MA or PhD? Best Routes in Fall 2014 Applications

[coffeeandcomics]

Hi Everyone,

 

Being fresh out of undergrad, this was my first round of applying to Phd Programs in Literature -- and my first receipt of negative results. After applying to 6 top-tiers (Harvard, Penn, Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin, Columbia), I was rejected from all of them aside from the outlying MAPH offer from Chicago with no sign of funding. (A nice moment, but the cost - $47G, excluding living - makes me highly uncomfortable.)

 

Now planning for my Fall 2014 applications, I'm conflicted. Several of my professors have recommended simply widening my search for PhD programs to look past Top 20s. (So far, I am particularly intrigued by U-Texas Austin, WUSTL, OSU, and Vanderbilt.) I also have spoken to several successful mentors who enrolled in Masters Programs that they felt assisted them in landing a PhD; on the other hand, I have heard that some PhD programs prefer those straight from undergrad, and that a Masters can essentially prove a waste of time and money. 

 

Does anyone have any more information they can throw into my cesspool of confusion? Or any information on Lit. MAs that might fund the study of 20th-century literature, gender and masculinity studies, and representations of the body? Or easily overlooked PhD Programs with similar interests?

 

I am the first person in my family to go through this mess of a process, and right now, all my parents want me to do is go to UChicago's MAPH program because they recognize the name. Any advice would be appreciated. 

 

 

 

[ComeBackZinc]

I can't tell you what to do. I find it odd to say that going to an MA program would prove a waste of time and money. From a purely financial point of view (so setting aside the educational value just for discussion), people with a master's degree enjoy a significant advantage in both income and unemployment rate over those with a BA. It's true that you will earn an MA at most any program that accepts you as straight from undergrad. However, getting your MA first allows you the flexibility of deciding if you want to continue on the PhD track after several years as a professional student (and hopefully teacher). This is an important benefit, particularly if the decision will be to pursue a PhD with the intention of going on the academic job market afterwards. It's a major commitment to decide that you want to be a life-long academic without ever having been a grad student. Also, while it varies widely from department to department, don't assume that going straight into a PhD program means a fast track of two years of course work and straight into prelims/dissertation. It's not at all unusual for programs that don't require an MA to extend coursework. You likely will finish sooner than if you get a separate MA first, but that doesn't mean you'll finish two or three years sooner. 

 

If you want to pursue particular departments, investigate them specifically. Some departments don't allow students with just a BA apply for the PhD program; some will only accept MA students into a terminal MA program; and some only accept students who don't yet have an MA. Beyond those requirements, there's also schools that technically allow either but are much more likely to take one or the other. You really have to investigate individual places. Write emails to the DGS or grad program assistant; they'll likely be very forthcoming. Or investigate with current students or on here.

 

For me, personally, my MA was a no-brainer. I really learned so much in the program that I was able to put together a far, far better set of applications for PhD programs than I had before, in large measure because I knew much more about my field and my place within it. I also made connections that helped me in a variety of ways. But people certainly can and do go into PhD programs without an MA and succeed. Since you framed it this way: personally, given how competitive it is out there, if the choice was between taking a less-prestigious PhD program with worse hiring numbers and getting an MA with the intention of applying to more competitive programs in the future, I would go with the latter. But that's just me, and there's likely no one right option for you. Good luck.

[ExponentialDecay]

From a purely financial point of view (so setting aside the educational value just for discussion), people with a master's degree enjoy a significant advantage in both income and unemployment rate over those with a BA.

 

This statistic is an aggregate of all master's degrees and all bachelor's degrees, so on an individual basis it can provide very limited insight. Anecdotally, it does not hold for humanities degrees. Because most teaching positions now require either an MEd or a PhD, you're coming out of the English masters just as employable as you were coming into it - except 1 or 2 years older, which is a detriment due to a series of factors.

 

OP:

 

I think you're quite right in carefully weighing your options like you are now. I further think you are right in your hesitation to pay $50 000 out of pocket for MAPH. I wouldn't listen to your parents regarding this choice, as you said that they have no experience with graduate school. My own parents both have PhDs, but since they are in a different field and they got their PhDs in like the 70s or 80s or whatever and haven't been in academia since, they cannot navigate the current trends, practices, and so on in the academic humanities - nor do they need to, since it will be my ruined life and my non-dischargeable debt, not theirs. If you want somebody to mentor your decision, it's better to ask a trusted professor, grad student, or adjunct, preferably in your field, but ultimately you must do what you think is right, even if it's crazy.

