Applying to PhD from MA vs. Applying from BA

[philosophe]

Hi All,

 

I see on this thread there are many students applying to PhD programs straight from undergrad, and also many applying after having received an MA. 

 

I was wondering if anyone has heard anything on how the admissions committees usually deal with this discrepancy. 

 

For example, do some departments prefer students without an MA in order to "start fresh" or prefer students with MAs because they already have the grad experience? 

 

In my experience, MA students are likely to have perfect GPAs from their program, because the program has a stake in PhD placement, and therefore there is certainly grade inflation. If you have an MA, was it like that in your program?

 

Basically I'm wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are for students applying straight from their BA, vs. applying having received an MA.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments. 

[DHumeDominates]

Hi All,

 

I see on this thread there are many students applying to PhD programs straight from undergrad, and also many applying after having received an MA. 

 

I was wondering if anyone has heard anything on how the admissions committees usually deal with this discrepancy. 

 

For example, do some departments prefer students without an MA in order to "start fresh" or prefer students with MAs because they already have the grad experience? 

 

In my experience, MA students are likely to have perfect GPAs from their program, because the program has a stake in PhD placement, and therefore there is certainly grade inflation. If you have an MA, was it like that in your program?

 

Basically I'm wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are for students applying straight from their BA, vs. applying having received an MA.

 

Thanks in advance for your comments. 

 

Huh. This is interesting. I never thought about that. You did use the qualification "in my experience," however.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

"MA students are likely to have perfect GPAs from their program, because the program has a stake in PhD placement, and therefore there is certainly grade inflation."

I've known good MA students who have gotten B's before from other MA programs. My experience is that most students have perfect GPA's not because of grad inflation but because of hard work. Most undergraduates have perfect GPA's within their philosophy major in any case, so it's not like there's a GPA difference between BA and MA applicants.

"Basically I'm wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are for students applying straight from their BA, vs. applying having received an MA."

I can't answer how departments see an MA applicant vs a BA applicant. What I can answer, is that an established MA program gives many students strong chances at attending a top-20 program. MA students will naturally have an advantage over their BA counterparts just because of the nature of an MA program. The the best way to express it, is that whereas undergraduates study philosophy, graduate students practice it. A graduate student more closely mirrors the activities of a professor than an undergraduate. Yes, you still formally take courses every semester (which is another advantage MA applicants have: two years of pure graduate level philosophy study, without the distractions of unrelated course requirements that undergraduates must meet), but the expectation is that you'll be doing your own research off on the side on a daily basis whereas with an undergraduate, those that go above and beyond the call may spend some time reading philosophy outside of the classroom but generally won't produce anything.

Naturally, an MA student's writing sample should reflect a greater maturity than an undergraduate's.

[philosophe]

Huh. This is interesting. I never thought about that. You did use the qualification "in my experience," however.

 

I'll explain my experience -- I went to a university where there is a relatively new MA program blooming along a decades-old undergraduate one. As an undergrad I was allowed into the Graduate Seminar on Epistemology, because it was being taught by my advisor. He informed the course that "as long as everyone did what they needed to do" they would receive at least an A-, because "this is a graduate course." I got this feeling that this is a predominate trend, though I obviously can't confirm. 

 

The placement record is as important to a terminal MA program as the job placement record is to PhD programs. Obviously students want to attend programs that will make them most successful, particularly because the terminal MA programs do not provide funding, and they are often putting money into the degree. It's clearly in the program's best interest to grade those students as highly as possible, and, it seems to me, there's a perpetuating cycle in this respect.  Grade inflation = more successful PhD applications = more students desiring to attend that terminal MA program.

 

On the contrary, undergraduate courses do not have that investment in the student's success. Likewise, the master's students were given assistance with their writing samples in a way that undergraduate students did not receive.

 

I have no idea if this is representative, so I was wondering if anyone could speak to whether or not that has been their experience. 

 

And, basically, I'm curious how these factors play out in adcoms. 

[philosophe]

"MA students are likely to have perfect GPAs from their program, because the program has a stake in PhD placement, and therefore there is certainly grade inflation."

I've known good MA students who have gotten B's before from other MA programs. My experience is that most students have perfect GPA's not because of grad inflation but because of hard work. Most undergraduates have perfect GPA's within their philosophy major in any case, so it's not like there's a GPA difference between BA and MA applicants.

"Basically I'm wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are for students applying straight from their BA, vs. applying having received an MA."

