Emotions Regarding Rejection(s)

[Mamba42]

What is taking these schools sooo long? I am getting very anxious here, and beginning to wonder if there is any shot that I have been accepted to any of the programs I applied to since I haven't heard anything at all... This grad school stuff is sure agonizing!

[sociologyplease]

@avee, didn't CUNY send out it's rejections already? I didn't apply there but I got the impression that if you haven't heard anything from them, it's a good sign. I'm also waiting on Brandeis.

[avee]

@avee, didn't CUNY send out it's rejections already? I didn't apply there but I got the impression that if you haven't heard anything from them, it's a good sign. I'm also waiting on Brandeis.

They did? Ahhh... just want to know. Thanks for that hopeful tip.

[largo]

Dude, this sucks. I feel like I am not going to get in anywhere. The ONLY thing I've heard is a rejection from MIT. Silence, utter silence.

Feeling frustrate and actually embarrassed.

Exactly my feelings. I applied to a total of 15 schools (3 Europes, 2 Canada, 10 U.S.). So far I just have two rejections: Princeton and Brown. And Brown was one of the universities which would be perfect for my topic. I expect rejections from Harvard and Columbia as well, apparently my stats are not that goog enough. So is my statement of purpose and all. I'm an international student with a 3.42 gpa for undergraduate (double major, but we don't keep different gpa's), 3.92 gpa for masters. For GRE, V: 154, Q: 163, A: 4. I guess these are not bright enough. Maybe some other time I should take the GRE again and work on my statement of purpose a little more.

[gilmoregirl1010]

I think I share the feelings of most of the people who've posted already. Rejection sucks. I've spent pretty much the whole waiting period bracing myself for a rejection letter, but that didn't make getting them any easier. I've been pretty emotional for the past few days. Other things may have factored into my being an emotional wreck, but still. Not fun.

I don't think it helped that my mentors, research advisors, family, and friends have spent most of this past year telling me how awesome and qualified I am, and how I won't have any problem getting into any program I want. It was easy to write off the family and friends as nothing more than naive optimism, but when my research advisor, who is a distinguished professor and seems to really understand the system, had confidence in me, it made it much harder to be realistically cautious about my prospects.

[sciencegirl]

@gilmoregirl1010 How many places did you apply to and what types of schools were they? I think the drawback to having very positive mentors is that the confidence doesn't allow for a back-up plan in case things don't work out. My mentor was perhaps the opposite - while she was very confident in my abilities, warned me how capricious the process is and there is no such thing a sure shot into any program. Any school I could see myself at and do good research, she encouraged me to apply. Hence my $1000+ credit card bill I am staring down now...

[wmnshlthsoc]

Dude, this sucks. I feel like I am not going to get in anywhere. The ONLY thing I've heard is a rejection from MIT. Silence, utter silence.

Feeling frustrate and actually embarrassed.

AGREED!! I've now been rejected from 2 schools and know that out of my other 3, 2 have already started accepting. I've had the official breakdown and been asked by my family what's my plan B... It's just sad. Cause I don't know what I did wrong really... Heart broken but staying faithful

[gilmoregirl1010]

@gilmoregirl1010 How many places did you apply to and what types of schools were they? I think the drawback to having very positive mentors is that the confidence doesn't allow for a back-up plan in case things don't work out. My mentor was perhaps the opposite - while she was very confident in my abilities, warned me how capricious the process is and there is no such thing a sure shot into any program. Any school I could see myself at and do good research, she encouraged me to apply. Hence my $1000+ credit card bill I am staring down now...

I only applied to three programs, one master's program and two highly ranked PhD programs (this is my first cycle, if you can't tell, haha). I applied to the master's program against the better judgement of every academic mentor I talked to, every one of whom told me I could do better, it wasn't worth my time, etc, etc. I was totally unaware of how difficult it really was to get into grad school until I came to this site. I'm very glad I didn't listen to them about the MA program, because I got full funding to the master's program and have been all but rejected from the other programs.

I know I should have applied to more programs in a variety of rankings, but I was stupid and didn't think it would be necessary, since I was thought it would be difficult enough to choose between three acceptances, lol. When I'm done with my master's degree, I'm going to approach PhD programs much more realistically.