 

Since this is your first round of applications, I wouldn't get upset that you didn't get into your programs. Like you said, the programs you chose are highly competitive - not to mention, this is your first time doing this. You still have a couple attempts before you should despair. I would ask for feedback from adcomms and professors on your materials, refine your choice of schools, your writing, and your knowledge of the field and your intended subfield (having a cache angle or area of study, like literature and neuroscience or whatever it is that's fashionable now, doesn't hurt). Learning a new language (French, German, and the ancient languages are your first ports of call) will be an asset. If you're really serious about this, you should build connections with existing professors and grad students where possible. Reach out to the alumni of your school, perhaps? All this sounds tedious and very daunting, but at least if you work a lot, you often forget about how sucky this limbo is.

 

If I am in your position next year, I will concentrate on applying to two or three good, funded Master's programs in case my next round of applications also goes through - but I wouldn't necessarily lower my sights from the top20s. I'm gonna get slammed for this, but all my professors have been pretty unanimous in their advice to avoid PhD programs that aren't "prestigious". I think that, especially in the case of the applicant having very popular or well-known research interests, as in the OP's case, this advice holds true.

Edited March 8, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[ComeBackZinc]

This statistic is an aggregate of all master's degrees and all bachelor's degrees, so on an individual basis it can provide very limited insight. Anecdotally, it does not hold for humanities degrees. Because most teaching positions now require either an MEd or a PhD, you're coming out of the English masters just as employable as you were coming into it - except 1 or 2 years older, which is a detriment due to a series of factors.

 

 

Luckily, I have more than anecdata. I have investigated this question at length, with responsibly-generated empirical evidence. There is a premium for all MA holders over those with only a BA. (Even MFA students enjoy an advantage.) Sure, some of this is ability effects, but there are a large number of jobs that require an MA degree but that do not stipulate a particular department or field. For example, in a number of states, public school teachers have a contractually-mandated pay premium for those with a masters. As teaching in a public district is a major source of consistent employment for people with such degrees, this is not an insignificant criterion. There's little doubt that paying for an MA degree can end up providing little financial benefit, but aggregated over all those who hold an MA in the humanities, there is no legitimate argument that there is no advantage. And since the OP already stated that the question is whether to get an MA or go straight for a PhD, the question is not whether to go to graduate school but how best to go about it.

 

Please, don't try to speak dispositively when you've already admitted that you lack evidence for what you're saying. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by ComeBackZinc

[ComeBackZinc]

By the way: I would not pay for an MA out of pocket, and I particularly not do so at MAPH. But then, that's not the question that was asked.

[ExponentialDecay]

but there are a large number of jobs that require an MA degree but that do not stipulate a particular department or field. For example, in a number of states, public school teachers have a contractually-mandated pay premium for those with a masters. As teaching in a public district is a major source of consistent employment for people with such degrees, this is not an insignificant criterion. There's little doubt that paying for an MA degree can end up providing little financial benefit, but aggregated over all those who hold an MA in the humanities, there is no legitimate argument that there is no advantage. And since the OP already stated that the question is whether to get an MA or go straight for a PhD, the question is not whether to go to graduate school but how best to go about it.

 

Please, don't try to speak dispositively when you've already admitted that you lack evidence for what you're saying. 

 

Hold on to your bonnets, ladies.

 

What you're saying that if you're lucky to live in a certain state, or lucky to get into a certain company within a certain industry, your degree may pay off. This is not the situation with non-humanities degrees. If you get a degree in sociology, you are hireable for all positions that require a master's degree, and all the positions that require specifically a sociology degree. Surprisingly enough, there are jobs that want sociology degrees. Secondly, we can look at more efficient paths arriving at the same, say, teaching or editorial position. MEd. MPub. Not to mention, you're studying English, and you're gonna end up mopping up snotty noses or fact-checking legal documents, which is not your training. Additionally, depending on your background, an MA may be a detriment. This is all very circumstantial.

