tistre

Well, as it turns out, it's a rejection for me! Disappointing as hell, but gotta move on..

Thanks! Hoping it works out.

Thanks, I will look at that stuff. All in all, I was happy applying to 4 schools though, and didn't apply to more because I didn't really want to. And I didn't want to spend more time and money on applications for schools I wouldn't really go to anyway. The only thing was that I was torn about not applying to the PhD program in my current dept and at UofToronto. But again, I wanted to leave Toronto so I'm glad I didn't apply there either. Oh well!

Well, congrats to you guys for having acceptances! I'm waiting to be off the waiting list one way or the other at Austin, and this is pretty much the only one that worked out for me out of a total 4 applications.

I didn't hear. So still waiting. In the meantime, I developed some sort of cold and sinus thing. So that's great.

Yes, you still can after April 15th. It's been known to happen quite late in the game sometimes, even as late as August. But for international students that's probably not realistic. The big deal around the date is that it is a sort of deadline for when first round admissions become confirmed. Those offered admissions will either accept or deny by this date. Some might get extensions and such, others might accept more than one school and then drop one of them later, so you can't really know what's happening. That's why things keep changing till the very end.

It's 3:47 pm EST. I hear within one hour or it's another night fraught with anxiety.

If I'm on an admissions committee, these are the questions that would be on my mind before I look through applications -- and keep in mind that I'd be reading many formulaic statements. I'd probably also be a prof who has x, y, z ideas about what the next batch of IR students from that program should do. - What is this person's investment in IR? Why IR in particular and not something else? Why IR here (this dept)? - Are they rehashing the same things happening in IR or are they suggesting something innovative/interesting/productive? - Are they realistic in their plan of research (you can ignore this if this doesn't apply to you, but I'm thinking things like fieldwork ala anthropology) - Are the goals stated realistic, do they display adequate academic experience and insight? etc. I am a firm believer in starting right into what you want. A narrative is great, as long as it's extremely specific and relevant to what's proposed. If it's going to sound formulaic at all, axe it. It's worth including a narrative if it immediately and powerfully communicates something about your proposed work in a way that nothing else quite can. Towards the top, maybe mention things like your background *relevant* to the research, and state how you're building on that. I realize this is a draft, but there's a lot of unclear and clunky wording in here. Consider something like awareness instead of cognizance. Your awareness of speaking fluent Japanese? Not clear. Also, if you do speak Japanese and this knowledge will come in handy in the particular research you propose, then you should include that, but do so in a more efficient manner. Perhaps you can read Japanese, and this will be handy to you in accessing Japanese journals or other materials? Include that in a part of your SOP where you highlight the intellectual and material resources available for your project, to demonstrate that it is a convincingly doable project. As has already been pointed, it's not clear what the "strong passion" refers to. You were passionate about the context/condition under which crimes are committed? Are you interested in the individual motivations behind crime? Since you're not citing any kind of structural explanation for it, it would seem as if you think that "why people commit crimes" is being set up to be a major motivating question in your research. That could come across as naive, too. SOP for PhD programs are very academic statements. You would benefit from pointing out things like, "X scholarship has contested notions of Y within IR, and building on that...." or "In response to trends of Z.." So I'd say get into details and situate your research, then write an intro that leads into that. Also, be prepared to write many drafts. Good luck!

Did you really have to bold that? Makes it all seem much more fateful than it already was. But in all seriousness, tomorrow is the earliest that some of us will hear. Not the latest. But I'm still really anxious. I'm supposed to be writing but I can't focus at all.

I'm completely unfamiliar with what it's like to be in a four-field anthro department. I did my undergrad at UofT in a very interdisciplinary program, and I only took a few upper-year anthro courses, so I really didn't get a sense of what kind of narratives around studying anthropology the department had. For my MA, I came to an exclusively social anthro program with a couple of archaeologists in the mix. I don't know a thing about archaeology, let alone biological anthro or linguistic. Did this influence anyone's decision to apply to schools? My sense of what anthropology is is quite isolated from the other subfields. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this from others. And to those who are currently graduate students in four-field programs -- what is that like? Other than taking requisite core courses and so on, what is the level of interaction you have with the other subfields?

I don't think every PhD applicant they reject gets an offer to do an MA. I think technically that would be impossible, and yeah, totally lowers academic standards. I think they do that as a way of recruiting students that they think are not quite prepared to enter their PhD program. I don't know too much about this though. I think some big schools might also recruit students to do newly established, interdisciplinary MA programs, both to make money, and also help get a good name for that program by getting students that they think are qualified. Ultimately even public universities basically run themselves like businesses.

