JerryLandis

Yeah, once I saw those posts going up about interview weekend, I pretty much assumed that my application is lying there in the "rejected" pile, waiting to be formally processed. It's a bummer even though I really do NOT want to attend Notre Dame, as I recently discovered when visiting. I always expected to be rejected there due to my language deficiencies, but still, knowing that I'm probably out of luck there makes me feel less confident about my other applications.

-> Does it hurt to come from a country where universities aren't ranked at all and don't hand out any awards? Bonus question: How many student are there usually from continental Europe? I don't know much about the awards/ranking thing either, but coming from a department that almost never gives out awards, I understand your worry here! I don't think they necessarily expect hundreds of awards from everyone - it's certainly not the main focus of the application. However, given your essay writing skills may I suggest trying to publish some of them? Even publishing something in an undergraduate history journal would be good to put down in the awards or publications section. I personally gathered up a bunch of my best essays and sent them off to undergraduate journals, for the sole purpose of having publications to list in my application. Most undergrad journals seem to be American, so you'd have to translate your coursework into English, but it seems you have the skill to do that. -> What would my GPA be? I don't know what your GPA would be, but people from non-4.0 universities apply all the time, so the admissions committees must have some sense of how to view other systems. My university also works on a completely different grading scale, but fortunately they provide a conversion chart for North American grading systems. Perhaps you should ask around and see if your university offers something similar? -> Are lower verbal GRE scores accepted from people whose first language isn't English? I've heard that they do take that into consideration. However, despite appearing to be at a disadvantage, you may actually find yourself doing surprisingly well on the verbal section. Since it mostly seems to test your knowledge of random, obscure vocabulary (or your ability to guess what such words mean), your language background could be a great asset. Knowledge of French, German, and Latin will probably help you guess the meanings of words that people who just speak English will not be able to figure out. Still, I recommend working on just memorizing vocabulary lists if you're worried about the GRE verbal. -> Are languages proficiencies looked at on the application? YES, and I'm so very jealous of you for your language experience! From what you've described, it sounds like you already meet the basic requirements not only for enrolling in a PhD program for history, but for completing such a program. I personally fear that admissions committees will toss out my application before even reading my writing sample or SOP once they see that I only (gasp, how horrid!) speak one foreign language. Knowledge of German and Latin seem to be the most important for medieval/early modern European history, so that's definitely a huge asset for you. Research: It sounds like you're fine in this regard. I too was very confused by the constant advice to "use primary sources" and whatnot in my writing sample. I guess the European system is different (I study in the UK, don't know how similar our programs are) from the American, because I have NEVER handed in a piece of writing that didn't employ primary sources. I'd be immediately failed for doing that. So I think that as far as writing is concerned, you and I may be at a bit of an advantage because we're trained more specifically to produce articles and long essays (more useful for the application) instead of book reviews and multiple shorter essays. -> Are LORs from people unknown to US professors are problem? If you get letters from professors who are well known in Switzerland and among German speakers, there's a good chance they'll be known by those reading your application. Remember, professors were once PhD applicants and students as well, so they had to learn all the language skills we are expected to learn! One of my professors is always going off about his interactions with foreign (i.e. non English speaking) scholars at the conferences he's attended abroad. So just because your letter writers don't publish in English, that doesn't mean they won't be well regarded by those at English speaking universities. Best of luck to you! You sound like you are very well prepared, so keep working hard and thinking about how to improve your applications.

I do medieval history, but MAPSS could be good for me because I'd get the opportunity to work more on languages (my weak spot), since I already have more history credits than most applicants (I've taken nothing but med hist courses for my last 2 years of undergrad). Their online course listing for history is pretty sparse, but I get the feeling that's just something wrong with the listing, so if I am accepted to the program I'll ask about it before making a decision. I have applied to enough MA programs where I have a reasonable chance of acceptance, so I am predicting that I probably will be rejected from all 3 PhD programs (unless one extends me a merciful hand, please!), but that I will have a choice between a couple decent MA programs in random locations. Has anyone out there gone to the MAPSS program with a specific interest in history? It seems mostly geared towards anthropologists and sociologists, so I'm wondering if maybe it's a weaker program where history is concerned.

