Leaderboard

My advise is not to engage with this guy, he's a troll. He shows up once in a while just to be rude and upset people. It's just not worth it.

There is a reddit thread compiling programs that are not accepting applicants that many of you will find useful: https://www.reddit.com/r/gradadmissions/comments/iekjt5/updated_list_of_programs_not_accepting_applicants/

When I teach a first-year doctoral seminar I have my students do an activity. I have them write ten "I wonder" questions every week...I wonder whether...I wonder how...I wonder why. At first, I tell them don't even worry about the topic. You can say, "I wonder whether my dog knows when I come home from work." It can be just anything. However, these tend to converge around a topic area in their field/sub-field. I also encourage them to ask these questions when reading academic articles. Think about what you might do if you conducted the study--what would you ask that is different? What would you want to follow up on? For those who are in a tighter timeline (like trying to decide a research interest in a few months), I might increase the frequency of these questions to 5-10 a day instead of 10 a week. Keep a journal of them. Both the content and the form (e.g., asking whether vs. how) will be telling regarding both your research interests and the epistemic frame with which you will approach your work. Best of luck!

I'm sorry, I just can't let this stand unchallenged. It is complete nonsense to say that GLMs have had little impact on data science. Talk to any practicing data scientist and they'll tell you that a lot of the models actually being used in practice are relatively simple regression models. And survey sampling? That's a special case of weighting, which is heavily used in machine learning in the case of rare events (and also to increase algorithmic fairness). If all you're interested in doing is creating algorithms that do something faster or more accurately, sure, maybe you don't need a ton of statistical training. But, if that's all you're interested in doing, you're not really interested in being a statistician! Statisticians seek to develop tools for better data analysis, which includes quantifying uncertainty, carrying out inference, and improving model interpretability. It's impossible to do that without a solid grounding in the kind of old-fashioned statistics you look down your nose at. Lastly, your conclusion that it is better to attend EECS/ORFE programs like MIT/Princeton because graduates from these programs have obtained positions in top stat departments is flawed. Top departments are often looking to find the smartest people they can hire, on the logic that they'd rather have a rock star who does something a little bit outside the norm than an "excellent-but-not-exceptional" faculty member who fits easily within the field. Sometimes, those brilliant people are in non-stat programs, but they're being hired because of their brains not because of their training. Indeed, if they were equally brilliant but had been trained in a stat department, they might be even more attractive candidates! Most people in EECS/ORFE programs will end up in those disciplines; entering such a program with the goal of entering a different field upon graduating is taking a huge gamble that you'll be so exceptional that hiring committees will overlook the fact that your research and training is unorthodox. OK, rant over.

With that many high-quality programs not accepting applicants this year, it's also a good idea to contemplate the fact that others are, and why that might be the case.

Sounds like you are looking for validation and support of your own conscripted answer, and not the perspectives and insights of those who already navigated this path....

I think I've decided on defering until next year... Hopefully things will be much more calm and resolved. To everyone applying this year I wish you very good luck and admire you for your determinance.

For those who are thinking about applying: I want to offer a response to wt2020's post, from the perspective of someone similarly situated (recent PhD recipient from a top program, also had the rug yanked out from under me this job cycle). I agree with a lot of the content of the post, particularly that one's university should "pay you living wages, ensure full health insurance, provide ample time to complete the program (5-7 years), protect your rights as a laborer in the department" (though I note that graduate student workers at UCLA are indeed unionized - https://uaw2865.org/about-our-union/). However I find the tone to be too flippant and very gate-keepy -- I'm wary of recent PhD's whose impulse is to slam the door behind them, and warn everyone else away on anonymous forums. To the many soon-to-be PhD students who are queer, and/or poor, and/or disabled, and/or for whatever reasons don't have a normative relationship to the expectation of long-lasting stability: the idea that getting a PhD is a choice to suffer and fall behind one's "non-academic friends" who are "establishing careers, getting raises, maybe even starting families or buying houses" may ring hollow... and that's okay. For many, having access to university health insurance and student health centers (and mental health counseling), an institutional affiliation for the next 5-7 years, and a stipend for at least part of that time (even at public research universities) can open a lot of doors and may offer so much more stability than the alternatives. Particularly in this moment, as the restaurant industry is collapsing and public-facing, service industry jobs aren't safe (especially for the immunocompromised). And since we don't know how long Covid-19 will pose acute danger, for many going to graduate school in this moment may actually be a good idea. Having said that: no one should pursue a PhD in Art History with the expectation that there is a tenure-track job waiting at the other end -- but I also think prospective students have already been disabused of that idea. Yes, it's very much a good idea apply to top, well-funded programs. And/or if you do choose to pursue a PhD at a public research university, do it with eyes wide open, and a full understanding of what your funding package looks like, what opportunities are guaranteed, which one's you'll have to apply for, etc. And given that many programs are suspending and reducing admissions this cycle, it may indeed be prudent to wait out this cycle, particularly if you have a viable alternative thing to do (if a funded MA is an option, do it!). But -- you may also have very good reasons for applying to PhD programs this cycle, and accepting an offer from a public research university... trust that.

