Alright, Give it to Me Straight.

[despejado]

Is the 310 cutoff all combined scores, or just quant and verbal? Because if it's just q&v, I'm sitting at a lovely 309...

Edited January 29, 2014 by paytonlauren

[Jocko]

Aha! That makes much more sense. Still, the first poster did have a 310, right? 168+142=310. What I hate is that the math is so much more difficult than it used to be. I took both tests. By the old scoring method I had a 780 V and a 660 Q. This time I had a 169V and a 153Q--so while my verbal was pretty much the same, evidently my math skills seriously slipped. To be fair, I didn't study for the last test at all. But still…I looked way more intelligent in 2006. Although it IS possible I am regressing. My patience level right now is equivalent to that of a 3 year old.

[viviandarkbloom]

Well I did far worse than that on the quant, but cleared the 310 mark because I did well on the verbal. But I get the impression that if places have a combined cut-off figure at all it's mainly for the purposes of competitive university-wide fellowships/justifying admits to central funding bodies, rather than something the dept itself would particularly care about when identifying their best candidates. The only place I specifically asked about whether my low quant score would be a hindrance told me that they wouldn't even look at it...

[gwarner13]

There are just so many scenarios in which an unfunded MA not only works but is even a good idea for so many people that they cease to be "exceptions to [some random] rule" and have to be accepted as legitimate possibilities for a wide cross-section of aspiring literature scholars. Hashslinger actually points out one such scenario (being "independently wealthy *and* unable to relocate"), which I take from its rhetorical flourish to be seen by Hashslinger as wildly improbable, but I'm not sure why. Not everybody is a broke young single person emerging directly from undergrad (or whatever demographics would supposedly constitute those two extreme determinants), and the narrowness of the statement brings along a whole set of assumptions that I know to not necessarily hold for many many many students. There are so many positions along both of these spectrums - finances and mobility - that even just that single scenario is in desperate need of nuance and reconsideration. But even apart from that, please consider, too, that an MA degree is only a small fraction of the time of a PhD, that many of the "unfunded" options provide any number of TA-ships, RA-ships, tutoring gigs, guest-editing options, work-study eligibility, travel grant accessibility, etc. Consider that some people might very easily make that small fraction even smaller by accelerating the time-to-degree within an already-short program. Consider the possibility that even vaguely-defined "members of a campus community" might somehow have access to a "tuition remission" or "credit benefit" or even just flat-out have jobs that cover the cost of a higher degree. Consider that these boards are pretty thoroughly dominated already by the notions of both "fit" and "placement record," either of which might *on its own* (not to mention in tandem) warrant strong consideration of attending a non-funded program *even if* the student has an admission from another program that *is* funded. Someone else suggested that an unfunded program might be a good idea for not-so-ideal applicants to earn their lit cred and get up to snuff on the competitive side of things - maybe rocking out that unfunded program is precisely how an applicant obtains a glowing rec from a huge name in the right specialty. Some people might not be independently wealthy enough to just fire tuition into a black hole, but that is, in my own experience, a caricatured image of reality anyway - I am far from independently wealthy, but my domestic situation nevertheless affords me a way to go to a really great program that fits me very well in terms of interest and is known for its MA-to-PhD placement reputation and I have been fortunate enough to creatively round up a number of these factors to help me from spiraling into a crippling debt...and that will remain true regardless of whether I ever "make it" in the fiercely competitive job market, and as I said earlier, that is also true of most of my cohort, at least from the information they give me. And we're not exactly creatures from outer space, either - we come from all walks of life, all over the globe (i.e., I'm surrounded by what I'm talking about, and I know it's not a local phenomenon). I'm also quite certain these scenarios are not exhaustive - it wouldn't take much imagination to expand them - and what's even crazier is that each of these scenarios is so far from improbable that I either identify with every single one or (in the case of accelerating time-to-degree, which is the single consideration here that does not fit my circumstance), I know plenty of others for whom it has made it worth it. From what I can tell, the broke person with unlimited mobility is actually a lot less likely than some conglomeration of the above factors: I've yet to meet this person.  

 

The likelihood of me continuing on to a solid PhD program and therefore continuing to succeed in this crazy journey is far higher for having chosen an unfunded MA, and I can say (again) that I am not alone in this. Very far from it. If I get into a good PhD program, I will have my unfunded MA to thank for it - this incredible experience that professionalized the crap out of me and left me standing, financially.

 

Look, nobody here actually knows MariElizabeth's situation, or anyone else's for that matter. There's not really a right or wrong, a should or should not. OP said, "give it to me straight."  Well, here's straight: As with all the hyper-cautionary rhetoric that zooms around these boards, I will say again that I appreciate the sentiment. I bet there's a lot of students for whom the advice is dead-on...we just don't know who they are. For everyone else, the sentiment is the take-away here. It says, "be thoughtful, please don't do any permanent damage to yourself." But I usually find that I'm inclined to temper the doomsday do's and don't's with a healthy dose of "trust that the applicant has a good grasp of the situation." Of course we're all sharp cookies, otherwise we wouldn't be trying to do what we're trying to do (which should probably be a categorical don't, following Hashslinger's logic). On top of that, if any of us were trying to do what we're trying to do out of a conventional sense pragmatism or prudence, we're all ridiculous anyway...so yes, maximize your odds in a tough arena. Do right by yourself. Do what you can to make it less of a "slaughter." Make thoughtful decisions about what's right for you. That may or may not include an unfunded MA. And don't kid yourself that a funded MA necessarily brings you any closer to your endgame. Unless, of course, it does, because you are, you know, you, and you happen to be all the way desperate, financially, yet somehow completely mobile, geographically.

(Full disclosure: I'd never borrow the kind of money private unfunded MA programs like Chicago, NYU, etc. require. Ever. Under any circumstances.)

 

That said, I would respectfully but vehemently disagree with this claim: "And don't kid yourself that a funded MA necessarily brings you any closer to your endgame." 

 

In this job market, earning a PhD with as little debt as possible should be everyone's end game.

Edited January 30, 2014 by gwarner13

[perrykm2]

any time you are getting money for being smart and/or teaching it looks good. 

Edited January 30, 2014 by perrykm2