I think the point of the article wasn't that the Ivy League makes people incapable of intellectual thought or independence, but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones. Obviously the Ivies are trying to diversify, as he mentioned, admitting a certain number of artists, musicians, and otherwise kooky people every year, but apparently the majority of admits are those who aced the SAT and AP tests, and spent all of high school building their college resumes. I don't know how much I agree since I don't attend an Ivy, but I did go to a private prep school, so what he talks about sounds very familiar to me. I remember being required to take certain classes not because they were essential to graduate from high school, but because the top colleges supposedly (according to my college counselor) wouldn't consider me if I didn't have them on my transcript. Instead of allowing me to take two languages, lots of history classes, and art, which still would have enabled me to take the minimum number of science/math classes to graduate, I was repeatedly urged to take 4 years of history, 4 years of math, 4 years of science, 4 years of English, and 4 years of one foreign language (plus 2 years of "College Counseling" as a minor class). Art? You'll never get in anywhere decent! I was also pressured into joining the crew team, model UN, running for meaningless student government positions, and basically all the extra-curricular activities recommended for kids who have no interests or passions of their own, but need something to put into the "extra-curriculars" box in the application. I ended up applying to a random foreign university no one from my school had ever attended, and not even submitting applications to the Ivies and generally competitive colleges recommended by my college counselor, and I purposefully failed out of the math class she made me take so that I could take something else. Everyone else in that math class (also fellow members of the crew team, model UN, squash team, etc.) ended up going to elite colleges. Most of them were very smart and friendly, but sometimes I do wonder if the prep school experience beat some of their creativity out of them, as it sort of did for me. Fortunately I had some wonderful and inspirational teachers who offset that whole crazy competitive experience, but I definitely understand what the author of the article is talking about. When you're so focused on scoring perfectly on everything (which these days is necessary to compete in admissions no matter where you're applying), it's very difficult to actually think about the implications or underlying meaning of what it is you're "learning." But please, still, I'd like that one Ivy I applied to to admit me... Can't be the same way for PhDs, right?

Yes, but what if the cheapest one has the lowest track record, and the priciest one as highest track record? What then? I think my issue is just that these MA programs don't really provide much (if any) information about where their graduates end up going, or even what career path they end up taking.

Well part of the reason I ask is that I've really only heard about it from people who rejected the offer. I know about the whole cash cow thing, but since almost every history MA is a ripoff cash cow scheme, I may as well look into one that might offer me reduced tuition, and that is only one year long instead of 2. Why pay for 2 years when you can pay for one? Since the tuition is around $43,000 a year (I've rounded it up to 45 since I'm assuming it goes up every year), that's obviously a lot of money. The results posts I've seen about it all seem to say "2/3 funding" or "1/3 funding," but they aren't very clear. Do different applicants get different funding cuts? Does this mean that people only have to pay 1/3 of the tuition (i.e. $15,000), or does it mean that the tuition is reduced by 1/3 (i.e. costing the student $30,000)? University of Chicago is my first choice, so when I inevitably don't get into a PhD program, my intention is to do a masters route that is most likely to help my chances at Chicago the next time I apply for the PhD. The other MA programs I've applied to range from $15,000 for one year to something like $40,000 each year for 2 years (outrageous). Then there's Villanova, which I'm hoping will offer me funding and maybe even a small stipend. I'm not sure which program would be the wisest route to take.

My understanding is that Chicago will notify around mid-March. I'm only expecting one decision in February, so I'm not surprised not to have heard anything yet.

Does anyone know how common it is to be admitted to this program after being rejected from the PhD? I don't expect to be admitted to the PhD program, but would strongly consider doing the MAPSS (or whatever it's called) if given the opportunity. Also, does anyone know how enrolling in this program would affect a person's chances applying to the University of Chicago the following year? Would having done the program there and getting to know the faculty enhance your chances, or would they be reluctant to accept students from their own masters-style program as I have heard some other universities do?

I'm really bored, but I shouldn't be. I should be reading stuff for my classes! I think 90% of the people who check this site regularly are probably depressed - not a good feeling knowing there are committees of strangers out there glossing over our carefully compiled applications, and possibly tossing them right out.

Wow, thanks for the info. I am located in the UK right now, but I am an American citizen. I hope it's not too late to apply for next year. I guess it's not the most serious possibility since I'll probably get into a program this year, but I think I'd prefer doing something with more purpose over returning to my job from high school.

I'm applying to medieval history PhD programs and don't know Latin. This probably won't end well. However, at least everything else about my application is pretty stellar, so if I dedicate the next year or two before reapplying to learning Latin, I should be able to get in somewhere. I am taking an intensive Latin course this summer, but I'm afraid that they won't consider that to be enough experience with the language.

