Masters to PhD

[CharmedDiamond]

I started applying to Masters because this PhD thing isn't working out so well. I have 1 interview and 1 waitlist, but figured I should start making sure I have a back up plan.

Anyway, I've heard that occasionally having a Masters will actually HURT your application, because schools want you to be their product. Could anyone give me more information about this? I don't know if it's one of those things that's simply unspoken, or if its a per-school type of thing, but I want to make sure that a Master's is a good option, rather than waiting a year and boosting my GRE math.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Student4Life0]

I started applying to Masters because this PhD thing isn't working out so well. I have 1 interview and 1 waitlist, but figured I should start making sure I have a back up plan.

Anyway, I've heard that occasionally having a Masters will actually HURT your application, because schools want you to be their product. Could anyone give me more information about this? I don't know if it's one of those things that's simply unspoken, or if its a per-school type of thing, but I want to make sure that a Master's is a good option, rather than waiting a year and boosting my GRE math.

I can't really answer your question, but I will tell you that I am beginning to wish that I didn't waste money on a masters. Sure, I had a lot of great experiences during my MA degree, and it afforded me research and clinical experiences that I probably wouldn't have gotten otherwise. But it has not helped me get into PhD programs (although I did not apply to that many). I think I would have been better off taking time off and doing RA work.

 

[erg923]

If you think (or know) that its a suboptimal GRE score that is hindering you, why are you considering doing a masters?

Work for a year or 2 while you work on that score. Make money, dont spend money on tuition for a program that wont benefit you all that much (I dont think masters hurt though). Masters really only five significant benefit if you have a poor UG GPA that you need to recover from.

 

[CharmedDiamond]

It was a very *average* score, not a bad score. My verbal was amazing, psych was definitely strong. I figured my GPA could use a boost as well. 3.5 (combined from my undergrad institutions) is on the slightly lower side for PhD. Also, due to a foot injury where I was codeine for a semester prior to surgery, I have one semester (my last full time one) that has pretty mediocre grades. I REALLY thought my research experience would weigh more than my math GRE, but to be honest, I don't know how it all works. I feel like perhaps my math just got me screened out early, or my non-combined GPA. I had 3 years of research, including a full time job.

Hopefully I get into my PhD invite or waitlist, then I won't have to worry!!

 

[paramour]

I don't think your GPA is a problem honestly, as it's only one factor in a multitude of them. If it were below 3.0, then certainly, but 3.5 seems fine to me with what I've seen with most applicants. As others have mentioned, try not to get too caught up with the numbers game and focus more on match. ALSO, try to remember that sometimes it comes down to a crapshoot (as much as people don't want to hear it). You may be a great match for a program, but so may the other umpteen people applying/interviewing for your POI.

As for the master's, it depends upon the program and even the professors within the program. During my second application cycle, I had professors tell me directly that my master's made me less desirable to the program (note that my master's is NOT in clinical), and I had made it a point to inform anyone who would listen that I would be more than willing to take (or retake) any classes that they needed me to. At one program, I eventually ended up waitlisted because the professor was swayed by her department (over the master's issue, or so she claimed). HOWEVER, at another program, the advisor has a history of accepting students with master's degrees. Her students have a theory that it is because she has been very hands off in the past and could continue to be so if she accepted students with advanced degrees. I suspect this bolstered my application with that program.

I'd definitely think about your reasons for entering a master's program. There are times when it may make sense and benefit you, but then again, it all depends upon why you're doing it and what you plan on getting out of it in the end. G'luck!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It can vary by program as others have said, and (even more so) by degree type. Terminal masters degrees in clinical or experimental psych usually offer the greatest amounts of research experience, and thus those are the more desirable fields of study.

I agree with what's been said above that a 3.5 GPA generally shouldn't be low enough to get you immediately weeded out of anywhere but top-tier programs (and even then, possibly not). If your combined GRE is above 1300, then regardless of where your math subtest fell, that's likely not hurting you, either.

However, I feel that overall, finding an RA position would probably be more beneficial for you than a masters. I'm not sure what sorts of research experiences you have, but it sounds like that may be what's sticking out to committees...? Are you applying to small numbers of programs or, conversely, casting too wide a net such that your research and clinical interests are not well matched to the POIs'?

 

[CharmedDiamond]

I ended up applying to 11 here in the midwest. I felt like at at least 4 of the schools I had a really great research match going, especially at the one I'm waitlisted at. It's pretty important to me to stay local (luckily we have 5 schools here in Chicago).

