Funding

[ianfaircloud]

Yes. Tufts is far and away without question the best philosophy MA-only program. Nobody else comes close. Tufts is probably good enough to consider going to over quite a few top-50 PhD programs, whereas I don't think any other MA programs are worth turning down a top-50 PhD.

 

Vineyard, I know someone at Brandeis who was admitted to a 30-something-ranked PhD program, wait-listed at a top-20, *before* she decided to attend Brandeis. This person now, two years later, has several top-20 offers, including a top-10 offer and a top-10 wait-list. So I gotta come to the defense of Brandeis (and other similar programs). I'm not saying that this proves anything, but I guess I don't completely agree with your assessment.

 

 

See also:

 

"In order of the average weighted English world faculty rank of a PhD program since 2002 that the MA programs place their students into:"

 

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2013/10/20/Graduate-School-in-Philosophy-Terminal-MA-Programs-In-Philosophy.aspx

 

I appreciate this, and I'm glad you posted it.

 

I MUST point out something that is often overlooked about this table. This table does not show what share of students are admitted to T-50 programs. If one considers the SHARE of applicants who are admitted to T-50 programs, that will change things. Consider an extreme case: Suppose a program admits one person to Rutgers and its other nine applicants are shut out. This is virtually what happened a few years ago at UMSL. Now, UMSL would have a nice "average" that year. But certainly this means next to nothing about UMSL's placement record (for that year).

 

Also, some of these programs haven't been around long enough for this data to tell us anything. Brandeis is the obvious example, since that program started only a few years ago.

 

A few other things to say:

 

Georgia State's placement record is more revealing than the ones posted by Tufts and Brandeis. Georgia State's placement record indicates data per student. Tufts and Brandeis don't do this. So Tufts can post that its students were also admitted to X, Y, and Z. But we have no idea whether just one student was really, really successful. And I happen to know that this is frequently the case at Tufts and Brandeis. You get a few rock stars who take home a dozen acceptances to top programs. But then the rest get into one place each.

 

Finally, sometimes a candidate will drop a #5 offer to attend a #12 program. So the averages posted in this graphic are only somewhat helpful. This year, I know one MA student who is entertaining a #15 or so offer over a possibility at a #8 or so. That's a significant difference! 

Edited March 28, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[SamStone]

I had a question about inquiring about the status of the waitlist for funding…

I am planning on emailing a professor in the program with a few other questions anyways, and was somewhat hesitant to ask about funding. I'm on a "short" waiting list and didn't know if it was a bad idea to ask about it directly – they did say in the acceptance email that they would let me know when/if it became available.

Any suggestions?

[ianfaircloud]

I had a question about inquiring about the status of the waitlist for funding…

I am planning on emailing a professor in the program with a few other questions anyways, and was somewhat hesitant to ask about funding. I'm on a "short" waiting list and didn't know if it was a bad idea to ask about it directly – they did say in the acceptance email that they would let me know when/if it became available.

Any suggestions?

 

It's easier for me to say this, because I'm not in your shoes. But I would absolutely ask about it. Professors expect that smart applicants will want a straightforward answer questions about funding. Just be direct. Say something like, "I know that you plan to release funding information as it becomes available. And I certainly want to consider all the facts before I make a decision on a graduate program. If I am admitted to your program, where do I stand, in terms of funding? Do all admitted students receive funding?" Etc. If the email is straightforward and concise, your message will come off as sincere and mature. That's a good thing.

[MattDest]

I MUST point out something that is often overlooked about this table. This table does not show what share of students are admitted to T-50 programs. If one considers the SHARE of applicants who are admitted to T-50 programs, that will change things. Consider an extreme case: Suppose a program admits one person to Rutgers and its other nine applicants are shut out. This is virtually what happened a few years ago at UMSL. Now, UMSL would have a nice "average" that year. But certainly this means next to nothing about UMSL's placement record (for that year).

 

 

 

I hate to see bad information be spread, so I'll just chime in. I don't know where you're getting this from, but this hasn't happened at UMSL in the past few years. Here is the placement record for our program. 

[Establishment]

I was just questioning the rationale of placing UWM as a third tier MA program after GSU.

[ianfaircloud]

I hate to see bad information be spread, so I'll just chime in. I don't know where you're getting this from, but this hasn't happened at UMSL in the past few years. Here is the placement record for our program. 

