for beginning graduate school. A terminal MA at a respectable institution can provide that.

This is the point I made. We don't need MA's to solve the problem, we need better educators at the BA level. It doesn't say anything good that we need MA programs to do the work BA programs should be doing. It's just like Nietzsche Journals. You can tell Nietzsche scholarship is in a really sad state because of the rise of Nietzsche Journals. It says that Nietzsche scholarship isn't seen as good enough for regular journals. Likewise, the fact that we feel that we need MA programs speaks to a decrepit state of philosophical education at the undergraduate level, which isn't something that we ought to support. Instead of bolstering MA programs, why not focus on making PhD's in Philosophy better educators? Why not focus less on survey and more on focused study? These are purely rhetorical questions and I have no answers, which is obviously of no help to anyone. But my point is that the growth of MA programs are a symptom of a disease, not a sign of strength. Which isn't to say that those who attended MA programs did the wrong thing. Rather, the concept itself is flawed. 

[jamc8383]

one problem about raking out loans for an ma, and then if you're LUCKY going for your phd, and then if you're LUCKY to get a decent job, is being able .ro pay off your loans before you're... what... 35-40??? ....

 

People don't "luck" into phD programs.

[dfindley]

:OP you're skewing the context and misinterpreting the point. do I need to add a few words to make it comprehensible to you lol

[dfindley]

...or am I being rough? you make a good point.

[MattDest]

You're neglecting the obvious fact that if you had to take out money for your undergraduate degree, you're already in the hole. And I'm sure that it isn't the case that most MA programs will give one assistance in the manner that you describe. U Wisconsin at Milwaukee, arguably one of the best MA programs out there, only offers it's students a little over 8000 for 9 months. And places like Tufts don't even do that. It's a rarity to find an MA program that funds as well as somewhere like Georgia State. And to be honest, it's not that these programs disenfranchise the poor, because the poor usually get need-based aid. It's the middle that gets squeezed (those who have too much money to qualify for aid and too little to fully fund their education).

 

Sure, but you have the option of not attending an MA program if you don't get funding (just as you do with PhD programs). Here was a comment from the recent Leiter post about a similar topic: 

 

- GSU funds $15,000 over two years. 

- NIU $22,600 over two years. 

- Western Michigan $23,160 over two years

- Milwaukee at Wisconsin $15,404 over two years. 

- Texas A&M $21,000 over two years. 

- Texas Tech $24,000 over two years. 

- University of Houston $22,400 over two years. 

- University of Wyoming $22,700 over two years.

- I don't know the raw stipend for Virginia Tech, but I have been told it is more than enough to live on in Blacksburg, VA. 

- And of course, given that MA's are very common for Canadian students, there are a host of programs up there that accept and fund international students.

 

These wages aren't great, but you aren't going into debt to get an MA. It doesn't disenfranchise the middle class anymore than it does the poor (although your original claim & philstudent's was that it disenfranchises the poor!). If you get funding, great. If you don't, you have the option of not attending, just as PhD programs offer. This is nothing unique to an MA - there are plenty of PhD programs that offer admission without funding.

 

 

 

 We don't need MA's to solve the problem, we need better educators at the BA level. It doesn't say anything good that we need MA programs to do the work BA programs should be doing...But my point is that the growth of MA programs are a symptom of a disease, not a sign of strength. Which isn't to say that those who attended MA programs did the wrong thing. Rather, the concept itself is flawed. 

 

Now the growth of people pursuing MA programs is a symptom of a disease (namely, poor undergraduate education)? Sorry, but that's just silly. It's a graduate education in philosophy, not a supplemental undergraduate education. I was making the point that it *can* function as a way for students from very small, unknown schools to compete with the larger, well-known programs. This isn't a disease, some undergraduate programs don't have the resources/talent to match large scale universities in preparing their philosophy students. It's not realistic to expect Small City State University to compete with Leiterriffic programs when it comes to preparing their undergraduates. When SCSU students want to apply to PhD programs and get shut out their first time, doing a terminal MA that's funded is a way for them to equalize the playing field. 

 

Besides that, there are a ton of reasons why one might go to an MA program. People might have had excellent undergraduate instruction, and choose to do the MA because they don't get lucky in the application process. They might not know if they want to get a PhD and would rather "get their feet wet" at an MA institution (many of my friends here were dead-set on getting their PhD at the beginning and are now applying to law school). They might have come from another discipline and would rather not go through another entire undergraduate degree. They might want to teach at a local community college (though even that's very tough with an MA nowadays).

