I've been confused for a year. Time to ask.

[Phoebecaulfield]

Is getting into NYU's Master's program (when you applied and were rejected from their PhD--) an accomplishment?

 

I've heard that they accept many applicants to their master's because there is no funding. So for the past year or so I've been wandering around wondering whether it means I was actually a strong applicant or not. 

 

After a big round of PhD applications last year, I only received one acceptance-- to NYU's master's program. I did not go because of the no funding...

 

 

This year I applied to two master's programs that do offer competitive funding-- one much lower ranked than NYU, one about the same level as NYU. My first choice is the lower ranked school because of its location.

 

I didn't really change my application all that much. Just rehashed the SOP a little bit.

 

 

Based on this super vague description, would you guys think that an acceptance last year to a good program means that I have a fair chance, with the same application, of getting into a lower ranked program, with funding? 

 

I told myself I wasn't going to let myself be swept up in all the speculation that we do here, but here I am!!

[Kamisha]

You should definitely feel proud of getting into NYU’s MA program! They don’t offer that to just anyone! 

 

In terms of your question, “would you guys think that an acceptance last year to a good program means that I have a fair chance, with the application, of getting into a lower ranked program, with funding?"

 

That’s a tough one to answer because I think it call comes down to “fit.” Clearly, you have the capabilities of hacking it, but I would say it’s always critical to make sure you are applying to schools with which your interests relate. A perfect application means little to a school who doesn’t see you as a “fit,” while a application packet with a few flaws will be bumped up if they do see you as working well in the program.

 

I don’t know if that answers your question (or at least sheds a little light), but I wish you the best of luck! 

[Strong Flat White]

 

I've heard that they accept many applicants to their master's because there is no funding. So for the past year or so I've been wandering around wondering whether it means I was actually a strong applicant or not. 

 

 

 

I don't pretend to know much about anything, but I feel strongly enough to weigh-in on this line at least: while it may be true that not offering funding correlates to a program being willing (and/or able) to accept a higher number of applicants, that's not the same thing as the program being willing (and/or able) to accept weak applicants.  If you got in, they wanted you. Even non-funded MA programs want good students!  Even those programs have placement records (though they are "placement," in this case, into good PhD programs rather than into tenure-track positions) and reputations to defend. Even those MA students will often consort formally or informally with the PhD students. Not even a non-funded MA program wants poor-fitting students or weak scholars - no department wants that at any level, and while there are certainly degrees of competitive admissions, with perhaps the unfunded MA vs. the prestigiously-fellowshipped PhD falling at different points along the spectrum, I think it's safe to say that this admission that you speak of was a positive thing, not a negative thing...I don't think, in other words, that the whole "if they didn't offer you funding it means they didn't want you" line, as that line is reserved for PhD programs that generally guarantee some level of funding for the students they admit (and even this is field-specific). So two different animals on the funding front, but pretty comparable on the "they want you there" front.  Unfunded ≠ "admissions indifference," or even, as no doubt many will come to say, "cash cow." 

 

Preemptive qualification: I have ruffled feathers already by going to bat for unfunded MA programs. Sorry! That is not my intention. I'm not categorically "for" it, or anything like that. But I do see quite a few assumptions floating around that I think are either unfounded or else something short of universal. As with so many discussions, there is probably huge room for "it depends on a trillion factors." But NYU, are you kidding me? Not just anyone can get into NYU, my friends. Not even undergrad admissions operate like that. So good work, Christi. I would be proud, if I were you.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Strong Flat White

[Graditude]

The Village Voice ran a big article years ago about this very question. Their argument was that NYU charges exorbitant fees at undergrad and master's levels in order to bankroll their doctoral students. 

 

This isn't to diminish the accomplishment of getting accepted to the MA program -- just a note of caution about NYU's practices.

 

As for the question of whether you will get into a lower-ranked program with funding? Two ideas. One, don't think of them as lower-ranked programs. Think of them as more suitable programs all around. And chances are good that if a school like NYU accepted you (even if they had some ulterior rea$on$ beyond your promise as a student) you will also be accepted somewhere else.

 

Good luck!

[Tweedledumb]

 Even non-funded MA programs want good students!  Even those programs have placement records (though they are "placement," in this case, into good PhD programs rather than into tenure-track positions) and reputations to defend. Even those MA students will often consort formally or informally with the PhD students. Not even a non-funded MA program wants poor-fitting students or weak scholars - no department wants that at any level, and while there are certainly degrees of competitive admissions, with perhaps the unfunded MA vs. the prestigiously-fellowshipped PhD falling at different points along the spectrum, I think it's safe to say that this admission that you speak of was a positive thing, not a negative thing...I don't think, in other words, that the whole "if they didn't offer you funding it means they didn't want you" line, as that line is reserved for PhD programs that generally guarantee some level of funding for the students they admit (and even this is field-specific). So two different animals on the funding front, but pretty comparable on the "they want you there" front.  Unfunded ≠ "admissions indifference," or even, as no doubt many will come to say, "cash cow." 