IF YOU ARE THINKING OF APPLYING PLEASE READ I have lurked these forums for years since first thinking of attending a graduate program in art history in 2012. I finished my PhD this spring from a top-tier program and I now feel more than ever that it is imperative for me to loudly voice what is, in some ways, a cruel but honest truth about this system: A PhD in art history is a bad idea. Everything vivodito mentioned above is true. To add anecdote to fact I will say I had a tenure-track job at a decent liberal arts college revoked this summer because the department put a hiring freeze in place and is now cutting funds. I am now returning to a competitive field of recent elite PhDs from this graduating cycle in addition to those lingering from nearly a decade of cycles past. I have colleagues who are brilliant, and whom I adore, who finished their degrees in 2012–14, in the early recovery post 08' recession, who have spent a decade now trapped in adjunct hell, working 3 jobs a semester at different universities to make ends meet. The constant demands on their working hours means they are never able to do the kind of work museums or schools want to see in their hirees. They will never find stable jobs in the field but that doesn't stop them from competing with those of us graduating now. The finalists last year for Columbia's unfilled architecture spot where largely c.2014 grads. We should loudly sing the praises of those like Prof. Ilene Forsyth at UMich who had the immense foresight and ability to endow chairs on her way out, but sadly most institutions do not have such saints. If the dimming prospects of the field don't dissuade you, think about the PhD itself. It is a horrible and arduous process that is, somehow, simultaneously full of some of the most amazing, fulfilling, and formulating experiences you will ever have. Especially if you are just finishing undergrad, know this, you will give your 20's to this process. Your non-academic friends will be establishing careers, getting raises, maybe even starting families or buying houses. You will be married to your work, your dissertation, and your classroom. You will make less than $30k if you are lucky. You might have health insurance, you might have labor rights. If you are lucky you will also see the world, meet inspiring minds, make friends for life, and learn more about yourself as a human (not just as an intellect) than you are prepared for. [I am going to get grilled for this, knowing this forum, but] EVEN THESE SILVER LININGS ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU ARE NOT IN ONE OF THE TOP TIER PROGRAMS. We no longer live in a world where the independently wealthy whimsically dig mummies at the behest of colonial Egypt. If your department cannot: pay you living wages, ensure full health insurance, provide ample time to complete the program (5-7 years), protect your rights as a laborer in the department DO NOT GO TO THAT INSTITUTION. You will be taking on debt you can never recover from and placing yourself in serious harm. For all my struggles this past year I have watched friends and colleagues from places like UWisconsin and UCLA absolutely suffer over the past 8 years. Imaging working a full-time job (your studies) on top of which you must teach (another part- to full-time job) after which you either make "Extremely Low Wages" (HUD's classification one step above poverty) while living in the 9th most expensive city in the US (UCLA) with no ability to unionize and demand better working conditions OR make NOTHING if UWisconsin cannot scrounge the funding for a stipend on top of your fee waivers. This is nothing against the quality of the professors in these institutions and the students they produce but know this: Yale and Harvard send at least one class a semester abroad on study trips (to places like Russia, the UAE, and Mexico) because they have the money to do that on top of paying their students over $30K for 7 years. Imagine entering the job market out of UWisc. where you never had the funding to travel to your sources, time to truly invest in your work, or chances to network locally and abroad. Now know you are against a Yalie who had the time and support to go to every conference, travel to Russia on Yale's dime, write a solid dissertation because they didn't have to TA after year 3, and spent the night before the CAA interview in a fancy hotel they could afford on their real (albeit still meagre) stipend. This is also not to mention the cruel and classist stigma of hiring committees: I once had an ivy-league professor (old white man) tell me that ivies don't hire graduates of non-ivies, "you can only ever move horizontally or down in the pecking order," which is, thankfully, not a universal truth, but one that still lingers painfully on. "Okay, I'll apply to one of the top programs then." Not this year. As mentioned above, in the (I would argue correct) demands and interests of their current students, many programs are cutting admissions to support current candidates. Yale and Chicago are skipping the whole year. The IFA is reducing admissions to half for at least a year. UPenn is considering something similar. Assuming they will not also make such drastic changes, you can guarantee Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, and Michigan will all also be slimming their usual 12 or so a year down to maybe 8-10. That's potentially up to HALF the number of genuinely funded and supported spots available in top-tier American programs for this application cycle. And you can bet rejected students will be applying again next year, meaning the application pool will only be growing. [we can argue over who is and is not in that top tier but each of those programs pays living wages, insures their students, is overly represented in major fellowships like Kress and CASVA, and in new hires. Only ONE (IFA) is fully unionized, ensuring students are paid extra when they choose to teach as compensation for extra labor] If you have made it this far please hear me out, none of this is a reason not to apply. When I was finishing my undergraduate I was deeply in love (and still am) with the field of art history and gave myself gladly and fully to a senior thesis supervised by my favorite professor who was caring and helpful and incredibly supportive. What he told me come application time was crucial: "If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history then you should not be applying for a PhD." At the time I was a little hurt and took it as his admonition of my unreadiness for graduate school. What I have realized since is that 1. he tells this to all his good students and 2. the process of getting a PhD in art history is mentally, emotionally, and physically (yes, books are heavy) destructive work that will chew you up and spit you out into an even more grueling and horrible world, and if you are not so enamored of, so head-over-heels-crazy about doing this insane thing, weathering all the long nights, sacrifices of friends and family, and meagre living standards then you must (not should, must) turn elsewhere. It is no mark against you. There are brilliant, interesting, passionate, and powerful people doing all sorts of things other than PhDs in art history and I encourage you to think long and hard, especially now, if you are one of those people. If you can imagine yourself doing anything other than a PhD in art history—and I mean anything: an MBA, law school, finance, a start up, tech, medicine, hell, even history (those guys can get cushy state department jobs)—then you should not be applying for a PhD in art history. If you can look yourself in the mirror and know that you are willing to weather the horrifying tempest that is dying humanities, collapsing departments, under-supportive programs, and a field that is only just (but thankfully is) beginning to deal with its historically myopic fixation on white-western-male-centric topics then I wish you the best of luck, godspeed, and may you and all those like you save us all.

