Jump to content

TheRufus

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    California
  • Application Season
    2014 Fall
  • Program
    Political Communication

Recent Profile Visitors

1,288 profile views

TheRufus's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

1

Reputation

  1. I'm at USC. Ask away! You can also message me if you want. You can also check out the stuff I've written elsewhere: and I also found this post on here particularly helpful (even though it's not comm): Good luck!
  2. This is SO WEIRD...the apps were definitely due on December 1st last year. New department head must be changing things up. I would definitely still apply. Giving your recommenders 3 months lead time on the letters of rec is a LOT of extra time and generally far more than any professor who is on top of his or her game would need. I mean, it's fine to *ask* if they will do it for you several months ahead, that's a great idea (like I'd ask NOW), but giving them your SOP three months early is just not practical (unless you're hoping they'll help give you feedback and edit them? Even then...) I would ask them 3 months ahead and then get them your SOP 3 to 4 weeks before the letters are due...and it doesn't have to be the final version (like you can still tweak little things here and there), just a complete draft. Plus your CV/resume. So I'd aim to give your recommenders an SOP & CV between October 1 and October 7; that gives you several more weeks to work on it. It *can* be done! You can't get in if you don't apply. Also, keep in mind many professors (arguably problematic, but still) ask for their students to send them a draft of the letter they'd like written, and they will modify it. By *no means* should you *suggest* this, but be prepared for the possibility for them to say they do this. (Hopefully they'll tell you when you ask ahead of time if this is their modus operandi.) So you may have more writing on your horizon. Departments are excruciatingly aware of professors doing things after deadlines, which is why they have the November 10 buffer. It won't hurt you if a prof gets it in within that time. Also, the part of the app where you ask for the letters of rec will send out the "GW has requested a letter of recommendation!" email before you have completed the rest of the application (so you can fill out that part of the app around Oct. 1-7 as mentioned above), and it will also show you if your recommenders have completed it or not and let you send reminders. Hope this helps!
  3. One handy thing I used for my school research was the National Communication Association's survey of doctoral programs in the United States. They have a general list of schools and their information here: http://www.natcom.org/DoctoralProgramGuide/ You can see some of the more in depth discussion of the results here: http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/More_Scholarly_Resources/Chairs_Corner/Doctoral_Chairs_Section/PDF-DoctoralChairs-A_Study_of_the_Reputations_of_Doctoral_Programs_in_Communication_2004.pdf and here: http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/More_Scholarly_Resources/Assessing%20Doctoral%20Program%20Quality%20Report.pdf And you can download an Excel spreadsheet with all the results for sorting and filtering here: http://www.nap.edu/rdp/ I used the Excel tables to sort for program reputation, GRE/GPA scores, percent of students with funding/full funding, geographic location, and based on my subspecialty (policomm). The GRE scores were old (on the 800-point scale instead of the 170-point scale for each subject) but you can just convert them using the ETS concordance tables (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/concordance_information.pdf). Many programs also post data about last year's admitted students on their web sites, including mean GPA, GRE scores, etc. The super helpful ones give you a range of scores, which is more helpful than just the averages (if you fall at the bottom of the range you MAY get in but have less of a chance, middle of the range is a solid chance, high range is a much better chance). These don't seem to change much from year to year so 10- and 15-year old data isn't necessarily out of date. Also check out http://www.gradschools.com/ for this data (though I found it less complete than NCA data). Keep in mind a few things: 1) GRE scores are more for sorting out really bad candidates than anything, and all scores may not matter. I got a near perfect on the verbal (169) and around the 75th percentile on the quantitative (159). Almost everyone in my new cohort scored very high on the verbal, but when I told them I got 75th percentile on the quant they were surprised and some admitted they got 25th percentile or so. I tend to lean quant in my research methods so it's good I have a higher quant score, but it wasn't required for my program. So quant may not be relevant to you depending on your program and specialty (see school specific data). Quant was what I studied for the most too, and I probably didn't need to. 2) GRE scores are just one piece of the puzzle. Great GRE scores don't get you in, they just keep you from getting thrown out. What's more important is program fit and faculty fit and your personal statement. So don't overfocus on it...don't neglect it, but don't give it a weight it doesn't deserve. 3) If you want a good gauge of your possible GRE scores, go download the free GRE Practice Test software from ETS. It has two free practice tests; take one right away for an estimate of where you are now, then use other materials (like the books and tests from Princeton Review, Kaplan, etc.) for studying, and then take the second free official practice test like 1 week before you take the actual GRE, and you'll have a really good idea of what your potential score is. Good luck!
