JennyFieldsOriginal

I want my life to be my work. I want tenure at an serious research institution I want to crank out books published by fancy presses. I want to run around to conferences. I want to be an inspiring teacher. I want to have fulfilling social/professional relationships with brilliant, awesome people who always have something interesting to say. Basically, I want a great "life of the mind", as the saying goes. At least right now that's what I want. I've always been obsessive about academics and I have a hard time imagining anything else. Of course, I know this is just a fantasy. I'd feel incredibly fortunate just to be able to get my PhD, and spend these next years of my life as a student. I've got the professional dreams as well, but for now they're overblown and grandiose. It's fun to imagine though.

Thank you for posting this! I think everyone has to see this. Regardless of whether it is fair, or the "right" or "best" way for the process to go, I think everyone should have this information because it represents a truth not so universally acknowledged among applicants. I was lucky enough to hear this from numerous professors, but the news is unpopular among students. I don't think it means good grades and test scores guarantee anything, only that they are a pretty darn big deal at top tier institutions. I was so convinced by undergrad gossip/standardized test griping that I made a remark to my LOR writer about being worried that studying so much for GREs was a waste of time. He immediately set me straight. I completely agree with the previous poster that it's completely unfair, wrong and disingenuous to say that applications are reviewed holistically when it's just not so. I think if they are going to have a GRE cutoff they should take a hard line and tell people not to bother applying to the program if they don't have the tests and GRE scores...or tell people point blank that they will be put into a less favorable pile if they don't meet certain requirements...or something that creates realistic expectations and not unicorns and buttercups nonsense about how the committee reads every syllable of the application and tries to be fair. That way it's out in the open and nobody is being blatantly lied to about their chances. Of course it creates a particular kind of elite reputation to boast lots of applicants to reject, universities always want more money and having people who legitimately have no shot at entrance applying is really great for them...they can weed them out immediately and get the application fee. But it's just plain wrong. That being said: I have a professor who says he reviews the whole application before looking at scores. That way talent doesn't slip through the cracks. There's most assuredly hope for people who have a weak point, and people who happen to be good test takers shouldn't get arrogant about their chances. When it comes to GREs and transcripts, things can balance out. A well known LOR writer never hurts these things either. Most importantly: the application really and truly doesn't have to be perfect. I really hope that everything works out for everyone. Just imagining rejection hurts. The application process can really bleed you dry and if it's not for anything it's entirely awful.

I really wouldn't mention it. Admissions committees have heard it all about standardized tests, and they have already come to their own conclusions about what they are or aren't indicative of. If you feel it's a gigantic issue sometimes you can have a LOR address your strengths with other kinds of tests or evaluations. Or you can point out examination in which you've excelled without having to worry about it seeming like you're excusing anything. It sounds like it's going to be very difficult for you to say much about the scores without wasting precious space in the SOP railing against the system (a system, for better or worse, that these committees are using) You talked about telling a larger story about yourself, and I think that's great. I just think you should stick to that and not worry about the GRE scores anymore. Think of it as painting a portrait of yourself -- you wouldn't stick a giant wart in the middle of your nose if you didn't have to, would you? There's no need to draw more attention to flaws that the committee already knows about. You have a TON of positives in your application: lab experience under a well known researcher, and good LORs and GPA...and that's just what I gleaned from a little paragraph you probably wrote rather quickly! There are so many great things about your profile that you can play up and I wouldn't let the GREs take the wind out of your sails.

A lot of the academics I know used their dissertation pretty directly as the first draft of the book they used to get themselves tenured. I think worrying about publication when you're still a PhD candidate might not yield the same results. I think if the dissertation is a little too "messy" for publication it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world. At the same time, I think it really depends on the reason you are getting a PhD, and what kind of university you attend. If the percentage of TT professors that come out of the school is extremely small it might be smart to take a different approach than the one employed by other universities. Who knows though? I don't think I applied to any schools that require me to teach my first year, and I was told specifically not to apply to particular schools because they want you to be teaching and teaching and teaching as opposed to researching your own stuff. I think it depends what you want out of the experience. I think teaching will be awesome and I'm eager to get my feet wet...on the other hand I don't want to be doing so much that I'm unable to do quality research. If what I wanted was career heavily based on teaching I think I would feel differently though. I think it also depends on your field, and what you're trying to achieve. Very interesting though. Certainly debate-worthy.

