<p>I graduated in '94 with a PolySci degree from a not-so-impressive State school. My GPA was 3.35 overall and 3.8 in the major (yes, I blew off the general ed classes!) There's nothing much I can do about that 14 years later!</p>
<p>In the meantime, I worked for Congress for a few years, taught high school English and History, and currently work as a paralegal. I want to go back and get my Ph.D. Given that I've been out of academics for a while, is there significant additional value to pursuing a Master's at a Cal State before applying for a Ph.D.? I'm not targeting "top" Ph.D. programs obviously with my background, but I would like to get into a funded program. </p>
<p>Right now, I am studying for the GRE and I am working on a Law Review article with the attorney I work for (he's published before, so there is a good chance that the article could get picked up). What else, if anything, should I consider doing in the next year and a half to make myself more attractive to Ph.D. programs?</p>
<p>I intend to start a terminal MA, or preferably a Ph.D. program, in Fall '09.</p>
<p>After being out of school for awhile, I decided to do an MA before the PHD because I could not gather three academic references. I managed to get one, and filled in the rest with work references. This can fly at the MA level, but it doesn't work well at the PhD level. YMMV.</p>
<p>I personally believe it is very difficult to pursue a PhD after many years away from academia. Not to say it cannot be done, but I believe there is a distinct challenge for older students to relearn the academic toolsets which are freshly indoctrinated in younger students. Another reason is that graduate school really drains you (especially in the beginning) of time. Older folks have different family priorities and responsibilities in comparison to them 22-26 year olds in general. So I also want to ask what are your objectives with a PhD? Your pursuit will certainly effect you, your family, and close friends for many years to come. Note:when I say older I mean (35+).</p>
<p>Here's why I think you should look seriously at a terminal MA prior to PhD application:</p>
<p>Your knowledge of method and theory is likely outdated.
You are not up on current "trends" in academic research.
Your references will need to be fresher than they are, and academic (not employer) references will be necessary for entry into a PhD program.</p>
<p>Well, I would go directly into a PhD program if you can be accepted. I started a PhD program with full stipend, and it began with a terminal masters. All well and good; I had my masters.</p>
<p>Then I decided I wanted to transfer to Columbia. I was admitted. Wahoo! But they threw out my masters and wanted me to start again. I couldn't see paying $30,000 (at that time) for a degree I already had, so I continued at my much less prestigious school. Had I not had the masters I would have been more inclined to spend the $30,000. After the first year the degree would have been funded.</p>
<p>Just another point of view.</p>
<p>I do have a PhD and won a major award with my dissertation but jobs were closed to me that a Columbia PhD would have opened.</p>
<p>I do have tenure as a professor, and really enjoy my profession, though.</p>
<p>Like I have told a lot of people, if I had known then what I know now, I would have gone straight for a PhD. The only problem is, I learned what I know now in my terminal masters.</p>
<p>My point is, if you are just coming back into academia like I was, a masters will really help you get more direction for what you want to do and help a lot with figuring out what you really want to do for your PhD. I was able to get back into the mindset of a student, read a ton of papers and ultimately spend a few years figuring out what kind of researcher I really wanted to be. I really had no clue coming from just my undergrad, but now I am completely confident in my decision. </p>
<p>I also believe that my experience in research as a master's student and my LOR from my 3 committee members is really what put me over the top and ultimately got me interviews at every school I applied to except for the one that granted me acceptance without an interview. I doubt I would have had the same result coming just from my undergrad degree.</p>
<p>I am going to pursue a Ph.D. in Political Science. My family is actually quite supportive of this and I don't have any kids. My goal is to teach at the college level, although I don't feel a need to get a position at a major research university when I'm done. As a high school teacher, I've found that I love to teach, but I'm happiest when I get the chance to focus in on my passion which is politics and government rather than the more readily available English and History positions available at the secondary level. </p>
<p>I've been leaning toward doing a terminal master's first primarily because of the letter of recommendation situation. In fact, there is only one professor in my undergraduate department who is still at the college 14 years later. Also, like people above mentioned, the methodology has changed and my own study skills are different from someone coming directly out of a strong undergrad program.</p>
<p>I'm really excited about starting grad school. I'll be wandering around this form and I hope to get to know some of you.</p>
<p>In spite of some others views, IMHO, older PhD candidates can have a fine time. The good news is that the programs are rather self-sorting. The programs that like the youngins will select them and reject the more senior applicants, and vice versa. </p>
<p>Regarding being out of date, as Prof X mentioned? since when would a 21 year old starting out have any sound knowledge of "method and theory"? Any decent PhD program will spend the first year or two building this foundation. And, as others have hinted at, this foundation varies from program to program, which is why a MA, terminal or not, from another institution is unlikely to speed the process much.</p>
<p>good luck. grad school is a lot of work, yes, but also a lot of fun.</p>
<p>
[quote]
since when would a 21 year old starting out have any sound knowledge of "method and theory"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh.. since the time they made most preliminary exams test the level of expertise on undegraduate topics. 21-22 year olds just finished their undergrad, so they might have a slight advantage in this area in the "methods and the theory". You make it seem as though twenty somethings are some inexperienced lads. There is a reason why they are in graduate school at their age. It is that they know what they want and waste no time with the pursuit of their goals and have demonstrated excellence. From experience, the brightess and sharpest are usually the youngest ones in the class. Advisors, in general, love the underexposure of young people, because for one, it gives them a fresh dimension on the research then say someone who's been reading the same stuff for 10 years at work and suddenly wants to pursue a PhD.</p>
<p>jmilton, SOME undergrads will have a decent background, probably those that did some research along the way. But show me an undergrad program that teaches research methods as part of its requirements for a major?</p>
<p>It is not that they are undergrads. It is that the program goals of almost all undergrad majors are quite different from the program goals of a PhD program. </p>
<p>And this "fresh" dimension you mention? It is a fine line between "fresh" and naive. Of course, you could argue that many knowledge advances occur from folks "too dumb" to know it could not be done. So they go do it. But this is a tough position to generalize from. </p>
<p>And, in some fields, candidates with real world experience can actually be attractive. This is common in the social sciences.</p>