  4. If you're still in undergrad, I would strongly advise you to do an undergraduate thesis...check with your department or your university honor's program (if you're in it) for how. This will *create* research experience that you yourself can direct, and give you much more of it (coming up with a question, designing a procedure to answer the question, and going through the process of doing it) than piggy-backing on someone else's project, though you doing that can help you figure out how research works in a more general sense. This applies doubly if you want to go straight into a PhD program out of undergrad.
  5. Hello Dedi, A quick response to some of your comments... I agree that in general it's advisable to use plain English and not get bogged down in overly pompous or verbose language, or too much jargon (which I like to call "academicese") in your statement. However, I think it's actually very advisable to drop a few of these terms here and there, lightly sprinkled throughout your statement (and properly used) to *hint* that you have high reading comprehension and writing ability. I believe my actual statement illustrates this. For example, I used the following words — "inauspicious", "prodigious", "amalgamated", "perennial", "intrinsic", "epistemology", "explicate", "exemplified", "averse" and "galvanizing" — sprinkled throughout the 1,700+ word statement, properly applied in context of course. It's only 10 words total, but they are not common in everyday speech (indeed, I can't remember the last time I used these in conversation, even with another academic, and certainly not in casual conversation with a non-academic, even though they very well may know what they mean). The New Yorker does something similar in their book reviews; you get one, maybe two "big vocab words" for every 300-500 words of "normal" text. I recommend this, but only if it comes naturally (you use words you know well and that fit organically into what you're talking about, rather than ones you pick out ahead of time) and is used sparingly (as I did, with roughly 1 percent or less of your total words being "fancy"). Similarly, I have had conversations with academics where "phenomenologically" and "ontologically" are used in discussing their research interests, and that makes sense because they are specifically talking about something in their discipline that they are pursuing, even if those terms are not well-used outside their fields (and I had to force them to define them for me). Using them in their statements would be appropriate, I think, IF done so sparingly and with clear demonstration that they understand the terms, and I would use synonyms or casual English translations for them in addition to the terms themselves. I suspect similar problems with jargon occur in the hard sciences and life sciences...I've read through a couple biochemistry and kineseology papers where I didn't understand a solid 10 percent of the words they used, but they likely would be understood just fine by the committees in their fields. With regard to referring to other materials, I stand by that this strategy is a good way to avoid *repeating* information or providing an unnecessary level of detail for a statement, or to refer to accomplishments that don't apply to the field that you nevertheless want to mention. In my statement, I referred the committee to look at my resume rather than detail all my accomplishments at the student newspaper, which are impressive (I think) but not really relevant to my field. I had a paragraph of detail describing the demonstrable changes I made at the newspaper on my resume, but it wasn't necessary to go into it again in my statement. Similarly, I referred them to my writing sample for a detailed discussion of my thesis methods (I sent them my methods and results sections), but I summarized the methods and findings in 2-3 sentences in the body of the statement itself. Reducing my thesis to 2-3 sentences really does cut out a lot of what I did and found, but I did so because harping on your thesis too much can make you seem too narrow in your research interests...and I was confident that all my thesis work was better represented by the writing sample anyway. I also referred them to my resume when I discussed my willingness to teach, as my resume shows all my teaching and tutoring experience in detail, but I wanted the focus of my statement to be on my research. I think this strategy can tie your total application package together in a way that makes it seem more organic while letting the individual pieces of the application speak for themselves. It's worth pointing out that I posted this in the Social Sciences > Communication subcategory for a reason...the strategies for my SOP and those you use, Dedi, in your neurosciences application and TakeruK in an application for a planetary sciences program might be different, I just know this worked for me. Hope that clarifies...thanks for taking the time to write back! Your other points...passive voice, enthusiasm...are well taken.
  6. Hey everyone, I thought it would be helpful to post about Statements of Purpose. Here's mine, and some things I wish I'd done differently. I'm hoping this specific example can be helpful to some of those out there looking to apply next cycle. Quick note on my background: Ultimate goal was a PhD program, so applied to five doctoral programs where I had a really good fit (down from an initial list of 10+) and two master's programs as "back up". When I applied, I had only my undergraduate degree (BA in Journalism and Political Science) and one year of professional work experience. (Oh, and an undergraduate thesis. I haven't seen a single instance of someone straight out of undergrad successfully going into a PhD program without an undergraduate thesis.) I was rejected from four of the five PhD programs I applied to (UPenn Annenberg, UPenn Poli Sci [since I'm interdisciplinary], University of Maryland, Stanford), and accepted with full funding for both years to both master's programs I applied to (University of Delaware, American University). I was waitlisted at University of Southern California; they ended up extending me an offer to attend with five years of full funding (which they offer to all those they accept) three days before the final intent to enroll deadline, which