As kindly as possible, you need to let this go. I've seen you post here in multiple forums and on Reddit. And you've gotten the same advice each time: you need to take a step back and deal with your own health and most importantly let this go and move on. Those of us now on the other side (faculty members) can share how the process usually goes at our institutions, but that won't help you find answers or closure, because nothing about your situation is usual or normal. The fact that you're still obsessing over this and trying to get things reversed and get your former professor to understand your mental illness is very concerning. Again, your illness might have caused you to act a certain way, but it cannot be an excuse. Your professor isn't going to want to talk to you again, and the university has clearly set up a very bureaucratic and administrative process for handling communication for you. In the interest of your own health, please seek help and please please stop posting about this and thinking that there will be some magical thing you can do or that you will understand that will make things better. These relationships are damaged, and you will not be able to repair them. Not will you begin to understand the damage your actions have done until you seek consistent and serious help.

Hi everyone. Thought I'd log back into the good ol' GradCafe to see how this year's application cycle is looking. If anyone wants, I'd be happy to share my SOP from last year's cycle. Just shoot me a DM. :) In terms of advice, I would caution people against applying to more than 10-12 programs. I applied to 16 programs, and, tbh, I regret that decision. My rationale at the time was that I would send as many apps as possible and see what sticks, but I would have been less stressed during the application season if I had focused my efforts on a few programs that interested me the most. I also don't think that applying to a school solely because of the prestige is worthwhile. I applied to Stanford and Berkeley despite not seeing a strong fit with those schools, and, in retrospect, I should have just saved that energy for other activities. Also, I know this has been repeated on this forum ad infinitum, but fit is important. Whereas with my Stanford app, I could see a fit only if I squinted just right, with WashU my research interests and interdisciplinary approach were clearly a good match for the department. Correspondingly, when admissions decisions rolled around, Stanford rejected me, while WashU welcomed me as their top candidate for admission. The DGS at WashU specifically mentioned my research interests as a major reason for my acceptance. Obviously, this is anecdotal and might not apply at all to your situation. But don't discount your own intuition as to what programs are best suited to your goals (keeping in mind, of course, that your goals will change over time).

I am currently nervously trying to keep track of corona-related news from different universities. Something positive, however, is that my undergraduate research most likely will be published in an scholarly journal this October which I hope will boost my applications. Good luck to all!

Hi everyone - I've checked this page every day since June, and appreciated the support. For those of us who didn't get in, I wish us the best of luck in reapplying, applying elsewhere, or pursuing a different path. Despite this not being what I planned for, for those of you who want to be teachers, this is another year we can improve ourselves and acquire new knowledge to share with the students we'll be teaching one day. 🙂 Cheers!

I wonder if it might be helpful to make a collectively edit-able spreadsheet, and then put that in a thread we can pin at the top of the forum...thoughts?

Just a note to those who are factoring rankings into their decisions about where to apply: I found this and my own research on placement much more useful and accurate than US News rankings. I didn't discover this until after I had committed to a program, unfortunately, and I wish I had had this resource when I was thinking about where to apply. US News rankings (in our discipline and others) seem to want to be exciting and diverse at the expense of accuracy. I don't know why Yale, for example, ranks at 8 when it is clearly the top dog in terms of placement and has always been (I'm almost hard-pressed to identify recently-hired Assistant Professors at programs who aren't coming from Yale). I think the placement numbers give a much better sense for how graduates are faring in the job market and how well-respected the program is than the US News rankings do. There is also something significant to be said for the name recognition that Ivies offer, especially if you are interested in working outside of the US. It's helpful to do your own research, too, though. I know that Chicago actually ranks lower than even this resource suggests because most of the placements listed here are at ... Chicago ... lol, and it tends not to place elsewhere.

