<p>Someone told me once that it looked bad to get a masters degree from the same college you got your BA from. I got my BA several years ago and am looking into getting my MA. The college I went to has a unique program that I am interested in. Would this be a bad idea? Would it look ad to employers that I got both my BA and MA at the same school??</p>
<p>I have several profs who teach here, got their BA here, and got their PhD here. It usually depends on the subject you study and if the department likes to "inbreed," but is it bad? Perhaps it's limiting to your ability to grow, but perhaps it will actually help you. It really depends.</p>
<p>Whether or not your employer would care probably depends on what your aspirations are. Some might care, but it depends on what the job is for. Some might only care that you have a masters in some subject, some might only care that you got an MA period, some might care what you got it in, and others . . . who knows. You should probably tell us more about your situation so as to get better help.</p>
<p>Sorry about that I should give more detail! I got my BA in Media Management at Columbia College in Chicago about three years ago and am thinking of getting my MA in Arts for Youth and Community Development there as well. I would eventually like to work for an organization reintroducing the arts to youth through community efforts.</p>
<p>I am not very informed about this area of work or field of study. I would say, "No, it doesn't matter," but what do i know? Call the organizations themselves and find out if it matters to them. Local goverments might be potential employers, so perhaps call them, too.</p>
<p>The two fields being unrelated probably makes it even less of an issue, but again, what do i know? Not much! :)</p>
<p>It does NOT matter.</p>
<p>For people who SPECIFICALLY want to go into ACADEMIA, it is often said that as a general rule of thumb that you should get your PhD from a DIFFERENT institution than your BA/BS. And even in academia, there are certain fields where this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p>
<p>Certainly in the workplace, it won't matter at all, especially if the program is strong at that institution or if that institution has strong regional appeal.</p>
<p>I will agree with the last poster. I got my B.S. from one school and my master's and doctorate from a different one. This is a good idea if you are planning on going into academia. Universities tend to see some one who has all their degrees from one institution as having a limited perspective. Different schools teach from different perspectives so having the same professors influencing your studies for all of your degrees tends to only give you one viewpoint. It's called academic in-breeding...especially if you are looking to obtain a position at the school where you receive your final degree. However, for those outside of the field of academics, I don't think it really matters if your degrees are from the same institution.</p>
<p>I would stay put. Columbia College is a great school for education and presumably you went there undergraduate because it is also close to home and reasonably affordable. Plus, if you're going into community education there is no reason to jump around trying to put together the best academic resume. People hire you because you are personable, motivated, and familiar with your local communities. I would say that's especially true in Chicago. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a community education position in Chicago with a 'fancy' University of Chicago degree? Forget it. People have way too much experience with snotty, condescending undergraduate volunteers. Oh, also...the Columbia College faculty will totally hook you up when it comes time to get a position in education. Once again, much better than Bank Street, Northwestern or Chicago!</p>
<p>I would point out that MIT has a designation known as "MIT-cubed" to denote people who got their bachelor's, master's, and PhD's all at MIT. {Heck, I once heard of somebody who actually got 5 degrees from MIT, but I digress}. The "MIT-cubed" designation is clearly one of the paramount symbols of "geekhood" in the world and, from what I've seen, is extremely coveted. </p>
<p>A surprising number of current MIT faculty members are MIT-cubed. The vast plurality of MIT graduate students did their undergrad at MIT, and far and away the most common choice of graduate school for MIT students, by almost an order of magnitude, is MIT. And many departments at MIT, particularly the engineering departments, are notorious for filling tenure-track positions from their own grad-student ranks. Hence, one could say that MIT is one of the most inbred schools in the country, and that evidently hasn't hurt them much.</p>
<p>It often depends on the field and the department . . .</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>MIT is a unique institution, not representative at all... and certainly not a relevant example for the OP's situation.</p>
<p>Although I do recall that even Feynman was told by his MIT profs NOT to go there for his PhD... they basically "forced" him to go to Princeton.