I later took. Based on my rate of acceptance, you can take my example with a grain of salt; however, I did get an excellent response from the two master's programs I applied to and even though I was waitlisted for only one doctoral program, ultimately got in to my second choice school. Most wait lists are comprised of students that would do well in the program, but there are simply more students than available spots, so they have to prioritize, and your position is often more of an external numbers game than a reflection of your quality. Even in the best programs, many students get off the wait list and are extended an offer, so my statement of purpose did ultimately get me into USC Annenberg, even if it wasn't a direct offer right out of the gate. A few things I wish I'd known/done differently: — Read Graduate Admissions Essays, Fourth Edition: Write Your Way into the Graduate School of Your Choice by Donald Asher sooner. It had great examples of essays to analyze and critique, as well as exercises to help get the contents of my statement out of my brain and into my word processor. I wish I'd found this in the summer before, instead of mid-November. — Get more feedback from professors (on admission committees) on my statement of purpose. I only sent it to my letter writers, who basically said "Looks great!" My peers and parents caught a few typos but were otherwise ill-suited to critique the style and rhetorical choices. — Do far more drafts and rewrites. I didn't start my statement(s) until October, and due to work didn't do as many drafts as would have happened otherwise. I threw away a lot of "brain barf" before I was happy with what I was producing, and that was only in the last week and a half before the deadline so I didn't have time to really drill down. — Copied and modified existing statements of purpose to be my own purely as an exercise in the style (plagiarism being properly frowned upon and, usually, imminently noticeable). This would have served me better than having "ideas" of statements in my head, which is partly why I think I threw away so much. — EMAILED PROFESSORS AHEAD OF TIME for information on the department, program, fit, what I was into and what they were into. And "ahead of time" as in the summer or early fall (before they had papers to grade and conferences to attend!). I didn't *really* get into application mode until November and by then it seemed a little late to email professors and discuss their research, my research, and the fit of the school in an organic way. I did for a few professors that I'd reached out to months before, so I had an established relationship, but lacking that relationship I didn't do it because it was too late. I'm not saying I should have when I realized, because it WAS too late, I'm saying I wish I'd reached out sooner. The point of a statement of purpose is to give the committee a sense of yourself as an academic, as well as aspects of your personality that are crucial to your success in academia, and to let the committee know that you know what you're getting in to (what the program demands) and what the feel of the program is like and how you'll fit in there, as part of the collective department/school as well as how you relate to the faculty. This is how I did that (for better or worse). My USC Statement: (modified slightly to remove personal names/details) Notes on some of my deliberate strategies: (Culled from all the resources I read about statements and examples I found and analyzed...this is mostly in the order the strategies appear in the statement) — Told a vivid story about myself with specific details that explained something the committee needed to know through SEEING rather than TELLING (yeah yeah, they are seeing through my telling, but you know...it's like the moral of the fairy tale, way more effective when the person concludes it after hearing the story than if you just stated it in one sentence up front)...in this case, it was about why a lot of my extra curriculars and training and accomplishments were in a trade I was no longer pursuing (journalism). — Story and statement in general was to demonstrate my writing ability...giving a sense of narration, flow, and readability that drops occasional "big vocab words" and academicese without too much jargon, which sounds boring, especially after a prof reads 200+ essays of it in a row as admissions committees tend to do. — Referred to my other application materials rather than repeating the information...this turned my app into a coherent packet where each new piece provided some new details that merited attention, rather than saying the same thing in 3 different ways in 3 different places. — Explained how I changed an approach to something and that not being a problem. — Explained my philosophy toward my subject...not just naming what my research interests are (though that is crucial, obviously), but how I thought about them conceptually, and applied them to the world. Note that I still listed my research interests specifically, but I didn't just treat them like line items on a survey. Got a little poetic and philosophical to show my personality, without going overboard. — Showed that I know how to quote someone properly...sparingly, when what they have to say is crucial to understanding the entire discipline *or* when what they say is so astoundingly profound that to paraphrase it would diminish the point. — Showed that I decided to pursue a PhD quite a while ago and planned ahead of time, going out of my way to prepare myself for it with challenging projects in undergrad (which I was successful at), rather than doing so on a whim or because I didn't know what else to do. —Showed that I had the option of doing something easier to graduate and chose to do something harder and more scholarly to challenge myself (undergrad thesis), which also showed how that was different even among the higher quality students at my school. — Showed that I knew the difference between looking up journal articles in the library and actual scholarly research...the creation and collection