Chicago MAPSS

[JerryLandis]

Does anyone know how common it is to be admitted to this program after being rejected from the PhD? I don't expect to be admitted to the PhD program, but would strongly consider doing the MAPSS (or whatever it's called) if given the opportunity.

Also, does anyone know how enrolling in this program would affect a person's chances applying to the University of Chicago the following year? Would having done the program there and getting to know the faculty enhance your chances, or would they be reluctant to accept students from their own masters-style program as I have heard some other universities do?

[bleistift]

When I was doing research on MAPSS (I was given admission after being rejected from their PhD program), my understanding was that it was largely a cash cow program for Chicago. That's not to say most MA programs aren't, but I didn't feel it was particularly difficult to be admitted. If you are waiting for the MAPSS admission, my guess is if you have a decent GPA and test scores, you won't have to worry.

Not sure about the answer to your second question, but MAPSS did have full time representatives who were willing to discuss the program. You can try asking them about statistics for admission into Chicago PhD programs.

[JustChill]

I don't have any personal experience with it, but everything I've heard and read about MAPSS has been very negative. It seems like everyone Chicago rejects from some PhD program gets sent over to MAPSS.

[eponymous]

The MA program I went through at NYU is similar to MAPSS. And, yes, all the PhD rejects get an application. The program itself was hit or miss, I had some decent classes and some abysmal ones, but I was able to take classes in the history department and do some good work. If MAPSS is anything like Draper, you get out of it what you put into it.

[C-Money]

I don't have any personal experience with it, but everything I've heard and read about MAPSS has been very negative. It seems like everyone Chicago rejects from some PhD program gets sent over to MAPSS.

I've heard pretty much the same thing about MAPSS--doesn't seem like an attractive option.

[JerryLandis]

Well part of the reason I ask is that I've really only heard about it from people who rejected the offer. I know about the whole cash cow thing, but since almost every history MA is a ripoff cash cow scheme, I may as well look into one that might offer me reduced tuition, and that is only one year long instead of 2. Why pay for 2 years when you can pay for one? Since the tuition is around $43,000 a year (I've rounded it up to 45 since I'm assuming it goes up every year), that's obviously a lot of money. The results posts I've seen about it all seem to say "2/3 funding" or "1/3 funding," but they aren't very clear. Do different applicants get different funding cuts? Does this mean that people only have to pay 1/3 of the tuition (i.e. $15,000), or does it mean that the tuition is reduced by 1/3 (i.e. costing the student $30,000)?

University of Chicago is my first choice, so when I inevitably don't get into a PhD program, my intention is to do a masters route that is most likely to help my chances at Chicago the next time I apply for the PhD. The other MA programs I've applied to range from $15,000 for one year to something like $40,000 each year for 2 years (outrageous). Then there's Villanova, which I'm hoping will offer me funding and maybe even a small stipend. I'm not sure which program would be the wisest route to take.

[TMP]

Well part of the reason I ask is that I've really only heard about it from people who rejected the offer. I know about the whole cash cow thing, but since almost every history MA is a ripoff cash cow scheme, I may as well look into one that might offer me reduced tuition, and that is only one year long instead of 2. Why pay for 2 years when you can pay for one? Since the tuition is around $43,000 a year (I've rounded it up to 45 since I'm assuming it goes up every year), that's obviously a lot of money. The results posts I've seen about it all seem to say "2/3 funding" or "1/3 funding," but they aren't very clear. Do different applicants get different funding cuts? Does this mean that people only have to pay 1/3 of the tuition (i.e. $15,000), or does it mean that the tuition is reduced by 1/3 (i.e. costing the student $30,000)?

University of Chicago is my first choice, so when I inevitably don't get into a PhD program, my intention is to do a masters route that is most likely to help my chances at Chicago the next time I apply for the PhD. The other MA programs I've applied to range from $15,000 for one year to something like $40,000 each year for 2 years (outrageous). Then there's Villanova, which I'm hoping will offer me funding and maybe even a small stipend. I'm not sure which program would be the wisest route to take.

Whatever you do, go cheap. Find the cheapest program that has the best track record as a feeder into PhD programs. Plenty of historians did their MA in state universities before doing the PhD.

[JerryLandis]

Yes, but what if the cheapest one has the lowest track record, and the priciest one as highest track record? What then?

I think my issue is just that these MA programs don't really provide much (if any) information about where their graduates end up going, or even what career path they end up taking.

