Comparing placement records for MA's?

[gob]

I'm not quite sure how best to compare the placement records for different MA's. Where does, for instance, Georgia State rank against NIU? Does it make sense to take the avg ranking of the programs their students have been accepted into and compare that way, or is the sample size low enough that this is a poor indication?

 

And, perhaps an even more intractable question: does anyone have any sense for how good GSU's placement is with candidates interested in Ethics, specifically?

 

In case it's not already apparent, I'm trying to decide between these two.

[Duns Eith]

I found this resource to be extremely helpful:

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

It will take a bit to read, but when you understand what the author is doing with the data and his methodology, the tables make sense (instead of just taking his word for the ranks he gives)

[Duns Eith]

Also, if you do the math yourself you can check to see if they mention how many graduated, and of those graduates how many applied, and of those applicants how many placed. You would then check the ratios for comparison.

Some of the schools I have been accepted into actually give all that information even with where people got accepted with funding.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Turretin

[ianfaircloud]

Average ranking isn't a great idea. Consider some hypotheticals (intentionally made extreme in order to illustrate a point). I'll preface all this with the huge caveat that there's something crude about evaluating placement by reducing records to a list of numbers, where each number represents PGR ranking. I won't give the long list of obvious drawbacks to such a crude way of looking at placement. I will say, though, that many of us fall back on something like this method of evaluating records, because it's fairly easy to reduce records to numbers like this, and because many of us believe that the PGR rankings mean something even if they don't mean everything. It's an imperfect philosophy world in which we live, and we're doing the best with the tools that we have.

 

HYPO 1

 

Where "5, 19, 33, NR" indicates that four people were placed at programs ranked 5, 19, 33, and not ranked, respectively. . . .

 

Program A:

20 people per cohort.

Admission results: 1, 2, 5, and the remaining applicants/students aren't accounted for. (I.e. three people were admitted anywhere, and they were admitted to programs ranked 1st, 2nd, and 5th.)

 

Program B:

20 people per cohort.

Admission results: 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, and the remaining applicants/students aren't accounted for. (I.e. 14 people were admitted, all to programs ranked 12th to 16th)

 

In my view, Program B has the better placement record. The average method doesn't reveal that B has the better placement record.

 

HYPO 2:

 

It's even better to have information about how many applied and were not admitted, and how many didn't apply. Take the following hypothetical, where DA means "didn't apply," "NR" means not ranked, and "NA" means not admitted:

 

Program C:

10 people per cohort

Admission results: 5, 10, 15, 20, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, DA (I.e. nine people applied, four of whom were admitted to places ranked 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, respectively.)

 

Program D:

10 people per cohort

Admission results: 5, 10, 15, 20, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA

 

Program D has probably the better placement record.

 

HYPO 3:

 

Here's another reason that straight-up averaging isn't that helpful. See the following hypothetical:

 

Program E:

10 people per cohort

Admission results: 10, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, DA, DA, DA

 

Program F:

10 people per cohort

Admission results: 10, 11, 19, NR, NR, NR, NR, DA, DA, DA

 

How do you calculate the NR admissions? Do they count as ranked 50th for the sake of the exercise?

 

HYPO 4:

 

Program G:

20 people per cohort

Admission results: 4, 9, 13, 18, 25, and the rest are ?, NA, or DA.

 

Program H:

10 people per cohort

Admission results: 4, 9, 13, 18, 25, and the rest are ?, NA, or DA.

 

This hypo just illustrates that the program with the better placement record is the one with the greater share of its students doing well.  Again, a straight-up averaging doesn't distinguish properly between G and H.

 

Edit: Obviously there's another weakness in the "average ranking" method, and that's the weakness that I point out in the caveat at the top of this post: PGR ranking just doesn't reveal everything that's important in a placement. But if you're doing this very crude analysis of placement, at least do something more than average the list of numbers. I recommend considering the cohort size. Consider how many people applied out. Consider whether a lot of people are doing well or only a few. Consider what share of the students is landing somewhere decent and what share ends up dropping out of philosophy altogether. That's a more holistic approach than an averaging. For these reasons I said last year that UW Milwaukee or perhaps Brandeis had the best placement records. For for the first time in years, Tufts wasn't at the top in terms of placement. These are my views, and others have good reasons not to adopt my views. Directly to the issue of which program has better placement -- NIU or Georgia State -- I would need to look again to defend my view, but I recall in previous years concluding that Georgia State's record is a bit stronger than NIU's in terms of placement. These are all very good programs in terms of placement. Also, most people don't choose a program purely on placement evaluated objectively. For instance, if your dream is to study at University of Southern California, NIU has a few recent placements to USC. Several years ago, UW Milwaukee placed at Harvard a few times. Georgia State places at WUSTL almost every year. Brandeis places someone at UNC every other year. University of Missouri St. Louis (UMSL) has placed at Rutgers once before. People might want to consider these "pathway" programs (i.e. programs that are pathways to particular graduate programs in philosophy) and choose accordingly. If you want to go to WUSTL for philosophy and neuroscience, then Georgia State is the obvious best choice (best among MA programs).