of new data that should PRODUCE an article, not just reading what other scholars have done. — Connected my thesis to my research interests. — Showed that I know how to name drop, both through doing it and through not overdoing it (mentioning someone and their accomplishments without beating someone over the head with it; giving credit where credit is due to scholars and mentors who helped and guided you...something VERY IMPORTANT to the academics who will be reviewing your application). — Showed that I am familiar with popular and academic works, as well as emphasizing that explaining your true level of familiarity with the literature is not possible in the space given. — Showed that I understood crucial concepts in social science research by describing my application of them (via my thesis). — Acknowledged that my interests may be changed by the experience of graduate school, and that that is expected and not a problem. — Showed that I understand that academia requires publications (if I had any, even in press, I would have said so, but I had nothing even submitted yet so I just put in that I was going to submit them since that was the best I could do). — Showed that I understood the frustrations and banality that was part of academia and research...and even that BEING PROVEN WRONG was a thing that would happen, regularly (as a feature, not a bug), and I could handle it. — Mentioned the school I was applying to SPECIFICALLY. You don't *have* to do this in only one place, but in *at least* one place. I preferred to do it a lot to make it even more customized. — Mention accomplishments the school should be proud of as one of its main draws (in my case, its position on the NCA list). — MENTION THAT I VISITED THE SCHOOL. So crucial if you can manage it...go to their prospective student events. Show you're interested. Ask questions. MENTION THINGS YOU LEARNED AND LIKED FROM THIS VISIT. This will make you stand out *so much*. Do it via online if nothing else, via emails with professors or students if no formal online "visit day". — Showed that I "got" what made my school "different". Most schools are trying to brand themselves in some way...maybe they are all about quantitative research, maybe they are all about competition, maybe they are all about collaboration, maybe they are all about students being entrepreneurial, whatever. Figure out what they want to emphasize, what their "brand" and approach is, and show how you "get" that and like it and why you're a good fit for that. Get it in quote form from one of the major players if you can. This is a huge portion of the "fit" element that people agonize over...this is about the department/school as a collective whole. — Show I had thought about the future beyond the PhD, that I have ultimate career goals and that the PhD is the key to those goals. (Note: MOST SCHOOLS are averse to applicants who even hint that they are cool with taking a non-academic job when they are done. USC Annenberg is not, so I felt comfortable mentioning the government and private sector options with them. Tread carefully here.) — Show that I researched the faculty AT THAT SPECIFIC SCHOOL, knew their work and interests, and how they fit with mine. (This is the second part of the "fit" equation.) Keep in mind that you're essentially name-dropping potential mentors and dissertation advisors, so this should not be done casually. If you can contact these people ahead of time via email to get a feel for them that's ideal, but I by and large did not. I spent the bulk of my customization time on this, even though it doesn't make up a huge portion of my statement in terms of real estate. (Look up their actual publications and the classes they teach, not just generic research interests. Check out LATEST ONES too, when you're name-dropping Academic All Stars whose most influential work may have been from a couple decades ago; they might have moved on to a completely different area of research and you won't get far saying you want to work with them on something they branched off from ten years ago.) This is easier said than done and I suspect my success at USC and failure at the other schools was in no small part due to me getting better information in this area and applying it more effectively than I did for the other schools. The hardest part was doing all of these things in a coherent narrative, that conformed to their space requirements, and customizing it for each school. (I did a version of this for every school I applied to, PhD and master's, though it was harder for those I wasn't able to visit and contact faculty about.) Keep in mind I have a bachelor's degree only (from a state school, no less), and no publications at all, and most of my achievements in undergrad were related to another field. Hope this is helpful to someone out there...good luck!
  7. So USC did this annoying thing where they invited all the doctoral applicants who were admitted AND on their wait list to the visit day, and then we all attended and it was lovely but NONE OF US KNOW WHICH LIST WE ARE ON. And we *still do not know*. They said we should expect to hear this week sometime but the week is over and *nothing*. It's very aggravating. I have a sneaking suspicion that I am wait listed because I only have a bachelor's and am from a not-big-name state university, but still would like to know for sure! Got an offer of fully funded master's degree at University of Delaware via a teaching assistantship, but can't really make my final decisions until I hear back from USC. Plus University of Maryland and University of Pennsylvania's PoliSci programs are insanely slow and I haven't heard anything from them at all either.
  8. Hmm...lots of "no way we're moving to SoCal" hate here, not sure why. I promise that it's quite nice, people here are quite friendly, and not everyone is as dumb as the stereotypes :/ In any case, I am sumbitting for PhD programs at USC, Stanford, UPenn and UMD. Still considering whether I should go for MA programs too as backups...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use