On the bright side, you may have a big credit card bill, but it seems your odds of getting into a program you like are much better! (or maybe that's just more of my naivety talking?) Either way, good luck!

[sciencegirl]

@gilmoregirl1010.. I'm so happy that you have that masters program! I think the lesson here is that whenever anyone says you are over qualified and you will get in anywhere, don't listen to them, even if you are super amazing. The process is really random and competitive. And thank you for your kind words - I did get accepted to at least 2 of my programs (I wrote somewhere else that they would not have been the 2 programs that I would have applied to had I only picked 2 though). And the funding that comes with the acceptances will clear off my credit card bills in September! (Someone else highlighted this, maybe @jacib in a past forum, but the $1000 investment is basically for your future and a good funding package could be worth almost $400,000 depending on the program).

Also, it seems that half of the people applying now have masters degrees or some other sort of degree going into this... I think unless you are absolutely certain that you have a clear shot into a program (POI/personal connection somehow), applying to just 1-2 schools is a really risky move...

Edited February 18, 2012 by sciencegirl

[gilmoregirl1010]

@gilmoregirl1010.. I'm so happy that you have that masters program! I think the lesson here is that whenever anyone says you are over qualified and you will get in anywhere, don't listen to them, even if you are super amazing. The process is really random and competitive. And thank you for your kind words - I did get accepted to at least 2 of my programs (I wrote somewhere else that they would not have been the 2 programs that I would have applied to had I only picked 2 though). And the funding that comes with the acceptances will clear off my credit card bills in September! (Someone else highlighted this, maybe @jacib in a past forum, but the $1000 investment is basically for your future and a good funding package could be worth almost $400,000 depending on the program).

Also, it seems that half of the people applying now have masters degrees or some other sort of degree going into this... I think unless you are absolutely certain that you have a clear shot into a program (POI/personal connection somehow), applying to just 1-2 schools is a really risky move...

Thank you! And I agree, the application fees are definitely an investment, especially if you get into a program. I just wasn't sure if you had gotten in anywhere yet, and I didn't want to tell you that only to find out you had been rejected everywhere :-/

And yes, I agree. It was a very risky move, I can see that now. When it comes time to go for my PhD, I plan on casting my net MUCH wider. Live and learn, I guess.

[jenjenjen]

I'd like to second (third? fourth?) the idea of applying to a large number of schools. But I don't even necessarily mean a variety of rankings; if you are highly qualified and want to go to a top-15 school, you should apply to every top-15 school that fits your interests. I realize that is a huge time and money commitment, but I think it's worth it in the long run if you can possibly swing it. I applied to 9 schools, all in the top-15 or 20, and my advisors were even pushing more ("why did you write off Madison; I think you should take another look at Chapel Hill.") I naively assumed at UW Seattle and UT Austin could be considered more "safety schools" as my test scores and GPA were above their average. I also thought I'd have great chances at Duke, because my undergrad university sends several students there each year, and I have worked a lot with the Duke Endowment. Well Texas was my first reply, a disheartening rejection, and Duke (along with several other schools) looks like I'm on the slow list of rejections at this point. And yet I've been accepted to Stanford and Berkeley, which I considered rather long shots.

The point being, it's a bit of a crapshoot. You can't assume that just because are qualified you'll get in where you expect. But a rejection also doesn't mean you aren't qualified. I know someone who was rejected from Washington but accepted to both Harvard and Columbia. What I would hate to see is someone applying to two top-10 schools and a couple lower-ranked backups that they can be sure they can get into but aren't that enthused about. Be realistic about your possibilities of acceptance to top programs, but if your professors think you are qualified, then cast your seeds widely at a large number of schools you would be thrilled to attend, and hope something takes hold. And keep you head up if you get some bad news

[sciencegirl]

@jenjenjen - yes!! why I love you! It seems that a common mistake for competitive applicants is "tiering" your schools with a "Safety school" approach.. 2 to top 10, 2-3 to top 20, and then 2-3 "Safety" - the reality is with so many people applying, "safety" schools no longer exist really - anything in the top 50 I would say is HIGHLY competitive. Regarding application fees, I didn't qualify for this, but I wonder has anyone who is a first gen student or low income tried to get fee waivers from schools? I am sensitive to how much school application fees cost and I wonder if anyone was successful in getting fees waived?

