Getting into programs with an MA

[Timemachines]

This may be a misguided observation, however, I'm noticing that many competitive applicants receiving interview invites do so without the need of a masters...and that pursuing an MA may actually hurt your chances. Can anyone speak to this? I got my masters because I recognized I had a weak undergraduate gpa that would never get me into a clinical program (above  3.0 though). This is my first cycle applying but I'm feeling pretty deflated about it. Not entirely sure how I should go about strengthening my applications for the future if my GPA is a kiss of death.

[haiqtpi]

My understanding from many PhD students is that a masters typically is used by people with lower undergrad gpas.  This being said, yea, I have heard mixed feelings regarding getting a masters before PhD (separately and not simply along the way during your PhD program) - it seems to really vary from person to person, kind of like the importance of GRE - some professors use them a lot (or too much, depending on who you ask), and some find the notion of using them as a major deciding factor as being silly.  There is probably no real good suggestion here, form what I have gathered at least.  

[artsy16]

I've never heard of it "hurting" anyone's chances, but many clinical programs (and PhD programs in other disciplines) refuse to accept an applicant if they don't have a related master's degree. One program I applied to started accepting applicants with only bachelor's degrees this cycle. So, if I'm accepted and enroll, I'll be one of the first students (possibley the only) entering without a master's degree. 

[CatLady4Lyfe]

Having your master's definitely puts you and I in a minority group, but I don't think it's the degree itself that makes/breaks you, it's what you do during your time getting your master's. When I graduated from undergrad I had virtually no research experience and 1 conference presentation. That's it. Nothing. By the time I was done with my master's I had 9 conference presentations, 3 semesters of graduate teaching experience, 1 semester as an adjunct, and 3 years of serious lab work. AND, more importantly, I was just as surprised as anyone that I ended up choosing Social as the direction I wanted to make a career out of. It took me having all those years of experience to know for sure what I wanted to do, and that makes me a more mature applicant and realistic investment from the school's perspective. I'm not going to enroll and drop out, mess up their funding, or harm the school's reputation in an any way. They want to be able to say that we offered x number of students acceptance, and that same number of students finished the program 5 (or 7 depending on the area) years later.

It's the way you present yourself, also. You can have a master's in clinical and previous practicum experience and blah blah blah and still manage to say, "I have developed ideas of my own, but I am certainly open to the methodology and approach that your program can teach me." 

One of the best decisions I have made was hiring a consultant to help me on my essay/cv/interview prep. It was pricey but the company is legit. The founder of the company has held 2 tenure position at top tiered universities (U of Oregon and U of Illinois - Urbana Champaign) and left academia because of all the politics. She tells you straight up, sentence by sentence, how to not sound like a poor applicant who desperately wants to go to grad school, even if that is the case. I knew I was a strong applicant but it wasn't coming across in my application packets. And now it has and I am much better for it. I've been surprised that I haven't heard others talk about doing this? The services are infinitely better than anything I've ever seen offered at a university career services center, or even previous professors of mine that have offered to help.

Edited January 16, 2016 by lbierstedt

[overdetermination]

14 minutes ago, lbierstedt said:

One of the best decisions I have made was hiring a consultant to help me on my essay/cv/interview prep. It was pricey but the company is legit. The founder of the company has held 2 tenure position at top tiered universities (U of Oregon and U of Illinois - Urbana Champaign) and left academia because of all the politics. She tells you straight up, sentence by sentence, how to not sound like a poor applicant who desperately wants to go to grad school, even if that is the case. I knew I was a strong applicant but it wasn't coming across in my application packets. And now it has and I am much better for it. I've been surprised that I haven't heard others talk about doing this? The services are infinitely better than anything I've ever seen offered at a university career services center, or even previous professors of mine that have offered to help.

Some schools consider the above tantamount to cheating for the obvious reason that not everybody can afford to incur such grossly disproportionate advantage (there was definitely language to that effect on some of my application signature pages), so that may be why you don't hear people talking about it. 

That being said, to address OP's point: I can't speak to Clinical, but the overwhelming majority of applicants invited to the one interview day I've been to either had one (or more) master's, or were currently working on one, or had years of research experience after graduating. I met one person who was still an undergrad. I've heard it explained "a file is a file is a file"; if you have to go through steps x, y, and z to make your application competitive, especially research-wise, I don't get the impression it reflects poorly at all, provided steps x, y, and z did result in a more competitive app! 

Edited January 16, 2016 by overdetermination

[CatLady4Lyfe]

That's interesting. I've never seen anything like that. I don't see how it's any different than having a mentor help you on your essay. And believe me, I couldn't afford it like it was just a regular day, either.

Really? Grossly proportionate advantage? Hardly. It's prepping for academia. These people are cutthroat and we're crazy enough to want to be their colleagues. It would be naive to assume that the thousands of applicants just submit their application without having friends/family/professors read over our writing and listen to our elevator pitches about our research interests.

 

[overdetermination]

12 minutes ago, lbierstedt said:

Really? Grossly proportionate advantage? Hardly. It's prepping for academia. These people are cutthroat and we're crazy enough to want to be their colleagues. It would be naive to assume that the thousands of applicants just submit their application without having friends/family/professors read over our writing and listen to our elevator pitches about our research interests.

 

Could have sworn earlier you were claiming it was "infinitely better". Now it's comparable to the help you can get from a mentor or friends, even? Sheesh. 

Nobody imagines the playing field is level. Some people have parents who are themselves professors, some people were raised by a single mom waitressing, and it's crazy to imagine there's some way to make up for that relative advantage at the 'applying to grad school' phase of the game. Some people can take the GREs 5 times a year, some can only afford to do it once. Etc. But we draw lines somewhere, and *buying* the help of someone who otherwise has no connection to you to massage every line of your application is clearly over the line. In my mind. 