 

Sort of off topic, but I've also heard that acceptance with no funding in a PhD program is more a "pity" invite than anything. A "We'll take your money, but we're not super excited to have you in our program" kind of offer. Are you saying that actually is the case?

 

Regarding the actual topic, an unfunded in MA seems very different from an unfunded PhD. There's just very little point in an unfunded PhD, and many would say the same about the MA, but the MA can offer a bridge to a PhD so funding might not be the decision-maker for some people. I think an unfunded MA offer is a vote of confidence from the program, but they just don't have the resources to offer funding for one reason or another. I would say the offer makes you a great candidate, but the process is arbitrary and won't guarantee you a spot in a program this year. So there's my $.02 

[Strong Flat White]

Sort of off topic, but I've also heard that acceptance with no funding in a PhD program is more a "pity" invite than anything. A "We'll take your money, but we're not super excited to have you in our program" kind of offer. Are you saying that actually is the case?

 

 

Kind of, I guess.  I'm actually trying to say as little as possible, and my larger point is that too many things get said and that we don't actually know much about individual admissions committees and/or individual applicants and their life situations, finances, etc. But more concretely, with regard to this exact statement, I'm saying that I've heard the cliche, and that I take the cliche as applicable to PhD programs within certain fields like ours because there are so few departments that will actually admit you without full-funding in the first place, and because even if they would, most applicants would be ill-advised to go this route (notice I say "most," allowing for...whatever). In combination, those two "becauses" comprise an academic culture wherein I think it is safe to say that something is being said when somebody gets admitted to a PhD without funding, or at least I think this is a fair reading of the cliche and applies to enough programs (even if it is not all) that we can safely use it as a sort of shorthand. No such shorthand exists for unfunded MA programs.

 

No, I don't think many departments would even make a pity acceptance (but how could I possibly know this?). They simply have too much at stake even when their money isn't on the line. One thing that gets talked a lot about is how weird and unfortunate it is that we fledglings have to be hyper-professionalized almost even before we begin our training. But something that doesn't seem to get much press (or I've missed it) is how that very phenomenon impacts the approach of the departments themselves. I might be naive, but I believe my faculty and their colleagues across the world when they articulate concern about how this impacts us, and how their admissions processes try to take the new reality into account. I believe my professors when they tell us that they don't want us languishing in grad-world for nearly a decade, or that they don't want us dropping out, or that they don't want us to bounce around adjunct-world for the rest of our days.  Along with these, they also don't want us in crippling debt. In this case, a pity acceptance wouldn't seem to serve anyone any good - not the student, not the department. As always, I bet there are exceptions, but probably not many, and in any case, I just wouldn't know.

[Strong Flat White]

 

...but the MA can offer a bridge to a PhD so funding might not be the decision-maker for some people. I think an unfunded MA offer is a vote of confidence from the program, but they just don't have the resources to offer funding for one reason or another. I would say the offer makes you a great candidate, but the process is arbitrary and won't guarantee you a spot in a program this year. So there's my $.02 

 

Yes. At least, in many many many cases, yes. Or a thousand variations on this. Not to belabor it but I have a slew of recent posts that try to make this case in the face of some fierce opposition.

[ComeBackZinc]

The Village Voice ran a big article years ago about this very question. Their argument was that NYU charges exorbitant fees at undergrad and master's levels in order to bankroll their doctoral students. 

 

 

Perhaps, but then this is generally true of most programs in the humanities. They may not explicitly state this, and they may move money around in a way that obscures it, but in many, many cases, unfunded MA programs are there to fund the PhD students.

 

Under no circumstances should you attend an unfunded PhD program, unless you happen to be very wealthy.

 

I guess my question for you is this: why do you care if it's an "accomplishment"? If it's for the specific question you ask at the end, about whether it's a sign you'll get into a good funded program, I'm afraid I don't think you can do that kind of math. Plenty of people get into their #1 choice and get rejected from schools they perceive as much less elite. It happens all the time. If you think that applying to graduate programs now is a good use of your money, time, and effort, then you should do it, regardless of what a prior acceptance might mean. You should be happy you were invited to attend NYU's MA program, which I'm sure is highly competitive. And you should feel resolved to submit new apps if you're convinced that's the best way forward for you at this juncture. I'm just not sure the former can tell you much about the latter.

Edited February 11, 2014 by ComeBackZinc

[Phoebecaulfield]

Thank you for all of the feedback everyone!