I currently have 18 on my list but plan to get it down to 10-12. I just feel like it's unlikely I have a good enough research match with all 18. I also don't have that much money to blow on programs that aren't great fits!

I had 0 experience w/ academic book reviews when I applied last fall and found it really helpful to read reviews for other books in my field (I kind of thought reading reviews for the book I was reviewing would muddy my perspective/sort of felt wrong but not sure? But do what feels right to you on that front)! It gave me a good sense of how reviews are written and what scholars in my field tend to comment on when they review. I also think that keeping in mind (though not writing about directly) why the book is meaningful to you can actually be useful! If aspects of the work shaped your understanding of the field or changed your perspective, those things are definitely worth bringing up in the review. Just shift the perspective from your personal understanding to the growth of the field (e.g. "this work centers women in the history of anatomy" rather than "this work made me realize how central women were to the history of anatomy"). Good luck!

There are no magical programs with high acceptance rates and great training. The student to faculty ratio is just too high. If you apply this year and don't get in, that's okay. Most people do not attend right out of undergrad. You aren't a bad applicant. It's just very competitive. Master's programs aren't for bad applicants. They do great work just like people with doctorates. Don't get hung up on the doctor labels because that's what will steer you toward a PsyD. You can't "do-over" the decision to go to PsyD. It has permanent effects on your career and finances. But you can do-over your application next year or the year after.

Good luck to everyone applying to year ☺️ I went through this process three times and got in on my third try. I'm currently at OISE in the Counselling & Clinical Psychology program - if anyone has any questions about the program or about clinical grad applications in general, feel free to PM me, I'd love to chat!

I signed my first ever book contract last week with a major publishing house.

I think it's totally fine to have your argument be for a conditional claim (i.e. I will argue that, given Y, X). No one expects you to be able to give a defense of hedonistic utilitarianism in order to say anything about applied ethics. But I do think it's worth motivating why that conjunction of positions is at all compelling. Why is this ethical question pressing, important, relevant for someone who holds those positions? You don't want to make it seem like you're just randomly choosing these positions. I think it's also worth asking yourself how necessary those background claims really are to your argument. I can see why the normative framework would, but does it really matter whether moral realism is true for your argument? I mean maybe it does, but I think a lot of the literature on topics in applied ethics can work fairly independently from meta-ethical claims.

Your situation is pretty unique, and so any advice I might have could be totally off base here, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, based on what you've posted, I really don't think your alma mater is a legit option. You made a formal complaint to the department chair against a female professor for being "moody" in an email response. I'm not really clear on everything that followed, but I believe you then made a formal complaint against the chair for not resolving the situation to your satisfaction. You then spent considerable effort trying to retract the original complaint--and the reason why it is so hard to retract a formal complaint is because they are a big deal. Even if your anxiety may have influenced you to make some bad decisions here, I think it's hard to claim that your disability caused you to make a formal complaint, so you are entirely responsible for those actions (i'll leave it to others to sort out the legality of such a situation, but I think the law is even less understanding). So your statement that "I doubt they can reject a student for a disability" unfortunately probably does not apply here. You've done something pretty significant and you alone are responsible for that. That's a big "ostensibly" to me; unless you had explicit proof that that's the case, I would frankly assume you were rejected because of your reputation in the department. Again, formal complaints are a big deal, especially if they are so clearly inappropriate (eg, for being "moody). Based on what you've posted, unfortunately if you want to go to grad school you are going to have to relocate, because I don't think you can repair the necessary relationships at your alma mater--or maybe I should say I don't think faculty will want to put in the work to repair those relationships I'm candidly surprised by your continued commitment to your former professor. It seems like she's made it quite clear that she is not interested in working with you professionally, for reasons that originally had very little to do with you and your capabilities. Your response to that damaged whatever personal relationship you could have had, and it seems blindingly clear to me that she has no interest in trying to mend this fence. Bluntly, you need to move on from this before your feelings about this relationship do more damage to your career prospects. That includes working with someone in the hopes that they will tell your former professor how great you are and then you can all be friends again. I'm sorry that its been such a painful process, but it's just not happening. You've received and seemingly ignored this advice countless times on this forum, so I don't know if me saying it will have a different effect, but you cannot expect to ever have a relationship of any kind with your former professor, and if you continue to make decisions about your career based on your attachment to someone who does not want to work with you, you will severely hamper your professional potential. I'm sorry for my blunt tone, but it is hard to watch someone repeatedly sabotage their prospects. If you cannot move on from this relationship on your own, I sincerely and sympathetically suggest you seek professional help.