Writing and teaching, mainly, and making a modest income out of it. Tenure-track if I'm lucky, but adjunct is okay as long as I'm doing it at a place that has unionized contract faculty, like York. I'd like to be somewhat accountable to the political implications of what I research without taking myself way too seriously. I never want to be one of those anthropologists that describe their field of research as "my area" or "my people". And if academia doesn't work out, I'd like to be teaching and involved in politically progressive research in other contexts.

Have you searched the results page for any posts about the programs you applied to? Sometimes that can give an idea? If they have sent out letters and haven't contacted you still, there's definitely hope that you are being considered for admission.

I only did 4 applications, and right now the only prospect is moving off the waiting list at Austin. So my thread is thinner than yours. I pretty much want Austin or else a year off from grad school. I hope I bounce back quickly if I get rejected because I still have to finish my MA thesis with due diligence. :/

I'd say put maximum weight on faculty and curriculum. Faculty first, then curriculum. It's really hard to tell about curriculum by looking at it. Sometimes course proposals great on paper, but depending on your cohort, the prof teaching it, a course could be a total waste of your time. Faculty is a better bet. If they're interesting to you, if they're engaging in a field within IR that you want to engage in, or if they seem like someone that you could ask very particular questions to that you're interested in, then go for it. Keep in mind that it is an MA, a short degree. So maybe you'll be in a place that's kind of boring, or a place where we typically imagine is full of "hicks" or something. So? Sometimes it's good to challenge ourselves and our assumptions. And I think it's always interesting to take on people's wack political assumptions rather than just ignore them or categorize them as 'never-talk-to.'

Definitely the grad director, and be very simple and tactful about it. Say that you'd like to get a better idea of what financial support the program *typically* offers to incoming students such as yourself. You understand that right now there may not be concrete info on this blah blah but you'd need to have an idea of reliable trends in funding before you can make your final decisions with the admission offers you've received. That way you don't make it look to them that you don't value their dept, and you also aren't coming off as too demanding. Sometimes a school just doesn't know about funding till sept, but what they almost always know is funding patterns and you can be confident in that you have a right to know the expected funding scenario.

Yes, though I think that's rare in American schools for social. In Canada, doing an MA is the norm. In the States, I've seen biological anthro MA programs though. This is my round two of applying, and I've been talking to a lot of people, including directors at places that rejected me, so I hope some of what I've learned can be of use to you. The most important factor is faculty fit. In social anthro it means regional/topical/theoretical. This is why your statement carries a lot of weight. What kind of anthropology does your research articulate into? What kinds of disciplinary questions are you taking up? What is your sub-community of researchers? What are you saying to them? Think about these questions in your application more than just describing your field and research questions. I think this shows how much you care about your work, how much you've reflected upon it, as well as how prepared you are to do it. It doesn't mean you've read everything, but it means you sort of know what to read. Definitely flag profs, especially senior profs in a department, in your application as people you'd like to work with. Actually look at their work first or at least skim through it, because it's very obvious if you are just going by the keywords on their website. So to have a competitive application, it is very important to contact profs with a polished statement (don't send them your rough draft). Make sure your current profs read it through first and give you feedback. Your current profs are important, they might be friends with these profs or know them personally, so they could even potentially email introduce you. If your colleague knows that his/her student's work could gain a lot from working with you based on your research background, you'd take that seriously, right? This is why reference letters are very important. Ask people who know you really well, and whom you respect a lot. This is kind of potentially dicey. Certain profs are associated with particular schools of thought, but you should be guided by how well this prof knows you, and whether or not they are enthusiastic about your applications. Talk to your profs about their views on which schools you should go to. Ask them for advice about the schools you want to go to. You might learn something that way, and you might end up applying to more places than just your own choices. Our own choices aren't always the best! Then there are other factors like whether you already have applied for external funding. If you already won some external funding, it makes you look good to a school. They also consider your marks/grades - mainly to detect a trend to being a good student, doing your work, and staying on top of things. There is also your GRE, though the weight of this highly varies from department to department. One acquaintance of mine got into a top program despite not even taking the GRE -- she explained to them that she didn't believe in standardized tests and that made her stand out to them in some sense. But I don't recommend this! Most depts really have to care about the GRE because of the school's grad admissions requirements.

