spozik

I'm kind of in the same boat (670V, 760Q, 4.5AW). Apparently, there is a formula that you need to follow to score highly on the AW section. If you don't know it, you won't get those top scores. If you do know it, you have to throw caution to the wind and trust it. Anyway, I've been accepted at several pretty competitive programs so far, and I'd imagine that Classics would care more about the AW section than most sciences would. There have been a lot of threads here about the nature of the AW section, so you may want to search through those (if no one else makes a more relevant reply) for other scientists' opinions. To make a long story short, the AW section hasn't been around long enough for most educators to really have a solid grasp on if it correlates to graduate school success or not. Many admissions committees therefore do not put much stock in it. That doesn't mean that there aren't those that do, though. At the end of the day, your other two scores are well above average ( and you knew that). As for scholarships, I'm not entirely sure--but I know that for the one university-wide fellowship I'm up for currently, the AW score was not among the criteria for nomination. The bottom line is that if you think you have time to retake it and you are confident that you can do better on it (I only improved my score from a 4.0 to a 4.5, and I practiced a lot in the meantime--I thought I would do a lot better), it wouldn't hurt to retake it. Especially if you think your other two scores aren't a fluke, a higher score is of course better than a lower one. But is a 4.0 on the AW section the apocalypse? Probably not. Also, your misspelling of sesquimillennium probably didn't help. Sorry, I had to do it!

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that it means that the department has made a decision of some sort on your application and now it has been "referred" to the graduate school with their recommendation. Personally, I wouldn't pay much attention to the status of the application until it says "accepted" or "rejected." It's just an extra bureaucratic step in the admission process that may or may not be completed in an entirely timely manner. I think it was about a month after my transcripts were received that they were posted on the site. I don't imagine that this is really all that much more accurate at any given time until the process is done.

I have a question that I think fits here. I didn't want to start another thread for my (probably silly) question, at least. This is more on the back-end of how funding works for the schools, not how it appears to applicants/students. This is probably more relevant to humanities people than science people. I've heard that a few schools I have applied to really try to gauge whether or not an applicant is interested in attending before they make a funding offer, explicitly because they nominate YOU as an individual for a university-wide fellowship of some sort. It's my impression that if you turn it down, it has a negative effect on the department (not your fault, obviously, everyone is making a choice) because they possibly won't be given as many fellowships in the future. I imagine that it goes something like "Oh, no botany students accepted our fellowships this year, so we're going to allot those to chemistry next year;" but then again, I'm not entirely sure. It would also seem that this method of funding doesn't have a waitlist, but there seem to be waitlists for funding at some of these schools. If someone is nominated for a university-wide fellowship and they turn it down, can they then offer that fellowship to someone else? I didn't think that it worked that way. Is this really only the case if the funds are the department's funds explicitly, and not part of a university-wide pool? Anyway, if anyone has any insight, I was just curious as to how this works. As far as the main topic of the thread goes, I'm in the same boat: I have some TA-ship offers, but it seems that it will be at least mid-March to find out if I've got any non-teaching support for a year or two anywhere. I'd be fine with being a TA right off the bat, but the non-teaching awards are generally worth more. Go figure!

I respect twocosmicfish's point that if a school is ranked highly and you are admitted there, you should probably attend even if the location isn't ideal. However, there are myriad reasons that location may be important. Other than seasonal depression, which coyabean brought up, here are a few that I can think of off of the top of my head: financial concerns, needing to be closer to a sick/elderly family member, strength of schools if you have kids, and the ability for a partner/spouse to find a job in the area. The last point is particularly important for me, but I think all of these situations are a lot more common than some might realize. Just from reading the posts on this board, I know that there are several (or many) posters who are married, have kids, or something of that nature. I know I wouldn't sacrifice my relationship for grad school, nor would I expect my partner to entirely sacrifice her career for mine. Relationships are all about compromise when it comes to decisions like this, but of course different couples can work it however works for them. We're not all rolling straight out of undergrad with an open ticket to anywhere in the world. Fortunately, I've been accepted to several programs that I would be more than happy to attend that are in a variety of different settings, so at least one of them will end up working for us. I'm not saying that you should attend Central Southwestern State University over Harvard because you think the grass is greener there. However, for a lot of people here (and probably a lot of others who aren't here) the simple process of (1) apply to several top-ranked programs and then (2) attend the highest-ranked one just isn't feasible or realistic. There are other concerns that are just as important (if not more important) than getting into the best program possible. As for "fit," I've yet to visit any programs; but, ultimately, I think that "fit" for me will come down to the right combination of place, faculty, cohort, funding, and the ever-intangible "it just feels right."

