Kai210

I will be attending OSU, and think the program is well-equipped not only for the research I want to do but also for my long-term endeavors. I do not believe there's as much of a qualitative difference between most of the top tier schools as sometimes we are led to believe. I mean, when you have a school like Virginia who has a score of 4.0 according to US News and World Reports, and a school like Ohio State whose score is 3.9, is there a huge difference there considering that a lot of the criteria going into those rankings are subjective? Thus, reputation becomes what you make of it. I think when you are talking about the top tier institutions, it all comes down to your research and your advisors. I don't know if any of this helps in making a choice. But if the money is equal, then I say go to the place where you feel your research will be best housed and where you can work with influential advisors who will facilitate your growth as a scholar while opening up the door to your first tenure-track position. For me, I feel very comfortable in choosing Ohio State, and believing that I will be able to conduct great research there.

i'm not being touchy. i'm just responding to something ridiculous.

but saying something like "professors at ivy leagues work harder to get their students placed" is based on zero data. it's like saying, "all professors got their nicknames from their advisors when they were in graduate school." that is not knowable. there's no way to prove that ivy league professors do OR don't work harder to place their students. i just find it weird to declare unknowable things, any unknowable thing, as plain fact.

i have friends at ivy leagues who are bright and doing challenging work. for my subfield, michigan is lightyears better than brown or harvard or upenn, but i don't mean to suggest people at ivies are incapable of doing interesting or innovative work. i just really take issue with the idea that the ivies are the only place you can do ]any work.

and as for the OP's concerns about going to temple vs. trying again next year... his or her application may not be significantly different next year, but the odds of getting into an ivy league school will be about the same, or possibly worse. look at temple's placement rates for your subfield. if they're strong (tenure-track jobs at schools you've actually heard of), then go for it. and if temple's placement rate for your subfield is dismal (adjuncting, community colleges you've never heard of, etc.) then don't go. but one would think that you would only apply to schools you would be happy to attend.

As a Brandeis admit myself, I would argue that a small program like the one at Brandeis allows for more productive adviser-student relationships, not less. My situation is a bit different than yours in two ways. My advisor at Brandeis would be one of the scholars whose work is most like mine in the entire country, Paul Jankowski. However, if you're applying in U.S. history you must know that the U.S. program at Brandeis has an especially strong faculty and reputation. If your fit is not so good, though, I understand your hesitancy. Coming from a top undergraduate college, I've had pressure on me to go to a top ten school as well, but in this economy with cohorts cut in half even the former naysayers amongst my faculty advisors have expressed relief and pride at my admittance. Brandeis' ranking is at least partially due to the program's small size, and the fact that it is not comprehensive (can only train people effectively in U.S. and modern European history). However, its phds teach at top universities (as evidenced by Prof. Hartog) and the program seems to be well respected despite its "rank" assigned to it by a third-rate news magazine.

My verdict would be to attend Brandeis if your faculty fit is strong. As David Engerman said to me recently, they would need two to three times as many faculty to have a comprehensive program, and so they can really only train scholars in their areas of strength. Honestly assess whether your area is one of them, and if it is then I honestly think you can do really well with a degree from there. Not to mention the funding is good, the teaching load is light, and the location is tough to beat. In my area, modern France, I would pick Brandeis over my likely other option, Emory, any day. This is because the faculty fit for me is better, and although Emory's rank is higher (28th) its placements are mainly at tiny colleges in Georgia which is not where I want to end up (rather be at a tiny college in New England). It's a personal decision, and a tough one at that. Best of luck to you! What's your other option? Maybe I'll see you in the fall! But don't go if you really don't want to. And remember, there are only five of us accepted with fellowship this year. Five. In all disciplines. That's an accomplishment. Don't think about where you didn't get in, that's water under the bridge. Become the best historian you can be! corny... but true.

I agree with boogs, StrangeLight, Noodles, dflanagan and Goober. I see no reason for you to turn down the offers you have received this year in lieu of applying next year. First, next year does not even exist. To be certain, I am not insinuating some apocalyptic turmoil for the world. Besides, next year will be 2011, not 2012 . But I am suggesting that you do not know how the next application season will look. You could face stiffer competition for what amounts to be a limited number of spaces. We could also see even more budget cuts than we have this year, which may narrow the acceptance pools. We do not know, and while I would hate to quell your ambitions, I think that one should almost view getting into an "Ivy" the same as winning the lottery. If it happens, great! But if not, keep in mind that there are more individuals in the world like you than not.

But that does not mean all is lost. As others have reasoned, you do not have to go to an Ivy in order to get a solid placement. There's empirical evidence to support that claim. That is different from the claim that professors at Ivy institutions work harder to get their students solid placement than professors at other institutions. Furthermore, take a look at faculty at the top institutions. While you're sure to find faculty members whose CVs are littered with Ivy degrees, you're also sure to find a fair of amount of individuals who never even touched foot on an Ivy campus until they came to teach there. Thus, unless your goal is to rely upon the prestige of the institution, and not your own research, applying next year makes absolutely no sense.