Edited March 17, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Duns Eith]

Ian: great illustration.

OP: I made this spreadsheet for the programs I am accepted at, and maybe it can be a helpful template for you

The second tab has the placement records

https://itmb.co/7nnmi

[gob]

Thanks for the very thorough response from both of you, and especially Ian for a useful run-down of the limitiations of comparing placement records using average PGR rank. In fact, an inkling of some of those limitations was what motivated my question.

 

I'd already seen the Philosophy News article that Turretin posted (which includes an assessment based on average rank) but was skeptical that these numbers were telling the whole story. As Ian points out, above, different schools are likely to place better with certain programs/areas of specialisation and the numbers will in no way account for that. Moreover, and without wishing to impute any self-serving motives to the person who wrote it, NIU seems to come out very well compared to GSU in that article... and NIU also happens to be the place where the writer studied his MA.

 

Really, the thing I'm trying to figure out is which program is most likely to get me into the highest-possible ranked Phd program to study ethics, in two years time. I don't yet have figured out what my "dream school" is or which particular program/advisor I am aiming at. I just know that I want to study ethics/political philosophy and feel the general pressure to be in a program that's as well-ranked as possible in order to stand a chance at (eventually) securing a job. I suppose, then, I should look up which Phd programs are considered the best for ethics and see in whose placement records they tend to come up the most, in recent years. (Using this? http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown/breakdown8.asp)At a glance they seem to be comparable?

 

In terms of the worry that a place will have a high average placement rank which, at the same time, masks the additional fact that most of their graduates aren't accepted anywhere... This is a moot point in terms of comparing GSU and NIU, I think. Both seem to me to have acceptable ratios of application to acceptance. I'm far more concerned about the quality/prestige of the programs their graduates end up at.

[Duns Eith]

Yes, it may actually be a good idea to work backwards. Get your ideas of the authors/faculty/programs you want to get into (get an idea of your dream schools), then look at the MA programs that placed someone in those ranked PhD programs.

 

E.g. in my spreadsheet I actually list the top 10 programs (a top 5, a top 10, two top 20, etc.) and compare the schools according to how many of them the program mentions. Not an exact measure, sure, but it is one more angle to help.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Turretin

[Dumbnamechange]

My advice won't be nearly as helpful as the others, but for ethics (broadly construed to include political and legal philosophy), GSU clearly trumps NIU in terms of faculty. An absurd percentage of the professors at GSU specialize in some form of ethics, whereas NIU has ~3.5 (incl. the part-time emeritus prof.). If you're really full-go on ethics, and the options are pretty much financially equal, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend GSU. Especially because of the diversity of ethics taught at GSU, you might be able to explore more specifically what branch of ethics you want to specialize in.

 

As far as I see it, if there's one clear-cut variable between the PGR MA programs, it's that GSU is the ethical/political program, whereas NIU is the epistemology/metaphysics (of all of the variables to consider, this one has really the starkest difference). Looking at NIU's placement record, not only are theses in ethics rare -- they don't place anywhere.

 

But like I said, that's kind of holistic. Unless you have a really secure, well-thought-out plan to work with prof. X at university Y to get into program Z, GSU is an extremely safe bet.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Dumbnamechange

[philstudent1991]

I'm not quite sure how best to compare the placement records for different MA's. Where does, for instance, Georgia State rank against NIU? Does it make sense to take the avg ranking of the programs their students have been accepted into and compare that way, or is the sample size low enough that this is a poor indication?

 

And, perhaps an even more intractable question: does anyone have any sense for how good GSU's placement is with candidates interested in Ethics, specifically?

 

In case it's not already apparent, I'm trying to decide between these two.

