seeingeyeduck

In my field there is a lot of rejection for any sort of career opportunity so over the last couple of years I've learned to deal with it. I find that if I have a mindset of focusing on outcome rather than emotion, that keeps me motivated to try again. If I focus in how bad it feels, I'll stop trying, which leads to the worst of all outcomes (ie no opportunities). But if I brush it off and try again, that's the only way that good things will happen for me.

I've also found that it does help to get feedback. When you get a form letter rejection your mind makes stuff up and you think of the worst possibility which is that you suck and are not qualified. What I've learned from asking for feedback is that that's not always the case. Sometimes you came reeeeeally close and it was just circumstances that got in the way. The take away from that would be to keep trying! Asking for feedback also dampens the sting a little bit because at least you are in contact with a specific (sympathetic) human and it makes the rejection less impersonal.

IMO you do have to square yourself with the very real possibility that you will not be accepted before you even apply. I feel worse when I think I have good chances and am rejected. The key is to be very aware that you can be rejected for so many reasons and if is after all the most statistically likely outcome. That way your hopes aren't so high and it won't be so terrible if they are dashed. It helps to have a plan. Sometimes I deal with rejection by applying to more things, perversely. It keeps me occupied and I feel like I am actively doing something about the rejection. It's absolutely necessary to construct a life you are okay with even if you are rejected. I think we give programs too much power to make or break our careers if we believe everything hinges on getting in. If you really look for other opportunities I think it becomes obvious that there are a lot of other alternative routes. If might not be as easy to see when you're younger, right out of undergrad.

I've learned to just not apply to things that aren't a good fit or are long shots. Doing a bit of research and being realistic about what level you are at saves some money and pain. To me there's no point in applying to something where I know they have a record of choosing someone whose work is very different than mine even if their description of the grant or program seem theoretically to fit my work. Sometimes it's worth it to apply to the long shot but you have to really steel yourself then! I think generally if you have someone who you can ask to reliably assess your qualifications and tell you the truth, it's better to do that than to apply to things that are out of your reach at the moment. That doesn't mean they always will be though!

Lastly, embrace the place that really wants you even if they are not your top choice! It's better anyway to go somewhere where you are appreciated - it'll be a better experience. Don't think that it's the ranking of the program that will make your career - it's what you make of the opportunities you do get. You can do something good or interesting almost anywhere! It ultimately is still within your power to succeed.

And don't take rejections as a judgment of you. It really is about fit. I look back on some of my undergrad rejections and I see now that they really were right to reject me because I would have been terrible in their program. But at the time I was all butt hurt. I guess getting older helps too.

Hope that helps!

You should ask her about how much one-on-one time you get with professors. I've heard that lots of teachers there don't really even have their own office space and they give students an option to advise with local artists who aren't employed by them, but that is essentially a way for them to farm out some of the advising work. I guess you don't know about the MFA yet, but you could ask about class size and studio space. I saw some of their studio spaces, and it's basically a bunch of open topped rooms next to each other with a doorless entry. Some students put up a sheet for privacy, but if you need to work with sound, it can be awkward - you'd have to wear headphones most of the time. You shouldn't leave any valuables in the space so maybe also ask about locker space.
 
If cost is an issue I'd definitely ask her about some financials and if there are scholarships or aid you can apply to. Will you need to work (cost of living is fairly high in the city)? If so, ask them if they help students find internships or jobs. If you've actually been accepted, then I would say that the call is more for you to ask questions and them to woo you. Grill them! It's a pretty big investment to go there, so no question you have is too small...
 
If you really can't go visit before deciding, you could also see if they'd be willing to refer you to a current student or recent grad if you have more questions later.

The reason they get away with being egotistical is because they've made some sort of contribution whose value others can't deny. Or they are super rich. You have some publications but that is not the same as creating the theory of relativity. I'm assuming you're not super rich.