[Neist]

11 minutes ago, lbierstedt said:

That's interesting. I've never seen anything like that. I don't see how it's any different than having a mentor help you on your essay. And believe me, I couldn't afford it like it was just a regular day, either.

Really? Grossly proportionate advantage? Hardly. It's prepping for academia. These people are cutthroat and we're crazy enough to want to be their colleagues. It would be naive to assume that the thousands of applicants just submit their application without having friends/family/professors read over our writing and listen to our elevator pitches about our research interests.

I don't see it any different, either, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily fair. Then again, life is pretty unfair.  I had a friend in high school who took costly test prep courses and after maybe a dozen ACT attempts, he got high enough of a score to get a full ride. His first attempt was no higher than mine, but his parents could afford to put in that extra effort, and it paid off. My parents could afford to let me take it once.

Just now, overdetermination said:

Could have sworn earlier you were claiming it was "infinitely better". Now it's comparable to the help you can get from a mentor or friends, even? Sheesh. 

Nobody imagines the playing field is level. Some people have parents who are themselves professors, some people were raised by a single mom waitressing, and it's crazy to imagine there's some way to make up for that relative advantage at the 'applying to grad school' phase of the game. Some people can take the GREs 5 times a year, some can only afford to do it once. Etc. But we draw lines somewhere, and *buying* the help of someone who otherwise has no connection to you to massage every line of your application is clearly over the line. In my mind. 

This is pretty much sentiments.

But, as I stated, I don't mind. If paying for someone to look at your application is the only option you have, and you can afford it, so be it. However, having a willing mentor is considerably cheaper. I actually took a course at my university from the director of our McNairs Scholars Program to help my application, and I found it invaluable. I mean, that still cost money, and not an insignificant amount. Tuition certainly isn't cheap.

Whatever gives you the ability to polish your application, I say. The reason these services don't bother me all that much is that there's plenty of professors who will generally help you the same way for free, but the services are definitely more straightforward and easy.

[CatLady4Lyfe]

I'm not going to argue with you here because it's highly inappropriate. Feel free to send me a personal message if you'd like to continue this conversation.

Good luck to you in this process.

 

 

[Freudian_Slip]

Wow this thread quickly devolved into a tangent. I can't see how an MA can hurt you, but it may not help as much as some might think. Admissions committees probably often see lower undergrad GPAs then high MA GPAs and could thus be susceptible to thinking the latter are inflated (though they may just reflect the student finally getting things together and developing maturity later in their academics). More of the benefit from the Masters program, though, would seem to come from further opportunities to acquire research experience, get strong letters of rec, and publish/present at conferences--all things which you can do anyway in a full time RA/lab manger role out of undergrad (and hopefully being paid to do so, without incurring any potential debt from a masters). 

As for the application consulting, if someone really needs much more than a few pointers from a mentor etc. in forming their statements and other materials, they may not have the intellectual maturity, analytic skills, and writing ability that will be needed to succeed in a PHD program and a research career beyond anyway. So the disproportionate advantage (or cheating if you want to be more extreme) as some might call it will eventually catch up if the person doesn't really have those skills in the first place. To the undergrad example a poster gave above, I'm not banking on the person who had to take the SAT 8 times or who had a staff of private tutors throughout high school to do very well at a great university, even if those advantages might have gotten their foot in the door. I don't think you can outrun or cover up your true ability forever in life, no matter the special advantages you may have in the short term. 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Freudian_Slip
Add

[kittyoverthemoon]

I would like to think that I could work long enough as an RA to get into a PhD program, but in my case, I'm a psychology minor from undergrad and hardly have even the course experience to look competitive or excel in such a program right now. I'm seriously contemplating an MA to gain everything stated above including more course knowledge. I think your chances of getting into a PhD program right out of undergrad depends on a few things, including your research experience, publishings, GPA and reflective course knowledge, and confidence in the general path that you want to go with the help of the PhD program. So if you feel like you're confident enough to present both your marks and your previous experience/future goals to admissions, I say go without the MA. Generally speaking though, usually no less than a year of research experience makes you pretty competitive, field work helps (paid or volunteer), and of course published projects look great as well. You can always apply without the MA with the best of what you have now, and if you don't get accepted anywhere, the MA might be a good place to go from there. Also, in the UK, a lot of master's programs are only one year, so that could be a good way to gain the good stuff you need to be more competitive while not forking out 2 years of time and money. Clinical programs might even overlook a short amount of research time in favor of extensive field experience working as an assistant or something with clients. Anyway, best of luck to you!

[Timemachines]

So my masters was productive in that I completed a thesis from start to finish ( data collection, piloting my conditions etc) in that year as most of my coursework was well rounded in STEM and psychological sciences in undergrad. I published to our unicersity's repository but not to a journal as the findings were a bit of a snooze. 

With that being said I've had a slew of research experiences.. 2 in undergrad (one clinical lab, one behavioral neuro)..after undergrad I volunteered at Brown U and mass general labs...joined my masters lab, and now am on a second year contract in a neurpsychology lab with the military (a government sponsored fellowship). If I don't get in this year, I will likely go back to an Alzheimer's lab at mass gen because my current research is very peripheral to my core interests.

I guess I'm just worried because it doesn't matter how much valuable experience I get ( I have technical skills in EEG,polysomnography, structural imaging preproceasing, imaging theory)..I could go on but it all feels like word vomit at the end of the day when pinned next to a 3.03 cum. GPA...(3.45 major in psych/neuro). 

Many people have mentioned that their first application cycle was a huge learning experience so if it comes down to it, I still think I will have much to improve before next cycle.