 

 

Firstly, I think Ian's post is very helpful. Secondly, it is hard to identify specific placement for ethics, since most of the same advisors work in ethics and political, and also sometimes ethics overlaps with Kant, so teasing out exactly who gets placed in what is tough. If you look at GSU theses over the past two years, there are only two that can be conservatively categorized as ethics, and they are now at Cornell and UC Riverside. But there are tons of theses in political, and their placement is diverse and in any sense of the word "strong", and I imagine many of those folks were interested in ethics as well (remember, thesis topic doesn't always track interests; very often students have major additional interests that don't show up in the thesis). 

 

My broader comment on placement is that NIU and GSU both have very good placement, and not just of the sort that Ian warns about, of having one or two elite people distracting from a broader pattern of weak placements. If you are interested in ethics, GSU has lots of faculty interested in that, and seems to be the better choice with respect to that element of your decision. Of course, you must decide whether funding is adequate, whether you would prefer DeKalb or Atlanta, etc. etc. I would definitely ask about such things at prospective weekends as well and email current students working in your area. Good luck in your decision; I think you can't go wrong!

[ianfaircloud]

Firstly, I think Ian's post is very helpful. Secondly, it is hard to identify specific placement for ethics, since most of the same advisors work in ethics and political, and also sometimes ethics overlaps with Kant, so teasing out exactly who gets placed in what is tough. If you look at GSU theses over the past two years, there are only two that can be conservatively categorized as ethics, and they are now at Cornell and UC Riverside. But there are tons of theses in political, and their placement is diverse and in any sense of the word "strong", and I imagine many of those folks were interested in ethics as well (remember, thesis topic doesn't always track interests; very often students have major additional interests that don't show up in the thesis). 

 

My broader comment on placement is that NIU and GSU both have very good placement, and not just of the sort that Ian warns about, of having one or two elite people distracting from a broader pattern of weak placements. If you are interested in ethics, GSU has lots of faculty interested in that, and seems to be the better choice with respect to that element of your decision. Of course, you must decide whether funding is adequate, whether you would prefer DeKalb or Atlanta, etc. etc. I would definitely ask about such things at prospective weekends as well and email current students working in your area. Good luck in your decision; I think you can't go wrong!

 

It's worth noting that any good placement in ethics is impressive. The fact that GSU has a few of these sets GSU apart from the other top MA programs. There just aren't a lot of people in normative ethics at top MA programs who are getting placed in normative ethics at strong PhD programs. For what it's worth, I can't recall any T20 PhD placement in normative ethics in the last few years at Brandeis. At UW Milwaukee, there were some impressive normative ethics placements in the last few years; none is a T20 placement (for what it's worth). Tufts doesn't reveal anything about this on the placement page, but I don't see that Tufts strengths lie in normative ethics. Someone could do a lot more research on this, and maybe we could then say with even more confidence that top MA programs aren't placing too many candidates with normative ethics as a central AOI into top PhD programs.

 

How to explain this. Well, strong PhD placements are rare generally, so we shouldn't expect that any AOI is placed often. I suspect also that there are a lot of very strong undergrads with AOIs in ethics who are admitted straight to PhD programs.

 

It's also odd, in my opinion at least, that so many MA students include normative ethics as an AOI. In my limited experience, there's an interest in normative ethics today that is particularly disproportionate to the number of available positions in PhD programs (and on the job market).

 

Here's one crazy thought: maybe people who are especially interested in normative ethics tend also to be those who land a position outside of philosophy (e.g. law, as I did, or psychology, or public policy, etc.).

 

I hope someone will research the placement records a bit more to discover whether there's an MA program that stands out as particularly strong in ethics. Having not done the research myself, I'm of the same mind as philstudent1991, that GSU is one of the better MA programs for students of normative ethics.

Edited March 18, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[qualiafreak]

I've been accepted to GSU and UMSL for MA. As of now, the funding packages are identical (but I am on the short list for a fellowship at GSU). My interests are primarily centered around Philosophy of Cognitive Science and also Epistemology.  I know that GSU is a great fit for these interests, especially mind, and also has better placement overall. However, there are some specifics to my situation that have me questioning whether or not GSU really is the obvious choice or not.

 

The main advantage of UMSL is its proximity to WUSTL which is fantastic for the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. I know proximity by itself doesn't necessarily indicate the possibility of working relationships with faculty, but in this case it does. In fact, one of my favorite scholars at WUSTL e-mailed me saying they hope I accept the offer at UMSL so I can work with them and take courses with them. This would be very exciting for me.

