[MAonly] MA Only Pulse Poll Results

[Jim Cherney]

Thanks, Emmett, for raising this topic.

I want to start by giving some context for my concern.  What I noticed 
when researching MA and PhD programs this summer was that there was "an 
increasing tendency" to encourage students to enter their programs with 
BA degrees.  Some schools (such as Ohio University) have essentially 
done away with the MA, except to give it to students who fail to pass 
their second year qualifying exams (as a consolation prize, if you 
will).  Others have indicated that they find it more convenient (and 
economical) to bring in BA's, give them the specific training they will 
need for that PhD program, and then expect those students to remain for 
the completion of the PhD.  What I noticed was not a simple "dislike" 
for students from MA-Only programs, but rather a tendency to ask: if 
this is a serious student, why did she or he not simply go to a good PhD 
program straight out of the BA granting institution?

In short, there seems to be a tendency to move away from previous 
assumptions about the MA-Only program that poses questions for MA-Only 
schools, especially if they see PhD prep as their primary mission.  I'll 
detail these.

First, the "conventional wisdom" that students are best served by being 
at different schools for their MA and PhD (for reasons of breadth and 
diversity) seems inoperative.  The efficiency issue (students who stay 
at the PhD program for both their MA and PhD are believed -- perhaps 
inaccurately -- to complete their programs in a more timely manner) 
seems to outweigh the value of this kind of diversity and breadth.

Second, PhD programs appear to increasingly consider MA-Only programs as 
prinicipally offering terminal degrees to students who (for whatever 
reason) are unable to qualify or enter PhD granting programs after they 
get their BA.

Third, PhD programs in communication have become increasingly 
specialized, making it difficult for students from generalist MA-Only 
programs to enter at the MA level and work with/compete with the 
students who have been at that institution since their BA.

Fourth, PhD programs are moving away from the MA thesis model (replacing 
it with rather developed comprehensive exams), which both increases the 
efficiency of getting BA students through the program and means that 
they are not as impressed with the MA theses of students from MA-Only 
schools.  Unfortunately, they seem even less impressed with students who 
go to an MA-Only school and do *not* complete a thesis, suggesting that 
the thesis work of students from MA-Only schools has simply been devalued.

Fifth, PhD programs appear increasingly interested in having high GRE 
scores, and at least some will not waive these requirements even if a 
student had performed well at a MA-Only school.  I'm under the 
impression that the MA-Only school used to be considered an appropriate 
transition point/proving ground for students with potential but poor GRE 
scores.  Such unwavering GRE requirements (often instituted by the 
Graduate Schools -- not the individual departments) reduce the ability 
of MA-Only schools to perform this function.

I want to stress that these tendencies may be localized to a few 
programs.  I did not perform anything close to a general survey of the 
PhD granting institutions in communication, and only spoke to 
representatives at 9 schools.  I strongly endorse the idea that we 
encourage NCA to at least help support such a survey.  I myself am a 
critical or productive rhetorician, and do not specialize in such 
research (my pulse poll, I believe, demonstrated my inexperience as a 
surveyor!), but I would be happy to help construct questions for such an 
instrument.

Later,
jim cherney
Miami of Ohio

J. Emmett Winn wrote:

> Dear Jim:
> cc: ALL
>  
> Thanks so much for sending this to us.  It is going to be very 
> helpful.  Also, regardless of how we go forward with our plans--I 
> think that Jim's point about top PhD schools not wanting MA-only 
> students should be at the top of our list of concerns.  Thanks Jim for 
> bringing that to our attention.
>  
> Cheers,
> Emmett
>