Number of BAs let into a PhD program

[ColorlessGreen]

Does anyone know if admissions committees try to admit a balance of students straight from undergrad and students who already have MAs? Or is it all just the best applicants period, even if they all end up being just the ones with their master's? I ask because I feel a lot better competing with other BAs than I do with students with graduate experience already, especially after the conversation I had with one of my LOR writers on Monday. (He was nice enough to inform me that he was writing a LOR for a PhD student applying to one of my schools who was sure to get in. Thank you, that's comforting.)

[fuzzylogician]

Does anyone know if admissions committees try to admit a balance of students straight from undergrad and students who already have MAs? Or is it all just the best applicants period, even if they all end up being just the ones with their master's? I ask because I feel a lot better competing with other BAs than I do with students with graduate experience already, especially after the conversation I had with one of my LOR writers on Monday. (He was nice enough to inform me that he was writing a LOR for a PhD student applying to one of my schools who was sure to get in. Thank you, that's comforting.)

In my experience it broke down to Americans/Canadians vs. all the others. Most Americans and Canadians I met last year during school-visiting season only had BAs. All the internationals had at least some graduate experience. The big difference is that in the US, undergrad institutions allow you a lot more possibilities to get research experience, which at least in my school was never an option; and it's 4 years, so you have more to show for yourself when you apply. My BA was 3 years and if I'd applied during undergrad I'd have only had 2 years worth of courses to show as experience, and of those only one was an advanced seminar - I'd have had weak lors, no publications, minor awards and no research experience. So it was a no brainer for me that I needed to at least finish my BA before I applied, and since that meant I'll have a free year, why not at least start my masters?

[Ziz]

In my experience it broke down to Americans/Canadians vs. all the others. Most Americans and Canadians I met last year during school-visiting season only had BAs. All the internationals had at least some graduate experience. The big difference is that in the US, undergrad institutions allow you a lot more possibilities to get research experience, which at least in my school was never an option; and it's 4 years, so you have more to show for yourself when you apply. My BA was 3 years and if I'd applied during undergrad I'd have only had 2 years worth of courses to show as experience, and of those only one was an advanced seminar - I'd have had weak lors, no publications, minor awards and no research experience. So it was a no brainer for me that I needed to at least finish my BA before I applied, and since that meant I'll have a free year, why not at least start my masters?

My undergrad school had no research opportunities and definitely no publication chances. That's why I did my masters first.

[LateAntique]

Most of the programs to which I'm applying have everyone on the same playing field. There were a couple of programs in which I was interested but because of the amount of MA's I would be competing with, I was told not to even try. I asked one professor what I could do to compete and he said, "Go to Harvard, triple major, and come out with a 4.0 - then you can compete with the MA's."

[Pamphilia]

Most of the programs to which I'm applying have everyone on the same playing field. There were a couple of programs in which I was interested but because of the amount of MA's I would be competing with, I was told not to even try. I asked one professor what I could do to compete and he said, "Go to Harvard, triple major, and come out with a 4.0 - then you can compete with the MA's."

I got more or less the opposite advice from all of my undergraduate professors and current grad students at my undergrad. They all said that (in English, at least) it is MUCH harder to get into a program if you already have an MA. Of course, over on the Lit forum, this is a hotly contested issue, and you'll hear both sides. But from people at my actual undergrad program, I never heard anyone argue--ever--that an MA made things easier. Even the grad students who had MAs coming in (and yes, these were people with MAs who still managed to get into a top English PhD program) said that they recommended I forgo the MA first.

[LateAntique]

I got more or less the opposite advice from all of my undergraduate professors and current grad students at my undergrad. They all said that (in English, at least) it is MUCH harder to get into a program if you already have an MA. Of course, over on the Lit forum, this is a hotly contested issue, and you'll hear both sides. But from people at my actual undergrad program, I never heard anyone argue--ever--that an MA made things easier. Even the grad students who had MAs coming in (and yes, these were people with MAs who still managed to get into a top English PhD program) said that they recommended I forgo the MA first.