 

MattDest, a few years ago, the placement record indicated otherwise. This update is news to me! I'm glad you mentioned this. I promise you that when I looked at the record about three years ago, the record suggested that the master's program had placed someone at Rutgers.

 

EDIT: In fact, I thought I emailed with Prof. Brogaard about this very placement, but I can't seem to find it in my email. But I see that the website now states explicitly that the placement came out of the BA. Perhaps the placement record formerly did not specify whether placements were out of the BA or the MA, and perhaps I assumed that they were all out of the MA. (Still, that's very odd to have a placement record on the website for BA students. Isn't it?) I feel like this is a lot of speculation, and I don't want to undermine the credibility of the good folks at UMSL. (In fact, I like UMSL. I even started an application to UMSL before I was admitted to a program that I like a little better.)

 

 

I was just questioning the rationale of placing UWM as a third tier MA program after GSU.

 

Did someone suggest that UWM is "behind" GSU, in terms of ranking? Actually, in my opinion, weighting what I find important, UWM is third, behind Brandeis and Tufts. GSU is fourth. That's my opinion, and it's based on factors that I find important in programs. But I hope that my message here and in another thread is that the numerical ranking of 'overall quality' is not a good way to determine which is the best place. Suppose that a person thinks that location is more important than placement. Now, I think that's a fairly strange way to decide on a master's program. But you get the idea. There are various factors that must be weighed according to personal preference. For me, placement is extremely important. Reputation of the institution is important. Size is important. Community is important. When I evaluated master's programs for my own purposes, I found that UWM is behind only Brandeis and Tufts.

Edited March 28, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[Establishment]

MattDest, a few years ago, the placement record indicated otherwise. This update is news to me! I'm glad you mentioned this. I promise you that when I looked at the record about three years ago, the record suggested that the master's program had placed someone at Rutgers.

 

EDIT: In fact, I thought I emailed with Prof. Brogaard about this very placement, but I can't seem to find it in my email. But I see that the website now states explicitly that the placement came out of the BA. Perhaps the placement record formerly did not specify whether placements were out of the BA or the MA, and perhaps I assumed that they were all out of the MA. (Still, that's very odd to have a placement record on the website for BA students. Isn't it?) I feel like this is a lot of speculation, and I don't want to undermine the credibility of the good folks at UMSL. (In fact, I like UMSL. I even started an application to UMSL before I was admitted to a program that I like a little better.)

 

 

 

Did someone suggest that UWM is "behind" GSU, in terms of ranking? Actually, in my opinion, weighting what I find important, UWM is third, behind Brandeis and Tufts. GSU is fourth. That's my opinion, and it's based on factors that I find important in programs. But I hope that my message here and in another thread is that the numerical ranking of 'overall quality' is not a good way to determine which is the best place. Suppose that a person thinks that location is more important than placement. Now, I think that's a fairly strange way to decide on a master's program. But you get the idea. There are various factors that must be weighed according to personal preference. For me, placement is extremely important. Reputation of the institution is important. Size is important. Community is important. When I evaluated master's programs for my own purposes, I found that UWM is behind only Brandeis and Tufts.

 

"Tufts and Brandeis will require you to spend more on living. But the placement records are better at these two schools. Brandeis is doing particularly well in placing M&E candidates.

 

Compare these with schools like NIU and Georgia State... If one weights the placement record and quality of the faculty, Brandeis and Tufts win.

 

NB: UW Milwaukee, in my view, is the third-ranked program. Milwaukee is a great place to live, too. Cost of living is low, but you're well-connected."

 

At the time I thought you were saying: Tufts & Brandeis Tier 1. NIU and GSU Tier 2. UWM tier 3.

 

But just above you said you'd rank UWM third behind Brandeis and Tufts, so it seems I was just interpreting you wrongly. Otherwise I fully agree, regarding the placement rankings being what they are, all the other factors when evaluating MA programs to consider, etc. etc.

[ianfaircloud]

"Tufts and Brandeis will require you to spend more on living. But the placement records are better at these two schools. Brandeis is doing particularly well in placing M&E candidates.

 

Compare these with schools like NIU and Georgia State... If one weights the placement record and quality of the faculty, Brandeis and Tufts win.