 

The OP wants to do a PhD in the humanities, so for them the MA makes sense. But I wouldn't make a blanket statement that the MA makes sense for anyone who's considering a PhD in the humanities, maybe, and if not, well, I only wasted 2 years of my life and now I can become a pre-K teacher in Nebraska. 

 

I'm not sure what data you're going on, since there haven't been any studies published on specifically this subject. 

[ComeBackZinc]

Here's what I'm saying.

 

I'm a PhD student studying, among other things, higher education policy. I am also a freelance writer who has been writing about higher education for a long time. And I have heard similarly anecdotal claims that MA degrees are useless for a long time. So I am excited to be taking part in a research project, along with a tenured professor and a dean, to investigate the claim that you're making-- that an MA degree in the humanities does not carry with it the income and unemployment advantage that MA degrees generally carry. Like another of my pet obsessions, the unsupportable notion of a STEM surplus, this is an idea that is bandied about quite a bit, and yet for which there is little or no responsibly generated evidence. The current study is only beginning. I'm not yet ready to say that humanities MAs definitively have a similar economic advantage to MAs writ large. What is clear, however, is that the affirmative case that you are now making seems based more on cultural assumptions about the irrelevance of the humanities than hard data. Like the notion that a computer science degree is a ticket to the good life, regardless of where you go to school, this is an idea with more cultural force than evidentiary backing.

 

As you say: there's limited data, but what data exists does not demonstrate such a disadvantage. In contrast with what you're saying, there appear to be a far broader range of occupations that value an MA degree than you indicate. As far as you looking down your nose at the jobs that you could potentially get with such a degree, well, besides the condescension of what you're saying, that's moving the goal posts. My point is merely that an MA degree has economic advantages, and that by getting one before you go into the PhD cycle, you give yourself an out-- and an out is a very valuable thing indeed, when we're talking about a horrendous academic job market that shows no signs of getting better. 

 

Now it happens that I would tell anyone not to go to graduate school in the humanities, in general, unless they literally can't live with themselves without doing it. And I would particularly tell them never to go without funding. Also, as I said repeatedly (but you uncharitably left out), it really, really depends, like all things in this process. Personally, I think that if the OP is finding it difficult to get into the best programs now, it makes a good deal of sense to pursue funded MA degrees in order to try and get into those prestigious programs in the future. Like you, I don't think anyone should be going into a PhD program in literature if they are intent on getting a TT job unless they are at a pinnacle program, and should be prepared to walk away from academia even if they do, because in recent years even graduates from Harvard and Berkeley have not been guaranteed success. But the OP asked a very limited question and I answered it, in a qualified and limited manner, the best way I could. Sure: don't go to MAPH, coffeeandcomics. Don't pay for an MA. And if there's anything else you want to do in the world, go do that instead of going into humanities graduate school. But if you're dead set on this, then yes, getting a funded MA can be a productive way to move forward. 

 

And exponentialdecay, if you want to make positive claims about economics and education, don't pre-announce that your evidence is anecdotal and expect empirical researchers not to respond critically.

[ComeBackZinc]

You'll have to forgive me if I come across as aggressive. I work here, at a "STEM uber alles" university, with people in ed psych, computer science, and statistics. It's not unusual for people from other fields who, knowing I'm coming from an English department, assume that they can throw out any argument about empirical evidence or numbers and I will be intimidated and won't be able to respond substantively. It's created a tendency for me to be forward in my responses. If I was rude, I do apologize. It wasn't my intent.

Edited March 8, 2014 by ComeBackZinc

[coffeeandcomics]

By the way: I would not pay for an MA out of pocket, and I particularly not do so at MAPH. But then, that's not the question that was asked.

 

These are my thoughts right now exactly. I am thinking that by next year, if going through the PhD track with a wider set of schools yields no success, once again, THEN I will begin to consider how much of an investment in an MA program I would be willing to make (and even then, I doubt it would be a $50G investment, which would sit heavily on top of my undergrad. student loans). And perhaps if I want to be careful, I will throw a funded MA app. or two into the mix if I find a program that seems like a good fit. 

 

Do you have a particular reason not to pay for an MA at MAPH? I'm curious now! 

[coffeeandcomics]

This statistic is an aggregate of all master's degrees and all bachelor's degrees, so on an individual basis it can provide very limited insight. Anecdotally, it does not hold for humanities degrees. Because most teaching positions now require either an MEd or a PhD, you're coming out of the English masters just as employable as you were coming into it - except 1 or 2 years older, which is a detriment due to a series of factors.

