natsteel

I just got an email from my prospective advisor at OSU saying that he was looking at my application and noticed that two of my LORs were missing. He asked if I could have the writers email him the letters. So I guess that the applications (in History, at least) are truly "in review."

These things may not be unique to me, but... I'm a songwriter that taught myself to play six musical instruments. I also taught myself audio engineering and record albums at home. I used to coach Little League when I was in my late-teens/early 20s.

As in "Are you all seriously arguing about something so trivial?" Then again, my post was trivial as well. So... nevermind, then.

Seriously?

Emerson, a guy with the same name as you broke into an apartment in the same town?? Talk about bad luck... The Google info from Academia.edu is an added bonus. No matter what you think of the functionality of these sites, they do show up high in Google searches and therefore makes them an important part and easy way to help manage your online presence especially in Google searches.

This is very good advice. Last year, I read a number of horror stories of adcoms and job search committees checking candidates out online. So I started trying to "manage" my online profile/presence. While it may seem self-obsessed to Google yourself regularly, surely you want to know what adcoms will see when they Google your name, and they WILL Google your name. A couple of tips I've found: 1) Use high settings of privacy on Facebook and use a respectable/professional looking profile pic. 2) All social websites (including your profiles on sites like Amazon, Goodreads, LibraryThing, and Ning) show up fairly high in Google results so if a Google search of your name doesn't turn up stuff of yours or, even worse, turns up stuff you'd rather not be seen by adcoms: a. Register for personal social sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them a modestly professional appearance. b. Register for professional networking sites, especially Academia.edu and LinkedIn. They'll all show up on the first page of Google search results and are professional by nature. c. Do a & b even if you're not going to use them regularly. People that do Google searches rarely look beyond the first page and so you want to do your best to control what shows up on that first page. 3) If you have a Google account, create your Google profile which will also show up on the first page usually. Basically, treat every website where you are registered under your real name as if adcoms were the only people that would be looking at it.

http://www.impostersyndrome.com/

I would've joined by now, but haven't mostly because of funds. I do subscribe to 2 journals, but I will be joining a number of organizations next fall including the AHA, OAH, Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, Society of Early Americanists, and American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies. Lack of funds also made a trip to Boston impossible and I even missed it when it was here in NYC. My mentor told me to just go without paying the fee, but I don't have that kind of nerve.

I got a 4.0 on the AW as well and have won a couple of writing awards and am having a paper published in a national undergrad journal. Like many of you, I suspect, I have my own style that I have developed over many years of writing that works well everywhere else but on the GRE AW section. I actually considered retaking it to try to raise it. But a number of my professors said it wasn't worth it to retake just for the AW score. My Verbal score is fairly respectable at 94th percentile. I did talk to a prominent professor at Columbia who told me that in his department they don't even look at AW scores, I quote, "Why would I look at that when I have someone's writing sample in front of me?" So I decided to leave it.

Absolutely not. But, I should qualify that by adding "within reason." At least in the Humanities, candidates that are in their 50s or older may be at a slight disadvantage because of their age, because they are highly unlikely to ever get a TT job. But, even if that is so, I think it would be program/department-specific. But I know a number of professors that went to top history programs like Stanford, N'western, Penn, and Columbia when they were in their 30s. I certainly don't think a 21-year old has any inherent advantage over a 35-year old.

That did 1-up me... until I watched the undergraduate videos from TheU.com for my schools. Though, it did prove helpful a little bit in getting an idea of the atmosphere of some of the campuses.

Guys, please don't take my previous rant seriously. Though some of what I said was based in fact, obviously I drew the bleakest scenario possible. I was not in any way trying to discourage anyone. All we can do as budding history grad students is: a) get into the best program with the best advisor fit possible and work as hard as we possibly can for the entire time we are there. One of my mentors says not to worry too much about all the job market doom-and-gloom because "they've been saying all this stuff since [she] started" which was in the early 1970s.