Also, the really important mental approach that my professors wanted me to understand was: "You could get rejected everywhere. Just be prepared. It has nothing to do with who you are, the amazing accomplishments you have achieved, the good you want to do in the world - for many of these schools its trying to evaluate hundreds of other people just as qualified and special as you are for just a handful of spots, so don't let rejection bring you down. It is almost always really not about 'you'."

Edited February 18, 2012 by sciencegirl

[Chuck]

THIS:

Also, the really important mental approach that my professors wanted me to understand was: "You could get rejected everywhere. Just be prepared. It has nothing to do with who you are, the amazing accomplishments you have achieved, the good you want to do in the world - for many of these schools its trying to evaluate hundreds of other people just as qualified and special as you are for just a handful of spots, so don't let rejection bring you down. It is almost always really not about 'you'."

[allhandsonthebadone]

I applied to 15 top schools. So far its one waitlist, five rejections, eight pending rejections, and a longshot in Toronto. I thought my statistics were strong enough to be competitive anywhere. I spent a lot of money and put a lot of thought into each application. I can understand not getting all upset about an individual rejection but such an across the board repudiation just has shattered my pride. With this looming over me, to be frank, I have a hard time enjoying the things I used to and I don't see myself snapping out of it anytime soon. I can go through the motions and prepare a plan B but I just can't seem to have genuine fun anymore.

[quantitative]

@jenjenjen - yes!! why I love you! It seems that a common mistake for competitive applicants is "tiering" your schools with a "Safety school" approach.. 2 to top 10, 2-3 to top 20, and then 2-3 "Safety" - the reality is with so many people applying, "safety" schools no longer exist really - anything in the top 50 I would say is HIGHLY competitive. Regarding application fees, I didn't qualify for this, but I wonder has anyone who is a first gen student or low income tried to get fee waivers from schools? I am sensitive to how much school application fees cost and I wonder if anyone was successful in getting fees waived?

Also, the really important mental approach that my professors wanted me to understand was: "You could get rejected everywhere. Just be prepared. It has nothing to do with who you are, the amazing accomplishments you have achieved, the good you want to do in the world - for many of these schools its trying to evaluate hundreds of other people just as qualified and special as you are for just a handful of spots, so don't let rejection bring you down. It is almost always really not about 'you'."

Such good advice. My professors told me that I was being overly cautious applying to schools in a similar fashion to the ones mentioned above, but I don't regret my decision to apply to the places I did (although I'd just not apply to the ones that rejected me =P). My profs encouraged me to apply to fewer places (5 at max) and to a few more top programs if I was going to apply to so many. I took into account the program's strength in my area, location, # of faculty in my specialty, but when it came down to it, I didn't want to apply to all top-15 due to the simple fact that I was afraid of what I'm seeing here. I applied to 2 "ultra-TOP (top 5)", 7 "Very good/good (top 30)" programs with high degree of fit and 2 Masters Programs. I'm still waiting on 2 results, but I think my strategy of targeting schools with high degree of fit was a good strategy. I must agree with the post above me: This is a crapshoot.

Edited February 19, 2012 by quantitative

[wmnshlthsoc]

Just got a sincere apology (REJECTION) from the DGS of my top choice after reaching out to her to see what the status was after our meeting in January. Well I guess this is the end of the road for me. That's 3 official rejections, 1 I know has Visit day tomorrow so I should be expecting that rejection soon and 1 that admitted they can't fully support my research so I'm not sure I want to go if I am accepted. So I should start looking into jobs right?

[sociologyplease]

I applied to 15 top schools. So far its one waitlist, five rejections, eight pending rejections, and a longshot in Toronto. I thought my statistics were strong enough to be competitive anywhere. I spent a lot of money and put a lot of thought into each application. I can understand not getting all upset about an individual rejection but such an across the board repudiation just has shattered my pride..

Yes, agreed! I applied to 13 schools (1 M.A.) and even thought I went into it extremely realistically- thinking I might not get in anywhere- I still feel really embarrassed to have been rejected/assumed rejected from almost all of my doctorate choices and only have gotten into to a M.A., especially because I already have a M.S. in a related field. I'm trying to have an okay attitude about it and focus on the one acceptance I have, but I do feel the same lack of luster for life you mention. Rejection is really hard, even when you go in understanding the realities of this whole system.