I'm doing MA at a very mediocre school, so I'll say that at the outset. It's also a funded MA, so I didn't have to make any choices about money. My MA experience helped me a lot, but that was based on very particular and somewhat incidental factors. I applied to a couple of top PhD programs last year and one of them handed out an invitation to come do an unfunded MA. For me it was kind of pointless since I'm already working towards an MA in anthro. But some people have told me that Ivy League MAs are rarely funded, and just make money for departments. In all schools, profs give more time to their PhD students than MAs. Not to be categorical, but this is the reality 90% of the time. In a top school in particular, even PhDs compete for time of their supervisor (because faculty at top schools tend to be a lot busier with extra-departmental engagements like talks, fellowships and so on). It is entirely possible that having an MA from a top school will distinguish you from MA students from lower tier schools, because it makes some kind of statement about your learning experience that you've been in a very competitive environment. But ultimately, your application as a whole itself will matter more than the school you're coming from. So the simple answer is, yes, I'm sure an Ivy League MA carries more weight than a cheaper one. But you should also ask yourself if it is worth it for you to do that. I think for many people, applying directly to a PhD program works really well. You're less burnt out, and there is a learning curve you face no matter what. The advice your profs give you are worth a lot, and if they think something is a good idea for you, they presumably take your personal circumstances into account. I would definitely put stock in that.

Congrats on getting into 3 programs you like! Firstly, I wouldn't worry about legal binding if you accept/defer an offer and decide not to go. Students even start programs and end up dropping out a lot of the time. Nobody is going to sue you. Things happen in peoples lives. If you want to know about deferral options at these schools, simple - ask them. It's hard to phrase it the right way, but becoming very good at writing emails is a part of the whole deal. Write to profs you know in the program, that's always a better option, or if you don't know any, write to the grad director explaining that you are considering your options given an unexpected circumstance that has cropped up. Most schools are very upfront about whether they do deferrals or not, it's even on their websites sometimes. I really don't know about this last thing, but I am not too sure if you deferring will mean that it takes the spot away from candidates entering this year. It could affect next year's round of admissions. But the truth is, I don't know, and this could vary from school to school. Depending on the school, some departments are more autonomous than others in how they manage their money and admissions. At the end of the day, you can't make your decision based on how it is going to affect a school's admissions process. It's unfortunate that it seems like we're pitted against each other as grad applicants, but your personal circumstance is the most important context here. It does affect your life in the long run. Good luck.

I don't think there is anything quite like grad school, it's not very romantic. It's a huge investment and it becomes your life. Validation and approval from your profs become very important. Their feedback on the work you do is the single most way to not become isolated and wrapped up in yourself. But yes, it feels good when you can challenge yourself and when you can produce work that you think speaks to a community of people interested in that issue. I don't know if this will help anyone, but according to me, a highly rated factor is how much time your profs and potential supervisors will have for you. Have you read their work? Does it interest you? Do they show interest in you? Have you had a chance to talk to other grad students maybe in the dept, or other profs who are alumni about what being in the department feels like? Is it a place where you are challenged, trained in a way that pushes you? I think these kinds of things can really make or break your experience. Less important factors are things like the city. I know it's a drag for some of us to be stuck in a small place, but if you're doing a PhD you'll be so busy that you'll barely have time for much of a demanding social life. You're likely to stick to friends who are also grad students and who also don't have too much time on their hands. Money is obviously important, but there are also other sources of funding, though highly competitive. My sense is that most schools will have TAships or something. I was lucky enough to get external funding for my MA, but my colleagues who didn't ended up getting some work or the other from the department. So even if you're not guaranteed 4+ years of funding, talk to the department and ask them about the usual scenario. They'll be able to offer you very specific information. Anyway, that's my two cents.

I don't think reneging on a commitment like this is seen as terrible from the perspective of most departments. I've been discussing this with a lot of profs (I'll indicate here that my background is in Social Science and Humanities) and their view is that most departments understand when students have to withdraw. You can cite personal reasons or something, don't have to go into a huge explanation about why you can't take the offer. Now if you did it in September, then that would be bad, but if you're giving them plenty of time to reach into their list of waiting prospectives. I wouldn't lose too much sleep about it. Also, it is really rare that it's going to ruin your prospects of working with profs in the future. Profs work with people based on how substantial their work is or links up with theirs, and they have usually been there, and are not vindictive about this.