It's really sad that because this whole process takes so long, we are all having a horrible time of our last semesters in college, desperate for the time to pass more quickly. Isn't it supposed to be the opposite way - trying to relish every last moment of precious careless youth before joining the stressed out adult masses?

What is a VISTA? I'd be interested in doing charity work, but my parents wouldn't be too keen on me volunteering (my dad once told me he doesn't intend to leave me any money in his will because I'll just "waste it on some dumb cause"). The last time I got a paid job for a non-profit, I ended up canvassing full time in the dead of summer, wearing an oversized black t-shirt and not getting any donations/memberships because I looked like a dying sweating homeless hippie. That was the most horrible job I've ever worked, basically having people say "Fuck off" and slam their doors in your face all evening.

I'm not a grad either but in my experience, the "gunners" are always the people who only skimmed part of the reading but, assuming they somehow already have all possible knowledge inside their heads, feel the need to talk constantly in class and correct people (including the professor). I'm a semi-gunner - prepare too intensely for class, answer and ask a lot of questions, etc., but I'm wary of being seen as a suckup or smartass, so I usually only answer questions if no one else says anything. That said, my only classes nowadays are 5 person seminars, in which the most annoying people are those who sit there with their notebooks all full but NEVER talk - expecting everybody else to dish out their ideas while keeping their own ideas to themselves, and generally making the classroom feel awkward. What I find even more annoying than these so-called gunners (and sometimes these people are also gunners themselves) is when people feel the need to say "uh huh" or nod their head to every point the professor makes. Yeah, no shit the guy's right, he's A WORLD CLASS EXPERT ON THE TOPIC who has written several books about it! Do these people think that the whole class is sitting there watching them, looking for confirmation of whether or not the person teaching is competent? So annoying. Especially when it's an easy or intro level class in which all the material is obvious or self-explanatory anyways.

I think I'd just end up moving home, working in a local shop for the year, and taking languages classes at a local university to boost my application for round 2 (and save up money). That would suck, although at least I'd be among friends, many of whom have taken many years off in between things to work towards their degrees, and all of whom are older than I am. I'm applying to history programs. Any other good suggestions for what to do in that time? I'm fairly certain I'll be accepted for the MA program at a university close to my house, so I'm not too worried, but I guess I will be looking for ways to boost my application anyhow, even if I do that.

Ooh, "rej," I like that. "Yeah, I got rejjed by my top choice." I'm likely to get rejjed by my top choice sometime next week, great. And since one of my other programs seems to have already sent out invites to a recruitment weekend, my chances there aren't looking so good either.

Well I'm almost to that point with one place, except that I haven't been invited to an interview and probably won't be accepted. As long as you don't abandon the possibility of attending one of the other places you applied to, I don't think it's too bad to get ahead of yourself like that. Congratulations on getting an interview invite for your top choice!

I regret not applying to more places. I researched faculty and departments very far in advance (i.e. starting at least a year before applying), but still managed to miss a couple of places, despite visiting their websites and scrolling through their faculty. Since only a handful of professors seemed to have interests in common with mine, I couldn't apply to many programs. But then once I received some emails back from professors with interests only tangentially related to my own, saying that I sounded like a great fit and that they were interested in my ideas, I realized that I probably should have been a bit wider in my search for relevant faculty. Sure, it may have been a total waste of money, applying to places with loose fit, but I'd have more chance of being accepted. As it stands, I have applied to 3 PhD programs, one of which I have since decided I do not want to attend. If I am amazingly lucky enough to get into one of the remaining 2, I'll go. If not, I will get a Masters (I also applied to 5 MA programs, where my chances are higher). The way I see it, if you're young, especially if you're right out of undergrad, waiting until the next application round may be a severe pain in the ass, but it's not going to ruin your future. I'm reminded of that when I talk to some friends I have who are pursuing undergraduate degrees in their mid-20s. I have plenty of time, and shouldn't be complaining! (But, I guarantee, I probably still will complain)