I thought my research interests were pretty well defined. I worked in a lab for 2 1/2 years in ped psych, gathered data, conducted interviews with families, did translations, ran neuro tests. Then I worked full time in research focusing on ped psych again and trauma.

My GRE was 1250 combined. I know I could definitely bump up my math score, but I don't know if that alone would be enough to get me in, other than hoping the random crap shoot is on my side this. I'm also a minority, which I've been told helps, but I reeeaaally don't know.

So what else? Maybe one of my letters of rec wasn't as sparkling as I thought? Maybe my personal statement was God awful? Maybe the fact I had 4 colleges? (I transferred once, then took summer school at two different places).

I was thinking rocking a master's would make me look SOLID. Like here, I can stay somewhere, get consistently good grades, and boost my GRE before then.

I really appreciate everyone's input. This interview season (or mostly a lack of) has been a bit rough, and I've been on a second-guessing myself spiral for at least a month now.

 

[Ollie123]

This was exactly my point. You applied to 11 schools, only 4 of which you feel that you greatly matched at. The name of the game comes down to match and it's hard to do that when you geographically restrict yourself. Not just for grad school, but also for internship (many who geographically restrict do not match) and for postdoc and later jobs, especially if you want to go into research.

There's nothing particularly wrong with your stats. What is likely happening is that there are people in competition with you who match better at the schools than you do.

Agree with this.

Regarding the master's, it depends on many things. We had someone apply with a clinical master's and it definitely counted against him (my advisor was quite blunt about that with me) but he was accepted anyways. I think the concern was more for the "clinical" then the "master's" but either way.

To me, I think it all boils down to asking yourself why you want a master's program. I think oftentimes, it is because people just want to "be in school", either because they have never known anything else and it is scary, because they know it is a long path and feel they are wasting time if they aren't in school (even though chances are, it will likely not take too much time off the PhD program, or one of several other reasons. If there is a GOOD and SPECIFIC reason to do an MA (i.e. your bachelor's is not in psych, your GPA is low-ish and you need to prove you can handle graduate coursework, etc.), there may be the occasional school or prof that frowns on it but overall it will likely put you in a better position then you were beforehand, at least for a master's in experimental.

 

[paramour]

This was exactly my point. You applied to 11 schools, only 4 of which you feel that you greatly matched at. The name of the game comes down to match and it's hard to do that when you geographically restrict yourself. Not just for grad school, but also for internship (many who geographically restrict do not match) and for postdoc and later jobs, especially if you want to go into research.

There's nothing particularly wrong with your stats. What is likely happening is that there are people in competition with you who match better at the schools than you do.

I also agree with this, regarding the geographical restriction, especially if you're doing it in the Chicagoland area (or some other 'desireable' areas of the U.S. for that matter). Our program (considered within the Chicagoland realm by some) routinely chastises folks on both the undergrad level (applying for grad school) and the grad level (applying for internship) because they restrict themselves to the midwest, some of them going even further, only to apply to placements in the immediate area. What's the problem with this? There are a helluva lot of people already in the area who want to stay in the area who are doing the same thing. There also are a helluva lot of people from outside the area applying to these programs because they are desirable programs due to location, training opportunities, etc. Many of these applicants (in/out of the area) are going to be competitive folks, so you need to verify that your stats fit, that your match fits, and that you're not restricting yourself to an area where the odds may be stacked against you anyway because there's an extremely large pool of favorable applicants just as equally, if not more qualified, than yourself.

Of course, even after being given this lecture by the powers that be, we still have undergrads (and grad students) who insist that they can do it and restrict themselves during the application process. Determine what is most important to you: Getting into grad school, or going to a local/midwestern grad school. Everyone obviously has different priorities. Sometimes those priorities do not work, however.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I also agree with this, regarding the geographical restriction, especially if you're doing it in the Chicagoland area (or some other 'desireable' areas of the U.S. for that matter). Our program (considered within the Chicagoland realm by some) routinely chastises folks on both the undergrad level (applying for grad school) and the grad level (applying for internship) because they restrict themselves to the midwest, some of them going even further, only to apply to placements in the immediate area. What's the problem with this? There are a helluva lot of people already in the area who want to stay in the area who are doing the same thing. There also are a helluva lot of people from outside the area applying to these programs because they are desirable programs due to location, training opportunities, etc. Many of these applicants (in/out of the area) are going to be competitive folks, so you need to verify that your stats fit, that your match fits, and that you're not restricting yourself to an area where the odds may be stacked against you anyway because there's an extremely large pool of favorable applicants just as equally, if not more qualified, than yourself.

