brown_eyed_girl

I've also been thinking about this lately. I did email my POI and a first-year student in my specialization and got some advice from them - my POI recommended I read selected chapters of several books, and sent me the syllabi for his courses in the Fall so that I can start doing some of the reading if I want to in advance. The student I talked to basically told me to relax and enjoy myself. The biggest thing I'm concerned about is language study. I need to do some serious work this summer in order to pass my first language exam, since it's been a while since I took classes. I could definitely brush up on other academic areas and have some knowledge gaps, but in general I feel decently prepared for my courses and have a sense of how I would catch up if I feel behind. Languages, on the other hand, are the kind of thing that really require sustained effort and time. And, like some of you, I'll also be working until August 1 for financial reasons, and then moving cross-country... no time for lolly-gagging here!

Wowza, I can definitely see how you'd be overwhelmed by all that. Good luck on everything, and I hope the pregnancy is good news -- if so, congratulations!!

I'm definitely excited, but I also go back and forth on being scared and nervous for sure. Most of the anxiety has to do with moving itself, as there are a lot of logistical things to deal with that can't be done too far in advance (driving a U-haul cross country, renting an apartment in a new, major city with a crazy rental market). There's also some anxiety about being able to excel in the program, since I have only undergrad work behind me and will be in a PhD program alongside many with more experience than me. I know it will be fine, but there's that little creeping imposter syndrome that comes up sometimes. There's also the mild stress of knowing I have to move and leave everything that I'm familiar with here (well, except my boyfriend. Thankfully he's coming!) and start over in a new place with unfamiliar weather and a different culture. Overall, though, I'm really looking forward to everything. I was just looking over the course directory for my department and definitely got very excited thinking more concretely about what my classes will be like and all the options I'll have! That makes it feel much more real.

I also had six separate transcripts to submit when I applied for grad school. Some places I had just taken 1 class in a non-relevant field, but since they were college classes and the schools I applied to asked for all college transcripts, I was required to submit them. It was a huge pain (and expense) to track all of these transcripts down. Yes, maybe I could have gotten away with not submitting all of them... but why risk it? Of course it doesn't hurt to ask places you're applying whether they only want transcripts from places where you earned degrees or had relevant coursework, but I think most will want to see everything to get a full picture of the kind of student you are. The fact that you've made major improvements may actually work in your favor. A lot of times, nontraditional students bring a different perspective to things, add diversity to the classroom, and are very industrious because they are working to catch up and have learned from their mistakes. You want to go to a school that appreciates the experience you bring.

Yessss, so good!

I've been alternating between the Billie Holiday and Father John Misty pandora stations

Oof, this is a tricky situation. Have you talked to your current school about how they've handled this issue in the past, and whether they are willing to accommodate you (assuming they are aware your prof is leaving)? Have you had an honest talk with your adviser about what they think the best option for you would be? I'd also try to feel out from some advanced students in your department (and hopefully some more advanced PhD students will chime in here) how much they actually interact with their advisers after coursework and exams are done. I would be inclined to stick with your current school for all the reasons mentioned, and also because you're familiar with the environment, presumably like it, and moving to a program you like less overall could be pretty traumatic. That said, I would make sure that the school would be willing to let your current adviser be on your dissertation committee and would encourage some interdisciplinary connections so that you can form relationships with the people in the other department studying things you're interested in. Some of this also probably depends on how hands on your adviser is and how much you feel like you need someone guiding you along. If you have a hands-off relationship already, or if you plan to be do a lot of research abroad, having a long-distance adviser may not matter much. If you're used to having long, in-person discussions to work through ideas, that may be substantially more difficult to replicate from afar. I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but I am wishing you all the best!

Another thing to consider is the pragmatic advantages one field may have over another. For example, if one field is substantially less commonly studied than the other, choosing the less common one may give you an edge in getting into better programs and having a less saturated job market (as long as there is some interest in your field on the job market), AND may mean that there is more room for new scholarship. If you have a lot of opportunities nearby to study colonial America, that could also be a huge practical advantage, because 1. you may be able to do some archival/site-specific research or gain substantive work experience in the field before you apply to that will give you an edge in admissions, and 2. because you state that you don't want to spend much time researching abroad. I'm in Art History, but like you as an undergrad I was interested in 2 subfields during similar time periods but different regions. My ultimate decision in what to apply for came down to my work experience in one field rather than the other, more interest in the conceptual issues prevalent in one subfield versus the other, and one field being less saturated. I still find the other field fascinating, but I'm very happy with my choice. Also, don't forget that a lot of historians have a few areas of interest, and you can always take classes and do research in something different from what you write your thesis/dissertation on.

