MA before PhD?

[abisch]

I've heard a lot of this information before, but I figured a few people on here might be interested in this article. 

 http://dailynous.com/2015/09/17/are-mas-the-new-norm-for-admitted-phd-program-applicants/.

[bechkafish]

This is good to hear/read... As someone with a less-than-stellar undergraduate institution and a masters intended somewhat to mitigate that, I have put a lot of eggs into the "terminal masters" basket.  I've heard from a couple of people, however, that PhD programs can sometimes frown upon the terminal masters because it means the candidate has already been molded, to some extent. You're probably used to doing things a certain way in graduate work, and that might not be the way they like, etc. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[sidebysondheim]

This is good to hear/read... As someone with a less-than-stellar undergraduate institution and a masters intended somewhat to mitigate that, I have put a lot of eggs into the "terminal masters" basket.  I've heard from a couple of people, however, that PhD programs can sometimes frown upon the terminal masters because it means the candidate has already been molded, to some extent. You're probably used to doing things a certain way in graduate work, and that might not be the way they like, etc. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I've never heard that before, but to me it seems unlikely because an obvious solution to that problem is do exactly what many PhD programs do and make you start from the beginning and earn their MA/fulfill their distribution requirements. 

[gughok]

This is good to hear/read... As someone with a less-than-stellar undergraduate institution and a masters intended somewhat to mitigate that, I have put a lot of eggs into the "terminal masters" basket.  I've heard from a couple of people, however, that PhD programs can sometimes frown upon the terminal masters because it means the candidate has already been molded, to some extent. You're probably used to doing things a certain way in graduate work, and that might not be the way they like, etc. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I've never heard that before, but to me it seems unlikely because an obvious solution to that problem is do exactly what many PhD programs do and make you start from the beginning and earn their MA/fulfill their distribution requirements. 

I'm also unsure - the professors I've spoken to have said an MA would help my own chances, so while it's plausible there may be an occasional faculty member with the negative view you quote, at least from what I've heard the opposite is also a common opinion. Considering it myself, it seems especially strange that one would take a student to have been "molded" by a terminal MA if it was a non-research degree, i.e. awarded on coursework (such as Toronto's MA). In this case the MA is basically an extended BA, so unless one's undergraduate work is also held against them for a certain amount of "molding"...

[ianfaircloud]

MA as a stepping stone can help, but it doesn't always help. There are a lot of factors here (which program, what area of interest, philosophical potential of the applicant, luck). 

I don't get the feeling that MA students as a rule are scrutinized more by PhD admission committees than non-MA students. There's a great Leiter post about this; it's a few years old now. Someone could Google that and post the link here.

Philosophers on admission committees don't get too hung up on how much a student has already been molded. They care about philosophical potential. They want people who will produce great work (and who don't have really significant personal or professional flaws).