An Application Crisis (MA, PHD...SOL?...Help!)

[histrybuff]

Hello everyone,

I'm a Senior History major at a small college.

My goal is to pursue a PhD in the field of 20th c US urban history (intellectual, political-economic, history of capitalism and the city).

I have a 3.8 gpa, a full tuition fellowship, have work experience in the field (National Archives, Writing Tutor, History teaching assistant at prep school, Archival assistant at cultural institution), have presented my own senior thesis research at three conferences, and have published two articles in the Archives publication as well as a journal. Some professors have told me to apply to PhD programs, while others recommend an MA.

I'm concerned that I will have mediocre GRE scores in Quant. 

The trouble is that I don't know if I'll get accepted to top PhD programs if I apply this time around. I'm worried about my GRE scores. The admissions rates at the schools at which I've made contact with POI's (a few of whom have urged me to apply) are around 6%. Some people at state schools have told me to wait a year and apply after I've done something "interesting." The ivys, as I understand it, frequently want people coming directly from BA's. At the same time, I'd hate to dash my chances of getting into a top program by being rejected from their institution.

I have made contacts at MA programs who have also urged me to apply. These programs have sent their students to top PhD programs and some offer full tuition remission and teaching assistantships to their students. One POI in particular is well respected and is an advocate of my work. I'd certainly learn a lot about historiography and research in an MA program. But should I spend two years at an MA program if my goal is a PhD? I understand that I'd gain more experience, etc., but would an MA be a liability on my PhD application? 

There's also the option of taking a year off and applying next year, after polishing my senior thesis and getting better scores on the GRE. I have applied to a competitive year long fellowship which would involve teaching, so it would be great to do that and apply next year, but no guarantees that I'll get it. If I do decide to take a year off and am not accepted to the fellowship, a well known scholar in my field is looking for research assistants and has expressed interest in my working for him. As the stress of applications mounts, this option is sounding better than ever.

So, the options:

1) Apply to MA and PhD programs and hope for the best.

2) Apply to some more year long teaching fellowships and MA's, keep the conversation with the scholar looking for researchers open, not apply to PhD's in order to preserve my chances at those programs. 

What should I do?

[ashiepoo72]

It sounds like you have a viable writing sample and list of programs, so why not apply to both MAs and PhDs and see what bites you get? It's always good to have a contingency plan, but if you already contacted POIs at PhD programs and will have the materials ready to submit by the application due dates, you might as well try. Also, if you do end up doing an MA, I don't see how it'd be a liability unless you bombed, and it doesn't sound like you're the kind of person who would. If you have a compelling research idea, strong background and good fit, an MA will only help you.

[turnings]

1) Quant scores mean next to nothing.

2) An MA will not harm your future prospects at PhD programs, and will very likely improve your application.

3) The Ivys (this is not a terribly useful metric for graduate program prestige, btw) do not have any particular preference for students coming directly from undergraduate programs, so far as I am aware.

It sounds like you have a fair idea of what you'd like to study, and you've apparently identified some historians with whom you'd like to work. If you apply to both MA and doctoral programs, I would imagine you have a good shot at receiving admission somewhere. Even if you don't receive a direct PhD admit, a funded MA is quite a good deal and should position you very well for applications down the line. I'd go for it and apply now.

[Josh J.]

I agree that the quant GRE score is pretty much meaningless.  For humanities programs, they will look at your language and writing as far as admissions goes.  When it comes to your quant, it will probably only be used if you are nominated for a University Fellowship, aka bump-up funding. They like to give those to people who have high all around GRE scores. 

As Ashie and turnings have stated, the MA isn't gonna hurt you. Apply to both, but I would suggest with your profile to lean into PhD programs more.  My personal thought is not to do free research for people...sure, it might look good on the CV if the person is well known, but don't let yourself be taken advantage of. 

[mvlchicago]

The thing that is really most determinative of where you should apply is missing in your discussion (and this has been discussed elsewhere most recently in the 2016 Applicants thread). Do you have a research question that is precise and interesting for you to engage? Are you aware of conversations around this topic, and do you have a basic sense of what archives//sources you'd need to engage to answer that question?

If you have even basic familiarity with all these questions, and can answer them without hesitation, then I don't think you really need to do the MA program from a "being qualified" standpoint. That is to say, if you apply to your top schools over a couple of seasons, you'll likely be admitted if you work on your application's ability to show your answers. 

The MA of course gives you more time, and a nice way to show on paper that you've got even more experience asking these questions, but you pick up an MA in the PhD circuit because the "what am I doing?!?!?!" crisis is schedule into the PhD program. I think the basic reason why MAs have become more popular over the past 7-8 seasons is simple supply-and-demand, which is to say your rejection could have nothing to do with your GRE scores, your GPA, and your broad range of experiences: you were qualified, but lost out to someone who was older and therefore had more time to do things.

Even beyond that, sometimes academic politics will get in the way of your admissions at your perfect programs. Getting rejected the first time around doesn't brand you with some kind of "rejection" mark. AdComs are generally aware that applying for five to seven years of guaranteed funding to read books and write about them is a competitive process, and that any slight thing could shift the application pool from year-to-year.

