BCHistory

Wait... You still live at home with your parents? Lol sorry, I can imagine what a nightmare that would be. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with my parents being around when the mail comes in, just like college all over again! I did get a letter from one of the schools I'm applying to just letting me know about financial aid options, they just love to make us nervous!

Is it really necessary to leave bitter and childish remarks on the results page when you find out you've been rejected?

I seriously want to know why people do this. Are these people who believe they are such hot shots that they deserve admission to every top program? You're going to get rejects, so deal with it like an adult,

What's wrong with you people? Am I the only person with the requisite amount of refinement and taste to realize the former is far superior to the latter?

Does no one care about tradition anymore? Are you all so fixated with some flash-in-the-pan craze that you'll want to wear some cheesy tri-tone robe that i) looks like it's made out of the same material as CVS halloween costumes and ii) apparently doesn't even have a cowl ?

Allow me to be the voice of reason and say #1 is by far the more handsome garment...

Full disclosure: The first one is from what's pretty much my hometown school, so... congratulations on both!

a few unsolicited words of advice to people calling graduate secretaries or professors looking for information:

the graduate secretaries are getting bombarded with telephone calls from nervous and jittery students right now. if you call, be exceedingly polite and patient (not that you otherwise wouldn't be). these graduate secretaries will be your lifeline when you're in your program and often they remember who phones them. be really, really nice.

admissions time happens to overlap inconveniently with the period when most schools host their job searches, so in addition to adcoms working through your applications, they're also involved in the very time-consuming process of hiring other professors. if your potential advisor is chairing a job search committee, notifying potential advisees of unofficial decisions or keeping in contact with them may not be a priority. on the other hand, another professor in the same department with a little more time on his hands may be willing to let his potential advisees know their fate or start a dialogue with acceptees about their research or funding packages or whatever. this isn't an indication of how interested the professor is in you. it's more than likely just a reflection on the amount of work they have to do this time of year. don't take it personally if one admit to your school has multiple phone conversations with their advisors over the next few weeks and you don't get an email. some people are genuinely busier than others.

What's the rush? April 15th isn't here yet. UMN and UW know that other schools are still deciding so they don't feel the pressure to start handing out funding packages ASAP. As it's been said here, you've made through all the rounds except for the last one. Other schools chose not to let its applicants know of their decisions until the very, very, very end.

As for contacts, if you've never been in contact with UW or UMN professors, I would just wait until the visit to start making connections. If you've been in regular contact before, then it may be appropriate to e-mail them sometimes next week.

And seriously, chill out. There are still a lot of us who would just love to be in your position- 2 acceptances, even if the funding situation is murky at the moment! And we're still waiting!

May the best cheat win?

What are you trying to say here? All great scientists and academics are the best cheats of their respective generations? What do you mean by "that is how it works"? Or are you trying to say that cheating doesn't have a (negative) correlation with how good a scientist/academic you will become? Either way, you are wrong.

...to be honest, why should schools give a crap that people cheat? People cheat in life. That's just how it works.

My field is Early Modern Europe, particularly the Enlightenment and intellectual history (vive la France!) I also got an admit from Wisconsin Madison and Berkeley. I have others I'm waiting on, but already I'm afraid to make a choice between UChicago and Berkeley. Chicago's fellowship is better, though I don't know if it makes that much of a difference. If I go to Berkeley, I'd get a better angle on cultural and religious history within my concentration 'cause of advisor(s) there, while if I go to Chicago, I'd get a better angle on political economy, 'cause of my potential advisor there. I've heard stories though of Berkeley having a very fun and warm collegial environment and Chicago being a land of everyone-versus-everyone competition (and that it feels like interacting with characters from an Ayn Rand novel, which I mean in the worst possible way), so I'm leaning towards Berkeley, but will definitely allow my decision to be heavily influenced by the campus visits they've offered to fund.

I realize you didn't ask for all of that but I'm hoping to elicit horror stories and good stories from people to help give me a handle on where would be a happier place to spend my future...

i did this whole process last year and contacted all PAs at each school i was interested in.

some of those conversations were so engaging, lengthy, and encouraging that i thought i'd be swimming in offers. i did all right and ultimately ended up at one of my top choices (depending on my mood it ranked anywhere from #1 to #3 on my list), but there were a lot of rejection letters from schools where my potential advisor had told me i was "extremely competitive."

it happens. expect many more form letters of rejection and hope for a few acceptances on the way. don't overanalyze it and don't take it personally either. a lot of schools are getting 200-400 applications for only 10 spots. there are probably another 40 or 50 people they considered competitive that are also getting rejections.


editing: [not to the OP specifically, but to people applying this year in general]

seriously, don't take it personally when you get rejected. someone telling you that you're competitive, or that they'd like to take on ONE advisee next year, is in no ways a guarantee of your admission to their program. if this is too harsh for you and you want your fee back, then maybe getting out of academia is the way to go. it's competitive and cutthroat, which means there are many qualified people for very few positions. can't take the heat, get out the kitchen and all that.