[avir]

Well part of the reason I ask is that I've really only heard about it from people who rejected the offer. I know about the whole cash cow thing, but since almost every history MA is a ripoff cash cow scheme, I may as well look into one that might offer me reduced tuition, and that is only one year long instead of 2. Why pay for 2 years when you can pay for one? Since the tuition is around $43,000 a year (I've rounded it up to 45 since I'm assuming it goes up every year), that's obviously a lot of money. The results posts I've seen about it all seem to say "2/3 funding" or "1/3 funding," but they aren't very clear. Do different applicants get different funding cuts? Does this mean that people only have to pay 1/3 of the tuition (i.e. $15,000), or does it mean that the tuition is reduced by 1/3 (i.e. costing the student $30,000)?

University of Chicago is my first choice, so when I inevitably don't get into a PhD program, my intention is to do a masters route that is most likely to help my chances at Chicago the next time I apply for the PhD. The other MA programs I've applied to range from $15,000 for one year to something like $40,000 each year for 2 years (outrageous). Then there's Villanova, which I'm hoping will offer me funding and maybe even a small stipend. I'm not sure which program would be the wisest route to take.

Well, I'm from MAPSS. just graduated from it last August. Though I'm in sociology not history, I do know couple history people.

For your question, yes, different people get different funding. I knew a history guy went there for free. I knew a soc girl went there for 1/3 tuition. I get none.... (let's skip this.) For detail funding, you probably have to look at your own package.

Overall I think the experience in MAPSS varies. I was lucky enough to have really good thesis advisor and other good mentors. I'm in the application process, so far I got one admission from Wisconsin (though w/o funding.) But I also heard tragic story like irresponsible advisors or huge pressure because of the super heave pressure both from the program and from the school. I can only say be sure to talk to people and get info before you choose your advisor and planned well. Chicago professor can be really self-absorbed and totally forget about you, esp. you are just as MA student.

I think the program furthers my chance for application and so far I hear good record for application from last year cohort. According to the stats MAPSS sent us last April, the application result for history, 2009-10 academic year: four out of five applicants got funded offers, the left one was on wait list for a school when they sent us the result stats. And the schools that made offers included Chicago. So. I don't know whether PhD programs prefer not to have their own MA students. I hope not, and I don't think they strongly disfavor that 'cause I see offers from Chicago in the reports of every discipline.

Last thing to say. I don't think it's like you will automatically get accepted by MAPSS just because you got rejected by their PhD program, although my rejection letter came with MAPSS admission. Think about it. It's a program consisting of around 180 people from Psychology, Sociology, Anthro, Poli-Sci and History applicants. Take Soc for example, there were about 40 soc people in my cohort. Do you think there are only 40 rejected soc PhD applicants every year? (or say if there are 300 applicants every year and about 270 got rejected. That means 230 people turn down MAPSS offers. Humm...) But I'm convinced that with a decent stats you can get in.

Anyways, hope the info helps.

[TMP]

Yes, but what if the cheapest one has the lowest track record, and the priciest one as highest track record? What then?

I think my issue is just that these MA programs don't really provide much (if any) information about where their graduates end up going, or even what career path they end up taking.

No, they won't. That's why you need to talk to the DGS and administrative assistants, as well as older MA students. I talked to two MA programs- both comparable in costs. I talked to one student from a very reputable program who had gotten several offers for PhD, including my dream school at the time, and had very similar academic background to me. The other one was still devastated by her process ("I got rejected from 5 schools and waitlisted at one! (that dream school)"! but still sung praises about her advisor and the people in the department. I knew I was taking a chance by turning down the former and going to the latter because what ultimately mattered to me at the end as a MA student was to GET out of the Northeast and work with my dream advisor even if the program's track was still spotty for history PhD (excellent for Near East). One professor told me that if I went with the former, I would have my choices of PhD programs simply because of this particular professor's name on the LOR. I sighed with relief the following year (last year) when my friend in the program went 3-3 for her PhD admissions.

And now, it's my turn. YIPES.

But anyhow, MA programs are designed to allow people "test the waters" to see if academia's for them. For all through who went through, some will decide that academia isn't for them and move on while others go ahead and do the PhD. Also, one of the things I dislike about MA programs is that you WILL share seminars with non-academic minded people who aren't looking to go for the PhD and are just taking courses and THEY will take more than 2 years to finish so... you really have to be the one to shape your own experience in the MA. If you can blaze the trail in the MA, your professors and advisor will be very impressed, and will write glowing letters. One of the things you DO need to look for when looking at MA programs is the thesis option. You want that for the PhD.