Edited February 19, 2012 by sociologyplease

[sociologyplease]

wmnshlth- I'm sorry that you found out about a rejection from your first choice! That is not a good way to spend your Saturday night at all.

[sleepycat]

One rejection from my top choice (I didn't get a phone call so I am assuming I am not in the tiny cohort) and well, I am doing fine. I am disappointed, but considering they only took 2% I am in good company and honestly, it is not about me or anything like that. Normally I am torn up, but this season has me taking the scenic route and I might actually switch disciplines, so I am on the right path to get my ph. d. in what ever field I end up in.

@all don't get discouraged, the top 20 are hard to crack and everyone, including 4.0s, get rejected. Take deep breaths and push on. If you aren't going to apply to MAs, go into something related to your research, it will look better for next cycle! I know it is cheesy and easy to give advice, but think a little about it. Also take a break for a while after the cycle is done and when you are emotionally ready to go back applying to schools.

[Supernovasky]

I applied to 15 top schools. So far its one waitlist, five rejections, eight pending rejections, and a longshot in Toronto. I thought my statistics were strong enough to be competitive anywhere. I spent a lot of money and put a lot of thought into each application. I can understand not getting all upset about an individual rejection but such an across the board repudiation just has shattered my pride. With this looming over me, to be frank, I have a hard time enjoying the things I used to and I don't see myself snapping out of it anytime soon. I can go through the motions and prepare a plan B but I just can't seem to have genuine fun anymore.

Trust me when I say,

I feel you.

Rejections across the board suck, especially when you think your stats are competitive and you feel like you wrote a PS good enough to get you into a PhD program.

[Chuck]

FWIW, in an effort to gather as much information as I can about various programs, I've been revisiting several departmental websites.

Perhaps especially among the "more competitive" departments, I'm noticing a profusion of highly encouraging language directed at perspective applicants. Most of these departments go out of their way to emphasize how 'holistic' their admissions process is. The picture they paint is one where each candidate will be viewed in his/her best light as a respected and unique human being and potential scholar. "Not to worry! A less than stellar GRE/GPA/whatever can and 'often is' offset by strength in another area." The message these departments are sending is: "we want YOU!", "you've all got a chance!" In contrast, at 'less competitive' departments (which still often admit on the order of only 20% of applicants, fyi) this language is notably absent. Emphasis instead seems to be put on how rigorous the application process is, with hard cut-offs more emphasized, perhaps in an attempt to assert the strength of the department.

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I wonder how much of this language among the 'top' departments is more reflective of an effort to "keep the hope alive" for the masses, encouraging the perpetuation of a gargantuan deluge of applications, which in turn all but ensures the searing rate of rejection which 'top' schools seem to relish so much.

All this is to say that, in actuality, it is truly truly difficult to get into most programs. While technically true, this "you've got a chance" rhetoric being spouted by admissions professionals is not a realistic characterization of the admissions process. Nobody should feel ashamed or defective for not making the cut anywhere with a 5% (or 10% or 20% or whatever) acceptance rate.

Easier said than done, I know.

[splitends]

Chuck, I see your point, but I don't necessarily think anyone has nefarious motivations here.

Top schools probably have to fight against their reputations to get stellar applicants who might be discouraged from applying because they're weak on one metric or another. I know they definitely admit students who are less competitive in some way, but shine in others-- that's certainly the case in my department, at least. Other schools probably have to fight the opposite reputation so that people don't treat them as "safety schools." Even schools with the least competitive admissions process still have to reject the majority of applicants. I can see where cynicism might come from, but having spoken to a lot of people on the other side of the admissions process, I honestly believe that everyone is just trying to do the best by prospective students.

[felicidad]

Chuck, I see your point, but I don't necessarily think anyone has nefarious motivations here.

Top schools probably have to fight against their reputations to get stellar applicants who might be discouraged from applying because they're weak on one metric or another. I know they definitely admit students who are less competitive in some way, but shine in others-- that's certainly the case in my department, at least. Other schools probably have to fight the opposite reputation so that people don't treat them as "safety schools." Even schools with the least competitive admissions process still have to reject the majority of applicants. I can see where cynicism might come from, but having spoken to a lot of people on the other side of the admissions process, I honestly believe that everyone is just trying to do the best by prospective students.