 

OP:

 

I think you're quite right in carefully weighing your options like you are now. I further think you are right in your hesitation to pay $50 000 out of pocket for MAPH. I wouldn't listen to your parents regarding this choice, as you said that they have no experience with graduate school. My own parents both have PhDs, but since they are in a different field and they got their PhDs in like the 70s or 80s or whatever and haven't been in academia since, they cannot navigate the current trends, practices, and so on in the academic humanities - nor do they need to, since it will be my ruined life and my non-dischargeable debt, not theirs. If you want somebody to mentor your decision, it's better to ask a trusted professor, grad student, or adjunct, preferably in your field, but ultimately you must do what you think is right, even if it's crazy.

 

Since this is your first round of applications, I wouldn't get upset that you didn't get into your programs. Like you said, the programs you chose are highly competitive - not to mention, this is your first time doing this. You still have a couple attempts before you should despair. I would ask for feedback from adcomms and professors on your materials, refine your choice of schools, your writing, and your knowledge of the field and your intended subfield (having a cache angle or area of study, like literature and neuroscience or whatever it is that's fashionable now, doesn't hurt). Learning a new language (French, German, and the ancient languages are your first ports of call) will be an asset. If you're really serious about this, you should build connections with existing professors and grad students where possible. Reach out to the alumni of your school, perhaps? All this sounds tedious and very daunting, but at least if you work a lot, you often forget about how sucky this limbo is.

 

If I am in your position next year, I will concentrate on applying to two or three good, funded Master's programs in case my next round of applications also goes through - but I wouldn't necessarily lower my sights from the top20s. I'm gonna get slammed for this, but all my professors have been pretty unanimous in their advice to avoid PhD programs that aren't "prestigious". I think that, especially in the case of the applicant having very popular or well-known research interests, as in the OP's case, this advice holds true.

 

Exponential - thank you so much for reaffirming/echoing my parent struggles. It is especially hard to turn down an offer from a great institution (even an immensely expensive offer) when I have a mother telling me that it will be my "one and only shot" that I will "forever regret turning down."   As if I don't put enough pressure on myself as is! 

 

I think your plan to consider funded MAs in the case of this next round of applications not working out makes a lot of sense. I think I had to apply to top-tier schools just to know that I tried, and now I'm feeling much more comfortable broadening my search (especially as I've been more conscious of other factors like cost of living, geographic location, campus culture, etc.) I do want to teach - and I don't really mind where - and I hope I will be able to accomplish that even if I do not attend a top 20 school. I love the work - the reading, writing, analysis - and I simply can't see my life without exploring that deeper, so I will keep trying this year and see what turns up. 

 

Thank you again for your detailed, and very encouraging response 

[ComeBackZinc]

Some people are very critical of MAPH, calling it a "cash cow" program. I find that unfair. I know that many people have gone to MAPH and have gone on to successful careers. However, it's the case that there's very little funding at all, and that it's very expensive. Also, fairly or unfairly, some of that stigma may hurt you in the future. But on the other hand, you might forge really great connections. I just can't in good conscience tell someone to take tens of t housands of dollars in loan debt out to pay for a humanities MA.

[coffeeandcomics]

Some people are very critical of MAPH, calling it a "cash cow" program. I find that unfair. I know that many people have gone to MAPH and have gone on to successful careers. However, it's the case that there's very little funding at all, and that it's very expensive. Also, fairly or unfairly, some of that stigma may hurt you in the future. But on the other hand, you might forge really great connections. I just can't in good conscience tell someone to take tens of t housands of dollars in loan debt out to pay for a humanities MA.

 

Definitely. And I want to make sure I've exhausted all of my options to avoid that kind of debt before I take it on.

[kayrabbit]

On 3/7/2014 at 10:03 PM, coffeeandcomics said:

Hi Everyone,

 

Being fresh out of undergrad, this was my first round of applying to Phd Programs in Literature -- and my first receipt of negative results. After applying to 6 top-tiers (Harvard, Penn, Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin, Columbia), I was rejected from all of them aside from the outlying MAPH offer from Chicago with no sign of funding. (A nice moment, but the cost - $47G, excluding living - makes me highly uncomfortable.)