And keep in mind that Einstein's work wasn't recognized in the beginning either. Unfortunately his work was theoretical and he could work on it without a lab. You can't, so if you want to get into a lab, maybe you need to consider the non-academic factors in your application. Yes, liking egotistical people or not is a personal preference but if most other people don't then they are unlikely to admit you to their schools and labs. That is a fact of life and it has nothing to do with logic, though if your so egotistical that you don't work we'll with others, then, rationally, they are perfectly justified in choosing someone who is just as accomplished AND can get along with everyone in the lab if that's what they have to do to keep the lab running smoothly.

I don't think you realize that you can do the things that the big egos you mentioned did without the ego. We can name just as many if not more accomplished people who aren't big egos.

The best thing to do, as others said, is to just ask Berkeley why they didn't accept you.

Doesn't mean she's not seriously ill. The delusions, the paranoia, it's all pretty standard for psychosis or schizophrenia. And it's incredibly hard to get someone help in this country unless they actually hurt someone or themselves even if they are stalking and harassing. If they don't want treatment or meds, not even family can force them. Makes it really difficult to deal with these situations... It's too bad.

Seeingeyeduck said it well and comprehensively.
 
None of my schools are fall back options, so I've got my fingers crossed for 1/11! So, far three rejections. As an aspiring writer I have actually mentally trained myself to like rejections -- it just adds fuel to the fire. 
 
There is plenty of applicable fortune cookie wisdom:
 
"Failure is not the falling down, but the staying down"
 
"Fishing: if it were easy, they'd call it catching"
 
"Diligence is the mother of good fortune" 

I've had a stack of books in my garage for the past 2 years that I haven't been able to read. I used every spare minute reading for my MS courses and I haven't had time for pleasure reading. If I get accepted for the Fall that gives me about 6 months to read them. Starting with Mark Twain's journals and notebooks.

I know a dude with an IQ that got him into Mensa and the Triple Nine Society (or would have it he'd been more on the ball). He's a complete moron. He's the opposite of smart. He makes smart look like an achievement only rocks fail at.

I've got the same kind of numbers (inherited genes, go figure), but what difference does that make? Well, it's easier for me to read and understand a scholarly journal. And. Yeah, that's about it. I'm better at reasoning things out in a shorter period of time than the other 99%. Big. Fat. So what? Who cares? Last semester, I created an exam that was worth 5 points. It had three sections to complete. Section One was worth 1 point, section two worth 2 points, and section 3 worth 3 points.

I may be quantitatively smarter than most people. I am not, in any conceivable way, better to anyone else. I am better at being me, but that's about it. Sure, I can get all snooty about my IQ, but my IQ is not my fault so it's kind of like acting as if I'm somehow a fabulous person because I was born with eyes.

It seems that the entry barrier of departmental/university admission requirements are being forgotten.
 
As a US student expat, my experience with admissions are from foreign systems (UK and Australia), but from what I understand from back home, they translate well.  Here in Queensland, students take a test that functions similarly to the SAT, the Overall Position (OP) test.  The score is scaled from 1 to 25, with 1 being the highest number.  Law requires a 2.  Medicine and dentistry demand a 1.  Business and Architecture require a 7.  Social work or education will accept 13 and 12, respectively.  Those courses have the lowest entry barrier.  
 
If "hard science" departments lowered their entry requirements, I would imagine their graduates's average IQ would drop.  Consequently, if education aimed to accept only those with excellent credentials, average IQ of graduates would increase.  I believe Finland would be an example of the latter case.  

I can't believe some of you want this thread to end when obviously it is in contention for some sort of epicness award, heh...
 
 
Some of the best advice I ever got was to cross that bridge when I come to it rather than worry about things that haven't even happened yet. Your worry is making you more desperate, when there is no actual evidence in the world that suggests you will be alone at 30. Why not save the freaking out about it until after you are actually 28 or 29? You're worried about something that MIGHT happen in 6-7 years. A lot of things COULD happen; if you worried about them all, you'd never stop worrying. Instead, realize that it's just as likely that you'll actually have found someone by then. None of us can tell the future so why only imagine the bad outcome? It's a bias - distorted thinking as the psychologists call it. You may as well imagine the good outcome.