The reality is, unless you plan on hiring an attorney (you can try and see if anyone will do it pro bono) and bringing a civil suit against them, the likelihood of you receiving any sort of compensation or the chair recieving any sort of disciplinary action is zero. I understand that it may seem unfair, but that's the reality of it. Also, if you do intend on filing a civil suit, it would probably be a good idea to limit your contact, as that may be used to the university's advantage and aid in their defense. You will not be able to find the answers you are looking for in online forums because protocols and policies vary from university to university. So we are unable to tell you what the usual protocol for handling grievances is because it is most likely different in every university.

Hi Everyone! I'm a recent HGSE graduate and writer for a graduate admission tips/advice blog called The Evolved Graduate ( evolvedgrad.com ). On the blog, I draw heavily on my experience at HGSE, and I hope that it's helpful to you as you make your way through the application process. I thought I'd get the ball rolling here for 2021 applicants. The HGSE 2020 thread has a longer life this season because of the second around of admissions, but I can imagine that 2021 applicants will soon arrive in larger numbers. I really enjoyed my time at HGSE, learned many lessons ( some on time, some too late!) and I'm glad to be a resource to any of you who'd like some perspective from former student. If there''s any graduate admission topics that you'd like covered in the blog please let me know. Additionally, I'm still in a facebook group with my HGSE class, so any questions that I can't answer, I could share with that larger group. Best of luck!

I am not sure she didn't give you actionable advice. By my reading of your post, she has suggested to you that your manage your expectations for the schools on your list and to cast a broader net to include programs where you might have better odds for earning an offer of admission. In the event you ask her for more support, I suggest you phrase your requests for comments on how you can make yourself a more competitive applicant. Try to keep the conversation centered around skill development. Also, please keep in mind that one hears "no" a lot in doctoral programs. Often, the "no" comes from individuals who are not generally supportive. Sometimes, "no" comes from those who have your best interests in mind. The challenge is figuring out the meaning of the "no" and deciding upon the level of effort one wants to make to turn that "no" into a "yes." (And ultimately, that may require telling someone "no." As in "Yes, I've heard your 'no,' but no, I'm going to do it my way...")

The sites I’ve trained at generally used measures like the BDI and BAI for tracking progress throughout therapy for most clients. It’s useful for us as therapists, and a lot of my clients have found it very helpful because they can see the reduction in symptoms in a way that is much more concrete. I remember one of my clients being very excited when she realized she was responding “0” to symptoms for the first time and it was a big moment for her.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y-YPJpVstjndLOUun_x_OeJ32FZ_fKwDMSpmUQ-N4JU/edit?usp=sharing this is editable by anyone. please add a link to a department/graduate admissions site if/when you can! also, i added different sheets for related disciplines (rhet/comp, comp lit, film/media.) feel free to add sheets and info on there.

That stinks. I'm sorry you had to go through this. It is too common a story unfortunately. I think the most likely scenario is that they would only call/email the rotten PI if they were friends with her (or at least friendly with her)...and if they are friends with her, probably not the type of lab you would want to work in.

I think that would be a great idea. I'd be able to pin it if it were created. I think my only request would be that a link to the information be provided in an attempt to provide the most accurate information.

I submitted a 25 page paper to a program that asked for 10-15 pages. They admitted me. I wouldn’t sweat it too much, the adcom probably didn’t even know what the application website stipulated.

It sounds like a tough situation to be in, sorry to hear you aren't happy at your new program. From what you said, it sounds like it's not a funded program, which is not typical of research heavy ones. Programs that train successful researchers often have star research faculty that provide mentorship and who draw in a lot of big grants and thus can fund their grad students decently (not a lot, but usually no or minimal debt). 200k in debt is a looot, especially since even academic clinical psych doesn't pay as much as say a MD degree would after graduation. I would advise you to consider avoiding as much debt as you can. You're still young! Many people on here (including me) made it or are trying to make it into a program in their 30s, 40s, etc. Getting into a better program, that matches your interests and with less debt would be preferable, even if it takes a year or two longer. Do you have any previous academic mentors/ supervisors that can give you some advice? Program admins might not be able to answer such a complex question on the phone regarding admissions. A professor might be able to give you more insight into how to handle this change and how a committee views these things. If you don't intend to practice, you may still consider other areas in psychology. Those might be easier to switch into and less competitive, so would not take that many more years to start the program, while letting you put all the focus on the things you are passionate about. However, if you do intend to practice, clinical psych is very competitive. Do you have enough previous research activity to get the attention of POIs? That might compensate a lower GRE for example. If all seems too fuzzy right not, you can consider working as a lab coordinator for a year or so - this could give you an edge in clinical psych admissions and might help you clarify what you want to do next and how to get there successfully. From my perspective, that amount of debt is definitely not necessary if you are intending on a research career and it will only keep you from achieving your dreams (after grad school you might want other adult things that come with a high price tag - such as a house, family, boat, etc A lot of debt might keep you stuck in an area you don't like or employed in a place you hate just because you have such a high financial burden). The path to clinical psych is not a straight one for many of us, but it doesn't mean it's bad just because it's not how we dreamed of it initially. Often these experiences are what make us very good and unique clinicians/ researchers.