I have to agree with splitends. If you buy the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the most highly qualified individuals often find it cognitively difficult to appreciate how their strengths compare to those of the rest of the population. They tend to assume that others are similarly qualified. While arrogant graduate applicants tend to get a lot of attention, I also think it's possible and even likely for some of the most competitive applicants to be surprised when they are admitted to top programs. Therefore, I am willing to give top schools the benefit of the doubt; perhaps rather than trying to "keep hope alive" for noncompetitive applicants, they are simply trying to keep highly qualified applicants from self-selecting out of the process because their credentials to measure up to their own overly high expectations.

[splitends]

I did want to make one more comment about admissions/rejections:

Judging by a lot of the comments I've seen throughout this site, I'm not sure that enough emphasis gets put on fit for a program. I spoke to a lot of grad students and profs who had sat on admissions committees before I started applying, and what they emphasized over and over again is that they're not just looking for the "best students"-- they're looking for students who will do well at their program and who are likely to actually accept their offer. I've had profs tell me they've rejected totally qualified applicants because they said in their application they wanted to study topic X, but no one in the department researched topic X, so they knew the student wasn't going to get good mentorship and turned them down.

I've also heard over and over again from grad students that people often get rejected from schools they consider "safety schools" because they were just mismatched, either in terms of research interests or looking "overqualified". I talked to one grad student at Harvard who told me he had been rejected from every school he applied to (something like 10), except Harvard.

Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that being rejected from a school doesn't mean you weren't good enough as a student or a scholar. It often means that either the program didn't fit you well, or that you didn't articulate that fit fully enough in your application.

And frankly, it most often just means pure dumb luck. Some of the best advice I got was from an incredibly cynical Professor in my department who had just finished a season on the admissions committee, and that's that the process is incredibly arbitrary. Different professors have completely different ideas of what is most important in looking at an applicant. Some are most impressed by the numbers, and totally distrust the authenticity of SOP and LOR. Others just want to see a minimum with numbers and then carefully read each SOP. I've heard one professor say that they completely distrust any student who says in their SOP that they want to work with him, since most undergraduates don't really understand his approach (I mean, wtf? Who would know that?!). The same cynical prof concluded that most faculty are just looking for people who remind them of themselves. So at the end of the day, who ends up on an admissions committee in any given year can change the outcome.

This doesn't mean that things are completely out of your hands, or that there's no pattern among those who generally get in and generally don't. It's just that admissions committees typically have to decide between large numbers of equally qualified students, and ultimately the difference between an admit and a reject can be somewhat arbitrary. So of course you should do the best you can, of course being competitive on as many metrics as you can will help you, BUT not getting in doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with you or your record.

Anyway. Sorry for the rant. That went on longer than I thought it would...

[Chuck]

Splitends, I see your point. And I am inclined to agree with you on the basis of the issue you've raised.

I guess I am more concerned with the larger problem that encompasses both of our points. I have spent perhaps too much time on this forum over the course of the 2011-2012 application season, and have observed a lot of genuine frustration among applicants along the vein of "what are my chances?" In sociology, there's just not an easy way to evaluate this question. The reality is that the chance of admission to any specific program is both slim and extremely stochastic, and in most cases significantly variable from year to year. Applicants and admissions personnel can quote GPA's and GRE's all day, but there are so many more important not immediately quantifiable aspects of every admissions decision which I don't think get adequately communicated to prospective students. If these boards are any indication, there is even widespread misinformation about what should be included in the SOP and who would be appropriate to write LOR's. I agree, there's no real satisfactory way to determine how competitive someone is until their file is evaluated by the department in question- but a positive outcome from this reality may be more likely for applicants at the top of the spectrum. There are many people on this forum who are facing rejection from places they believed they had a good shot at. In some cases, people who were top students (at perhaps lesser known colleges) are being rejected across the board. This sort of thing has to be seen as a trend. I think a decent portion of that disconnect (and the anguish it inspires) could be remedied by a more forthright and transparent admissions process, especially for those whose background has not prepared them for the application process.