I think its RELATIVELY more common for engineers to stay at the same institution... certainly not the case in natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities.</p>
<p>I don't think that MIT is that particular unrepresentative. Harvard also has plenty of people who came in as freshmen and never leave until they complete their doctorates, and sometimes not even then. Henry Kissinger is basically "Harvard-cubed", as is noted African-American civil rights leader W.E.B. Dubois (in fact, he was the first African-American to receive a Harvard PhD). I believe Nobel laureates Robert Solow and Ralph Bunche did their undergrad and grad at Harvard. And at this moment there are plenty of Harvard doctoral students who've been at Harvard since freshman year.</p>
<p>^ The postdoc I work for in my lab did his undergrad at Harvard, his MD at Harvard, his PhD at Harvard, lectures occasionally at Harvard Med School, works as a neurologist at MGH (Harvard teaching hospital), and used to do research at a Harvard lab until our PI moved to MIT.</p>
<p>That's some pretty serious inbreeding.</p>
<p>Wow, y'all came up with a FEW anecdotes. Kudos. I didn't say it never happens. That still does not disprove the general rule of thumb. Look. I was an undergrad at Harvard. I got into the PhD program there as well. But my advisors strongly encouraged me to go elsewhere. This was in the field of astro.</p>
<p>I had friends in undergrad who were admitted to Harvard PhD programs in geophysics, celtic studies, econ, government, etc. They all said the same thing. They were STRONGLY encouraged to go elsewhere for their own benefit. Some stayed at Harvard, most didn't.</p>
<p>This general rule ONLY applies to PhD programs, because you are dealing with the SAME faculties. Professional schools (med, biz, law) are really separate entities.</p>
<p>I wouldn't even call it just a case of a few anecdotes. The OP asked whether it was bad for somebody to get their master's at the same place that they got their bachelor's. Well, as I'm sure you know, many Harvard departments run AB/AM programs where the whole point is to actually make it EASIER To get both your bachelor's and master's degree from the same place. Heck, just poking around, I see that Harvard has such these kinds of programs in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Statistics, and Linguistics, and a few others. Why would Harvard have all these programs if they believe it's so bad to get your bachelor's and master's in the same place? In fact, it seems to me that Harvard actually offers these combined bachelors/masters degree programs in more departments than MIT does. So it seems to me that if you REALLY want to talk about a school that is unrepresentative, you should be talking about Harvard, not MIT.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Whoopee for showing us how much you know. Yoo whoo.</p>
<p>(1) My comments regarding the general rule of thumb were about PhD programs ONLY, not about those continuation terminal MA/MS programs for advanced undergrads.
(2) As I said on 9/25, this only matters for those going specifically into ACADEMIA, and does NOT apply to the OP's case.
(3) Even on 9/25, I said that "there are certain fields where this isn't a hard and fast rule."</p>
<p>Whatever. You are arguing from the point of view that I somehow implied that I had stated an unmutable, hard-core law which no one ever violates, when I think I've made it pretty clear that I meant it ONLY as a GENERAL rule of thumb applied ONLY to PhD programs for those going into ACADEMIA.</p>
<p>I guess all those professors who told me and all my fellow colleagues were
just pulling the general rule out of their azzes and didn't know what the heck they were talking about. Where is your PhD from again?</p>
<p>Hey, wait a minute now, you're the one who was complaining that I was introducing examples (i.e. MIT) that, according to you, were off-topic to the OP's question. Yet now I see that you're also admitting that your posts were also off-topic to the OP's question I had no problem with you talking about off-topic subjects, so why do you have a beef when I talk about off-topic subjects?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are arguing from the point of view that I somehow implied that I had stated an unmutable, hard-core law which no one ever violates, when I think I've made it pretty clear that I meant it ONLY as a GENERAL rule of thumb applied ONLY to PhD programs for those going into ACADEMIA
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Did I say that? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that you were stating some immutable law. Oh wait, can't do it, can you? Allright then. </p>
<p>My point is that I object to your characterization of MIT as somehow being an unrepresentative institution. MIT also has plenty of departments in which you are actually barred from applying to their doctoral program if you did your undergrad work there. Go ask molliebatmit about it. Not just discouraged, but actually BARRED. Hence, I fail to see what is so 'unrepresentative' about MIT. I would appreciate if you backed up your assertion that MIT is unrepresentative.</p>
<p>By the way, I would advise you to refrain from the adhominem attacks or otherwise ask personal questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. My having or not having a PhD does not disqualify me from commenting about the subject anymore than your having studied or not studied at MIT disqualify you from commenting about MIT. In other words, if you say that I can't talk about PhD programs because I don't have a PhD, then by the same token, you shouldn't talk about MIT unless you've actually been a student there.</p>