Of course, even after being given this lecture by the powers that be, we still have undergrads (and grad students) who insist that they can do it and restrict themselves during the application process. Determine what is most important to you: Getting into grad school, or going to a local/midwestern grad school. Everyone obviously has different priorities. Sometimes those priorities do not work, however.

Agreed x2. Geographic restriction seems to be the #1 "killer" in both grad school and internship. As paramour mentioned, desirable programs (due to weather, geographic locale, "name brand," etc.) are particularly competitive and attract a LARGE number of applicants. Additionally, many programs prefer to take a healthy chunk of doctoral students from outside their immediate area in order to diversity their classes and eventually spread their trainees across the country. If it's at all possible to go outside the midwest, I would definitely recommend it--you may be more appealing to programs outside that area, and it would then possibly allow you to come back for internship, where being from the area could actually work in your favor.

 

[erg923]

I ended up applying to 11 here in the midwest. I felt like at at least 4 of the schools I had a really great research match going, especially at the one I'm waitlisted at. It's pretty important to me to stay local (luckily we have 5 schools here in Chicago).

I thought my research interests were pretty well defined. I worked in a lab for 2 1/2 years in ped psych, gathered data, conducted interviews with families, did translations, ran neuro tests. Then I worked full time in research focusing on ped psych again and trauma.

My GRE was 1250 combined. I know I could definitely bump up my math score, but I don't know if that alone would be enough to get me in, other than hoping the random crap shoot is on my side this. I'm also a minority, which I've been told helps, but I reeeaaally don't know.

So what else? Maybe one of my letters of rec wasn't as sparkling as I thought? Maybe my personal statement was God awful? Maybe the fact I had 4 colleges? (I transferred once, then took summer school at two different places).

I was thinking rocking a master's would make me look SOLID. Like here, I can stay somewhere, get consistently good grades, and boost my GRE before then.

I really appreciate everyone's input. This interview season (or mostly a lack of) has been a bit rough, and I've been on a second-guessing myself spiral for at least a month now.

How come all your programs weren't a good research match? If you don't express significant interest in what certain professors are doing, then what incentive would they have to offer you an interview?

 

[bunderj]

Just to reiterate what everyone has said, I don't think the Master's itself makes that big of a difference. Some places may prefer it, some not. I have had my master's for 4 years now. I applied to Ph.D. programs 2 years ago, got 3 interviews, and didn't get in anywhere. I applied again this year and got 14 interviews (haven't heard back from anywhere yet). I obviously had the Master's both times I applied. This time I applied to places with a better eye toward fit, and got a LOT more research experience in the past two years. That seems to be the clincher. If you're going to take time off, I would just make sure you spend it getting good research experience, regardless of whether or not you are in a master's program. Of course it is definitely possible that I don't get in this year either, in which case you should ignore this post as I have no idea what I am talking about!

 

[StudentBsMs11]

To add a slightly different opinion to the milieu here, I think that whether a Master's would be helpful or not is going to depend on a lot of factors that you'll need to take into consideration. First, the program itself: is it a clinical program or a general program? Will you be rubbing elbows with actual doctoral students or just other master's students? Who will you be working with (if anyone)? Also, the programs you're trying to gain entry into: do they tend to look favorably on having a master's or not? What about your person of interest, did they themselves perhaps get a master's? Does that program accept graduate credits from other institutions, or waive requirements if you've completed them elsewhere?

I think that it could be helpful IF you're going to be working with a person who is actively involved in researching your area of interest and is known in the field, who will be willing to let you take the lead on a project or two and get some visibility via conferences, publications, etc. It could also be helpful if that person is someone that you are trying to get in with as a doctoral student; there are a few programs which have both and sometimes students can matriculate into the doctoral program from the terminal master's program to continue working with the person that they've worked with already during the master's degree. It's rare, and it is often heavily dependent on how you prove yourself during the first two years, but I've seen it happen.

In short, it's dependent on a lot of factors. Think about it, and decide for yourself, given the specifics of your situation. Good luck!

 

[athenax]

Here's my two cents... I'm currently finishing up my MS degree in psychology, and I am definitely in favor of getting a masters... it helped me out a lot, not only in figuring out what I wanted to research, but also in preparing me for upper level work. I'm totally Pro-MS!
So, of course, I would suggest MS over an MA if you choose this route. The reason being that research experience is much more valuable than clinical experience (which they don't care much about at this stage because they're looking for fitting you to a lab) or other graduate course work (which you'll probably have to take over in the doctoral program anyway).

I've gotten 6 interviews for School Psychology doctoral programs thus far and one acceptance already, so I haven't felt a bias against master's students. My stats are comparable to yours (my GRE slightly lower, my GPA slightly higher), as well. I also had 3 years of undergrad research experience, but it didn't line up with what I wanted to do afterward, so I felt a bit lost. Not sure where you're at, though.