Nonetheless, you will definitely find that many, if not all, MA students who are happy that they did the MA first before going for the PhD because of the confidence it gives you when you apply and talk to the professors. I can already see the difference in me.

[peppermint.beatnik]

there was a thread on this last year. it's worth looking for.

Here's ONE of them

Edited February 4, 2010 by peppermint.beatnik

[JustChill]

Jerry, what subfield of history are you doing? The reason I ask, is that I would recommend you check out some interdisciplinary master's programs in area studies as possible master's alternatives. For example, I'm doing Russian history, and so aside from history PhD programs, I've also applied to a couple of well-known Russian studies master's programs. One of these (at Stanford) is actually only a year long. All of my professors and advisors have told me that if I don't get into any PhD program, I should go to a master's program in area studies (not history).

In my mind, and really my field, a Russian studies master's would carry a lot more weight than a generic MAPSS master's when it came time for history PhD applications.

[JerryLandis]

I do medieval history, but MAPSS could be good for me because I'd get the opportunity to work more on languages (my weak spot), since I already have more history credits than most applicants (I've taken nothing but med hist courses for my last 2 years of undergrad). Their online course listing for history is pretty sparse, but I get the feeling that's just something wrong with the listing, so if I am accepted to the program I'll ask about it before making a decision. I have applied to enough MA programs where I have a reasonable chance of acceptance, so I am predicting that I probably will be rejected from all 3 PhD programs (unless one extends me a merciful hand, please!), but that I will have a choice between a couple decent MA programs in random locations.

Has anyone out there gone to the MAPSS program with a specific interest in history? It seems mostly geared towards anthropologists and sociologists, so I'm wondering if maybe it's a weaker program where history is concerned.

[hopkinsgirl]

I do medieval history, but MAPSS could be good for me because I'd get the opportunity to work more on languages (my weak spot), since I already have more history credits than most applicants (I've taken nothing but med hist courses for my last 2 years of undergrad). Their online course listing for history is pretty sparse, but I get the feeling that's just something wrong with the listing, so if I am accepted to the program I'll ask about it before making a decision. I have applied to enough MA programs where I have a reasonable chance of acceptance, so I am predicting that I probably will be rejected from all 3 PhD programs (unless one extends me a merciful hand, please!), but that I will have a choice between a couple decent MA programs in random locations.

Has anyone out there gone to the MAPSS program with a specific interest in history? It seems mostly geared towards anthropologists and sociologists, so I'm wondering if maybe it's a weaker program where history is concerned.

if languages are your weak point, you should consider the medieval studies MA at university of toronto, as they place strong emphasis on languages (and they are extremely well-respected in medieval studies, largest center in north america)

[history1920]

Does anyone know how common it is to be admitted to this program after being rejected from the PhD? I don't expect to be admitted to the PhD program, but would strongly consider doing the MAPSS (or whatever it's called) if given the opportunity.

Also, does anyone know how enrolling in this program would affect a person's chances applying to the University of Chicago the following year? Would having done the program there and getting to know the faculty enhance your chances, or would they be reluctant to accept students from their own masters-style program as I have heard some other universities do?

I graduated from MAPSS recently. My focus was History. Here are my responses to your concerns:

1. I think if you have a good GPA and decent GRE scores you will probably be offered admission to MAPSS. To use your words MAPSS is indeed a "cash cow." They want people to pay extremely high tuition to fund their PhD candidates. They acknowledge this fact and offer no apologies for it. A friend of mine applied to a Social Science PhD program at Chicago, was rejected and not offered admission to MAPSS. They don't offer it to everyone.

2. The amount of tuition waived, if any, varies from person to person. I'm the "history guy" who had his tuition completely waived. I still had to pay for living expenses. Not that I'm complaining. But this type of offer is rare. I think I only knew one other person who had her tuition completely waived. So it is possible that you could pay around 15,000 in tuition, or less, plus living expenses.

3. When I first entered the MAPSS program we met with the Chair of the History Department and he told us that of the 2008-2009 applicant pool for the discipline 7 people from MAPSS applied and 2 were offered admission. He didn't say if they were funded or not. I think he said that was twice the admissions rate of the applicant pool at large. So yes, the information I received from the History Department suggested that MAPSS (or at least an MA Degree) can increase your chances for admission to their program. That said, MAPSS is NOT a back door into the history PhD program at Chicago. My guess is if you get an MA from anywhere your chances of admission will increase. Of course, Chicago offers you the potential for a LOR from very well known historians but that really depends on what subfield of history you are interested in. I don’t know about Chicago’s Medievalists.