UVA has made at least some offers of admission. Their visitation weekend is very soon.

Congrats sidereal! That's one of the last few programs I'm still waiting to hear from.

Unless Yale changed something, they invite for interviews (I think there were ca. 15-20 last year), anticipating that they will accept half of those.

There's story after story around here of someone screwing up an entire year or two of undergrad and still getting in good places. You may have better luck getting a more relevant opinion on the History-specific board, but my guess is that you definitely have a shot, especially at a terminal Master's. The golden child who has had everything go right for him or her ends up being a pretty rare tale, so there are lots of people in the same boat as you are. Make the rest of your application outstanding and make brief mention somewhere on your app. that you got really sick that semester, and I imagine that the adcomm. will gladly look past it. Some programs even explicitly state that they really only care about the last 2 years of undergrad.

That sucks LateAntique. I got my first acceptance a few days after my first rejection, so maybe you'll have the same luck!

I really appreciate Pamphilia's comments. I agree that it is extremely important to have role models with whom one can identify in positions where they would like to see themselves. One might even make the comparison to the prevailing interest among black youth in sports like basketball and football, venues in which there are a towering number of successful racially-similar role models. However, as a white first-generation college student, I didn't find much to identify with among my professors. Most of my professors in college were the kids of professors or people who were otherwise very successful in their chosen profession. The first time I met someone with a PhD was the first time I went to visit the college that I ultimately attended. Although I'm white, for a long time I saw "academia" as a forbidden path to take, much like, I am sure, many black students do. I also had to feign ignorance in my peer group at times, until I got to college, where I had to re-train myself. I enjoyed doing this, because it let me be who I am. But even now I sometimes get caught up in what I am saying versus what I am thinking, e.g. I'll think "simultaneously," mentally correct myself to "at the same time," remember that I'm in an environment where that kind of intelligence is valued, and switch back to "simultaneously." Where I grew up, you were stupid if you didn't know how to fix a car or rig your fishing line. Most people couldn't have cared less about Shakespeare, much less Ancient Greek. This was a product of where I came from moreso than race, and this is where I have to at least partially agree with JerryLandis' point that this kind of thing, if it is to remain, ultimately needs to be based on socio-economic status, not specifically on race. Is it really "diverse" to have an entering class that has 3 white kids, 3 black kids, and 3 asian kids, all from the same suburb, who all went to the same high school, took the same classes, and who all have successful businessmen and businesswomen for parents? I don't really think so. In fact, I think you could have more diversity in a class that has a few kids from Appalachia, some from inner-city New York, some from a small ranch town in Wyoming, and some who were in the collective group I described in the previous sentence--and ignoring race entirely. The American experience is extremely diverse for all sorts of communities, families, and backgrounds. While I don't think that the concept of affirmative action is misguided at its core, it errs when its sole criterion is race. There are, to put it simply, too many wild cards for too many people. Several of my applications asked if I was a first-generation college student, and I was happy that they asked because I feel that, based on innumerable interactions with people who aren't (which is the vast majority of my peers, it seems), my experience has had certain challenges and barriers that would not have existed otherwise. The main point of the process should be to help identify and nurture unrealized potential. If there's a kid who hasn't had the opportunity to take Calculus at his school, but found a book at a used bookstore and starting working through the problem sets, he won't have a grade or an AP credit to show for it. But I think his initiative counts for at least as much. Ideally, I would hope that this is the student that administrations and governments are striving to make sure isn't left out of the system just because he or she doesn't know how to game it. If I've grossly misunderstood why we employ this system, then I guess this is just my idealized notion of what we should be trying to accomplish with a system of affirmative action. Either way, the system needs some tweaking.