Curious - can you give me the short version of the rationale as to why it's better to come in with only a BA?

[rising_star]

In my discipline, there are only about a handful (maybe 5-6 max) that will accept you for a PhD if you don't already have a master's...

[alexis]

In general, it seems that a master's is a big help, but this is REALLY discipline specific, so it's hard to generalize. For example, I'd say it's crucial for some of the business programs I'm applying to, but for psychology programs, I don't think it matters as much.

[tskinner]

My recommenders told me that a lot of schools really like students right out of undergrad, because they think they can basically mold them to be the little research minions they want. They can make us think, feel, and live how they want us to.

[Pamphilia]

Curious - can you give me the short version of the rationale as to why it's better to come in with only a BA?

Well, that's a really good question, and honestly I never really got a straight answer to it. The PhD students with MAs, it seemed to me, tended to think the degree made it harder to get into programs because they were held to exponentially higher standards. Generally, those with MAs believed the degree was "worth it" because most of them took MAs due to a lack of research as an undergrad, a not-so-rigorous undergrad education, lack of English coursework, undergraduate shenanigans, and so forth. However, they all advised me against pursuing an MA because there seemed to be fewer spots in PhD programs for MA-holding students, and due to those extra, extra high standards.

My professors advised me against pursuing an MA before the doctorate for a few different reasons. Financially, they didn't think it was worth it for a student to pursue what is largely an unfunded degree if her goal is to attain a PhD eventually. They also seemed to think that English PhD programs sort of like to "grow their own" without having too many students come in with preconceived ideas from other graduate programs. I likewise got the impression that they looked down on the fact that getting an MA from elsewhere risks making a lot of your work as a PhD student redundant (which makes at least some sense, I guess...). They also referred vaguely to there being fewer "spots" for applicants with MAs.

As I said, I heard this advice from every PhD student in the program and every faculty member I spoke with about the topic, but I never got a truly definitive answer as to why. They just seemed to....not like the idea. Basically, the advice was: only pursue an MA first (in English) if you really need one--because of a less-than-stellar UGPA, lack of research experience, etc. Obviously, if you aren't a competitive undergrad, you need something of a boost. But, holding an English MA for an English PhD application can also hinder your chances for a number of non-specific reasons.

Of course, this issue is VERY discipline specific, and even program specific. And it doesn't hold true for everyone. There are a ton of people out there, and here on the Grad Cafe, who have English MAs and proceed to get into badass English PhD programs. For everyone you meet who says s/he got turned down for having an MA, you will meet someone who got in because of it. I personally could not tell you at ALL how much of a difference the level of your degree makes; I'm an applicant, not a grad adcomm chairperson. I'm just poorly relating the incredibly vague advice I received.

I should also note that my professors said that English programs really dig it if you have an MA in another subject, or an overseas MPhil or MA in English. So this apparently only holds true (if it even does--which it may not) for those holding American MAs in English applying to American PhD programs in English.

My recommenders told me that a lot of schools really like students right out of undergrad, because they think they can basically mold them to be the little research minions they want. They can make us think, feel, and live how they want us to.

Yes...this seemed to be a significant part of my profs'/TAs' rationale.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Pamphilia

[ColorlessGreen]

Interesting. Maybe I'll just tuck this one in my "Unsolved Mysteries of the Admissions Process" folder.

[LateAntique]

I can understand the idea behind wanting to mold people in a particular way. I taught guitar at a place that wouldn't accept students from another school because they taught them so many bad habits (in our minds) that we had to correct. It just became nonsensical to accept them. Likewise, I can see that paying for a humanities MA makes little sense if one can get into a Ph.D program. I'm basically of the mind that no one should go into debt pursuing an MA in the humanities.