Anyone else considering doing this? At least till I get one acceptance, I think I'm going to quit looking at these things after February 10th. I fear I'm going to fall to pieces if I have to hear about other people's acceptances in my field and program before I hear anything myself. I don't want to be sending sour grapes out into the universe, so I figured I'd wait until I can be genuinely happy for people to return

If I get in this round I've decided I'm going to share every bit of advice possible. Stuff that helped, stuff that hurt. Clearly since I'm no graduate student yet I think my opinions are of dubious quality, but I'm sincerely hoping that after this is over I can do what other people on this forum did for me, which is make the process slightly less painful. So short answer: nope, I won't be missing it!

Wow we have a remarkably similar profile! Different subfields so we won't knock each other out Sometimes life is grand. Anyway, let's both get in everywhere. Seriously though, best of luck.

I agree completely with the above poster. I'm an early/early 19th century Americanist and have been told that my particular interests within this field are going to help me out. Let's hope everyone who has been told this is right and we all get in My professors have all gone out of their way to tell me that you NEVER compete with the whole pool, only with those who share your subfield (within reason, of course). You basically just have to be the very best within your area, and if there aren't a lot of people who share that interest you have a better shot right out of the gate. I don't think they're admitting no-talent applicants because they have to fill a quota, but if you're at the very top levels where differences in work ethic and ability become smaller and smaller, that kind of numbers game increases in importance. I think it also helps to have interests that haven't been "done to death"...if you have a lot of unexamined archival material in your field, you probably have a better shot. Even if committee members do not share your research interests they might get a sense from other members that what you want to work on is exciting and represents something fresh. That means you might make a name for your university and they will want to have you there. It's all a gamble with this kind of thing, though, because you just never know who is applying your year. Basically the same people get the majority of the offers: the top Medievalist, the top 20th century Americanist...etc will get a lot of offers and everyone else gets in line. (Writing this out makes me nervous about all the colonial and 19th century Americanists at my heels! ...cue my constant heartburn) Best of luck!

All that makes a lot of sense and I appreciate the perspective. I hadn't really thought as much as I should have about the fact that my professors are attaching their names to my application. Of course I could still talk all day about things I wish I would have done differently. Anyway, hopefully in a few months we will all have success stories and this weird chapter will be all over.

I second johndiligent. It's incredibly helpful to find a good therapist. It's not that I have any real opinion on your mental health, but you seem incredibly anxious, and it's only hurting you. Plus I think EVERYONE should be in therapy. Provided you find the right person to help you, it can't do you any harm and can only do a world of good. I really feel for you. You're going through a rough patch. Graduate school is scary and help and support is what you need to come out of this time better and stronger. Best of luck.

This was my first time doing graduate applications and after I sent everything a sinking feeling of regret is coming over me. I don't know if I should have added a safety school that was more "safe" than the two that I have. For some context: I basically let my most trusted professor write me a list of places to apply to. He gave me 15 and I picked 12. He's familiar with admissions committees and knows my work well, and I gave him the scoop on my test scores and grades. I'm torn between my faith in this person to steer me on the right path and my constant panic that I'm not going to get in ANYWHERE and I'm going to have to do this again. I keep thinking that my other two letter writers who also know me very well obviously saw where I applied, and I think at least the one would have said something to me if I had applied to all the wrong places. But I guess it's awkward to tell someone "yeah you should aim lower...way lower...still lower...getting warmer". Is anyone else in this position? Would someone have said something to me? The thing that gets to me is that people applied and got across the board rejects and obviously had professors in their corner writing for them that thought they'd get in. Apologies for the whining/asking unanswerable questions. I think a little uncertainty and regret is just a part of the process, but any wisdom would be much appreciated.

I put on a pound for each application (12...ugh). Now that they are over I am spending an hour a day running to drop the weight. Working out is also a productive-ish distraction while waiting. I hope thumb twiddling burns a lot of calories. I think it only gets worse. A friend of mine gained 30 pounds studying for orals because he spent months in a chair reading. I consider the application weight gain to be a good lesson so that I'll be more careful during my actual graduate career.

It sounds like you REALLY REALLY don't want to retake the test. I think that if you have the attitude that it's on par with getting root canal going in you're not going to improve your score anyway (that is not meant as a criticism in the least: I busted my butt as it sounds like you did and I certainly have no desire to ever take another standardized test as long as I live). The GREs involve a lot of time and pressure. And there's no guarantee you'll improve your score. You might perform the same, which would be a lot of agony for nothing (and might harm your other apps), or you might even score slightly worse depending on the questions you get. There are a million reasons why you might not take the test that don't have to do with commitment: for one it's expensive, especially with prep materials and the like. I think you made a smart move applying more widely this time, and it sounds like you've got an excellent shot of getting into this school anyway.