I think the best way to make someone else comfortable in a conversation is to be comfortable and at ease with yourself. What I’ve noticed about people with very diverse social circles is that they tend to be open and comfortable sharing their experiences, and they are not self-conscious about whether they are different from the people around them. When someone is willing be vulnerable and share their stories, those stories become relatable even if they’re very different from our own sets of experiences. That, plus genuine curiosity about other people and willingness to look beyond surface qualities for commonalities. As an introvert without much pop culture knowledge, I understand the frustration of trying to connect with people with whom you don’t have a lot in obvious similarities. It’s difficult for anyone to make meaningful connections without having some common ground. If you’re really stumbling, I think it’s always helpful to remember your common humanity - everyone has felt like they didn’t fit in before. You won’t click with everyone you meet, but a little momentary discomfort isn’t such a bad thing, and you can always find something to ask someone about for ten or fifteen minutes at least. Ask where they’re from, what their favorite part of what they do is, what their go-to karaoke song is, how they got into their profession (for example, I just asked a bartender this and learned that he’d previously been a marketing analyst until he realized he loved bartending, which opened up many more things I could have asked him), what their favorite place they’ve been is, what their favorite thing to do is in the area (you never know what cool suggestions you might get, even if you’ve lived somewhere for years), etc. My two cents is that you should own and be proud of your successes -- just don’t try to work them into every conversation. If you go to Harvard don’t bring it up constantly (think Twofer from 30 Rock…), but I agree that it’s better to say you go to Harvard than to say “a school in the Boston area” or “on the east coast” (I used to work with two Harvard alumna who did this, by the way). If someone says, “Oh my gosh, you must be so smart!”, why not say something like, “Well, I’m pretty good at X, but I still count on my fingers/have the worst sense of direction you’ve ever seen/can’t figure out how to make rice without burning it.” My field is very esoteric, but I still give people a several-sentence pitch of my interests if they ask, and explain that I want to teach, etc. When people tell me that they hated school and can’t imagine being a student for so long, I tell them that I get that because I hated school until I got to college too. I try to be honest, share my excitement when appropriate, and then shift the conversation back to the other person. Another thought: For those of us who don’t love small talk, I strongly recommend structuring social events around interactive activities like a game night, bowling, karaoke, or something similar that allows people to have something outside themselves to talk about.

I'd say it depends on how much you need this job. If you're unsure that you could find a similar temporary job until you start school, and you are relying on the income, I'd play it safe and not tell them until the 2 weeks notice (and not tell them that you're leaving for grad school at that point, just say you're leaving for personal reasons or something). If you don't particularly need the money or you feel very confident that you could find another temp job, by all means tell them with the knowledge that they may choose to move onto another employee with more long term potential.

This is a really fascinating topic, and one that I have mixed feelings about. On one hand, I agree that no one is entitled to a good grade. Effort sometimes is not enough; I certainly observed that with international students who struggled to write a coherent humanities paper. On the other, though, I think a lot of times in academia we put a premium on things being hard. Of course material should be challenging and people should be held to a high standard of work, but at the same time, if a professor is an effective and caring instructor, I think it should be possible to succeed in a class without being an expert. I totally get the arguments about not wanting to dumb-down materials or lower expectations, which I believe to be a problem in many educational systems. That said, while upper-division or major-restricted courses should certainly hold people to a high standard, shouldn't students without extensive background knowledge of a subject be capable of doing well in a lower division course if they pay attention in class, take good notes, do all the reading/assignments, and engage with the material? If that's not possible for most people, shouldn't we consider whether perhaps the instructor and educational system is also failing? I also think we need to acknowledge how much pressure is put on undergrad students to do well, especially for the ever-increasing numbers of students interested in graduate school. I maintained a 4.00 at a good college, but I'm a bit ashamed to admit that because I wanted to go to a top tier graduate school, I was very risk-averse with my course load. Yes, I challenged myself within my field and did honors programs and all that, and I branched out to other other humanities and social sciences fields, which have always been my strengths. I even excelled at earth sciences. But I largely avoided taking classes outside of my wheel house because I was scared of taking a class where I didn't know how to succeed; where I might get a B or a C that would hurt my chances of getting into a great grad school. For example, I think physics is fascinating and love listening to TED talks and reading articles about it, but I never would have signed up for a physics class in college because I knew I couldn't compete with people in the hard sciences. I knew I wasn't entitled to a good grade in a course like that and that I probably wouldn't get one... but because of that, I missed out on challenging myself in that way. I think that's a real pitfall of the way the grading system is structured. I'll also say, one of the college classes that I found most rewarding and that has stuck with me the most was a class where the professor said from day one that if you showed up and turned in the assignments, you'd get an A. He told us: "Life is not about grades. You should do your best in my class because you want to, because you should realize that the standard you hold yourself to will follow you through all that you do, and there are no grades in the real world. I want you to do the kind of work that you are proud of, whether or not you think I'll like it. This isn't about me, it's about you and your education." I think about him often.