I didn't have a single relationship or date til I was 23 and then it's lasted for 7 years now. But it happened because I met a cool guy, not because I was searching high and low.

What we're trying to tell you is that it becomes obvious to guys when a girl just wants a relationship so bad that it barely matters who he is. No one is attracted to that. They'd rather feel like the other person is really into them because of compatibility and not desperation for a relationship.

Instead of trying to meet guys why no just do the things that most interest you and meet people? That's girls as well as unavailable guys. They all have larger networks. Meeting people who you like even platonically is the best way to organically meet someone you click with. They can act as a good filter, and people at your age have a lot of single friends.

I didn't have a single relationship or date til I was 23 and then it's lasted for 7 years now. But it happened because I met a cool guy, not because I was searching high and low.

What we're trying to tell you is that it becomes obvious to guys when a girl just wants a relationship so bad that it barely matters who he is. No one is attracted to that. They'd rather feel like the other person is really into them because of compatibility and not desperation for a relationship.

Instead of trying to meet guys why no just do the things that most interest you and meet people? That's girls as well as unavailable guys. They all have larger networks. Meeting people who you like even platonically is the best way to organically meet someone you click with. They can act as a good filter, and people at your age have a lot of single friends.

In my field there is a lot of rejection for any sort of career opportunity so over the last couple of years I've learned to deal with it. I find that if I have a mindset of focusing on outcome rather than emotion, that keeps me motivated to try again. If I focus in how bad it feels, I'll stop trying, which leads to the worst of all outcomes (ie no opportunities). But if I brush it off and try again, that's the only way that good things will happen for me.

I've also found that it does help to get feedback. When you get a form letter rejection your mind makes stuff up and you think of the worst possibility which is that you suck and are not qualified. What I've learned from asking for feedback is that that's not always the case. Sometimes you came reeeeeally close and it was just circumstances that got in the way. The take away from that would be to keep trying! Asking for feedback also dampens the sting a little bit because at least you are in contact with a specific (sympathetic) human and it makes the rejection less impersonal.

IMO you do have to square yourself with the very real possibility that you will not be accepted before you even apply. I feel worse when I think I have good chances and am rejected. The key is to be very aware that you can be rejected for so many reasons and if is after all the most statistically likely outcome. That way your hopes aren't so high and it won't be so terrible if they are dashed. It helps to have a plan. Sometimes I deal with rejection by applying to more things, perversely. It keeps me occupied and I feel like I am actively doing something about the rejection. It's absolutely necessary to construct a life you are okay with even if you are rejected. I think we give programs too much power to make or break our careers if we believe everything hinges on getting in. If you really look for other opportunities I think it becomes obvious that there are a lot of other alternative routes. If might not be as easy to see when you're younger, right out of undergrad.

I've learned to just not apply to things that aren't a good fit or are long shots. Doing a bit of research and being realistic about what level you are at saves some money and pain. To me there's no point in applying to something where I know they have a record of choosing someone whose work is very different than mine even if their description of the grant or program seem theoretically to fit my work. Sometimes it's worth it to apply to the long shot but you have to really steel yourself then! I think generally if you have someone who you can ask to reliably assess your qualifications and tell you the truth, it's better to do that than to apply to things that are out of your reach at the moment. That doesn't mean they always will be though!

Lastly, embrace the place that really wants you even if they are not your top choice! It's better anyway to go somewhere where you are appreciated - it'll be a better experience. Don't think that it's the ranking of the program that will make your career - it's what you make of the opportunities you do get. You can do something good or interesting almost anywhere! It ultimately is still within your power to succeed.

And don't take rejections as a judgment of you. It really is about fit. I look back on some of my undergrad rejections and I see now that they really were right to reject me because I would have been terrible in their program. But at the time I was all butt hurt. I guess getting older helps too.

Hope that helps!

I didn't have a single relationship or date til I was 23 and then it's lasted for 7 years now. But it happened because I met a cool guy, not because I was searching high and low.

What we're trying to tell you is that it becomes obvious to guys when a girl just wants a relationship so bad that it barely matters who he is. No one is attracted to that. They'd rather feel like the other person is really into them because of compatibility and not desperation for a relationship.