Additionally, when interviewing for doctoral schools the main focus has been on my research experience at my current program... so far it's only been a plus that I have experience in grad level research. What's really helpful is that I was able to integrate my work into my current research interests, so it helps to "sell" why I fit so well... not only am I interested in it, but I actually have done work like it. Obviously, you know already what you're interested in researching, so if you go into a master's program I would suggest you team up with a professor that will help you gain experience in that area to make you a stronger fit. Like everyone is saying, fit is everything! Also, my thesis comes up a lot, and it's a big plus to say you've been in charge of a study... especially when doctoral programs have master's type projects en-route to the PhD. Many interviewers have said my thesis could either substitute for this requirement or that "well, you're already well prepared to deal with this when you come in, so you should have no problem with it."

As a side note because it's pretty rare, but there are a few master's programs with some funding, I was lucky to get an assistantship (about half of what you get for a PhD program), so it's still a decent option to try for! That being said, it may be easier to get an RA if you find someone that lines up with your interests. All of my previous comments are still valid if you get more research experience. Plus, it will certainly be cheaper. Otherwise, I agree with what else has been said... focus on fit!!

 

[KillerDiller]

Like Athenax, I also found having an MS to be helpful. However, there were a few circumstantial things that made it helpful for me that would not hold true for others. For starters, I did not major in psychology as an undergrad and needed the coursework and experience to narrow my research focus. Secondly, I had full funding in my program.

Although no PhD program mentioned specifically that they interviewed or accepted me because of my MS, I'm sure the extra research experience was key. There was only one incident where it was a drawback. I was in frequent correspondence with my POI at a potential school and she kept coming back to asking me why I wanted to leave my program to work with her. Despite all my best efforts, I could simply not get her to understand that it was a terminal masters program--that I wasn't leaving anywhere and that I had, in fact, already completed the degree. She later sent me a rejection email telling me she didn't understand why I would commit to her program when I couldn't commit to my current one .

 

[psich]

Like Athenax, I also found having an MS to be helpful. However, there were a few circumstantial things that made it helpful for me that would not hold true for others. For starters, I did not major in psychology as an undergrad and needed the coursework and experience to narrow my research focus. Secondly, I had full funding in my program.

Although no PhD program mentioned specifically that they interviewed or accepted me because of my MS, I'm sure the extra research experience was key. There was only one incident where it was a drawback. I was in frequent correspondence with my POI at a potential school and she kept coming back to asking me why I wanted to leave my program to work with her. Despite all my best efforts, I could simply not get her to understand that it was a terminal masters program--that I wasn't leaving anywhere and that I had, in fact, already completed the degree. She later sent me a rejection email telling me she didn't understand why I would commit to her program when I couldn't commit to my current one .

 

[katinatree]

Like Athenax, I also found having an MS to be helpful. However, there were a few circumstantial things that made it helpful for me that would not hold true for others. For starters, I did not major in psychology as an undergrad and needed the coursework and experience to narrow my research focus. Secondly, I had full funding in my program.

Although no PhD program mentioned specifically that they interviewed or accepted me because of my MS, I'm sure the extra research experience was key. There was only one incident where it was a drawback. I was in frequent correspondence with my POI at a potential school and she kept coming back to asking me why I wanted to leave my program to work with her. Despite all my best efforts, I could simply not get her to understand that it was a terminal masters program--that I wasn't leaving anywhere and that I had, in fact, already completed the degree. She later sent me a rejection email telling me she didn't understand why I would commit to her program when I couldn't commit to my current one .

Hmm... sounds like she would have been "interesting" - open to interpretation - to work with.

 

[CharmedDiamond]

Thank you all so much for the advice. I know that restricting myself to the midwest was not necessarily in my best interest, but it is a necessity for me. I might start a thread on that . . . But yes, I did apply to schools I wasn't an ideal fit for, but I also have to admit, I'm so fascinated by research that there are a LOT of things I would be very excited to research!! I do have the areas I'm well trained in, but I read the articles by those profs and thought, "Oooh, I'd definitely love to learn more and be a part of this!" I could never work somewhere I didn't enjoy the research.

But anyway, at this point I do think a strategic MS would be the way to go. One of the schools that I absolutely ADORE offers an MS in general psych, and the classes are very research focused. I was hoping to perhaps match with a professor . . . matriculate into the PhD. I do have 3 years of RA work, including a full time position, so I'm not sure how much more another year would do. I've also been searching high and low, and unfortunately, the market is extremely scarce, especially here in IL. I lost my last RA position due to cuts in state funding, so I'm not too surprised about that. Even though a masters may cost rather than make money, at least I'll be able to stay in the field and gain more experience, rather than working at the local craft store.

