cupofnimbus

I've picked up this really obnoxious foot tap.

Hey, congrats to the Delaware admit! Is that you, IRTheoryNerd?

I feel like I should duck before I say that I'm interested in mixed methods, so maybe there's something there, too. (I didn't mention this in my SOP.) The trouble is, it's hard to collect data on what would be my first choice in dissertation topic, and I even think I mentioned it in my SOP, with some alternative topics that would be thematically similar. So.

I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for my grades, even if things were not great at the time for me. I turned out okay, and became a little smarter, organized and hard working for it! And there's no use crying over spilled grade points It just means I have to do what I can to demonstrate that I am a fearsome candidate on my own. I think you're right about interests, though. If anyone else has some insight to chime in with on how to strike the right tone in an SOP that doesn't eliminate possibilities for expanding or shifting research focus, but establishes that there's a particular area of interest to be explored at length? I don't want to come across too strong, and I also don't want to make it seem like I have no idea what I want to study. (Not much chance of that, really...)

I started to get that same impression after I'd finished my SOP, and it sounds like your first draft was in the same vein as my final draft (explaining my research interests, the overarching problems I would like to tackle in researching it, and how my educational/professional background led me to it and qualifies me to do this research). I guess finding that fine line between "too specific" and "not specific enough" will be difficult :\

I'm pretty impressed! It takes a lot to go back to it after a rejection year! Are you coming out of an undergraduate or MA program? And, if not, how did you develop research to change up your profile? I ask because my profile is closer to cooperstreet's, in that I am years removed from both my Master's program and my undergraduate and have no control over those things in the way I can improve GRE scores, write a stronger SOP and writing sample, or refine my research interests. And, importantly, does anyone think it could reflect poorly on a candidate if they have overly-specific research interests? I can't quite tell in some cases whether programs prefer that you have a topic and a plan, or if they're more interested in finding students whose topic will need more development (and will be more capable of aiding with their own research).

Cooperstreet, you are my graduate application hero, fyi.

Yeah, and I get excited when I see "University" something in my email. When I realize it's just them again, I don't even read it, I just savagely delete it as quickly as possible.

Seconding this question! I'm still a little anxious about this cycle, but I'm comfortable getting ready for another. Hanging around here has brought a few programs onto my radar for next cycle that may be better fitting.

They've been trying to get me into the Environmental Management one or something. And another one in there somewhere. (I admit, I was a tiny bit flattered by the Columbia quant Master's program soliciting my application, but not enough to apply.)

Breathe! It's all going to be great

I never gave much thought to how student governments really functioned. The Student Government at my undergrad fell apart after the outgoing members forgot to put together the election for a new government. You might guess how effective they were by that alone!

More than that. I've been getting notifications about their elections since January.

I don't really have a horse in that race, but I'm very, very familiar with that particular aspect of UF and even I find it not good.

They were the ones who were going to build Skynet, anyway!

Obviously. (This would be less funny--or more funny?--if Florida hadn't done that to their CS department for football money...)

Congrats! Sitting on my hands over here and resisting the urge to refresh.

You're right. My tin hat must need tightening.

I assumed Vanderbilt was finished with admissions. Past years suggest that waitlists and rejections go out together, so I've been looking forward to that... This seems to be the most reasonable explanation for total radio silence from Penn? It's a stretch for me in terms of qualifications and fit alike, so I'm not sold on receiving good news from them, but the total silence can be disconcerting.

Congratulations to all the admits to Columbia! (And those yet to come, it seems!)

Not especially surprising, though, is it?

I guess it depends a bit on field, and certainly by locale. There are certainly think tanks that may be a little more selective, in the same way that academia can be. I've worked in the defense/development/diplomatic sector in government, non-profits, and private companies for four years now, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone remark on the program someone went to, except maybe conversationally (as in: "Hey, you went to [Top 5 School], cool!"). Even if they went to LSE, Harvard, Columbia, etc. ETA: And the usual banter involving nationalist identity school loyalty.

Name recognition doesn't carry you very far in the non-academic world. As I heard one gentleman say, the only thing someone might remark on with regard to the program you got your PhD from is how well the school's sports teams are doing. Competence (and networking, which is gained by competence) is king outside academe.

Do you sound like Beaker? Because then it is surely going to happen. (I get Beaker hiccups, and then my roommates suggest all their different fixes to me until I retreat.)

There's also some question floating around as to whether or not there's really any value added by going to "top tier" schools--the ones that the hires all seem to come from. And, frankly, going to a top tier school guarantees you nothing. All that hard work is still going to show in the final product (your dissertation, your future research, your professional demeanor). I think you're on the right track with your work-ethic! And a caveat on my view of things: I landed on the schools I applied to by following the people I liked (where they got their degrees, what schools they were at, what my personal limits were) + a couple of applications because they're good programs (Michigan). My view on things is also a little skewed because I attended a tiny, insignificant teaching school for undergraduate that no one has ever heard of and had the most amazing experience with it. I went on to a graduate school that valued hard work above all else, with people who worked in their fields and wanted to show it to us. If it weren't for academics like that (who wanted to teach, who wanted to research the things they valued without concern for prestige, who had so few students that they genuinely cared when my personal life went to pieces during my undergraduate--then graduate--career and tried to help), I wouldn't be remotely interested in academe. So, I'm in this for doing things that way, and for doing research on a subject that I'm so passionate about, I'm going to find a way to research and work on it, even if I'm not a PhD. tl;dr: yay, work ethic!