I can't answer how departments see an MA applicant vs a BA applicant. What I can answer, is that an established MA program gives many students strong chances at attending a top-20 program. MA students will naturally have an advantage over their BA counterparts just because of the nature of an MA program. The the best way to express it, is that whereas undergraduates study philosophy, graduate students practice it. A graduate student more closely mirrors the activities of a professor than an undergraduate. Yes, you still formally take courses every semester (which is another advantage MA applicants have: two years of pure graduate level philosophy study, without the distractions of unrelated course requirements that undergraduates must meet), but the expectation is that you'll be doing your own research off on the side on a daily basis whereas with an undergraduate, those that go above and beyond the call may spend some time reading philosophy outside of the classroom but generally won't produce anything.

Naturally, an MA student's writing sample should reflect a greater maturity than an undergraduate's.

 

Interesting, thanks SelfHatingPhilosopher!

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Well, I forgot to mention something else. The general concern is that because MA students have such an advantage, it is more and more becoming the case that admitted students to be competitive must have an MA degree. An adcom from Georgetown University writes about this: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/03/masters-degrees-postdocs-and-the-hyperprofessionalization-of-philosophy-kukla.html

I should also mention that:

"particularly because the terminal MA programs do not provide funding"

is not at all universally true, and generally speaking any program worth its weight will fund your study, with the exception of Tufts and Brandeis whose funding is a tad more limiting though still present to some extent.

Edited January 19, 2014 by SelfHatingPhilosopher

[philosophe]

Well, I forgot to mention something else. The general concern is that because MA students have such an advantage, it is more and more becoming the case that admitted students to be competitive must have an MA degree. An adcom from Georgetown University writes about this: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/03/masters-degrees-postdocs-and-the-hyperprofessionalization-of-philosophy-kukla.html

 

Right, I agree. I think this trend is a real shame because it's requiring students wishing to pursue philosophy to 1) have the money to pay for an MA, unless they get lucky and find one funded and 2) require students to apply twice, which seems cruel (and expensive, yet again). Meanwhile, the credits might not transfer, not to mention the extra years, all for the uncertain job market. What a fate!

 

Anyway, I recently met my dept. chair for coffee, and he mentioned that he personally did not think it would be a problem, since in his experience students who end up in MA programs did not usually major in philosophy, or had gone to a lesser known school, and therefore they were not strong candidates for PhD programs in the first place. The idea was less that these students were gaining years more of experience and more that they were "catching up." Do you think these points have any merit? 

 

Again, these are opinions individuals and I do not mean to generalize about anyone in an MA program. Please let me know if you have had a different experience.

[philosophe]

Well, I forgot to mention something else. The general concern is that because MA students have such an advantage, it is more and more becoming the case that admitted students to be competitive must have an MA degree. An adcom from Georgetown University writes about this: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/03/masters-degrees-postdocs-and-the-hyperprofessionalization-of-philosophy-kukla.html

I should also mention that:

"particularly because the terminal MA programs do not provide funding"

is not at all universally true, and generally speaking any program worth its weight will fund your study, with the exception of Tufts and Brandeis whose funding is a tad more limiting though still present to some extent.

 

Right, I used to sit as the undergrad rep in dept meetings at Brandeis, and I saw how limited the funding could be. They fully funded a few people, and gave TA fellowships, but I was surprised at the expense so many people were paying when historically this has been something completely funded en route to the phd. 

 

I understand some MA programs have a larger budget, but of my friends currently in MA programs, only one of them has been fully funded for a terminal MA (at Ohio University). 

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

"since in his experience students who end up in MA programs did not usually major in philosophy, or had gone to a lesser known school, and therefore they were not strong candidates for PhD programs in the first place."

This is true for some students, but my experience with two different MA programs have been different. Students came in with a philosophy degree (and often times more), but for whatever reason did not have as much success as they wanted at the PhD level. Therefore, they decided to go to an MA instead. Partly because they didn't want to do nothing for a year and apply again to the PhD level. But I think if we take Kukla's point, this is something that is becoming more and more necessary. Some students did come from smaller programs, like liberal arts colleges, but there has also been an equal amount coming for high Gourmet-ranked programs. I personally haven't found MA departments to be remedial programs for disadvantaged students. I think this may have been the case in the past, but not so anymore.

"I think this trend is a real shame because it's requiring students wishing to pursue philosophy to 1) have the money to pay for an MA, unless they get lucky and find one funded and 2) require students to apply twice, which seems cruel (and expensive, yet again). Meanwhile, the credits might not transfer, not to mention the extra years, all for the uncertain job market. What a fate!"

I've never found this convincing.