[histrybuff]

18 hours ago, turnings said:

1) Quant scores mean next to nothing.

2) An MA will not harm your future prospects at PhD programs, and will very likely improve your application.

3) The Ivys (this is not a terribly useful metric for graduate program prestige, btw) do not have any particular preference for students coming directly from undergraduate programs, so far as I am aware.

It sounds like you have a fair idea of what you'd like to study, and you've apparently identified some historians with whom you'd like to work. If you apply to both MA and doctoral programs, I would imagine you have a good shot at receiving admission somewhere. Even if you don't receive a direct PhD admit, a funded MA is quite a good deal and should position you very well for applications down the line. I'd go for it and apply now.

turnings, thanks very very much for this advice. I think I will, then, apply for both programs. Here goes nothing! What a relief to know that quant scores aren't really considered!

[histrybuff]

20 hours ago, ashiepoo72 said:

It sounds like you have a viable writing sample and list of programs, so why not apply to both MAs and PhDs and see what bites you get? It's always good to have a contingency plan, but if you already contacted POIs at PhD programs and will have the materials ready to submit by the application due dates, you might as well try. Also, if you do end up doing an MA, I don't see how it'd be a liability unless you bombed, and it doesn't sound like you're the kind of person who would. If you have a compelling research idea, strong background and good fit, an MA will only help you.

ashiepoo, thanks very much! Good to know that there's a lot of hoo-ha out there and I'm not completely crazy in thinking that an MA would be beneficial.

[histrybuff]

12 hours ago, mvlchicago said:

The thing that is really most determinative of where you should apply is missing in your discussion (and this has been discussed elsewhere most recently in the 2016 Applicants thread). Do you have a research question that is precise and interesting for you to engage? Are you aware of conversations around this topic, and do you have a basic sense of what archives//sources you'd need to engage to answer that question?

If you have even basic familiarity with all these questions, and can answer them without hesitation, then I don't think you really need to do the MA program from a "being qualified" standpoint. That is to say, if you apply to your top schools over a couple of seasons, you'll likely be admitted if you work on your application's ability to show your answers. 

The MA of course gives you more time, and a nice way to show on paper that you've got even more experience asking these questions, but you pick up an MA in the PhD circuit because the "what am I doing?!?!?!" crisis is schedule into the PhD program. I think the basic reason why MAs have become more popular over the past 7-8 seasons is simple supply-and-demand, which is to say your rejection could have nothing to do with your GRE scores, your GPA, and your broad range of experiences: you were qualified, but lost out to someone who was older and therefore had more time to do things.

Even beyond that, sometimes academic politics will get in the way of your admissions at your perfect programs. Getting rejected the first time around doesn't brand you with some kind of "rejection" mark. AdComs are generally aware that applying for five to seven years of guaranteed funding to read books and write about them is a competitive process, and that any slight thing could shift the application pool from year-to-year.

MVL, thanks very much for your reply. I do, I think, have a precise question which I'd like to explore, which has to do with the intersections of political economic ideology and the city. I have been doing lots of reading on this subject and understand the basic contours of the historiography (not going to be too big for my britches on this one). The question is one I'm exploring for my senior capstone, I've done archival research in pursuit of the answer to it, and I've targeted those profs whose work I'm launching off of, have asked them specific research questions via email, and they've encouraged me to apply as I "sounded like [I knew] what [I was] getting into."
 

So glad to hear that my eventual rejection to a top program won't necessarily brand my breast with a scarlet letter. lol.

Thanks very much for your advice; I think I'll throw my hat in the ring for both MAs and PhDs.

[histrybuff]

17 hours ago, Josh J. said:

I agree that the quant GRE score is pretty much meaningless.  For humanities programs, they will look at your language and writing as far as admissions goes.  When it comes to your quant, it will probably only be used if you are nominated for a University Fellowship, aka bump-up funding. They like to give those to people who have high all around GRE scores. 

As Ashie and turnings have stated, the MA isn't gonna hurt you. Apply to both, but I would suggest with your profile to lean into PhD programs more.  My personal thought is not to do free research for people...sure, it might look good on the CV if the person is well known, but don't let yourself be taken advantage of. 

Josh, thanks very much for this advice.

[histrybuff]

Thank you all! I think I will go for both MA and PhD programs and see what happens.

Any advice regarding the Statement of Purpose/Personal Statement? My understanding is that I should give a "why this topic and why this school" as well as a "this will be my methodological approach" for these. The "my 8th grade history teacher..." spiel is, from what I can tell, generally discouraged.

Also, is it useful to talk about my archival and public history exp or should I let my CV speak for itself?

If you're willing, could you send me some advice via pm?

Here goes nothin!

Edited November 10, 2015 by histrybuff

[mvlchicago]

SOPs generally benefit from as much specificity as possible, while leaving allowance for the fact that research can change: Why will your dissertation be ~perfect~ at this school compared to that one? Which faculty have written articles that lately have helped you formulate questions for your research? What archives does your program have connections with that make doing your research easier? You're presumably applying to each of these schools for a reason beyond "the name would look good on my PhD," so bring those reasons to the front.