 

Now planning for my Fall 2014 applications, I'm conflicted. Several of my professors have recommended simply widening my search for PhD programs to look past Top 20s. (So far, I am particularly intrigued by U-Texas Austin, WUSTL, OSU, and Vanderbilt.) I also have spoken to several successful mentors who enrolled in Masters Programs that they felt assisted them in landing a PhD; on the other hand, I have heard that some PhD programs prefer those straight from undergrad, and that a Masters can essentially prove a waste of time and money. 

 

Does anyone have any more information they can throw into my cesspool of confusion? Or any information on Lit. MAs that might fund the study of 20th-century literature, gender and masculinity studies, and representations of the body? Or easily overlooked PhD Programs with similar interests?

 

I am the first person in my family to go through this mess of a process, and right now, all my parents want me to do is go to UChicago's MAPH program because they recognize the name. Any advice would be appreciated. 

Hey! I identify with your situation a lot, both because I am a first-year Ph.D. student who enrolled straight out of undergrad and because I've wondered lately about the advantages of getting an M.A. first, largely because the other members of my Ph.D. cohort who came in with M.A.s clearly gained so much from those programs.

 

First a word on the application question. I planned to apply to six top level schools during the fall of my senior year. Cornell, Yale, Stanford, UPenn, UChicago -- you get the idea; all tippy-top-tier schools. My advisers suggested adding some state schools to the list; some that were still top schools like Michigan and Virginia, and others slightly lower (in terms of "official rankings") like NYU, Buffalo, and Maryland. Had I not added those schools, I would have been in a similar position to the one you're describing, left with an MAPH offer that I really couldn't accept. I don't think this is even just about applying to higher-ranked programs vs lower-ranked ones. The schools that did make me offers were technically higher ranked than some of the ones that didn't (such as Notre Dame and Buffalo). Variety does matter, because there are so many fantastic candidates out there that luck and fit (as it is mysteriously interpreted by admission committees, not just you), do come into play, and the best way to make sure you end up with a favorable result (beyond making yourself the strongest candidate you can be) is to give yourself as many chances as are financially feasible.

 

I didn't directly apply to any M.A. programs, but did receive some Ph.D. rejections that came with M.A. offers with less than ideal funding. If I were doing the application process again, I would make an effort to identify and apply to M.A. programs that were well funded in addition to Ph.D. programs. This is not just because of the whole application lottery, but also because everyone in my cohort with an M.A. (seven out of nine of us, by the way) is a badass. No question that an M.A. at a decent program is completely worthwhile. I am glad that I'll be completing my M.A./Ph.D. in five years rather than seven, but I also wonder whether the extra time and training they've had will make them better candidates on the job market. I can offset that with great work in my program, but it definitely cuts down on the time you have to become an amazing job candidate. They've already acclimated to this environment and the demands, and are ready to take steps in their work that I'm not. So there are benefits and drawbacks to the M.A., and whether you can find one that is funded or semi-funded is certainly a big part of the question. But I definitely think it's worth trying to find a funded one, because it's not a waste. Even the people I know who had to pay for an M.A. before starting the Ph.D. are anything but regretful. It made them better Ph.D. candidates, gave them opportunities to teach, adapt to graduate school, and define their career plans, and, in my opinion, that could be an asset on the job market.

 

So overall, I think yes, apply for funded M.A.s and Ph.D.s next time. Acceptance into either represents a great opportunity. The same opportunity can potentially exist with unfunded M.A.s, but you have to know that you're in a financial situation where that could be a good idea for you, which definitely wasn't the case for me and probably isn't for a lot of us. Also, did you reply to your parents by saying that you'd attend the MAPH if they paid for it? I mean you had to at least say that, right?

[ExponentialDecay]

You'll have to forgive me if I come across as aggressive. I work here, at a "STEM uber alles" university, with people in ed psych, computer science, and statistics. It's not unusual for people from other fields who, knowing I'm coming from an English department, assume that they can throw out any argument about empirical evidence or numbers and I will be intimidated and won't be able to respond substantively. It's created a tendency for me to be forward in my responses. If I was rude, I do apologize. It wasn't my intent.

 

Oh, if only sociology were considered STEM...

 

I'm the resident joke of my economics department, but bear with me: is an English MA worth the opportunity cost of 2 years of your life?