Two other thoughts in the final analysis. Let me preface these thoughts by saying that I am not attempting to be callous or rude here. First, why apply to a school if you have no intentions of going there? I think it is more than presumptuous on the part of the individual who chooses an institution as a safe school while believing in their heart they won't ever have to pay deference to that option. Yale was my top choice, but I did not discount Ohio State or Michigan. I did not see them as lesser schools simply because they were not Ivies. And if I did not feel that either were a legitimate option for me, and, more specifically, the research I want to conduct, then I would not have applied to those institutions. You only end up wasting available spots for students who are dying to attend those institutions. If I am not mistaken, RockEater has been begging Brandeis admits to decline their offer if they have been accepted into their top schools. I think you ought to consider those students who are really wanting to go to the non-Ivies that you would be spitting on if you choose to reapply, which says that those schools are just not good enough. Oh, and by the way, you do realize those schools have professors from Ivy institutions. Ultimately, you could end up with a placement out of an Ivy at a place that you felt was not good enough while that school might send one of its students to an Ivy. Oh, the irony. Second, and this is sort of close to my first point--it comes off as ungrateful when you have been accepted into multiple institutions and are weighing the options of not going versus choosing to reapply to some Ivies while there are many QUALIFIED students who did not get in anywhere. Again, something to think about. Be mindful, this is not an attempt to launch a salvo at you. But I think context is important and should be considered when trying to determine the best way to move forward.

i don't think the poster was trying to dash anyone's dreams. i know, for me, that last year i didn't let myself get excited about my admits because i kept holding out hope that i had been waitlisted at one of my top choices. all signs pointed to negative, but i kept it alive, still looked for apartments on craigslist, tortured myself with it. when i got the rejection that i should've seen coming, not only was i bummed out, but it seemed silly to be excited about the other offers i had received weeks earlier. i never let myself enjoy it.

much easier said that done, particularly for the people still waiting for an offer, but if some people have heard yes and you haven't, cross it off. if it turns out to be an acceptance in a month or so, then you'll have a really awesome surprise. but don't torture yourself with "maybe there's still space for me," because more often than not, there isn't. i think the poster just meant, if you've got something else, enjoy that and move on.

I don't see how attending a super-competitive top program would make a person complacent. Not me, anyway. I refuse to be mediocre at anything - either I work my ass off on it and do my best, or I don't do it at all. If I ever get lucky enough to be accepted at a top PhD program, I'll be scared shitless. I can't imagine how intimidating it must be, after years of big fish small pond syndrome, to wind up in a cohort of insanely competitive, intelligent, and hard-working people (as I'm assuming you must be to be admitted, generally). I suppose I would either buckle and drop out, or spend every waking moment working my ass off to reclaim my bygone position of "best student in the class."

I think I would be far more likely to rest on my laurels at a less renowned university, because 1) if the place was really bad, I'd be the big fish again and maybe it wouldn't be so challenging and, more importantly, 2) spending a number of years at a lower-ranked institution would instill in me the belief that that I belonged there, and not anywhere better. I think it would damage my confidence a bit, which wouldn't be the best motivator for my studies.

I suppose everyone is different. I guess what this means is that you should attend the lower-ranked program, and leave a spot at the higher-ranked one open for me! Then we'll both be happy...

I also just received the Chicago email and logged on here to see if everyone else had too. Looks like I'm not special, damnit!

Anyways, that was nice of them to let us know exactly what's going on and what we should expect come March. Looking forward to an MAPSS admit!

the NYU week is pretty random. last year, a handful of people were admitted without being invited to the weekend, and more than a handful who had been invited were ultimately rejected. i won't say it means nothing, you're at least on a shortlist, but it is a guarantee of nothing other than increasing your anxiety.




... i'm telling you guys, log off this site until march. your acceptances and rejections will find their way to your (e)mailbox without this site, but you'll stress a little less. i'd also like to take this opportunity to reiterate that people who get shut out completely aren't just poor students from average schools who didn't take the adcom process seriously. you are not guaranteed a spot anywhere, regardless of your pedigree. keep that in mind and maybe you won't get too down on yourself if you get rejected across the board, or only accepted to a safety school you think is beneath you.

don't worry, if you're one of the 40% that actually completes your PhD, and then one of the 20% who manages to get a tenure-track job, and then one of the 10% that manages to get that job at a research university with something less than a 4/4 teaching load, you'll be all set.

My question reamins: Where did you get the information that Yale was conducting interviews? They do not conduct interviews.

My question reamins: Where did you get the information that Yale was conducting interviews? They do not conduct interviews.