Just FYI, I am also on SDN, and a DCT of a program posted this about the GRE in a thread: "I thought I would come back and re-post here because it is amazing what can change in a week. We found out that since we have made our GRE optional our graduate school won't forward any GRE scores regardless of whether or not you send them. It sounds like this has become the default choice for a lot of schools over the last week. Thus, there may be no incentive for sending GRE scores at all now. Just thought I would pass that along."

I'm in the second cohort of a newly established program, and it hasn't really hindered me in any way. We currently have accreditation on contingency but didn't when I started the program. Its always worth it to apply and then assess after interview day if you think its worth attending. Overall I'd say that if you make it to interview day, try to get a good grasp on how organized and prepared the DCT and faculty are in applying for accreditation. Be sure to ask questions about the process. If they appear prepared I'd think its less of a risk than you would imagine.

A little, but honestly I don't care. What bothers me is that this feels like the third time I (or someone else) try to start a conversation about a program and you come in and make it all about the GRE. It's really the only thing you seem to ever post about. No, HKS hasn't changed their GRE requirement yet. And you would know this if you took the 5 seconds it takes to open up their website and check. Even if they did get rid of it for other programs, there's a 99% chance they won't do it for the MPA/ID because they've made clear that it's an important part of the application for this specific program.

While Statmaniac has made some valid points, methinks that they have extrapolated a bit too much based on their personal research. For example, they dismiss detailed study of GLM's, but argue that information theory and functional analysis are things that are "more important and fundamental to learn." Many stat students can get by and publish in top journals/conferences without having taken an entire course on information theory or functional analysis -- they can pick up on the things from these areas that they need for their research *if* they ever need it (like the various entropies and divergences, for example). And students who are doing more applied statistics have little use for those subjects. Anyway, it is a matter of opinion what is "most important and fundamental."

The current accreditation process allows programs to be accredited, on contingency, before the first cohort of students graduate. This status is typically given within the first year after the first cohort has been admitted (i.e. probably sometime in 2021/2022). The program can only be fully accredited after the first cohort graduated, but graduating from an accredited, on contingency program means you graduate from an accredited program. There is always a risk but it is pretty low given UC Irvine's reputation and resources so I wouldn't worry about it. One aspect that a new program struggles more often is arranging/assisting in clinical experiences as they may not have established connections and it takes a lot of work to coordinate this. However, this can also be the case without a dedicated, organized DCT in established programs.

Honestly, the best round to apply was last year's round. And I mean that in the sense that with the current covid/economic/political situation, the next few years are going to be completely unpredictable and range from "weird" to "total shitstorm", but we don't know which will be which. So at this point, the best decision you can make is going to depend entirely on your own financial and mental resources, and not at all on any kind of strategy or statistical game. Do you personally feel like you need to try to get in with the soonest possible cycle? Do you have the resources to deal with it (from figuring out how schools have been affected by Covid to your application/test expenses)? And if you strike out this time, will you no longer be in a position to try again with the next cycle and wish you had waited? Or will you have enough of a cushion (of whatever kind) to try again?

Isn't that more due to the fact that MIT primarily only has people in either ML or high-dimensional statistics (and in this case I feel like the opportunity of working with Candes at Stanford or Wainwright at Berkeley is probably better than being at MIT), but there's more to statistics than these two fields: what if the person wanted to do something in causal inference or post-selective inference? MIT would clearly be not as great compared to other top stats programs. Additionally what makes a good EECS application is pretty different from what makes a good stats application: applying to EECS in ML usually revolves around having published somewhere in ICML or NeurIPS (sometimes even multiple times) as an undergrad, and comparatively grades/coursework really don't matter that much. Perhaps this is true in general about stats program curricula being outdated but if we are comparing Stanford/Berkeley to MIT this isn't really that true nowadays. People in the stat department who are interested in ML are encouraged to go take courses in optimization and information theory (which is what I am doing) because as you said, they are very useful. In fact one of the core courses at Berkeley gives a brief introduction to information theory because of how useful it is. But again, not everybody wants to do ML/data science/what-ever gets hyped up in the media nowadays and places like MIT EECS/Math or Princeton ORFE are really niche recommendations since they tend to lean very heavily towards a small subset of areas within statistics and have virtually no presence elsewhere. Also about your point for professorship, I know Berkeley gave out 3 offers for faculty last year, and 2 of them are for somebody with a traditional statistics background. @kimmy sorry for the sidetracking but the people on this forum are pretty good at giving advice on applying to stats programs (probably because there are a few stats professors running around on these forums). I'd be somewhat more skeptical of any advice you'd receive here about applying to math or EECS (as to the best of my knowledge) because there aren't any similar such people on this forum and you should probably go look elsewhere for advice but do consider these options if that is something you are interested about.