 

As an aside, the claim that more Nietzsche journals is a bad sign for Nietzsche scholarship is a bad inference. There are now more philosophy of law journals than there were fifty years ago. Should we also conclude that philosophy of law scholarship is on a downturn? In other words, Nietzsche work being seen as "not good enough" for other journals is definitely not the only explanation for the existence of more Nietzsche journals, nor is it even the most plausible one. 

Edited December 24, 2013 by MattDest

[bar_scene_gambler]

 

 

Besides that, there are a ton of reasons why one might go to an MA program. People might have had excellent undergraduate instruction, and choose to do the MA because they don't get lucky in the application process.

There is no "getting lucky" in the application process. They don't pick your name out of a hat or roll some dice. Sure, mistakes are probably made, but if one has had an excellent education and been well-prepared, then one will more than likely get in somewhere. 

 

 

 

They might not know if they want to get a PhD and would rather "get their feet wet" at an MA institution (many of my friends here were dead-set on getting their PhD at the beginning and are now applying to law school). They might have come from another discipline and would rather not go through another entire undergraduate degree. They might want to teach at a local community college (though even that's very tough with an MA nowadays).

These are all excellent points. Not everyone knows what they want to do with their education, and I concede on that point. But it's not enough to convince me that the growth of MA programs is a good thing. 

 

 

 

As an aside, the claim that more Nietzsche journals is a bad sign for Nietzsche scholarship is a bad inference. There are now more philosophy of law journals than there were fifty years ago. Should we also conclude that philosophy of law scholarship is on a downturn? In other words, Nietzsche work being seen as "not good enough" for other journals is definitely not the only explanation for the existence of more Nietzsche journals, nor is it even the most plausible one. 

Actually, I believe it is the most plausible one. Leiter may be a pompous ass, but he makes a great point about the state of Nietzsche studies here. And that was over 8 years ago. From what I can tell, things haven't gotten much better. 

And you're still ignoring the fact that the list you provided is minuscule in terms of all the MAs available and that, should you not receive an MA, you're more than likely adding to the mountain of debt you've already accumulated in receiving your BA (unless you got lucky). My point was either you buy your way in at a non-funded MA or you're the best of the best and get the funded MA, which seems like a return to philosophy being the course of study of the wealthy or the brilliant. 

Edited December 24, 2013 by bar_scene_gambler

[MattDest]

There is no "getting lucky" in the application process. They don't pick your name out of a hat or roll some dice. Sure, mistakes are probably made, but if one has had an excellent education and been well-prepared, then one will more than likely get in somewhere. 

 

 

I couldn't disagree more, and many of the professors I've talked to see it quite differently. Of course they don't "roll a dice" (not exactly the most charitable reading of 'luck' there!), but there simply aren't enough slots in PhD programs for every person who is qualified. If you think that getting shut out means that you either haven't had an excellent education or you weren't well-prepared, you should talk to some brilliant PhD students who got shut out their first time around. 

 

 

 

My point was either you buy your way in at a non-funded MA or you're the best of the best and get the funded MA, which seems like a return to philosophy being the course of study of the wealthy or the brilliant. 

 

This is an exact description of PhD admissions also. So, why should this be a strike against MA programs?

 

P.S. FWIW, I've met Leiter and I would not describe him as a "pompous ass" at all. 

[dfindley]

fuck leiter. for his lists and rankings and de facto authority with which he writes and opines.

it would be forgivable if he made SERIOUS contributions to the history of philosophy .. but he didn't. he is famous for being famous. so fuck him.

maybe forgivable if he headed an organization that came together to make these lists and he did.nt call it a 'leiter report' . but he calls it the leiter report. I hold him in quite a bit of contempt for being a voice of authority for no other reason than his being a voice of authority .

and I really wish people wouldn't perpetuate his lists or rankings or opinions as standards.

[bar_scene_gambler]

P.S. FWIW, I've met Leiter and I would not describe him as a "pompous ass" at all. 