Also on that note -- who is the other Ohio State acceptance? Feel free to send me a private message if you don't want to post!

I guess I have the distinguished honor of getting the season's first rejection! I had a no from Wisconsin waiting in my inbox this afternoon.

I think you should be fine. Did you apply other places that have received the transcripts? I e-mailed my programs to make sure that my applications were complete before the deadlines. Vanderbilt was the only school I applied to that told me that they couldn't tell me the status of my items and to just hold out. I imagine they'd contact you if they were missing something big.

I'm not applying for English, but I checked out the link. I particularly enjoyed reading the parts at the end. Really, the author made the candidates seem stellar for the most part. All of those awards! Does anyone not get one? Also, I'm surprised that they author didn't suggest for you to pay for the GRE exam by withdrawing money from the ATM machine after you enter your PIN number.

I'm replying because you said you'd like some input. How many years have you been studying each language? To me, part of the reason programs request this is to see if you're serious about what you say you want to study. If, for instance, I were on an adcomm, and you came to me with this list and said you were interested in studying Attic oratory or Roman history, I'd listen. If you said you were interested in studying Latin poetry, I might be a little hesitant. But as far as the volume of what you've read goes, I think you're fine for most MAs and some PhDs. You've got a ways to go to match up with the reading list of any program; but, then again, most of us do.

I went to a small liberal arts college and got my BA in Classics, but I graduated a few years ago. I'm doing a post-bac at the moment to get back into the swing of things. I'm applying to 9 schools -- 7 PhD track and 2 terminal MAs. Did you have Timothy Johnson while at Florida? I read "A Symposion of Praise" and the material didn't capture me so much, but I was really impressed by the level of scholarship. Your interests sound cool. What trouble did you have on the GRE, if you don't mind me asking? I didn't do poorly on it (the second time, anyway...), but I think it's crap. I don't want to bring one of those threads into this one, so feel free to just message me if you'd prefer.

salve! not sure, but I think we'll start hearing in the next week or two about some of the earliest decisions. it looks from your signature in the other thread that you're focused on mostly terminal MAs (except Texas?)--hopefully you have some good luck there! welcome to the boat, we're all waiting.

I'll be 26. Also, to sometimesiexist: I don't think you need to defend yourself or your age to anyone. However, I don't think that "life experience" is really something you can quantify like a list of items on a resume. It's just something that happens naturally. I'm not old by any means, but I feel a lot wiser than I did even a year ago. Hopefully, you do as well! As long as you keep an open mind that others still have a lot to offer you and that you still have tons of room to grow as a person, you'll be golden.