4. YOU WILL NOT HAVE TIME FOR LANGUAGE TRAINING…besides you can get language training anywhere. Why go to this university, with access to these fancy name professors, to learn another language? Enroll in your local community college this summer.

5. There is no particular emphasis in disciplines (history or socio or poli sci etc.). As a MAPSS student you have access to almost any professor or class offered at Chicago. History is certainly not “weaker.” This is not an issue. Whether or not history should be classified as a “Social Science” is probably a better way of expressing this concern. My MA Thesis advisor was a tenured faculty member in the History Department.

I am not a MAPSS “booster.” And I am in no position to tell anyone what they should do. The true value of the MAPSS program, for me, is it gives you a taste of what it means to undergo rigorous and professional academic training for a year. The following is a MAPSS statistic: only about 1/3 of MAPSS graduates apply for PhD programs the following year.

I hated my year in MAPSS. My MA advisor was a brillant and very kind-hearted person, but he was so busy that even getting an appointment with him was tough not to mention feed back on my work. My grad student housing was literally filled with cockroaches. The cultural of the UoC is adversarial and at times cruel. That said, I did get an offer this year for admission to a History PhD program from one of my top choices. I am waiting for the rest of my applications to come in. I didn't apply to Chicago.

[TMP]

4. YOU WILL NOT HAVE TIME FOR LANGUAGE TRAINING…besides you can get language training anywhere. Why go to this university, with access to these fancy name professors, to learn another language? Enroll in your local community college this summer.

Completely forgot to mention this. I've learned 5 languages in the last 6 years (don't ask how or why) and to learn a language before third year/advanced level is difficult to do while doing graduate-level coursework. Seminars are very time-consuming and take a lot of time away from building a solid foundation in the language. My Yiddish is an evidence of this- I can read it but not as well as I'd like because I didn't devote enough time to really understand how it's structured. Now I'm learning German and I have no seminars to deal with and already I see the difference in how quickly I'm picking it up in the same amount of time as when I learned Yiddish while doing 2 seminars. My advisor agreed with me on this - languages and coursework don't mix well. Unless you're talented of course. (Of course, I'm hoping that my new-found knowledge of German will improve my Yiddish!)

So yes, having a MA in your hand shows that you know what it's like in the academia but if you truly feel that having more language training is a priority, don't do the MA. Spend the money on language courses. I kinda wish I had done that instead- I'd be in Israel and Germany instead for all the money I spent on my MA!

[JerryLandis]

Thanks for the advice guys. The only reason I assumed I'd be able to work on my languages at MAPSS is that their website lists several language departments in their list of classes to choose from. Now, there were only a couple of history classes under the heading of "History," and none of them looked appealing to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the website is completely inaccurate and is just some random link that somehow got jumbled in. Anyways, I was under the impression that I could take a language as part of my MAPSS coursework (being an important part of interdisciplinary learning). Would I have to take language classes on top of my courseload (which I am led to believe would be impossible), or is it possible to take, say, an intermediate level Latin class as an integrated part of my degree?

Lastly, to the person who recently replied concerning his personal experience at MAPSS: Why did you not apply to UofC for the PhD? Did you dislike the department, or the campus? Or did you simply find that it wasn't the best place for your interests? Do you think that the somewhat negative experience you had at MAPSS would have repeated itself if you'd gone there for the PhD?

Thanks for all the feedback. I wish I could get this much info about some of the other programs on my radar!

[JerryLandis]

Oh PS: I am taking an intensive language course this summer, but unfortunately there's nowhere I can move to next year to immerse myself in Latin-speaking culture! I suppose I could devote the entire year to working just on languages, but I'm afraid I'd forget everything I know about history in the meantime, and that readjusting after a year away from it would be difficult. However, I am wary of having to wait an extra year to do my applications - do all MAPSS students who apply to PhD programs do so AFTER completing the program? What do they do for the next year besides finishing the thesis?

[history1920]

Thanks for the advice guys. The only reason I assumed I'd be able to work on my languages at MAPSS is that their website lists several language departments in their list of classes to choose from. Now, there were only a couple of history classes under the heading of "History," and none of them looked appealing to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the website is completely inaccurate and is just some random link that somehow got jumbled in. Anyways, I was under the impression that I could take a language as part of my MAPSS coursework (being an important part of interdisciplinary learning). Would I have to take language classes on top of my courseload (which I am led to believe would be impossible), or is it possible to take, say, an intermediate level Latin class as an integrated part of my degree?