No no, of course not. I should have been more clear. His blog gives the impression that he is a pompous ass (I think we can all agree there). I've spoken with grad students at U Chicago and they all assure me he is, in person, quite a lovely human being, and I don't doubt that. I appreciate you pointing that out though.

I apologize for not being charitable enough. Of course there are brilliant people who get shut out, and I'm sure one could call that bad luck. My reservations come mainly from the growth of MA programs. They have their merits, I know, but I don't think that there need to be more or that it should be standard to do an MA before pursuing one's PhD. I don't quite like that philosophy seems to be growing in that direction.

[philophilosopher]

maybe forgivable if he headed an organization that came together to make these lists and he did.nt call it a 'leiter report' . but he calls it the leiter report. I hold him in quite a bit of contempt for being a voice of authority for no other reason than his being a voice of authority .

 

Just to be clear, Brian Leiter's blog is titled "Leiter Reports." His ranking of the graduate programs is titled "The Philosophical Gourmet Report." Also, he didn't just "opine" about which schools he thought was best and formulate a report on that; he conducted a survey from various academics in various departments. The methodology of the report can be found here: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/reportdesc.asp

 

The main reason that most people take issue with the PGR is because of the faculty chosen. It seems that the strongest criticism lies in examining who he chose and whether that choice was a fair and accurate sample size of academic philosophy.

[dfindley]

eh whatever I don't like to pay attention to his 'work in philosophy'.

[philstudent1991]

Just to clarify, especially for those like Matt that are in MAs, I don't mean to say that to go to an MA is settling or that to be at an MA is an insult to one's ability. And of course, being in a top MA is the best way to get placed well. I'm just saying that as it is, philosophy promises minimal pay, horrendous job opportunities and very little recognition outside the profession. Does adding two more years and another move, likely across the country, to the typical career path of a philosopher really sound like a positive thing for the profession. Certainly those that go to MAs benefit, but this should not become a practical requirement.

[jamc8383]

I couldn't disagree more, and many of the professors I've talked to see it quite differently. Of course they don't "roll a dice" (not exactly the most charitable reading of 'luck' there!), but there simply aren't enough slots in PhD programs for every person who is qualified. If you think that getting shut out means that you either haven't had an excellent education or you weren't well-prepared, you should talk to some brilliant PhD students who got shut out their first time around. 

 

I'll let you know where I stand on this in March. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

I want to second the Luck factor. Last year my friend applied to several schools, from a top PGR school down to Missouri as his lowest. He was Accepted into his second choice (like 10ish on the PGR) and Mizzou. He was denied at mid-ranged programs and low ranked programs as well, even like Rochester and so forth.

How'd he get into the top program but not the others? Well, I feel like it was just luck...

[greencoloredpencil]

I want to second the Luck factor. Last year my friend applied to several schools, from a top PGR school down to Missouri as his lowest. He was Accepted into his second choice (like 10ish on the PGR) and Mizzou. He was denied at mid-ranged programs and low ranked programs as well, even like Rochester and so forth.

How'd he get into the top program but not the others? Well, I feel like it was just luck...

I'd like to third this. I've been told by many professors and grad students that it really comes down to luck even when your application is very competitive. There are way more qualified applicants than spots for them, admissions committees vary and some will care more about certain factors than others (eg some might take the GRE very seriously, others might not), and of course it depends upon the other applicants to that program that year.

Maybe you might not want to call these extra factors that are out of your control luck, but it's certainly not the case that you can count on getting in for having a strong application. 

[dfindley]

the chair at MIT advertises an interest in 'Metaphysics of Color'. I applied there and they ignored me and I was offended so I sent him an email detailing my interest in 'metaphysics of sweet and sour'.

 

why is it as good on chicken as it is on a gumdrop? Why is it better than salty? What is the spiritual/existential significance of sweet and sour?  ..etc.

 

..maybe I kind of wasted my application money. .......... or maybe there is some kind of correlation between sweet and sour and orange and yellow, and the MIT chair might be interested in pursuing that further................... maybe red, too...  or is red..... spicy.... I mean metaphysically?

[dfindley]

metaphysics........... of furniture......

[dfindley]

oooooooh!!! I better let him know...!!

 

metaphysics of furniture....   why is a sofa a sofa... and not a chair? a table can be used as a chair, but and a chair as a table.... how do we not just constantly confuse the two...

 

is it just me or is there a spiritual significance in beds...?