 

That's not such an easy question. You could say, it's worth it if you're getting a funded MA and losing $10 000 of Starbucks tips/year doing it - that's not much of a loss. But suppose you have a person who would, barring the MA, had gone on to an entry position at a marketing firm, then gotten an MA in something else, which afforded him a higher payoff in aggregate dollar terms than an MA in English would have. This is significantly stretching the metaphor, but philosophically speaking, the cost of lost opportunities is still opportunity cost. I don't know - I'm probably wrong. But it seems to me that rushing into an MA without knowing its consequences is a brash thing to do.

 

But yeah, I'm checking with adcomms that their PhD programs confer MAs after comps.

Edited March 8, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[despejado]

Oh, if only sociology were considered STEM...

I'm the resident joke of my economics department, but bear with me: is an English MA worth the opportunity cost of 2 years of your life?

That's not such an easy question. You could say, it's worth it if you're getting a funded MA and losing $10 000 of Starbucks tips/year doing it - that's not much of a loss. But suppose you have a person who would, barring the MA, had gone on to an entry position at a marketing firm, then gotten an MA in something else, which afforded him a higher payoff in aggregate dollar terms than an MA in English would have. This is significantly stretching the metaphor, but philosophically speaking, the cost of lost opportunities is still opportunity cost. I don't know - I'm probably wrong. But it seems to me that rushing into an MA without knowing its consequences is a brash thing to do.

But yeah, I'm checking with adcomms that their PhD programs confer MAs after comps.

I personally have a spot in a funded MA with a stipend more than the 10,000 in Starbucks tips, so I won't be missing them. The paths are different for everyone, and everyone, in the end, makes their own choice and evaluation of worth. It's not fair to superimpose opinion onto circumstances that are unclear, although I agree that unfunded MAs should be given much more deep thought and consideration than funded ones before commitment.

[ExponentialDecay]

I personally have a spot in a funded MA with a stipend more than the 10,000 in Starbucks tips, so I won't be missing them. The paths are different for everyone, and everyone, in the end, makes their own choice and evaluation of worth. It's not fair to superimpose opinion onto circumstances that are unclear, although I agree that unfunded MAs should be given much more deep thought and consideration than funded ones before commitment.

 

bro, it's great that you found your way. may we all found ours.

 

however, general statements are less about the individual and more about the masses. what i'm questioning is whether a general statement, such as "getting an MA in English will, on average, make you better rather than worse off", is viable in the case of the English MA. indeed, the verity of such a statement is irrelevant to anybody who should be getting an MA in English - but that's the rub, innit.

[despejado]

bro, it's great that you found your way. may we all found ours.

however, general statements are less about the individual and more about the masses. what i'm questioning is whether a general statement, such as "getting an MA in English will, on average, make you better rather than worse off", is viable in the case of the English MA. indeed, the verity of such a statement is irrelevant to anybody who should be getting an MA in English - but that's the rub, innit.

Don't call me bro. Please.

I agree that general statements are more for the masses; I also think, however, that they don't take into consideration individuals, which is a lot of the purpose of this site. Important to cover bases. General info won't help those looking for insight on their own individual positions.

Edited March 8, 2014 by despejado

[ComeBackZinc]

bro, it's great that you found your way. may we all found ours.

 

however, general statements are less about the individual and more about the masses. what i'm questioning is whether a general statement, such as "getting an MA in English will, on average, make you better rather than worse off", is viable in the case of the English MA. indeed, the verity of such a statement is irrelevant to anybody who should be getting an MA in English - but that's the rub, innit.

 

One, I'm not sure who you think is making that point or why you think it's being debated here, where a very specific situation was brought up. Two, as I've said, there's in fact quite compelling evidence to make the claim that getting an MA in general makes you, on average, better rather than worse off-- economically, which seems to be the only way you want to discuss-- and further that you haven't done anything at all to support your claim that humanities MAs or English MAs specifically don't match that general trend. You've merely said you have anecdotes, which do not rise to your own standard of evidence about the masses. And I say this as someone who has devoted significant amounts of time to assessing similar claims, such as the notion that there's a STEM shortage and that STEM graduates enjoy better outcomes than other BAs, neither of which is supportable via evidence. You're merely playing to cultural assumptions and not offering evidence, then acting like people who are pointing that out are wrong. If you have evidence to offer, present it. But your supreme self-satisfaction does not rise to the level of evidence.