In my field it is usual for the length to PhD to be the same whether you come in with a masters or with only a BA (5-7 years in the humanities). The best way to find out about specific departments is probably to ask them directly; some schools may count some of your MA coursework and others might not. Also take into account that your area of interest may change between your MA/PhD, so research and coursework you accomplish in your MA may not directly lead into what you study later.

I'm a little confused by what you mean here. For PhDs, the rank of your specific department is what matters, and the reputation of the people in your subfield working within the department. The rank of the universities overall are much less important. How do these programs stack up departmentally, and in terms of adviser recognition? As to your overall question, I'd consider what it is that makes you say that you don't see yourself at School B, given your preference for its research area. If you're married to the idea of a specific research area, I'd also talk with your POI(s) at School A and see if there's any flexibility to pursue those interests. Sometimes professors are willing to guide you even if you're not in their exact wheelhouse.

Good luck and let us know what you decide!

I've heard that if a school has a reputation for grade inflation or deflation that is taken into account - for example a 3.5 from UC Berkeley may mean more to admissions committees than a 4.0 from Nebraska State. That may not help you, however, if you don't meet a graduate school's cutoff GPA. Did you ask your schools whether they had a minimum GPA requirement before applying? The good news is that if the cutoff was a 3.0, which it often is, you aren't far from it. If I were you, I'd sign up for some courses at a local college with a less draconian grading policy and do as well in them as possible. Getting As in several new courses should push you over the 3.0 threshold. I'd also take a look at the "sub-3.0 GPA acceptance thread" to see if others can give you advice on what has worked for them and possibly what programs to target.

Thanks for all the useful suggestions and perspectives. It's definitely intimidating going from being out of school for a year with only an undergrad degree and going into a PhD program, and since I'm the type who needs a lot of down time, I'm glad to hear work-life balance being emphasized so heavily here. I won't start grad school till fall so I can't give any advice on that yet, but I am a big believer in taking time to recharge. I meditate daily, sometimes just for 15 minutes if that's all I have and sometimes a full half an hour. I know that it has made me more focused and engaged in various areas of my life, so I'm betting that will be a big part of maintaining my sanity in grad school. I can definitely be a Type A and want to go from one thing to the next, so meditation is a way to force myself to slow down, really pay attention to how I'm feeling physically and emotionally, and refocus myself. Plus there's pretty much a new study every week touting the benefits of mindfulness meditation - from increasing compassion to improving sleep quality and reducing depression. Grad school is very important to me, but I think it's also really important to devote time to the things that really matter most to us. I will not sacrifice my relationships on the altar of scholarship; my loved ones need to know I'm there for them, just as I know they'll be there for me. I hope that I'll continue to volunteer with kids once a week, making time for something beyond myself. I won't give up cooking myself nutritious meals. Being a student will be a huge part of my identity, but it can't be all of it. When I'm struggling on a project (and I'm sure that day will come) I want to know that I am worth more than that project. At the end of the day, it's just school! I want to do my best, but I don't think that has to come at the exclusion of everything else.

Agreed with the others. The cons of A could also be seen as pros - starting something new and exciting, expanding your networks, etc. I understand the stress of the inconveniences - I am about to move across country for grad school, too - but I wouldn't let them hinder you from a school that's a better fit. And I don't think it's a con to not have a job lined up, since you may want to take some time off work to focus on school. Good luck!

FYI this thread seems to be from last year.

Well, I'd say this is really more a problem of people who think that their experiences are universal. And people who give unsolicited advice. P.S. These problems are also frustrating for those of us who don't go into STEM. Many warned me about getting a humanities BA, but lo and behold I was one of the few people I knew to have a job offer in my field before I graduated. Granted I'm not rolling in cash, but since I've got only a few thousand dollars in loans and a fun job, I'm quite satisfied with my life choices.

Let's not bash non-STEM fields, please! *Someone* has gotta know about the Bobs!