I realized right before I hit post that this is really long. Sorry, I've thought about this extensively. As a humanities person, there are some things from that article I'd like to respond to. But first, let me answer the question: no. I'm not wealthy, did not grow up wealthy, and have no great desire to be wealthy. Now, I may be wealthy at some point (and may already be considered so by some) because of my wife's career, but that's really beside the point. I went to college to major in physics. I found that I liked Classics more and switched to that. I don't think that anything about *me* as a person really changed. I certainly didn't become more wealthy. I think maybe, if anything, I got real with myself about what I was interested and what I wanted out of life. And that's where I think the big difference is. The survey referenced in the article is pretty clear on this point: It looks to me like a lot more people are concerned with becoming wealthy now than they were in 1971. That could be for any number of reasons, none of which is really what's important to the question at hand. I think most people are aware that the humanities most likely aren't going to make you rich. I don't have any issue with this, but it looks like 78% of the population does. If there is one thing in the article that really bothered me, it's this: Given that people who major in the humanities typically are bombarded with the "what are you going to do with that?" question on a constant basis to the point where you either get bitter about it or come up with a witty reply, there are is a problem. A disconnect between expectations, the "real world," and results. People who study the humanities should excel in all three of those categories referenced in the article snippet quoted above. So why aren't they getting the jobs? There are several equally plausible problems, which probably all exist to some varying degree: (1) despite these being the advertised skills of a humanities degree, the students are not, in fact, learning these skills; (2) the students are not interested in the kinds of jobs referenced above, preferring instead to hold out for the rare job related to their humanities discipline or taking an "easier" job to allow them more flexibility to pursue their humanities interests in their spare time; (3) universities are not communicating effectively with companies about the resultant skill set of a student who has received a humanities degree, leading the companies to believe that the students do not have these skills; (4) the companies surveyed are not actually good at assessing these skills in a job applicant. Now, as I said, all 4 of these cases are probably contributing factors, to varying degrees in every specific case, of any unemployed/underemployed humanities major. As you will see, the fault is in 3 places: the student him or herself, the university and its faculty, and the prospective hiring company. I didn't mention the student's parents in any of this, but I'd like to make a comment on that first. Parents generally want their kids to be more successful than they are. How they define success varies significantly. Not in a specific discipline, perhaps, but a businessman will probably view his son's or his daughter's success based on finances, a history professor will most likely view his child's success based on academics, and so on. This obviously contributes to the problem for the humanities: as noted about, a surveyed audience says that wealth is important to them. This makes sense, as there are far more people working professionally in business than in the humanities, and the business world is much more visible on TV, the internet, etc. In short, it's the default path of "success" as defined by the majority of society. Of course everyone wants to be successful, so people without exposure to variant paths of "success" default to it. Anyway, most of that aside is to say that ultimately, the student will decide what he or she wants to do on his or her own, but that will be defined greatly by where they are coming from. Back to the student, university, and company and what they can each do to save the humanities. The student needs to be aware that he or she probably will not spend a lifetime critiquing Shakespeare and Chaucer unless he or she continues on in academia. This is a perfectly fine path, and it's the one which the vast majority of the self-selected sample that reads this site aspire to pursue. Most of the students, however, won't be doing that, and that's a fact. Given this, the student in their 4 or so years needs to make an honest effort to associate their discipline with "real world" tasks. It's easy to do. The main thing that needs to change here is the veil on these subjects needs to drop. We need professors and students who are REALLY able to connect the dots, not just say that the dots are able to be connected. Students say that they are good at communicating because they've been studying English: what they really mean is that they are good at writing about a subject they like on their own time. Most of them are going to have problems communicating with people who aren't in their discipline, and this needs to be evolved. Humanities students should be encouraged (and able, and given the opportunity, and even forced) to share their work with people outside of their disciplines in order to learn to interact with people who aren't specializing in thematic elements of 13th century French poetry. It's the only way that a student will really be able to learn how to make themselves relevant to the rest of the world. The hiring companies also have an obligation here. I know of at least one major (100,000+ employee) company that simply starts out people who have a hard-science degree at a higher salary, even for jobs that aren't directly related to their degrees. They either do this on a hunch or based on their experiences with how these individuals perform in the company. If it's the former, they need to give the humanities a shot. It should offer exactly what they say that they're looking for. If it's the latter, then the humanities need to hit the gym. I think that there is a distinct place for the humanities in the 21st century, I really do. I think that the skills are applicable in many, many different areas. We, and I speak inclusively of humanities students, alumni, and teachers, need to do a better job of achieving the widely applicable goals that we say our specialization offers. Once we're done with that, we need to do a better job of convincing the rest of the world that the skills are relevant.