First, it's not fair to say: MA programs are problematic because you either have to pay your way through or get lucky at a funded program" unless you also continue on and say: "PhD programs are problematic because you either have to pay your way through or get lucky at a funded program."

Second, a lot of people get shut out anyways from PhD programs and have to apply twice, sometimes even thrice. This is something all applicants have to realize may happen to them, regardless of MA programs.

Third: "all for the uncertain job market. What a fate!" What a fate? This is the fate of those interested in being philosophers, and has nothing to do with MA programs. And: ""Meanwhile, the credits might not transfer, not to mention the extra years," doesn't sound like a disadvantage after all. I took graduate courses at my undergraduate, but they didn't transfer. I wouldn't imagine my MA courses would transfer either. Nor would I want them to. I'm getting paid 2/6 years to study philosophy, why would I not take full advantage of that by trying to graduate early?

[philosophe]

"since in his experience students who end up in MA programs did not usually major in philosophy, or had gone to a lesser known school, and therefore they were not strong candidates for PhD programs in the first place."

This is true for some students, but my experience with two different MA programs have been different. Students came in with a philosophy degree (and often times more), but for whatever reason did not have as much success as they wanted at the PhD level. Therefore, they decided to go to an MA instead. Partly because they didn't want to do nothing for a year and apply again to the PhD level. But I think if we take Kukla's point, this is something that is becoming more and more necessary. Some students did come from smaller programs, like liberal arts colleges, but there has also been an equal amount coming for high Gourmet-ranked programs. I personally haven't found MA departments to be remedial programs for disadvantaged students. I think this may have been the case in the past, but not so anymore.

"I think this trend is a real shame because it's requiring students wishing to pursue philosophy to 1) have the money to pay for an MA, unless they get lucky and find one funded and 2) require students to apply twice, which seems cruel (and expensive, yet again). Meanwhile, the credits might not transfer, not to mention the extra years, all for the uncertain job market. What a fate!"

I've never found this convincing.

First, it's not fair to say: MA programs are problematic because you either have to pay your way through or get lucky at a funded program" unless you also continue on and say: "PhD programs are problematic because you either have to pay your way through or get lucky at a funded program."

Second, a lot of people get shut out anyways from PhD programs and have to apply twice, sometimes even thrice. This is something all applicants have to realize may happen to them, regardless of MA programs.

Third: "all for the uncertain job market. What a fate!" What a fate? This is the fate of those interested in being philosophers, and has nothing to do with MA programs. And: ""Meanwhile, the credits might not transfer, not to mention the extra years," doesn't sound like a disadvantage after all. I took graduate courses at my undergraduate, but they didn't transfer. I wouldn't imagine my MA courses would transfer either. Nor would I want them to. I'm getting paid 2/6 years to study philosophy, why would I not take full advantage of that by trying to graduate early?

 

 

Ok, cool. This is a learning experience for me. I'm using this thread to flush out what may or may not be true about my understanding, thanks for helping me on this. 

 

To your first point, I always had the understanding that most PhD programs will fund you, and that if they won't fund you, it's not worth it. I've also been given the impression that many terminal MA programs will either not fund you, fund you partially, or that you would have to be very top tier to get fully funded. Is that inaccurate in your experience?

 

To your second point, I totally agree.

 

To your third point, my "what a fate" comment was supposed to be a good natured allusion to the fate we are all approaching, assuming we are successful in obtaining the required graduate training first. It's a tough road. Regarding the second part of your comments... I understand why the extra years would, assuming you're funded, seem like another great couple of years. I guess to me, my thought is that another couple of years on a grad school stipend when I (as a woman) am going to want to do things like have children, seems like a long time to wait before even attempting the job market. Anyway, i see where you're coming from. 

Edited January 19, 2014 by philosophe

[Philhopeful]

 

To your first point, I always had the understanding that most PhD programs will fund you, and that if they won't fund you, it's not worth it. I've also been given the impression that many terminal MA programs will either not fund you, fund you partially, or that you would have to be very top tier to get fully funded. Is that inaccurate in your experience?

 

This is the way that I understand the process too. Its also my understanding that most master's programs that can provide funding will often only fund the top students that they accept. Just speaking generally, if money is already an issue for you, then you're more likely to come from a school which won't prepare you to be competitive for that funding either. So there is also an element of inaccessibility here apart from the more obvious element of ripping students off.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

"Its also my understanding that most master's programs that can provide funding will often only fund the top students that they accept."