 

NB: UW Milwaukee, in my view, is the third-ranked program. Milwaukee is a great place to live, too. Cost of living is low, but you're well-connected."

 

At the time I thought you were saying: Tufts & Brandeis Tier 1. NIU and GSU Tier 2. UWM tier 3.

 

But just above you said you'd rank UWM third behind Brandeis and Tufts, so it seems I was just interpreting you wrongly. Otherwise I fully agree, regarding the placement rankings being what they are, all the other factors when evaluating MA programs to consider, etc. etc.

 

Yes, and just to beat this dead horse a bit more: If you have a family or a spouse, and if you are rightly worried about money, then Georgia State is "ranked" higher!!

 

That's why I like what Brian Leiter has done with law rankings recently. He gives multiple rankings: faculty quality, student quality, quality by area of interest, etc., and allows the reader to give an 'overall quality' ranking. Frankly, the 'overall faculty quality' ranking of philosophy programs is arguably unhelpful to us, which is why Leiter's 'ranking by specialty' is such a nice feature of the Philosophical Gourmet Report. If someone is admitted to MIT in the area of ethics, that's much less impressive than being admitted to UCLA in the area of ethics (in my humble opinion).

[SamStone]

It's easier for me to say this, because I'm not in your shoes. But I would absolutely ask about it. Professors expect that smart applicants will want a straightforward answer questions about funding. Just be direct. Say something like, "I know that you plan to release funding information as it becomes available. And I certainly want to consider all the facts before I make a decision on a graduate program. If I am admitted to your program, where do I stand, in terms of funding? Do all admitted students receive funding?" Etc. If the email is straightforward and concise, your message will come off as sincere and mature. That's a good thing.

Thanks for the advice! In my email I included something along these lines and I already received a very helpful response from the professor

[philstudent1991]

To the OP, it seems absolutely foolish to attend an unfunded MA, especially with a child, no matter where it is. I agree that if the poster is really serious about philosophy, taking non credit courses at UW Milwaukee in hopes of getting accepted in the next cycle is quite reasonable. For what it's worth, there is an admit at GSU that did precisely this (took pos-bac or whatever at GSU throughout the year prior to app season, then had a strong foundation and letters from ppl in the dept). Doing that is a better idea than the unfunded program I think.

 

Also, as others mentioned, an unfunded program probably means you didn't get in to a funded one. And while one will improve in an MA program, keep in mind that the competition to PhDs is the people from the funded MAs, who are at a higher starting point than you. whatever that means.

 

Finally, on the rankings debate: 1. Tufts, 2. Brandeis, 3. GSU, 4. UWM, 5. NIU, honorable mention Houston, UMSL. But of course Tufts and Brandeis don't really have funding so for many, those are quite undesirable. My view is that while Tufts and Brandeis are able to draw some of the very best applicants, the average student at places that fund everyone, like GSU, is better than the average student at schools that don't fund. I don't have the data necessary to prove this claim and I doubt such data is available, just my two cents.

[objectivityofcontradiction]

In a bit of a pickle: 

 

I am applying to a couple of German summer schools in philosophy. One is in the middle of the summer, the other is in the middle of September. I am hoping to get off the wait-list at 1 of 3 schools before then. My question is: if I am admitted somewhere, would it be appropriate to ask right away about help funding such trips? On the one hand, I see how this could come off as a bit reaching, or even a bit arrogant: the kid who just entered our program is already asking us to give him money to attend conferences, when we really haven't seen what sort of graduate work he is capable of producing. On the other hand, I can see how this could put me in a nice light, as it would attest to the earnestness with which I have thrown myself into my research areas, and also could show that I intend to hit the ground running, etc. After all, once accepted, I am as much a member of my department as even the most senior graduate students, so in theory I should be in an equal position as any to be considered for funding. On the other hand, I am sure the matter of who gets additional funding sometimes comes down to seniority. Either way, I'll ask these questions myself when (if) I visit. 

 

Thoughts? 

[Glasperlenspieler]

I'm going to bump this.  As someone else mentioned in another thread, this could be a really important resource, both for people on the wait list so that can make a quick decisions if they get an offer and for future applicants.

[hopefulpessimiste]

This is my opinion; it's backed up fairly well by admissions stats, but also takes into account expenses and the faculty. I would rate them as follows: 1. Tufts 2. UW-Milwaukee 3. Brandeis 4. Georgia State 5. Virginia Tech 6. NIU...