I applied to one Catholic University, figuring that going there would be no big deal because they are a well-known university with a more diverse student body than other Christian universities probably have. My Jewish family was very confused, but mostly the response I got was "you'll never be able to get your birth control filled on campus!" I still figured it was no big deal, but then I visited the campus. Everything, even a local movie theater, had stuff about the glory of God and Christ emblazoned all over it. Then I read in the student newspaper something about how there was a recent stir when lots of students started wearing t-shirts that said "Gay? Fine by me!" It's nice to know that such a large number of people there aren't homophobic, but what concerned me was that the episode had apparently been such a big deal. That kind of thing seems kind of far behind for most college campuses. I don't really want to go somewhere where "Is homosexuality acceptable?" is a sincere and divisive matter of public debate. I'd prefer to go somewhere where the homophobes keep their opinions to themselves, frankly. However, if accepted to that university, I wouldn't decline the offer based simply on the religious atmosphere. I'm sure there are plenty of upsides to the community (possibly more charitable involvement?) that would make up for it. However, I have decided that I will not attend the university even if I am lucky enough to be accepted, even if I get into no other PhD programs, because the campus was too isolated and it felt like a gigantic high school in the middle of nowhere. As for not being comfortable around Christians, I understand the basic sentiment. It's not that I have a problem with Christian people, just that I would not like to live in a community where everyone around me thought it socially acceptable to say to someone "I think you are going to hell because you haven't accepted Christ." If you are single and looking for a partner, it could be difficult to live in a very Christian community because it's hard to know until you've spent a lot of time with a devout Christian whether they are trying to keep you from going to hell, or whether they look down on your religious beliefs, or, if it's a boyfriend/girlfriend, whether they resent you for weakening their own faith. I never realized how difficult it can be to live in a Christian environment until I started dating one!

A lot of the computer science folks I've known have been the quiet super genius types who maybe haven't had the best connections with teachers or the best experience in the classroom. They're the kind of people who instead of doing their homework, stay up all night building weird contraptions and nerding it up. So I guess people in admissions committees must give some leeway to those they think may have potential, but just haven't been properly motivated in certain classes.

Just wondering if I should bother checking my online applications to see if the status changes. So far I haven't been doing that (looking up all the PIN stuff and passwords is too much of a pain), but I was wondering if universities ever notify people a bit after they may have changed the person's online status. Is there a noticeable difference to the webpage when they do make a decision? As it is with most of my applications now, I scroll down and see "Application Status: Submitted" - So when I am accepted/waitlisted/rejected, will it say something about it down there? I wish I knew what to expect - phone call, letter, email, whatever - there are too many possibilities!

A driver's license doesn't count as a government issued ID? That sucks, all of those stories. My own experience was stressful, but it turned out generally okay. With the travel factored in though, it did cost me several hundred dollars.

Even the $20 was a scam considering how crappy ETS seems to be at sending things in the mail in a timely manner. How much does a stamp cost these days, 44 cents? Shouldn't have to cost them much more than that. It's not like they have to write the scores out by hand or anything.

I think it's interesting that Columbia, and University of Chicago as well, say that the writing sample is the most important part of the application. Judging from what I've read elsewhere, lots of departments seem to prioritize the letters of recommendation as the most important part. So, this tells us that while both are important, some universities and departments probably weigh these things differently. Which I guess we already pretty much knew. I'm kind of annoyed that GPA doesn't count for more though. I know that it's a dangerous thing to focus on because of grade inflation and different systems at different colleges, but come on, what have I worked my ass off these past 4 years for? You mean to tell me I could have coasted in my classes all that time, putting all of my energy into an awesome and brilliant writing sample, and I'd be better off for it?

Yes, but I am still entitled to an opinion, and people should still listen to what I have to say despite the fact that I am white and middle class, and yes, privileged. Whatever the purpose of AA may be, it is still fundamentally unjust when regarding some individuals. Why does that not matter? I understand that it is important for people of more varied ethnic backgrounds to be in positions of authority, academic or otherwise. But that doesn't require having admissions policies based on race. The crux of the issue stems on economic background - who can afford to live in a wealthy area with good schools, who can afford fancy test prep, who can afford to pay for stupid standardized tests and application fees. Of course there are other factors involved, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that the center of the matter is economic. If socioeconomic background were taken into account instead of race, black individuals would still benefit. Privilege is all relative. Do you honestly mean to say that a wealthy black student who has attended private schools and never had to hold a job is underprivileged compared to a white student who has grown up poor, has had to work throughout school, and has uneducated parents who can't serve as academic role models? How do you quantify that privilege, and say that student A deserves more leeway in admissions than student B? Is having no role models who are the same race as you the same thing as having no role models at all?