Very true. I've read on the CHE forums where English professors discourage making any kind of contact with prospective advisors. 20-30 years ago fit was not a major consideration as my 2 older mentors said that faculty/fit had nothing to do with grad admissions in the 70s. But now, when fit is one of the most important considerations on the part of adcoms and departments, it seems like it only makes sense that you would want to explore the possible fit by contacting professors during the application process. It seemed like it was a common thing for all the profs that I emailed.

Take it again.

Im in my 30s and took 2 grad classes, one at the CUNY Grad Center, this past semester. Both of the classes had students even less traditional than myself including 1-2 women in their 50s in each class. In both classes, these women brought all kinds of experiences to bear on their comments and critiques of works and generally added a great deal to the discussion. Coming from a very large public university, I've learned how valuable diversity can be in the classroom.

Yes, I did. However, the replies were from the respondent's individual address. I must amend my statement above. I sent an initial inquiry on Dec. 17th and received a reply on the evening of Sunday, the 19th. However, I then sent a follow-up question which, as I said, was responded to in an hour. On an individual level for us, things seem to be moving at an incredibly slow pace, but the bigger programs are processing hundreds and hundreds of applications. I imagine that even the smaller schools that receive less applications have a smaller staff. It may feel to us like the Admissions offices aren't doing as much as they should, but they are.

I don't have an actual Plan B... but if, for some reason, it doesn't work out, I'd probably take a year off and apply to law school next year. If that didn't work either, I'd probably just go back to music supplemented by clerical work.

Back from the dead for PhD. Always tired with not enough done. Not mine, but: The waiting is the hardest part.

I don't think I'd call the Admissions Office at Columbia lazy. I emailed them once on a Sunday evening not expecting a response for a couple of days and a woman emailed me back within in an hour. I wrote back to thank her for responding during "what I hope are not regular office hours," and she replied, "In an effort to process the applications and answer email in a timely fashion, our staff works 7 days a week and at all hours. Thanks, for noticing."

I think it's a completely different dynamic and shouldn't be compared to undergrad situations. The grad school admissions process is highly competitive and professors know that. I think they also want to know that you're genuinely interested in their program, especially those not at top 10 programs. Obviously, if you lack tact than, like a previous poster said, extended communication could be disadvantageous. But I don't think most professors are turned off by a student showing real interest in their program, especially one with whom they have traded multiple emails and/or met in person.

I think about this all the time especially considering I will be moving myself, my wife, and 2 young boys.

When I check my status at Columbia, it says that it's "COMPLETE" and "at the department," but doesn't show my uploaded transcripts nor GRE scores as having been received.

Same here. It's like living one day in the positives thread and another day in the rest of the fora. The subjective nature of the whole process makes it so that what most of us are experiencing in terms of alternating between self-doubt and self-confidence, constantly speculating about uncertainties, etc... has become nothing less than a rite of passage on the way to doctoral studies.

Is that "the point?" I think the jury seems a bit mixed. Again, if you received only one terse reply from a professor than you probably shouldn't even bother emailing them one more time. However, if you exchanged a couple of messages both ways with a professor, who definitely showed interest in you and/or your work, then I don't see anything wrong with emailing one more time to say something very brief like: Prof. xxxx, I just wanted to let you know that I have submitted my application to your program and thank you for your assistance. I look forward to a decision on my application. Regards, Xxxx Xxxxx Of course, others do not agree with me, but, again, I think it depends largely on the number and nature of your previous communications with each professor. However, I should also add that I am in History and it appears that different fields, even within the Humanities, have different expectations and protocol on these kinds of matters.

I made and received contact with all my potential advisors, had a few phone conversations, am meeting one in person next week, and had a prof. from a top program ask to see my SOP and sent it back with comments on how to better tailor it for that school's admissions committee. I don't know how much of a difference any of it will make, but, the way I see it, it can't hurt.