Good to have a collection of public statements, but please, applicants: don’t get your hopes up about any other top programs not listed here.

I know that the pandemic has really messed things up for a lot of you. Your dream program might have cancelled admissions this year or you are looking at an even more competitive market because there will be fewer programs accepting students. This might mean that you choose to take this year off and wait to apply next year OR that you want improve your skills and increase your chances of success in a program. I am writing this post to suggest skills you can develop on your own, without being in a program, but that will make your life better when you get there if you learn them beforehand. They will also make you more attractive to programs that expect their students enter with certain kinds of skills/knowledge. The first thing you should do is learn to use R. If you don't know where to start a really good textbook is Discovering Stats Using R by Field, Miles, and Field. This text is great because it will give you a refresh on your stats knowledge and will teach you to use a free stats program. The learning curve for it is pretty big, you have to learn to speak its language- but if you can teach yourself how to use this your life will be so much easier later. A lot of people might say that learning R first is a bad idea, but if you learn to use R then using state, SPSS, or SAS later is a breeze. Plus the R community is amazing and there are so many free tutorials out in the world if the book is confusing. The second skill you can develop on your own is practice regression models (learning the code to run them, to interpret them, learning what you use various types of models for...). This is super important if you want to be a qualitative person. What? You might be asking. Yes, I am serious. Many programs will expect you to be competent in every method so going in knowing how to do quant work will mean less push back for your qual dreams. There are lots of textbooks you can use, my program uses Regression Models by Example by Chatterjee and Hadi. But anyone can teach themselves to do this as well. Download free data (CPS is pretty easy to work with if you are just starting out) and play. The third skill you can develop on your own is the ability to use python. There are lots of online programs that my peers have used to learn this skill (I, honestly, have not). I do know that as you progress in your quant skills that eventually this becomes something you'll want to know how to use. I work with survey data/not crazy huge datasets so I've been able to avoid it, but this might be something to think about. A lot of posts on here suggest doing things like learning theory, but from my experience you have no idea what theory will be covered in the program you end up accepted to. You could spend an entire semester learning Talcott Parsons or you could get a general overview or you might just cover Marx/Weber/Durkheim. My point there is I wouldn't bother. I would download as many pdfs of peer reviewed research articles on the area you are interested in writing your thesis on NOW while you still have access to your undergrad institution and to start building a literature review. Make sure to do specific searches of major journals (AJS, ASR...) If you don't have access get your hands on as many "free" sources as possible and make it your goal to read at least a couple books in your interest area. Make sure to save the citation information, the gist of the article, and any quotes you think you might later use (I do this in excel spreadsheets). Even just saving them to a PDF is a good starting place though. This will help you when you finally do get to that point in your career. Your interests might change, but it never hurts to have a solid lit review started. You will be able to pull from that for class papers if you don't use it for your thesis someday. I know that not being able to apply is going to be super stressful for many of you and that it will probably mean working a job during this time which is why I gave a list but with varying levels of commitment or time attached to the tasks. I'd suggest doing ANY of these things- but if you don't do anything that is ok too. We are living through a global pandemic and it is ok to not be ok. The thought here is that these are good ways to build on your skills while you figure things out (let's be real knowing how to do statistics or use python are great skills to have on a resume anyways anymore). I am so sorry this is happening to everyone who is at this point in your grad school journey, I login to this site like idk every 4 or so months so if you DM me I won't answer for a while, but I promise I will eventually reply if you have any questions about what grad school is like or about how to go about any of these suggestions I have made. I did this because after advising a student from my summer class I realized that she is far from the only person thinking "what now" so I hope this helps. A side note: obviously polishing your application materials will help too. An extra year to craft the perfect letter of intent might be a blessing for someone who is still wrapping up their BA. Also I hope other current grad students share their insights. I am ABD in my program and nearly done so people earlier in the process might remember some things I don't or have insights from their programs or other books to recommend

Ryerson applicants, and those who might enjoy some tips/insight into the application process: Ryerson's 1st Diversifying Psychology Recruitment Event: https://www.ryerson.ca/psychology/news-and-events/2020/10/diversifying-psychology-recruitment-event/

I'd consider getting an MA to up your chances of getting into a good PhD program. That way your MA gpa could be a good signal to counter your undergrad gpa.

CC your chair/DUS or keep them somehow in the loop. Protect yourself and anticipate this person is going to fight you tooth an nail. Also, you cannot learn critical thinking without writing clearly. If you cannot summarize (A basic skill) you cannot synthesize, compare, assess, or evaluate.