[circumfession]

To both agree with and complicate Pamphilla's comments, the general bias in English academia against the MA tends to be a self-perpetuating cycle. Because most MA programs are unfunded, few stellar students who'd have a good shot at a Ph.D program will go for an MA first. Hence, most of the top students go straight into Ph.D programs, and the MA programs tend to fill up with students (who might be very talented) who aren't quite ready for a Ph.D program without additional training. The MA frequently becomes a place to "play catch-up" to the to BA students, particularly for candidates who didn't do research/receive stellar research training during their undergraduate. Consequently, I think there's a certain stigma attached to a candidate in the US who is pursuing an MA in English: the assumption (warranted or not) is that the person couldn't or didn't get into a Ph.D program to begin with. To some degree, for some students, this is absolutely true. While the MA is THE place to play catch-up, many students...well...never quite catch-up. Despite their far greater exposure to graduate studies, their field, research methodology, etc...the work that they produce is nowhere as strong as that produced by some of their BA peers.

While there is a slightly higher bar for MA candidates, I think that difference is over-emphasized. Most of the strong BA students at the top universities are indistinguishable from their MA counterparts. This attitude certainly varies from program to program even within the same field. My sense of it is undoubtedly biased by the 2-3 programs that I have in mind (all ranked within the top 20, some considerably higher), which tend to accept a large number of students with MA's.

[Maya]

I don't know what this adds to the discussion, but don't forget that in many other countries (including Canada, where I'm from), MA's are part of the normal education process. That is, most schools in Canada (and the UK) expect you to have a Masters before you apply for the Ph.D.

So it's weird how different that is in the United States. I was pretty surprised when I saw this board, although some of these posts, especially the one by circumfession, do make sense. Still, it surprises and worries me that my MA might be seen as a negative thing by the American schools, even though I did the MA simply because it was the next logical step (in Canada), not because I failed to get into any Ph.D. programs.

[Sparky]

It seems to be almost entirely field-dependent.

In religion/theology, for example, you pretty much have to have a master's degree of some sort (MA, MTS, MDiv) in order to be admitted to a Ph.D program. Even the ones where you get another master's along the way, and even if the program's website says that only a BA is required. In my first round of applications--for MA programs--when I called these places, the people basically said, "Well, I can think of two people in the past TEN YEARS who have come in without a master's degree...and they were way behind and ended up taking at least two extra years to finish...so..." It's not unusual for people to accumulate multiple master's degrees before starting a Ph.D, in fact. Schools recognize this, in that it is somewhat easier to get funding for an M[] in religion or theology than other subjects.

On the other hand, I had a lot of trouble finding funded history M.A.s to apply to. Although a lot of the top history programs require a master's...

[circumfession]

I should have specified: my comments pertain (as far as I know) only to English. I have no idea how things work in other fields. And as others have noted, it's a slightly different ball game for applicants without an English B.A., or who obtained their BA outside the U.S. The MA seems to be the norm for those folks.

[LateAntique]

It seems to be almost entirely field-dependent.

In religion/theology, for example, you pretty much have to have a master's degree of some sort (MA, MTS, MDiv) in order to be admitted to a Ph.D program. Even the ones where you get another master's along the way, and even if the program's website says that only a BA is required. In my first round of applications--for MA programs--when I called these places, the people basically said, "Well, I can think of two people in the past TEN YEARS who have come in without a master's degree...and they were way behind and ended up taking at least two extra years to finish...so..." It's not unusual for people to accumulate multiple master's degrees before starting a Ph.D, in fact. Schools recognize this, in that it is somewhat easier to get funding for an M[] in religion or theology than other subjects.

On the other hand, I had a lot of trouble finding funded history M.A.s to apply to. Although a lot of the top history programs require a master's...

I was considering applying to UNC's Religion program straight out of undergrad. I was told that although in theory they accept people straight from their BA, in practice they never do. In fact, they had only done so once in the last ten years (kind of weird that you mention this time frame as well) and that he ended up dropping out. Thanks, guy. Thus, I was told the only way I could be competitive with only a BA was to go to Harvard, triple major, have a 4.0, perfect GRE, and speak 4 languages fluently.