Clearly:

Most useful: Computer Science. The information age is just beginning.
Honorable mention: Philosophy.

Lease useful: American Studies
Honorable mention: Guitar and Lute Studies (they offer this at my university... LUTE!?)

What do YOU think?

Time away from school can be an asset.

Yes, you haven't kept up on the books and spelling may have atrophied, but you bring skills and experience to the table that even the brightest 22-year-olds don't have. Life experience carries plenty of weight in ability to handle grad school, even if there are a wunderkind or three in your cohort. Everyone is coming in with different ranges of ability and experience; you are not alone in this (I'm 41).

Even if your app for fall has a few blemishes, hits some snags or just plain fails to impress (remember, I said "if", not "when"), don't be discouraged - take the extra time to get your feet wet again. Take a comm college class or two just for the experience (and to get a new prof recommendation); you'll see you get back in the driver's seat quickly enough. That'll also give you time to find that research paper - or even write a new one.

That you have gone to the efforts you have to get back to school says volumes. Don't fret the details; it'll happen, even if this app cycle seems a bit out of sorts.

Grizzly Adams
Professor Emeritus, Insanity in the Membranity, University of Incrediblawesome

I'm realizing as I read this that the disciplines that people come from are perhaps coloring their opinions.

I was a biology major as an undergrad. I went to a school where professors told you that you could only use a life sciences degree to a. become a professor b. become a doctor or c. "go into industry" if you got really, REALLY desperate.

Through various work experiences, I realized there are TONS of other opportunities to get stimulating and secure work with a life sciences PhD: working for the government (EPA, USDA, NRCS, defense), as an independent consultant, as a salaried science consultant for all kinds of businesses (banks, television studios, pest management, marketing firms, cosmetics), teaching informally (community agriculture, museums), working with grants MANAGEMENT (where you get to decide priorities for research at a level that COUNTS!!!), on and on. Or, you could get a law degree and work in environmental law. There are SO many options they don't tell you about at universities because they are (naturally, logically, with-good-intentions) trying to indoctrinate you into their way of life!

For me, realizing all the things that are out there helped me decide to go to grad school. I realized that my particular undergrad advisor had a very narrow view of things; he practically invented his field and had a tenure-track job at a prestigious department when he was 23 or something. All he knew was how to be a professor. He discouraged me from grad school completely. In retrospect, I could have taken any kind of life sciences PhD and used it in such a way that I could have found employment outside of academia. Or, my advisor could have talked with me about the courses I was taking outside of science and helped me reach some of the conclusions I later reached on my own.

I'm not bitter; I'm just imagining an alternate outcome.

If, however, I was in the humanities, or possibly the social sciences, becoming a professor COULD have been my only option, if I wanted to use my graduate training in any substantial way. I see a lot of folks with "history" or "sociology" as their interests on this thread. In those fields, it's true that there are a lot of PhDs being given out and no jobs where they can be used. In those fields, it is TOTALLY foreseeable, and possibly appropriate (from a PRAGMATIC point of view), that professors discourage students from spending time, money and energy getting a degree which won't get them anywhere.

Of course, the caveat to THAT is that some people just want to learn something cool. Getting a 5 year stipend to learn about history sounds great! If someone can pull that off - get in, go to classes, finish the dissertation - and not get caught up in expectations of getting a high paying job at the other end, GOOD FOR THEM!

The moral of my (mid-conference, slightly tipsy) post is that we should keep in mind that the context can change the meaning of the particulars. Depending on your field and what you expect to gain from graduate education, it may or may not make sense for a professor to bring you down to earth, or to encourage you to do something which others might find silly.

I'm inclined to disagree with everybody who opposes the idea of professors giving negative advice. It would be lovely if they all were kind, gentle, and positive all the time, but I do not think for a moment that profs have an obligation to be nice or encouraging. That is not to say that a professor should be excused from the social obligations of basic civility, but I don't think they have a social or professional obligation to make us feel warm and snuggly. University faculty are not elementary school teachers with an obligation to cultivate their students' self-esteem. Moreover, I would much, much rather hear straight talk about my prospects than empty and useless but kind words of encouragement.

My undergrad mentor is brilliant, but very scary. When I first told her that I was serious about applying to grad school, she told me that she thought I could do well, but that I wasn't top material. And she did not mince words, and she made me feel like utter crap about it. But I appreciated it--I learned about myself, my weaknesses, and it sort of slapped me back into reality and gave me perspective about my chances. I am still applying to a lot of top programs, and she gladly wrote me strong letters of recommendation. Because she was honest with me, though, I feel like I was better off when applying. I worked my ass off on my applications and had no delusions of greatness. She made me recognize that I will have to work harder than other applicants to get in, and work harder than other students once (if) I do. I'm prepared and excited to do that.