Maybe see if you can give the school you're applying to an unofficial transcript until the real one is mailed. A lot of my schools wanted a scanned copy or something unofficial, but your acceptance is contingent upon you producing the real deal for them once they've decided they want you. I'm sorry you have to go through this! Of all the silly things...

This is also only firsthand to the extent that it's been passed on to me by teachers who have sat on graduate admissions committees at a top 20 university...I'm not a graduate student yet so I can't swear to any personal experience!

It's generally slightly less than 5%. You can take a peek on websites and often they will give you those statistics, but that's the number I've been given most frequently. Here's the huge BUT though...you're not really in competition with the whole applicant pool. So say you're an early Americanist and the department hasn't had any of those in a good long while, they have a couple faculty, and there are only 2 other early Americanists in the pool. (cue the end of my wishful thinking dream sequence). That's who you are battling for the spots. You're never trying to beat out everyone, just everyone like you. Your chances vary based on the number of faculty in your area on the committee, what kind of students they want/need, and who they already have. Of course there are ten trillion other factors, probably including which side of the pillow the committee head woke up on, how many vowels in your name, and a million other things that are impossible to predict or control designed specifically to give all of us nightmares. I'm sure that was a lot longer and more rambling than you needed, but since applications are over there's nothing to do but be a windbag on the Internet

well that gives me indigestion. i wonder if it is because they had more people accept last year than they expected, or funding is down, or both. then again, i just keep reminding myself that this is why i applied to 12 schools, and barring miraculous advances in human cloning, i will only be able to attend one.

I gave handwritten thank yous after I had given them everything (final forms, final emails, etc) in the case of the one who dragged his feet a little, because I just wanted to get everything out of my hands, and after the other two had submitted nearly everything. I also gave them little tokens of my appreciation. For what it's worth, they seemed to really like getting a card and a little something. I applied to a ton of schools, so I thought it was only fair to express my huge amounts of gratitude that way. I'm also planning on letting all of them know as results start trickling in, because one made a point of saying he wanted me to let him know and I know that they all talk to one another so I figure better to find out from me so no one feels out of the loop (not that they would really care at all, I'm just nuts about stuff like that).

From what I can tell it REALLY depends on who gets their hands on your application first. I've had people who were on committees tell me that they don't even look at the GRE score until after reading everything else, to looking at it for preliminary "weeding" purposes, to people who have told me that having impressive scores is a must for top notch programs. It's basically a gamble, I think. I absolutely don't think you should despair though. Nobody knows for sure, and it sounds as though there are a lot of impressive things about your application that would offset GREs. And professors can generally go back and rescue you from the pile of applications you don't want to be in if they skim your application and feel that they like you and want to take a second look. I have my own theories about what matters, but I won't be able to tell you if they're true until after I find out how I do this round (cue nausea!)

If you mega-FAILED the 3 classes, maybe a sentence that spins it positively like you said in your post would be in order. If you got a couple Cs or something I'd totally ignore it. Doubtless you've accomplished a lot since then. Since you only have so many words for statements like these I wouldn't sweat those courses too much.

What I've been doing is looking at schools that have an especially strong placement record. Come hell or high water, I'm going to graduate school and I'm just trying to get into the school that gives me the best chance of having a job on the other end. Brandeis, WashU and Vanderbilt seem to be really good at placements despite their smaller cohorts and seem to offer great funding. There are no guarantees with this process. It can be expensive to apply, a risky job proposition, and generally make your head explode. For me though, it's an incredible luxury to be able to get my PhD and I'm going to get everything I can out of the experience, work my butt off, and if I don't get a job it won't be because I didn't do every single thing I could. I'm wishing everyone the same and hopefully we will all have tenure (or at least fancy PhD robes) in no time!

Forgot to say, I actually know some people in that department who didn't do so hot on the subject exam (I don't have any exact numbers though), and they still got in.

I'd include the score. That number is not catastrophic by any means. But then again, if they recommended standing on my head for 3 days for an application I'd do that, so maybe I've lost all perspective

Found a comma splice in my SOP after I sent it out. I'm kicking myself about it, but I'm thinking it won't come down to me vs. equally matched student with one less grammatical error than I had. Still though, I know how you feel.

Sometimes the head of the committee will let things slide. Apparently someone at my school took a GRE subject test too late and her app was still considered. So there's hope!