 

Another difference between the program is the required work for the assistantship package. At GSU, I will teach 5 sections of critical thinking my second year (while I am writing my thesis, AND applying to PhD programs, AND finishing up required courses - ah!). While this seems like a great opportunity for teaching experience, there's also the possibility it will take away from my research, studies, and time I can devote to applying to PhD programs. UMSL, however, just requires some grading for the assistantship. I'm not sure how important this consideration is but I thought I'd note it as another difference between the programs.

 

I think I'm leaning toward GSU, but I'm really not sure at this point and would appreciate any input.

[overoverover]

I've been accepted to GSU and UMSL for MA. As of now, the funding packages are identical (but I am on the short list for a fellowship at GSU). My interests are primarily centered around Philosophy of Cognitive Science and also Epistemology.  I know that GSU is a great fit for these interests, especially mind, and also has better placement overall. However, there are some specifics to my situation that have me questioning whether or not GSU really is the obvious choice or not.

 

The main advantage of UMSL is its proximity to WUSTL which is fantastic for the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. I know proximity by itself doesn't necessarily indicate the possibility of working relationships with faculty, but in this case it does. In fact, one of my favorite scholars at WUSTL e-mailed me saying they hope I accept the offer at UMSL so I can work with them and take courses with them. This would be very exciting for me.

 

Another difference between the program is the required work for the assistantship package. At GSU, I will teach 5 sections of critical thinking my second year (while I am writing my thesis, AND applying to PhD programs, AND finishing up required courses - ah!). While this seems like a great opportunity for teaching experience, there's also the possibility it will take away from my research, studies, and time I can devote to applying to PhD programs. UMSL, however, just requires some grading for the assistantship. I'm not sure how important this consideration is but I thought I'd note it as another difference between the programs.

 

I think I'm leaning toward GSU, but I'm really not sure at this point and would appreciate any input.

I know at least three people who went through the MA program at GSU and all speak incredibly highly of it. If you get the Brains and Behavior fellowship, even better, because the teaching load is alleviated. All three taught, wrote their theses, and applied and were accepted to several PhD programs. They're also some of the most on-point philosophers I've ever met, and they credit that to GSU.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overoverover

[ianfaircloud]

I've been accepted to GSU and UMSL for MA. As of now, the funding packages are identical (but I am on the short list for a fellowship at GSU). My interests are primarily centered around Philosophy of Cognitive Science and also Epistemology.  I know that GSU is a great fit for these interests, especially mind, and also has better placement overall. However, there are some specifics to my situation that have me questioning whether or not GSU really is the obvious choice or not.

 

The main advantage of UMSL is its proximity to WUSTL which is fantastic for the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. I know proximity by itself doesn't necessarily indicate the possibility of working relationships with faculty, but in this case it does. In fact, one of my favorite scholars at WUSTL e-mailed me saying they hope I accept the offer at UMSL so I can work with them and take courses with them. This would be very exciting for me.

 

Another difference between the program is the required work for the assistantship package. At GSU, I will teach 5 sections of critical thinking my second year (while I am writing my thesis, AND applying to PhD programs, AND finishing up required courses - ah!). While this seems like a great opportunity for teaching experience, there's also the possibility it will take away from my research, studies, and time I can devote to applying to PhD programs. UMSL, however, just requires some grading for the assistantship. I'm not sure how important this consideration is but I thought I'd note it as another difference between the programs.

 

I think I'm leaning toward GSU, but I'm really not sure at this point and would appreciate any input.

 

Tough choice! I don't know all the other factors for you, how you weight them, etc., so I'll just proceed on some assumptions.

 

If the money is the same, I would lean toward UMSL in this case, provided that I have the correct reading of your relationship with the WUSTL professor. Assuming that you have a good and close relationship with that professor, I would take the UMSL position. GSU is perfect for your interests, but if you can work closely with someone at WUSTL who has actually told you that s/he hopes you'll take the UMSL offer, that changes things. It permits you the chance to do high level work and to get a letter from someone who already wants you to succeed. (Edit: I have also assumed that working closely with this professor could be an easy way to be admitted to WUSTL, which is a solid place to study cognitive science, since not only are there several strong professors working in the area, but also the medical school is possibly the best place in the world to study neuroscience. Of course, given recent stats out of GSU, going to GSU might be an easy way to be admitted to WUSTL.)