For what it's worth, I'm in a similar situation. I had some transfer credits from a community college back in the paleozoic era that I had totally forgotten about. I ordered them ASAP and the only school that cared told me that they could use what appeared on my undergrad transcript as transfer credit to evaluate my application, but they'd need the official transcripts to make any binding decisions. I imagine it will be the same for you, but you should definitely ask if you are worried about it.

My medieval interests at this point are more of a hobby than anything. Like I said, I did my degree doubling in medieval studies and Classics, but I'm applying to Classics programs and not medieval ones for a reason. My "real" interest is the same thing, only back about 1200 years: the reception of Hellenistic poetry in 1st century BC/AD Rome. You are correct that if I wanted to look seriously at the kind of thing that I referenced in my first post, I'd have to get into all of it. As it is, I just think that it's supercool that the literary dialog spans millennia, not just centuries.

It's interesting that this thread went from a discussion about how admissions committees view applications to another discussion about the GRE. For those of you unfamiliar, we had a similar thread earlier in the GRE/GMAT/etc. forum called "I think the GREs are a deterrent mechanism"--check it out if you're interested in this. It's also interesting how several people in this thread deny that success on the GRE has a relationship, in general, to one's socio-economic status. There are several studies referencedin this thread that support that line of reasoning, and none that disagrees with it. In that case, I suppose a helium balloon can also be used to disprove the observable theory of gravity: an object with a special property that, in one's personal experience, seems to set the standard for everything. Many of my applications asked what level of education my parents completed. If I'm not mistaken, the GRE did as well. I'm not happy that it matters, but apparently it does or, at least, someone has a hypothesis that it does. And that hunch is strong enough and seems valid enough that he or she can convince major universities and testing services to include the question in their statistics gathering. It is odd to me that someone would feel threatened by this claim, even when it is backed up with empirical data. For someone who does, do you think that it implies something about you as an individual? That somehow you didn't "earn" what you have achieved but that it was given to you? I don't think that this is the case, and I don't think that anyone is claiming that this is the case.

I'm applying to Classics programs, but one of my interests is medieval reception. I double majored in Classics and Medieval Studies, so I guess I got into it that way. I'd love to know French (and I'll have to learn it sooner rather than later if I get in somewhere) and take a critical look at something like the Roman d'Eneas from a Classical perspective. I think someone focused on medieval lit. really needs to be exceptionally well-grounded in everything Greek and Latin, because the people who wrote medieval lit. were. This is especially true of anyone writing a commentary on a medieval work: so often, allusive references and even things that would probably be considered key points to a Classicist are overlooked. Anyway, I don't want to clutter up your thread with my diatribe! I think that there are a lot of people working on the periphery of medieval lit. because of its inherently interdisciplinary nature and the scarcity of "Medievalist" positions. I think what really deterred me from working in the medieval period is the extensive work that's essentially required in religion/theology. Of course issues of Christianity are at the core of many of the works, it just isn't something that interests me at the end of the day. I've always liked Arthurian romance as well. Have you read anything by Geoffrey of Monmouth? I did a senior capstone project on an aspect of his big work. I struggle to find people who have even heard of him, much less read and enjoyed any of his stuff.

My SO will come with me eventually or immediately, depending on where I end up. I applied to a few schools within a couple hours of where we live now, and she could work out a flex-time schedule where she would work from home wherever we are most days and they would fly her back or she would drive back up when there is something she needed to be there in person for. Other than that, I imagine that she would stay on her current project until it was done and then look for something new wherever I end up. We've talked about it a bit, but it's difficult talking in hypotheticals. Once I start hearing back from places about admissions/rejections, it'll be easier to discuss these kinds of things. For now, it's almost silly going into the details of the different scenarios of every single school.

If it's helpful, I got an e-mail from UNC's admin. saying that my application was complete and that letters should be mailed in late February. I applied to Wisconsin -- they decide really early (their admin. said end of January). It will be a good litmus test early in the decisions process, I think.