 

When I was applying to MA programs, I spent a great deal of time looking not only at placement records and stipend amounts, but also at where professors in various departments went and what work they had done. I was accepted at Brandeis, UWM, GSU, and NIU (I didn't apply to VT and I got rejected from Tufts). I spent a lot of time on each department and it took me a while to make a decision.

 

A big factor in my deciding not to go to Brandeis was not only the really limited funding and relatively high cost of living in that area, but also the fact that in a one year program, you're basically re-applying right after you start the program (unless you take an additional year off). To me, that sort of defeated the purpose of the MA. It takes time to establish yourself in classes, write papers, and form relationships with professors--not to mention learn new material! I actually think Brandeis should make their program a two-year one, but I may be in the minority. Anyway, those are my two cents based on my own research.

[philstudent1991]

On 4/9/2014 at 8:09 PM, hopefulpessimiste said:

This is my opinion; it's backed up fairly well by admissions stats, but also takes into account expenses and the faculty. I would rate them as follows: 1. Tufts 2. UW-Milwaukee 3. Brandeis 4. Georgia State 5. Virginia Tech 6. NIU...

 

When I was applying to MA programs, I spent a great deal of time looking not only at placement records and stipend amounts, but also at where professors in various departments went and what work they had done. I was accepted at Brandeis, UWM, GSU, and NIU (I didn't apply to VT and I got rejected from Tufts). I spent a lot of time on each department and it took me a while to make a decision.

 

A big factor in my deciding not to go to Brandeis was not only the really limited funding and relatively high cost of living in that area, but also the fact that in a one year program, you're basically re-applying right after you start the program (unless you take an additional year off). To me, that sort of defeated the purpose of the MA. It takes time to establish yourself in classes, write papers, and form relationships with professors--not to mention learn new material! I actually think Brandeis should make their program a two-year one, but I may be in the minority. Anyway, those are my two cents based on my own research.

Well. Tufts and Brandeis have deplorable funding, not even comparable with that of GSU. I can't comment on the funding at UWM, NIU or VA Tech. In terms of placement Tufts and Brandeis have an edge but my opinion is that no one has any business going to those schools unless they are independently wealthy. Going into debt for a philosophy degree, an MA no less not even a PhD, is a foolish thing to do. There may be exceptions but very widely this is true.

[stressedout]

Well. Tufts and Brandeis have deplorable funding, not even comparable with that of GSU. I can't comment on the funding at UWM, NIU or VA Tech. In terms of placement Tufts and Brandeis have an edge but my opinion is that no one has any business going to those schools unless they are independently wealthy. Going into debt for a philosophy degree, an MA no less not even a PhD, is a foolish thing to do. There may be exceptions but very widely this is true.

 

I agree.  And I went in to debt for my first MA.  I totally regret it.  If I could do it over again, I'd have gone to a funded program.

[hopefulpessimiste]

Well. Tufts and Brandeis have deplorable funding, not even comparable with that of GSU. I can't comment on the funding at UWM, NIU or VA Tech. In terms of placement Tufts and Brandeis have an edge but my opinion is that no one has any business going to those schools unless they are independently wealthy. Going into debt for a philosophy degree, an MA no less not even a PhD, is a foolish thing to do. There may be exceptions but very widely this is true.

I agree. UWM's funding was relatively good, though not nearly as good as GSU. NIU's funding was alright, but to me it seemed like more of gesture than something that would actually be helpful. And UWM's placement record seems to me to be very comparable with Brandeis's. The only reason I would still but Tufts first is that it does have the best placement record, but also the profs have a number of great connections at other universities, and many do top-notch work.

 

I guess I've functionally outed myself (concerning where I got my MA) based on my comments...

Edited April 10, 2014 by hopefulpessimiste

[Griswald]

NIU offers TA-ships that pay about $11K per year. As far as I know, GSU's standard RA/TA-ship package is $5K and $10K in the first and second years, respectively. So, without factoring in cost of living, isn't NIU's funding better than GSU's?

[Establishment]

NIU offers TA-ships that pay about $11K per year. As far as I know, GSU's standard RA/TA-ship package is $5K and $10K in the first and second years, respectively. So, without factoring in cost of living, isn't NIU's funding better than GSU's?