This is just semantic squabbling. You only attend programs that fund you. MA and PhD programs will offer funding to 4-8 students a year. That's it. The fact that this or that MA/PhD program will admit SOME students without funding is not any sort of example of "ripping off students" or "exploitation".

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

And just to look at some funding, most of which you can find in the comments section from that link:

- 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.

- Virginia Tech is adequate

- Queen's University offers $18,000 for one year (it's a 1 year program)

- Western Ontario ~$20,000 over two years

~ British Columbia ~$30,000 over two years

[Philhopeful]

Yes, I saw where anon1956 claims its a "semantic difference." But its not--as is pointed out a few more comments down. Some people will go to programs even unfunded. Not everyone has that option. Hence the accessibility problem. My pointing out of merit based aid was only supposed to establish that, not the "rip off" point.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

"Some people will go to programs even unfunded. Not everyone has that option. "

That's their own decision. Why do you treat MA's program differently from PhD's? Not everyone can get a funded offer from NYU, so why aren't you screaming accessibility?

[DHumeDominates]

philosophe, I can't believe you applied to 25 schools! I applied to 15, which I think is a lot. I'm sure you'll get in somewhere. That's sort of beside the point, but whatever. I was considering applying to Brandeis but ultimately decided against it.

Edited January 19, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[Philhopeful]

"Some people will go to programs even unfunded. Not everyone has that option. "

That's their own decision. Why do you treat MA's program differently from PhD's? Not everyone can get a funded offer from NYU, so why aren't you screaming accessibility?

 

I don't treat MA programs differently than Phd's--not that that is even relevant for the point that I'm making. But if MAs are increasingly becoming a prerequisite for people to be competitive for Phd programs, then you compound the inaccessibility issue of getting into the field generally. 

[MattDest]

I don't treat MA programs differently than Phd's--not that that is even relevant for the point that I'm making. But if MAs are increasingly becoming a prerequisite for people to be competitive for Phd programs, then you compound the inaccessibility issue of getting into the field generally. 

 

I couldn't disagree more. People that go to terminal MA programs generally come from smaller schools that don't generally place into PhD programs right off the bat. Instead of compounding the inaccessibility problem, I would argue that MA programs actually work to ameliorate it. 

 

We've and I think a lot of these confusions are adequately addressed there. 

[philosophe]

philosophe, I can't believe you applied to 25 schools! I applied to 15, which I think is a lot. I'm sure you'll get in somewhere. That's sort of beside the point, but whatever. I was considering applying to Brandeis but ultimately decided against it.

 

The one major piece of advice I received from my advisor was to "apply widely" and that "you never know." I took that to heart and basically consider this to be a down payment on my education. I really do not want to apply again, considering I took a few years off and already have a lot of time and space between my letter writers and I.

 

I'm either going to be accepted somewhere come this Feb/March, or accept that maybe I'm not cut out to be a philosopher, and find a new career path. 

 

Also, unrelated, but I would recommend applying to UK schools because for many there are no app fees. 

[Hopephily]

I noticed on U Chicago's website, where they discuss the admissions process in detail, that they expect more out of the writing samples from applicants with M.A.'s than they do those applying straight from undergraduate. I wonder how common this practice is. 

[philosophe]

I noticed on U Chicago's website, where they discuss the admissions process in detail, that they expect more out of the writing samples from applicants with M.A.'s than they do those applying straight from undergraduate. I wonder how common this practice is. 

 

Very interesting. I'm also wondering if a grad gpa is expected to be higher. 

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Very interesting. I'm also wondering if a grad gpa is expected to be higher.

The expectation is that you make all A's. Which again, is more or less the expectation of undergrads, except undergrads are maybe given leeway for a course or two, say early on in their career or if it was a particularly difficult course.

[MattDest]

The expectation is that you make all A's. Which again, is more or less the expectation of undergrads, except undergrads are maybe given leeway for a course or two, say early on in their career or if it was a particularly difficult course.

 

SelfHating, are you me? Most of your responses in these threads have been so similar to what I would say that I've just kept quiet.

[objectivityofcontradiction]

FWIW, I have noticed that a lot of admissions committees seem to hold a BA 4.0 in much MUCH higher regard than an MA 4.0. I don't know what this says about the varied perceptions of meaning surrounding the difficulty of attaining a 4.0 as an undergrad vs. as a masters student. What I do know (from 2 years on this forum and 2 years devoted to researching and applying first to MA programs and now phd programs) is that students with 4.0 MA GPAs get rejected all the time, whereas undergrads with 4.0s from schools in the know seem to have pretty good luck. 

Edited January 21, 2014 by objectivityofcontradiction