I agree; since I don't think these programs are particularly large or well-known, I think it would be better to see what you can find out through talking with the director of graduate studies or graduate student coordinator in each department. Pros and cons will be different for everyone, too. My advice: - Ask if the DGS/coordinator can set you up with current students to chat with about the program. Ask them what they liked/didn't like about it, how supported they feel by the school, how much time professors have for them, etc. - If possible, visit the departments and set up meetings with a professor or two who you're interested in, ask to sit in on a class, see if there are library tours, etc. Find out where current students hang out. Do you see yourself fitting in better at one program or another? - Request to see a list of courses at each school - Ask about the possibility for interdisciplinary study at each school. Are you encouraged to cross-register in other departments or expected to do all/most of your credits in the department to which you applied? - Assess the funding situation! Are these programs funded or will you be paying for tuition and living expenses? How much? This would be a major factor in my decision - How are the programs ranked in your field? Will any of these programs open doors for you more so than the others? - Ask the DGS about the school's placement record. Are graduates getting good jobs? Are they getting into good PhD programs? What's the average starting salary of these grads? - Ask about internship opportunities and connections the school has. Some schools have ins with certain organizations, making it much more likely that you get an internship where you can make valuable connections and build experience. I'd weigh this one heavily. - What resources are available on campus? Does this school have a great library and stellar language programs? Or a tight-knit community with lots of clubs and great gym facilities? Resources could be academic or quality of life issues. Good luck!

I'd be careful about sending any materials that could be considered irrelevant/anything not solicited on the application. Mentioning the book on your CV/in your personal statement is fine; sending it in could be seen as pushy/annoying, and if it's an unpolished first draft it could also seem unprofessional. You could also simply ask admissions whether they are interested in seeing any of these supplementary materials, but be ready for them to say no.

I'd decide based on: 1) Funding/cost to attend. If one is significantly less expensive, I'd weigh that heavily since anthro is not a lucrative field and you don't want to be saddled with too many loans 2) Rank in your field, especially since this will be your terminal degree 3) Placement record - what are grads of these programs doing? 4) Personal fit. Which place do you like better? Do you see yourself working in NYC or DC after graduation? Where do you think you'll be happier?

Agree with the above. If you want to go into academia in the humanities, rank and placement record are crucial. I'd talk with some of your mentors (letter writers, for example) and get their opinions, too. And see if you can arrange a skype or phone call with the relevant people at Yale and see how you fit in with that department.

It's hard to say what exactly got me in, but if I were going to try to help someone shooting for humanities PhD programs, what seemed to work for me was: - I built relationships with professors during undergrad. This is the single biggest thing that I think helped me get into grad school. When I found a professor I liked, I tried to take multiple classes with them so that they could get to know my work and style. I did a summer abroad intensive with one prof. I was a paid reader for another prof. I stayed in touch with other professors and asked questions about their subjects when it was relevant. These professors got to know me and my work pretty well, and I'm sure my letters were much stronger for it. The power of this goes beyond letters though - these professors were instrumental in setting up job opportunities for me that led to paid work in my field, which I think was huge for my applications. - Write a thesis. At my undergrad, a thesis was not required, but could be arranged as an independent honors project. If I hadn't done one of these, I'd have been stuck without any writing samples. Granted, I don't think my thesis was great and it required a ton of reworking and editing before I used it as a writing sample. But it was hugely helpful that I had formulated an idea for it and done a lot of research for it as an undergrad student, and I think the fact that I did one when it wasn't required showed some commitment. - Be succinct in your writing sample. I'm sure there are many schools of thought on this, but I kept mine straightforward and to the point. I talked about my area of interest, explained my prior experience and why it prepared me well for doctoral study, and discussed why the schools I was applying to (and the POI at each school) made sense for my goals. I figured committees don't have much time for each app, so I tried to keep my statement on point and free of superfluous info (no irrelevant stuff about my path, why I like my field, blah, blah, blah - I tried to frame my interests within the current trends of scholarship in my field). - GRE wise, I found the (free) Magoosh GRE vocab app to be good for memorizing dictionary definitions and giving me extra confidence on the verbal section. I did not do well on the math, but I think having a strong verbal score (96th percentile) at least kept me in the running. Obviously this advice is specific to humanities programs, which don't put much weight on math. I just knew I needed to do well on verbal, and I found that having a large arsenal of definitions memorized help me be confident on the test. - Avoid over-saturated topics/have slightly unusual interests. Obviously you can't really choose this if you just happen to love something popular... but if you're trying to decide to apply to study one topic versus another, and you don't feel strongly either way, you're probably more likely to get in studying the less popular one and be more likely to have something interesting and new to say about it. You're also probably more likely to get into a better program or work with a more senior scholar in the field if the field you choose is a little less popular. In my field, this means that you will probably have better luck getting into a top program if you're studying 13th century Japanese scroll paintings than Andy Warhol. Not saying you should choose your field based on this, but you might have an opportunity to stand out more if your interests tend toward a less trendy topic.