Lastly, to the person who recently replied concerning his personal experience at MAPSS: Why did you not apply to UofC for the PhD? Did you dislike the department, or the campus? Or did you simply find that it wasn't the best place for your interests? Do you think that the somewhat negative experience you had at MAPSS would have repeated itself if you'd gone there for the PhD?

Thanks for all the feedback. I wish I could get this much info about some of the other programs on my radar!

I am glad to share my experiences with you.

You could definitely take an intermediate level Latin class as an integrated part of your degree. A positive aspect about MAPSS is you can pretty much take whatever you damn well please and they will give you a very pretty piece of paper when your done—as long as you take the two or three courses they require (total 9 courses for graduation). The other 6 or 7 courses can be taken at your discretion. You can take almost any class offered at the UoC. I think MAPSS would advise against taking more than one language class, but you have the freedom to do so.

While learning languages is very important for a Medievalist, I think Admission Committees look for much more in an applicant beyond language. From my understanding, the intensive language training you will enroll in over the summer is testimony to the seriousness and sincerity of your application. . If you are doing Medieval Europe most departments require that you PASS three language tests to advance to candidacy. Obviously, you need to have good Latin. It might be worth your time, if you haven’t done so already, to ask your department for the language tests they administer to their graduate students. That way you could get a sense of the level of expertise you need in order to pass those language exams. Also many departments do not expect incoming students to have mastered all their required languages. Often language training is done over the summer, for up to three years, and most departments have some kind of time extension for students to meet their language requirements. I’m not sure learning languages at the expense of producing a well researched and original writing sample and obtaining strong letters of rec from established historians is a prudent use of time and money. Unless you are doing comparative literature you don’t need to be an expert in 5 foreign languages.

To your question about why I didn’t apply to Chicago: the University of Chicago is a weird place. Graduate students, PhD or otherwise, are really pressure to compete against each other for funding and professor’s attention. UoC professors have a lot of their plate. Think about it. They have to deal with these people writing MA Thesis, undergraduate Thesis, teaching and grading for their courses, they are under intense pressure to publish, and balancing several PhD students. That does not leave a lot of time for mentorship or deep reading of individual student’s work. Also Chicago admits some people to their PhD program with Tuition waivers but NO OTHER FUNDING for two years. The amount of students they have to manage is significantly higher then say a history professor at Northwestern. UCLA and Wisconsin share similar problems as the UoC, I think. . Personally, I work better with strong mentor/mentee relationships. The UoC has a well earned reputation of overloading the work load of their students in an effort to toughen them up. They offer little encouragement and give brutal criticism—this is probably a good thing. I knew several PhD students in the history department and they were not happy. There were other departments that were better matches for my interests but Chicago is certainly a fine fit. Yes, I think this experience would have continued if I went there for my doctorate. Email some history PhD students and see what they say…if they have time to get back to you. Or just ask your professors what the culture of the UoC is like. I can’t deny the quality of scholarship or the placement record that comes out of that institution though. Hyde Park sucks; Chicago is perhaps the best city in America (adjusted for cost of living).

Look man, if you are in you early to mid 20s an extra year of waiting to apply for PhD programs is the time to have some fun for a year. MAPSS is 9 months long then you turn your MA Thesis into a writing sample and apply to PhD programs. After that...I live in a great city with my girlfriend and do the go-to-work thing. Ya know, friends, museums, music, whiskey, movies etc. You can apply for PhD programs during your time in an MA program, absolutely. I know people in MAPSS last year who applied during the program and they are in PhD programs this second. A lot of my friends from MAPSS traveled, got gap year jobs (like me), some are stilling looking for employment. Also the extra time between the end of MAPSS and the start of applications allowed me to expand my knowledge of my particular subfield so I could talk with professors and kind of sound like I knew what I was talking about. This was extremely helpful for application stuff. Right now I’m at work writing this to you, which is way this is so long. With the money I saved from this job I can probably go to China this summer before I start my doctoral training.

Hope this helps =)

[cgking]

Just got my acceptance letter, with 2/3 of tuition waived! I'm not sure I'll go even if my other applications are all rejected, but it's still great to know that I have at least one acceptance. Anyone else considering the program? Going to the welcome weekend in April?