 

UWM's also comes out as higher. Just under 8k a year beats $15k over two years.

[philstudent1991]

I would also mention that at GSU everyone gets funding, the 15K over two years minimum, and some get fellowships on top of that.

[Establishment]

I would also mention that at GSU everyone gets funding

 

I see this point raised a lot, but it's really just playing around with words.

 

GSU has a set budget in which to fund students, and so they admit and fund those students.

UWM/NIU has a set budget in which to fund students, and so they admit and fund those students.

 

There's no difference, except that UWM/NIU then go on additionally to allow a few students to attend if they so wish to and can handle the finances, whereas GSU would decline them.

[Dialectica]

This is my opinion; it's backed up fairly well by admissions stats, but also takes into account expenses and the faculty. I would rate them as follows: 1. Tufts 2. UW-Milwaukee 3. Brandeis 4. Georgia State 5. Virginia Tech 6. NIU...

 

When I was applying to MA programs, I spent a great deal of time looking not only at placement records and stipend amounts, but also at where professors in various departments went and what work they had done. I was accepted at Brandies, UWM, GSU, and NIU (I didn't apply to VT and I got rejected from Tufts). I spent a lot of time on each department and it took me a while to make a decision.

 

A big factor in my deciding not to go to Brandeis was not only the really limited funding and relatively high cost of living in that area, but also the fact that in a one year program, you're basically re-applying right after you start the program (unless you take an additional year off). To me, that sort of defeated the purpose of the MA. It takes time to establish yourself in classes, write papers, and form relationships with professors--not to mention learn new material! I actually think Brandeis should make their program a two-year one, but I may be in the minority. Anyway, those are my two cents based on my own research.

 

Brandeis is not a one year program, there is just a one-year minimum residency requirement. Some people, apparently, have completed the program in one year. But from all the grad students I have spoken with, nobody who plans on pursuing a Phd in philosophy has gone that route. It is expected, from what I gather, that grad students attend for two years. That said, Brandeis only charges full tuition for the first year; if you attend more than a year, there is a small continuation fee for every semester thereafter (and with a TAship, that cost is mostly covered). So even though their tuition is expensive, the fact that you are basically charged for one year, even though you can attend for two, the tuition is roughly equivalent to NIU's and Virginia Tech's. And on top of that, Brandeis is covering 50% of that tuition (for most of its acceptances, as far as I know). 

[MattDest]

I'd like to toot UMSL's horn a bit as far as funding goes. The funding situation is decent - a full tuition waiver, and I think it's now up to ~$9k a year for most students. We didn't have an extensive placement record this year (only 2 applied to PhD programs, more applied to and all were accepted into law programs), but I had a pretty good showing and the other person got accepted into Marquette. 

[kant_get_in]

As long as we're tooting horns, The University of Florida offers a full tuition waiver and ~12k for students.

[ianfaircloud]

Brandeis is not a one year program, there is just a one-year minimum residency requirement. Some people, apparently, have completed the program in one year. But from all the grad students I have spoken with, nobody who plans on pursuing a Phd in philosophy has gone that route. It is expected, from what I gather, that grad students attend for two years. That said, Brandeis only charges full tuition for the first year; if you attend more than a year, there is a small continuation fee for every semester thereafter (and with a TAship, that cost is mostly covered). So even though their tuition is expensive, the fact that you are basically charged for one year, even though you can attend for two, the tuition is roughly equivalent to NIU's and Virginia Tech's. And on top of that, Brandeis is covering 50% of that tuition (for most of its acceptances, as far as I know). 

 

I just want to draw attention to this post.  Good point, Dialectica.  The "one year requirement" at Brandeis is ignored by the students.  When the program started several years ago, the first cohort had quite a few finish in one year. Since that time, no student has finished in fewer than three semesters. People should think of the typical cost of Brandeis as roughly equivalent to the typical cost of Tufts, where the typical case is the case of the person who receives the median scholarship. There are some (very few, but some) students who go to Brandeis and Tufts at little or no cost.

 

Tufts and Brandeis still dominate in placement, though UW Milwaukee may eclipse (or nearly eclipse) both of these this year.

 

Rumors abound, but I think UW Milwaukee and Brandeis will have similar records this year (tied for first place). Tufts will be third place.