I think between that and boosting my GREs hopefully I'll be competitive enough to stay in the area when I reapply. I don't want to JUST rely on a math boost in my GRE, because as many people have told me, numbers aren't everything.

I'm also realllllly starting to believe that whole crap-shoot theory too . . . luck

 

[BubuB]

Here's my two cents... I'm currently finishing up my MS degree in psychology, and I am definitely in favor of getting a masters... it helped me out a lot, not only in figuring out what I wanted to research, but also in preparing me for upper level work. I'm totally Pro-MS!
So, of course, I would suggest MS over an MA if you choose this route. The reason being that research experience is much more valuable than clinical experience (which they don't care much about at this stage because they're looking for fitting you to a lab) or other graduate course work (which you'll probably have to take over in the doctoral program anyway).

I've gotten 6 interviews for School Psychology doctoral programs thus far and one acceptance already, so I haven't felt a bias against master's students. My stats are comparable to yours (my GRE slightly lower, my GPA slightly higher), as well. I also had 3 years of undergrad research experience, but it didn't line up with what I wanted to do afterward, so I felt a bit lost. Not sure where you're at, though.

Additionally, when interviewing for doctoral schools the main focus has been on my research experience at my current program... so far it's only been a plus that I have experience in grad level research. What's really helpful is that I was able to integrate my work into my current research interests, so it helps to "sell" why I fit so well... not only am I interested in it, but I actually have done work like it. Obviously, you know already what you're interested in researching, so if you go into a master's program I would suggest you team up with a professor that will help you gain experience in that area to make you a stronger fit. Like everyone is saying, fit is everything! Also, my thesis comes up a lot, and it's a big plus to say you've been in charge of a study... especially when doctoral programs have master's type projects en-route to the PhD. Many interviewers have said my thesis could either substitute for this requirement or that "well, you're already well prepared to deal with this when you come in, so you should have no problem with it."

As a side note because it's pretty rare, but there are a few master's programs with some funding, I was lucky to get an assistantship (about half of what you get for a PhD program), so it's still a decent option to try for! That being said, it may be easier to get an RA if you find someone that lines up with your interests. All of my previous comments are still valid if you get more research experience. Plus, it will certainly be cheaper. Otherwise, I agree with what else has been said... focus on fit!!

Do you mind saying where you're studying?
Have you gotten any assistance from profs at your program?

 

[CharmedDiamond]

This makes you look unfocused in your research interests. Also consider that the people you are competing with in those situations likely have more knowledge about that area and more than just a passing desire (i.e., that looks interesting, maybe I could enjoy that for 4 years) to engage in that type of research. I have seen many applicants over the years that apply mainly based on location and then find a mentor at the schools they apply to where they feel like they won't hate the research. This is very easy to pick up on and is looked upon unfavorably.

If you were a professor, would you rather have a student who had an adequate knowledge base in your research area, who was committed to it, and fit well with your lab or would you rather have a student who had a superficial interest in the work of your lab and mainly wanted to work with you to stay in a particular area? Which one would likely work harder and contribute more value to the work of the lab?

Very good point. I'll openly admit that I applied to the schools without ideal fit simply to rack up numbers and cooperate with the suggestions of my mentor.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

I had an MA in clinical psych before starting at my phd program and got interviews to 12-14 schools to which I applied.

however, i think having a master's doesnt guarantee you anything. some of the students from my MA program have applied for phds (and been rejected) for 2 years since getting their degree.

I dont think that if you are stellar someone will decide NOT to take you just bc you have a masters. In that case idk if you would get an interview to begin with.

 

[PsychAndMusic]

I went on to get an MA in general psychology right after undergrad. I decided to pay a lot of money to go to an Ivy League school hoping that would boost my stats in and of itself. That was pretty naive of me. I ended up spending a lot of money and throughout my PhD application process this year I did learn that an MA really isn't all that helpful. I guess for me it worked out because I was able to establish great relationships with professors so I was able to get better letters of rec and more research experience BUT considering that I had a lot of undergrad research experience already as well as a great gpa I could have probably saved myself the money.
I was accepted to one PhD program so far and they told me that last year they didn't accept any students coming in with an MA, and I was probably the only interviewee coming in with an MA this year. I supposed if your personal statement explains why you decided to go with an MA route (if you did it for a good reason) you should be okay but at this point I realized that it's probably a waste of money..