Instead of trying to meet guys why no just do the things that most interest you and meet people? That's girls as well as unavailable guys. They all have larger networks. Meeting people who you like even platonically is the best way to organically meet someone you click with. They can act as a good filter, and people at your age have a lot of single friends.

Maybe not so ASAP. Right now we are in the middle of an increasingly serious drought (as in: will there be involuntary limits on usage in the summer?) and we have tremendous budget problems. Weather IS nice though.
 
I like books and films, college radio and live sound. But I'm in the arts, and lately it's not at all clear what is career inspiration/research and what is hobby… guess that's a nice problem to have, but it feels like I have no hobbies!

I totally feel ya. The thing about perfectionism, the actual anxiety perfectionism, is that it's not at all about creating the best whatever one can create. It's about trying to exert control over the uncontrollable. We are taught from birth that doing well is rewarded, and that putting effort into something results in doing better, and that is rewarded. So, putting even more effort into should make things even better. The difference between the anxiety perfectionism and someone who puts in a bit more extra effort type of perfectionism is trying to control what can't be controlled. If I check the font, make sure the margins are perfect, have the exactly right word choice in each spot, make the kerning the most aesthetically and professionally pleasing (and on and on and on and on) then I will do better (and doing better will guarantee the outcome that I want). Because there is no real guarantee that making my work as perfect as possible before turning it in will make the professor give me an A, or the journal accept it for publication, or win that award, or get into the conference, or whatever, that means that I just have to work that much harder to make it that much more perfect so I can feel safe about the reactions I will get. But I can't ever feel safe by trying to be perfect because I can't control what other people will do. I can just do my best and then let it go.

So, yeah, cost-benefit analysis is seriously terrifying because it means that there's a point where it must stop. Letting go of making something better means acknowledging that I will not get that feeling of safety that comes from knowing my work is perfect because perfect doesn't happen, and even if it did, perfect doesn't give me control over other people. Looking myself in the eye (used a mirror) and telling myself that it was okay to fail (and meaning it, completely) gave me nightmares.

Therapy is so, yeah.

lol people with GPAs above 3.0 posting in this thread...

lol people with GPAs above 3.0 posting in this thread...

Definitely an academic felon here. I don't even know where to start. Most of you guys seem to be on the science and engineering side - My experience is in arts but I thought I'd share because the take away really is that it's less the number than what you can show that you've done.

I ended up with a 2.6 or so (I don't even remember it because it really makes me almost physically ill to look at the transcript) and that was after 1.5 yrs of carrying a 3.8 at the end of undergrad. At one point it was below 2.0. It was years of failing, taking classes over twice and failing those, suspended multiple times, on probation a lot, lots of family and personal issues... Basically years of abject misery because I was not emotionally mature and had been raised to keep problems to yourself and never seek help, so I tried the same stupid things over and over. The main problem for me was a family that that very narrow and high expectations and being confused by what I was interested in - I really love bio but turns out research is not for me even though I actually really liked lab work. I just didn't know what else there was and just kept banging my head on the wall over and over.

Then I decided to make a clean break and spent an academic year at a totally different school with a vocational focus. That taught me that I was still academically capable and that a lot of mental baggage was holding me down. Eventually I changed majors and everything suddenly clicked. I earned almost all As and made sure to get to know some of my profs who went in to write my letters this round. I was hoping to pull my GPA up to 3.0 but it just wasn't happening with all the failure on the books.

I graduated a couple of years ago and pretty much gave up the idea of grad school. But as a result I worked my butt off on my own because I thought it was either that or I was never going to have a career. I stayed in touch with professors, took on independent projects, networked online and met people who eventually gave me an outlet to publish some writing in small venues, and I got some exhibition opportunities.