[ExponentialDecay]

 

 

 And I say this as someone who has devoted significant amounts of time to assessing similar claims, such as the notion that there's a STEM shortage and that STEM graduates enjoy better outcomes than other BAs, neither of which is supportable via evidence. You're merely playing to cultural assumptions and not offering evidence

 

i'm not attacking you. i agree with you. i am unconvinced by the thesis that a humanities degree offers an advantage in the average situation, however.

 

i will present data when you present data. hopefully by then, i'll also be getting paid to present it.

 

additionally, i'm not sure that saying that getting any MA is gonna make you better off is enough of a corollary. if you're making an argument about specifically english degrees, you have to control for english degrees.

Edited March 8, 2014 by exponentialdecay

[ComeBackZinc]

I'm not willing to concede the general statement; he's offered no evidence for his general statement.

[ComeBackZinc]

i'm not attacking you. i agree with you. i am unconvinced by the thesis that a humanities degree offers an advantage in the average situation, however.

 

i will present data when you present data. hopefully by then, i'll also be getting paid to present it.

 

additionally, i'm not sure that saying that getting any MA is gonna make you better off is enough of a corollary. if you're making an argument about specifically english degrees, you have to control for english degrees.

 

#1, way to edit out your jerk-tastic response gif to despejado

 

#2, you have shown up here, and with maximal smugness and provocation, made an affirmative claim-- that humanities MA degrees (which you have since changed to English MA degrees) do not enjoy the significant economic advantage that MA holders writ-large enjoy. You know that general advantage exists, but here it is anyway, from BLS data:

 

 

Now within that general MA slice is humanities MAs. As you've said, and I concede, it's possible that humanities MAs are a significant outlier from this general data. But you have to actual prove claims like that from reference to responsibly-generated data. You say you're an academic; academics show proof. And while we do need to look at humanities-specific (or now English-specific, since you moved the goal posts) outcomes, the general trend is the best available evidence we have right now. Against that you've offered... well, nothing.

 

And you've done it while dancing back and forth between being a troll and being someone who wants to really engage. I don't mind engaging and I can tolerate trolling, but I don't like jumping from one foot to another. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing here, but you clearly have a narrative you want to advance but don't want to bother to prove. That's not responsible, and I think you know that.

[ExponentialDecay]

#1, way to edit out your jerk-tastic response gif to despejado

 

 

And you've done it while dancing back and forth between being a troll and being someone who wants to really engage. I don't mind engaging and I can tolerate trolling, but I don't like jumping from one foot to another. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing here, but you clearly have a narrative you want to advance but don't want to bother to prove. That's not responsible, and I think you know that.

 

That was a good gif Here it is:

 

 

i edited it cos she edited hers and she was like, don't call me bro PLEASE, and i felt bad - but it is a pretty good gif, and i leave it here as decoration.

 

Now, for your salient point.

 

I don't claim to be an academic, but I'll probably become one, which is likely why I am so smug. I apologise; I try to stop myself, but if you'd had my upbringing, you'd be smug too. I completely admit to being a snotty undergraduate with no recourse to data.

 

However, you too don't have data - as in the data you do have don't address my claim. We can just leave the issue on the table and return to our respective caves to find that data/play minecraft, and live to fight another day.

[ComeBackZinc]

Fine by me. 

[despejado]

That was a good gif Here it is:

i edited it cos she edited hers and she was like, don't call me bro PLEASE, and i felt bad - but it is a pretty good gif, and i leave it here as decoration.

Now, for your salient point.

I don't claim to be an academic, but I'll probably become one, which is likely why I am so smug. I apologise; I try to stop myself, but if you'd had my upbringing, you'd be smug too. I completely admit to being a snotty undergraduate with no recourse to data.

However, you too don't have data - as in the data you do have don't address my claim. We can just leave the issue on the table and return to our respective caves to find that data/play minecraft, and live to fight another day.

I did edit mine. I didn't want to be quite the asshole I was headed in the direction of being... So I appreciate that, exponentialdecay. Good to be up front, at the very least.

[ExponentialDecay]

you guys, i love this <3

 

if academia is anything like this, i'm gonna have such a good time!