 

The GSU workload is real. I know this from speaking with others at the program, and I'm sure they'll say the same. (I could quote from some of these people, but the sense I get is that the workload is somewhat heavy, that some people complain more than others, and that it's manageable. Obviously it's manageable, because people have managed to do quite well out of GSU.) If GSU comes through on the financial side, then depending on how you weigh finances, you may want to choose GSU. If you choose GSU, I would speak with the WUSTL professor about this. Let him or her know that the money made a difference in your decision but that you hope you'll have the chance to work with him or her in the future (and that you'll be sure to apply in two years).

Edited March 18, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Griswald]

I've been accepted to GSU and UMSL for MA. As of now, the funding packages are identical (but I am on the short list for a fellowship at GSU). My interests are primarily centered around Philosophy of Cognitive Science and also Epistemology.  I know that GSU is a great fit for these interests, especially mind, and also has better placement overall. However, there are some specifics to my situation that have me questioning whether or not GSU really is the obvious choice or not.

 

The main advantage of UMSL is its proximity to WUSTL which is fantastic for the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. I know proximity by itself doesn't necessarily indicate the possibility of working relationships with faculty, but in this case it does. In fact, one of my favorite scholars at WUSTL e-mailed me saying they hope I accept the offer at UMSL so I can work with them and take courses with them. This would be very exciting for me.

 

Another difference between the program is the required work for the assistantship package. At GSU, I will teach 5 sections of critical thinking my second year (while I am writing my thesis, AND applying to PhD programs, AND finishing up required courses - ah!). While this seems like a great opportunity for teaching experience, there's also the possibility it will take away from my research, studies, and time I can devote to applying to PhD programs. UMSL, however, just requires some grading for the assistantship. I'm not sure how important this consideration is but I thought I'd note it as another difference between the programs.

 

I think I'm leaning toward GSU, but I'm really not sure at this point and would appreciate any input.

Tough decision. Regarding the consideration that UMSL is close to WUSTL, let me chime in with just one piece of advice, on the assumption that you plan on applying to PhD programs. While working with faculty at WUSTL may be intellectually rewarding for you, be careful not to overestimate the value that that will have when it comes to PhD applications. In my experience, having gone through an MA, the most important thing is doing really well in your program. Sometimes (not always, but often enough) students who pursue too much stuff outside of their department end up stretching themselves too thin and extra-departmental activities end up having and adverse effect. A two year MA goes by really quickly--you'll need to start thinking about your PhD applications during your first summer. It's hard enough to forge good relationships with faculty in your home department in that time, let alone make meaningful connections in other departments. Admittedly, I don't know much about the situation at UMST and WUSTL, but I will say that the most successful MA students that I know put most of their effort into doing really well in their home departments (i.e. standing out in seminar discussions, writing excellent term papers/writing samples/theses) and tended to minimize extra-departmental activities.

[NathanKellen]

Tough decision. Regarding the consideration that UMSL is close to WUSTL, let me chime in with just one piece of advice, on the assumption that you plan on applying to PhD programs. While working with faculty at WUSTL may be intellectually rewarding for you, be careful not to overestimate the value that that will have when it comes to PhD applications. In my experience, having gone through an MA, the most important thing is doing really well in your program. Sometimes (not always, but often enough) students who pursue too much stuff outside of their department end up stretching themselves too thin and extra-departmental activities end up having and adverse effect. A two year MA goes by really quickly--you'll need to start thinking about your PhD applications during your first summer. It's hard enough to forge good relationships with faculty in your home department in that time, let alone make meaningful connections in other departments. Admittedly, I don't know much about the situation at UMST and WUSTL, but I will say that the most successful MA students that I know put most of their effort into doing really well in their home departments (i.e. standing out in seminar discussions, writing excellent term papers/writing samples/theses) and tended to minimize extra-departmental activities.

To add on to what I see as good advice here: if you end up choosing UMSL, you need to get a letter from someone at WUSTL. That should be near the top of your priority list.

 

I would ask the person who emailed you very frankly if it's possible to not only work with them, but to get a letter from them. If they answer with a strong affirmative, you should definitely consider that route. If not, I'd consider other options.

[qualiafreak]

Thank you all so much for the helpful insights! You've given me a lot to think about. I'm just hoping I get the GSU fellowship, then my choice will be clear.