I think those two years really gave me the confidence to pursue my own ideas and be assertive, so last year, when I started wanting to use media that I had never learned, I decided I wanted to go to school for a second chance to learn it. I asked the MFA programs in my area if I could still apply with a sub 3.0 and they said they are willing to consider extenuating circumstances, so I applied. I explicitly addressed these issues in the personal statement (thank goodness this was an additional document - I would have never properly fit it into the SOP) with mentions of the personal family issues, what I learned, and how it all ultimately strengthens my practice. It was really heartfelt and I had an emotional time writing it. I was very frank about my flaws in the past. I don't know that that would work for all disciplines but I think you could tell it was not excuses, more like hard lessons learned.

I think it helped that I had an upwards trend in grades at the end and that my letters were from people I knew had my back because they had helped me advance in the past. I picked people who had recommended me to colleagues in the past, given me opportunities or asked me to work with them. I got involved in local organizations and was lucky enough to get an internship with a collective most people on the scene recognize and like. I have no idea why they picked me for that internship in the first place but thank goodness they did. I feel like it has opened doors because the work has been shown as prominent places.

So far I've gotten two interviews and one acceptance to an MFA program. One interviewer asked me to address my record directly and I feel like I was able to explain without being negative. In the other interview they didn't even bring it up, which is sort of encouraging - it seems like they are not overly concerned with it! I think it helped that I did do my failing at a prestigious school and that I was two years out and had continued to do work independent of faculty direction. I do have the benefit of being in a field where the work matters more than the grades, but I think that applies to research too.

It's been such a ridiculously long journey but looking back a lot of things make sense and I really doubt I could've gotten to this point without all the pain, which was really the pain of learning the hard way.

If you really want to go to grad school, don't let the GPA stop you. Reach out to faculty at the schools you like, keep in touch with people who have a good impression of you and just keep building up experience. If you can show that you have matured and learned and are a thoughtful person with good ideas despite your grades, then I still think you have a good chance. If you can turn your experience into a plus, do it, because sometime certain departments are looking for diversity of experience to round out the incoming class.

Anyway, that's my screed! If I can come back from such a huge fail, everyone can!

Once you have an offer in writing from the Graduate School, it's actually pretty final. No school is going to revoke an offer because of something silly like asking about a deadline, or something like a typo in a response email, etc. Obviously, if you do something actually terrible (e.g. lied about your application materials, or harassing others in the program, etc.), there are still ways for them to revoke your offer.
 
But otherwise, although it seems "flimsy" until you actually start grad school, your offer won't magically disappear because you asked a question! It's actually okay to ask the programs tough questions when you are deciding between your offers. I would encourage applicants to ask questions like:
 
how many of your students pass quals? how many graduate? are you hiring more faculty in the next few years? is the department seeking to hire more profs in current fields of expertise, or are they thinking of hiring profs in other subfields to broaden their expertise? for individual profs, you can ask about their own future research plans. 
 
When you are the one holding the offers and deciding where to go, it's "your turn" to be the decider and ask the hard probing questions. Obviously, you should do this in a friendly, polite, tactful way, and if you do this in "good faith" (i.e. you're actually asking legitimate questions to help you make a decision) and not in an arrogant way, then everything should be fine
 
 
This is not universal. Here is the actual CGS resolution: https://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CGS_Resolution.pdf
 
There are a few important points to remember:
 
1. This applies to financial offers only, not admissions. For funded PhD programs, these go together, but this deadline is far from universal in unfunded programs especially. It is still consistent with the resolution if the school requires the applicant to respond to the offer of admission prior to April 15 and provide financial details later.
 
2. Not every school is on this list, particularly schools outside of the US (but many schools will follow the same timeline).
 
3. There are no penalties for breaking this resolution, nor is it enforced (as far as I know), so there is no guarantee that you will get a April 15 deadline. 
 
4. You should absolutely send in your decision before April 15 if you are 100% sure/decided ahead of time! Don't wait until the last minute just because you can!

It's kinda funny. It literally goes to a page that says, do you intend to come? With two radio buttons for yes and no. It's like one of those "do you like me?" notes, lol. Nothing else on the page!

It's kinda funny. It literally goes to a page that says, do you intend to come? With two radio buttons for yes and no. It's like one of those "do you like me?" notes, lol. Nothing else on the page!

