How are Masters recipients viewed by Admissions Committees?

[BurgeoningPhD2]

Hello SDN!

Lately I've received mixed feedback on how a Masters can help me get into a PhD program in the future. I would like to know how PhDs view students with a MA degree. I know students that are in a Clinical Phd, that first earned a masters, and I've seen several on SDN. Additionally, I know that some programs are better a preparing you for Doctoral study than others. My end goal is the PhD in Clinical, period. I'm interested in much more than being in session from 9-5:00pm. However, my GRE quantitative, as well as my lack of publications, seem to be my biggest criticisms. Seeing as I only applied to one PhD program, despite my match, the probability of acceptance is low. I need to continue applying to Masters or find a job in the field.

Any experience and / or advice on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Burge

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BurgeoningPhD2]

For example, a PhD student at my current institution told me something such as "PhD committees tend to view Masters students disparagingly" basically he said that getting post-bacc experience would be better.. and of course retaking the GRE.

Burge

 

[G Costanza]

I know you mentioned getting a PhD in clinical but FWIW most PhD programs in counseling psych see an MA/MS as highly favorable. In my program, they accept about 8-10 people a year and only about 1 comes in with a bachelors. Additionally, those coming in without a master's take about 7 years to graduate while those with a master's only take 5.

 

[MiniLop]

I second the above post. I interviewed at both counseling and clinical PhD programs and I really felt at a disadvantage at the counseling ones since I didn't have an MA (though I'm under the impression that it's an MA in counseling that they want you to have. Other MAs may not be viewed as favorably). I'm now in a clinical PhD program and only two (of eight) members of my cohorts have MAs. So basically, yes, an MA is very helpful for counseling programs but not really for clinical programs. The research experience you get from a good MA program may help you get into a clinical PhD program, but research experience from other sources isn't viewed any less favorably. I would also argue that, if you can get a full-time research assistant job, that would be preferable to an MA since you'll get as much if not more research experience, but you'll be getting paid instead of paying.

P.S. This is 100% anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, but at one clinical PhD program I interviewed at, the director asked if any of us were in MA programs. We all said no, and then he said something like "thank god, it's a pain to have to figure out if we can use your thesis or not."

 

[EmotRegulation]

A masters has value sometimes and not as much other times. For example, when reviewing applications recently I saw someone with a relatively poor undergraduate GPA but a great masters GPA--here is someone who may not have figured out their path in undergrad but was able to use a masters to demonstrate capacity for graduate level work. In that situation, a masters is a plus.

A masters degree is useful when it makes you more competitive. That can mean overcoming a less than stellar undergraduate academic record OR by gaining research experience that may have been unavailable or unaccessed as an undergrad. Personally I would look more favorably on an experimental masters than a clinical masters. I'd also look more favorably on someone who was able to use the masters to get posters/presentations and is at least working on a publication, as opposed to someone who just did the coursework.

A postbacc RA job can accomplish the same thing as a masters (research experience, good quality letters from someone who knows your work ethic), and doesn't have the problem of faculty committees having to figure out what could maybe transfer or not.

 

[qualpsych]

I had majored in a different field in undergrad, and was out of school for several years before deciding to pursue a doctorate. I decided to get an MA in psychology because the program enabled me to gain research experience and complete a master's thesis, make connections with professors (who wrote letters for my doctoral apps), present at conferences, get the required psych course background, etc. For me, this was the best option and my best shot at just preparing to apply for a doctorate. Of course a paid position in research would have worked too, and I wouldn't be in debt. You'll have to ask me in a couple months if my plan actually worked out...

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Also, a huge issue is that a master's degree will disqualify you from being eligible for several big research fellowships, such as NSF, making you less attractive to your program than someone without any/many graduate credits. It sucks big time, but that's how it is.

 

[Schizoguy]

Also, a huge issue is that a master's degree will disqualify you from being eligible for several big research fellowships, such as NSF, making you less attractive to your program than someone without any/many graduate credits. It sucks big time, but that's how it is.

Care to elaborate on this?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Care to elaborate on this?

NSF, for example, gives fellows like 30k a year for 3-4 years to focus on research. There are other programs that are similar. They're wicked competitive. But, if you have a master's or a certain number of graduate credits...no dice. You automatically aren't eligible to apply. Some programs really push these, obviously, because it means more money for them too...both direct and indirect. It's unspoken, but I personally think this is one of the hard reasons faculty can be biased against those with master's degrees.

 

[Schizoguy]

NSF, for example, gives fellows like 30k a year for 3-4 years to focus on research. There are other programs that are similar. They're wicked competitive. But, if you have a master's or a certain number of graduate credits...no dice. You automatically aren't eligible to apply. Some programs really push these, obviously, because it means more money for them too...both direct and indirect. It's unspoken, but I personally think this is one of the hard reasons faculty can be biased against those with master's degrees.

Would you say that what you just described is the norm? I am pondering about doing a Master's if I don't get into any PhD programs this year.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Would you say that what you just described is the norm? I am pondering about doing a Master's if I don't get into any PhD programs this year.

Not necessarily the norm. But something to keep in mind at an R1/research heavy program for sure. Obviously having a master's has its plusses. I'm grateful that it has given me many opportunities beyond departmental funding. But I'm not happy that some post-BA kid can get paid so well to do what I'm essentially volunteering and working extra hours to get and do, not to mention the future implications of a lack of funding for an academic career. But oh well. Full disclosure: I switched to an experimental program because my hard-funded counseling psych program was essentially a repeat of (but worse than) my masters program. In a practice-oriented program, like counseling psych, none of this matters.