OP, I am really sorry for your unfortunate experience at your alma mater. It really is beyond my imagination. I hope you can find faculty members who can speak about your academic potentials in LoRs eventually! But I'd just like to point out that PhD candidates probably are not the ones who could serve as best LoR writers. As Rootbound has pointed out, professors who write our letters are using their own reputation to endorse us, that takes quite some risk and trust. PhD candidates are already in a vulnerable situation in terms of having not got their PhD or tenured anywhere, and in that way they are still trying to build a name in the academia, instead of using it prematurely (when they barely even have one). In fact, I'd honestly be surprised if they offered to write LoRs when there are faculty members to ask one from. (Or maybe I am wrong??) My point is, I don't think you should overthink it and beat yourself up by suspecting it's because of your test scores that they declined to write you a letter. It would perhaps also be a good idea that you start to frame your intellectual identity in terms of your research rather than your grades (people don't really care about those at the PhD level, which I assume you eventually want to get to?) or past relationships (again, I am very sorry) with faculties. Let your research define you and guide you! Also, speaking from experience, the most important components of your application are likely the SOP (and the writing sample), followed by LoRs and so on. Do you already have strong SOPs where you present your research interest and your familiarity with the field of your study? If your goal is to get a PhD and work in the academia, then you also need to think of where to apply for your Master's in terms of which programs can best prepare you for your future applications to top PhD programs. Frankly speaking, I think for humanities fields, there are only a few (no more than 10, for some fields maybe around 5) top programs (professors who can advise you+good funding+good job placement) where you actually want to get your PhD from. So where you will live for the 5-7 years of your PhD is pretty much not up to you. Why not use the Master's program as an opportunity to have a taste of living in a brand new environment?

Hi Shamash, I get what you mean. However, no one being taken off the list is a good thing because that means that they might still be waiting to hear other students decisions first. In my opinion, if you have any other offer take it, and worst comes to worst and OISE does take you off the waiting list, you drop out of the other program/school and attend OISE. That is my plan. I’m not worried to loose a deposit. I am still very hopeful for OISE so don’t give up yet.

I was originally considering some interdisciplinary PhD programs, and honestly might still be, so I can give you the advice I was given by my undergrad professors, since I asked three different professors a bunch of these questions... The gist that I got was that it really depends on the prestige of the school, and how you can spin your dissertation into something that helps you fit into a specific humanities department. But, the name of the degree does carry some weight (ex. having an English PhD looks better to English departments than having an interdisciplinary PhD in which you used skills that you would use in an English PhD). I've also heard from them that sometimes these departments are less cohesive-- if we consider universities as the neoliberal institutions that they are, these sorts of departments are often a money-saving measure. Professors within them might not know each other or communicate with each other as well as professors in a traditional humanities department. I would also argue that many humanities programs tend to be fairly interdisciplinary at this point anyway-- you can usually take courses in other humanities departments, and your dissertation can certainly include elements from multiple fields, so long as, say for example, your English PhD dissertation is at least reasonably focused around literary analysis/theory. I was advised into the recent dissertations coming out of different humanities programs as well as Professor interests to see if there are programs where you feel you could explore your interdisciplinary interests while also having a degree that might look more attractive to departments during the hiring process. For me personally, I have been looking into English programs that have strong faculty in using a continental philosophy lens for literary analysis. But of course don't check specifically interdisciplinary programs off your list if it really is where you think you would fit in best and have the most fruitful experience! Hope some of this was helpful

You're competitive for any program anywhere. If you make a great SOP and have an awesome writing sample there is no reason why you wouldn't get into a top-10 program. I'd not apply outside the top-15 if I was you, so your list is great.

My username is a little outdated now, but I did my M.A. in philosophy then went to a top-10 law school on a scholarship and now a practicing attorney. Happy to answer any questions about the path. I would just add - law as a day to day job is nothing like an academic pursuit. I spend my days in excel spreadsheets and dealing with really small problems that are taken too seriously and the stress is constant. Happy to discuss more, but as far as the law world, I have probably a top 1% legal job and it is still insufferable and awful.

I actually agree with this. Additionally, the OP has been making tons of comments on other people's posts about their chances of acceptance -- in disciplines in which they are not experts! OP - that's not helpful, since you don't know anything or have experience with the programs people are applying for. People who are applying to similar programs will often comment on each other's posts because at least then that's a point of comparison. But to do it cross-discipline isn't particularly helpful unless you have experience in the field. As @Poli Sci Guy said, if people not responding to your posts is "increasing your anxiety" then maybe you should reconsider graduate school.

I graduate from HGSE SLP in 2017. I was very active on the HGSE 2016 and 2017 threads. Here is my statement of purpose for anyone to consult. Here is some admissions data I mined from the many years of HGSE threads on this forum. If these documents are helpful to you, please give me an upvote so that I will know all the hours that I spent will have been worthwhile in helping myself and others achieve our dreams. Feel free to reach out with any questions.