Also, occurs to me that this is a GREAT time for a vacation, except for the part where they want to do phone interviews. Maybe vacations within the country in areas with good cell reception and wifi access.

Unfortunately, not that long. I asked when I met with people from each school I'm applying to and it seems like it differs a little from school to school, but the main gist is that they first sit together and all look at pretty much only the slides and just bust through them. One prof said that you should always start off with strong images because often they don't get through all 20 before they move onto the next app. Pack the beginning of the portfolio, because she says at that stage all it takes is one prof who's interested to mark your app for a second glance. Once they bust through all of them, then they start looking more carefully at the ones they marked, looking at all the images, reading the descriptions, weeding some out and looking at the rest of the app info. They don't necessarily read the descriptions on the first go round and I don't know that ultimately it matters for some type of work, because when I submitted my Davis portfolio, I didn't realize you were supposed to really utilize the description boxes. Still got in!
 
It's really true that you should never even put ONE SINGLE WEAK image in the mix because she says they've eliminated people on that basis - one guy had a super strong photo portfolio and they were leaning towards interviewing him, but there was one random drawing that wasn't so great. Outliers like that make them wonder about the applicant's judgment and at that point, there are so many other strong apps that it's enough to get you canned. That said, I threw a video onto the end of my photo portfolio but it was important because I do think it's strong and I have a lot to say about it. It was important to me to show something that indicated I could make something other than photos. That hasn't seemed to count against me. I think it's all about staying with the really strong stuff.
 
At another school, all the profs look individually on their computers and then they all come together to present who they thought was strong. It sounds like everywhere they pretty much fight for applicants they think are good. It was good to hear someone say that they don't always expect perfection - sometimes they have to remind themselves that these are students who will be taught. They are not judging us by "real art world" standards necessarily. Eventually they come to some sort of consensus on who to shortlist or interview. I have no idea how they decide after interviews, though Berkeley said they have their grad students involved since they will be classmates in close quarters for a year.
 
As for portfolios, I was told by people I met that they wanted to see about 4-5 projects/pieces with 4-5 photos from each series (or for large scale sculpture, different angles and details). They want to see that you can do different things, but that you have some sort of coherent overall look or style or vision. They don't want 20 of the same things, and they don't want things that seem so unrelated that they seem like random school assignments. She said you can usually tell when someone's portfolio is just all school assignments.
 
Anyway, I would really suggest that if anyone is going to apply again that you try to make some sort of contact with a person at each school you are interested in. Sometimes they don't tell you anything, but 2 out of the 3 people I talked to gave me some concrete guidelines about what they think is a good balance for a portfolio. It differs of course, but then you can cater the portfolio in each app to what they said specifically. Don't forget you can also ask your recommenders what they think if they are profs. They have to go through this process all the time too.
 
Maybe all that was more appropriate for three months ago!?

Definitely an academic felon here. I don't even know where to start. Most of you guys seem to be on the science and engineering side - My experience is in arts but I thought I'd share because the take away really is that it's less the number than what you can show that you've done.

I ended up with a 2.6 or so (I don't even remember it because it really makes me almost physically ill to look at the transcript) and that was after 1.5 yrs of carrying a 3.8 at the end of undergrad. At one point it was below 2.0. It was years of failing, taking classes over twice and failing those, suspended multiple times, on probation a lot, lots of family and personal issues... Basically years of abject misery because I was not emotionally mature and had been raised to keep problems to yourself and never seek help, so I tried the same stupid things over and over. The main problem for me was a family that that very narrow and high expectations and being confused by what I was interested in - I really love bio but turns out research is not for me even though I actually really liked lab work. I just didn't know what else there was and just kept banging my head on the wall over and over.

Then I decided to make a clean break and spent an academic year at a totally different school with a vocational focus. That taught me that I was still academically capable and that a lot of mental baggage was holding me down. Eventually I changed majors and everything suddenly clicked. I earned almost all As and made sure to get to know some of my profs who went in to write my letters this round. I was hoping to pull my GPA up to 3.0 but it just wasn't happening with all the failure on the books.

I graduated a couple of years ago and pretty much gave up the idea of grad school. But as a result I worked my butt off on my own because I thought it was either that or I was never going to have a career. I stayed in touch with professors, took on independent projects, networked online and met people who eventually gave me an outlet to publish some writing in small venues, and I got some exhibition opportunities.

I think those two years really gave me the confidence to pursue my own ideas and be assertive, so last year, when I started wanting to use media that I had never learned, I decided I wanted to go to school for a second chance to learn it. I asked the MFA programs in my area if I could still apply with a sub 3.0 and they said they are willing to consider extenuating circumstances, so I applied. I explicitly addressed these issues in the personal statement (thank goodness this was an additional document - I would have never properly fit it into the SOP) with mentions of the personal family issues, what I learned, and how it all ultimately strengthens my practice. It was really heartfelt and I had an emotional time writing it. I was very frank about my flaws in the past. I don't know that that would work for all disciplines but I think you could tell it was not excuses, more like hard lessons learned.

I think it helped that I had an upwards trend in grades at the end and that my letters were from people I knew had my back because they had helped me advance in the past. I picked people who had recommended me to colleagues in the past, given me opportunities or asked me to work with them. I got involved in local organizations and was lucky enough to get an internship with a collective most people on the scene recognize and like. I have no idea why they picked me for that internship in the first place but thank goodness they did. I feel like it has opened doors because the work has been shown as prominent places.

So far I've gotten two interviews and one acceptance to an MFA program. One interviewer asked me to address my record directly and I feel like I was able to explain without being negative. In the other interview they didn't even bring it up, which is sort of encouraging - it seems like they are not overly concerned with it! I think it helped that I did do my failing at a prestigious school and that I was two years out and had continued to do work independent of faculty direction. I do have the benefit of being in a field where the work matters more than the grades, but I think that applies to research too.

It's been such a ridiculously long journey but looking back a lot of things make sense and I really doubt I could've gotten to this point without all the pain, which was really the pain of learning the hard way.

If you really want to go to grad school, don't let the GPA stop you. Reach out to faculty at the schools you like, keep in touch with people who have a good impression of you and just keep building up experience. If you can show that you have matured and learned and are a thoughtful person with good ideas despite your grades, then I still think you have a good chance. If you can turn your experience into a plus, do it, because sometime certain departments are looking for diversity of experience to round out the incoming class.

Anyway, that's my screed! If I can come back from such a huge fail, everyone can!

I have to disagree with the whole idea of safety schools for grad school. It makes sense for undergrad where you might do more exploring but for something as focused as grad school it seems a bad idea to apply to schools that you don't really want to go to. I would think it's be a better strategy to work hard for a year and reapply. At least that's what I would be tempted to do.

I applied to three because I wanted to stay in my area and wanted somewhere with almost full funding. There were four more that I was considering but one turned out to be a very expensive degree mill with little funding (as in more expensive than undergrad!), one was completely narrow and not what I was focused on, another was my alma later and I wanted to make new connections elsewhere, and the last is the only one I wonder if I should has applied to. But I'm happy with three. I'd be okay with going to any of them, though of course I'd love to get into my top school.

I am felt okay about the number since one of my profs has been very encouraging and believed I was a good candidate, and during my research I spoke with faculty from one of the schools and he confirmed this after looking at my portfolio. I'd encourage anyone who is tempted to apply to so many schools to actually try to get some feedback about what your chances are at certain places. There is no point in spending a grand and you would've gotten into your top choice easy, or if you don't even have a shot. I felt like anything over $400 was too much for me at this point, so I didn't apply to the two schools I was on the fence about. I figured if the lack of funding made it impossible for me to go anyway, why torture myself with the knowledge of what could've been?

Plus I think at this point you've gotta have enough perspective on and initiative in your life that you're not lost if you don't get in. I think it's good to think about other options and a back up plan during app season. Life isn't over if you don't get into grad school! You could do self directed research or get into relevant volunteer opportunities or apply to grants even if you don't get into school.