I did not appreciate my undergraduate advisor very much while I was in school. I thought that she was mean, overly critical, and unnecessarily harsh. Now, I appreciate it. I am GLAD she was so tough on me. And I especially appreciate the fact that, even though she makes me feel small and inadequate sometimes (and still scares the bejesus out of me), she has been more supportive through the application process even than my touchy-feely, you-feel-good-so-I-feel-good mentors. She gave me actual support, like honest assessments of my SOP and writing sample, which was so much more valuable than "you go, girl!"-style encouragement.

To the OP, I honestly can't say that I think your professor was out of line. I think she was probably being honest. I also think that you should apply to top programs despite her advice, but that you should keep her advice in mind to maintain perspective. To the poster whose professor flaked on the letters and then offered criticism about the writing sample--the letter thing sucks and infuriates me on your behalf, but I don't think it was wrong for him to give you edits on the WS after the fact. It may be tactless and frustrating, but he's still teaching and you're still learning. Personally, I am the kind of person who bawls in the face of brutal honesty, so I get why this stuff upsets people. That doesn't mean it's not worth it, however.

To the OP: I agree with the PP that you shouldn't worry too much about what that professor said, especially if it is based on GRE scores alone. My husband had professors either telling him he was going to get everywhere (which was not helpful) and others telling him he wasn't going to get anywhere (which wasn't helpful either). At the end of the day, he applied to 22 schools for a PhD in philosophy and got accepted to half of them and waitlisted in a handful more. Most of the schools were in the top 30. He got into a top 15 school, which is the one he is attending now. One thing I learned from my husband's admission process last year is that there is no clear formula for getting in, especially in disciplines as competitive as philosophy for PhD applicants. He got waitlisted in a top 5 school, but then rejected at schools that were not even ranked. It is very hard to say. Just try to remain confident about yourself and do not doubt yourself over GRE scores. I think that is such a pointless test anyway! I'm an engineer and I struggled with the quantitative section. Spanish is my native language and I made a 610 in Verbal, which is in the 88th percentile. I mean, there is no clear formula for this. Don't stress about it and just try to distract yourself with something else, so you won't go crazy with the wait like some of us

I agree to a certain extent.
Most of us here, I assume, are really passionate about sociology and about becoming academics, otherwise we wouldn't spend so much time on message boards (when we could just be looking at lolcats or watching hulu, which is what I used to do with my free time before apps.) So we're not really representative of the general population. I'd like to believe that although there might be people who have a better GPA and a better GRE score than I do, they're not as passionate about sociology as I am. Thus, I'm better qualified to go to a top 10 program (if only adcoms looked at these forums).

Second. Let's be realistic. We're not going to grad school for the money. Personally, I am prepared to face the fact that when I finish my PhD I'll probably be making less money than what I make right now. So if someone here is applying to a PhD in sociology as a way of surviving the recession: STOP. seriously, the last thing we need is more people to compete with.

Finally, about professors giving negative feedback. Here's the thing: most people with a PhD lack social skills (prepare to be one of them). Seriously, most PhDs suck at communicating anything that's not related to their area of expertise. Think about it. You spend at least 5 years researching something and explaining it to everyone around you, you forget how to do anything else.

So don't let anyone tell you you're not good enough for a school! But at the same time, try to figure out if they're trying to tell you something. In my case, I took the whole "you're not good enough for a top ten program" and interpreted as a "hey, you might want to retake the GRE and this time study, and study hard" (I did, and i scored much higher the second time).

I keep trying to find a way to contribute to this thread, and I keep bumping up against a wall: I seriously never even thought about general rankings. I was fixated on finding programs that were good fit for what I wanted to study, and then narrowing that list based on the ones that would have the best chance of landing me a TT job afterwards, and then narrowing that list even further by thinking about places that would also work for my family (husband who'll need to get a job, kids who will need good schools and friends they have something in common with, preferably close to family and current friends). Hence, just two schools.

That being said, my initial list was topped by: Yale, Harvard, Columbia, JHU, Princeton, UNC, and Rutgers.

I love my mother like a kid loves cake, but YES to all of your questions! Even after explaining the odds and how it all works she, a very smart woman in her own right, seems to only hear every other word I say. So, when I say "I am so anxious about getting an acceptance because I'm ready to start my life" she hears "I am getting an acceptance that will ready me for life."

No.

What i want is ONE person in my life with whom I can commiserate over all of the details and minutiae of this process. I want someone to agree that if I met a school's ridiculous Nov 1st deadline that someone could have made a damn decision by Jan. 8. I want someone to comb the internet with and agree that its almost a lost cause. I want someone to roll around in the muck with me.

My mother loves me. She says I am the smartest person she knows. She thinks I can just sashay into a school, pick a program and start next month -- preferably at a school close to home.

She doesn't get that I'll probably embark upon one of many moves to anywhere in the country that someone wants me. She also says things like "oh you can get a job at the local State Uni!" like its a bagel shop. Forget they are a research II and have nothing in my field or anything close to my interests.

Actually, I don't think I will mind the waiting so much. Don't quote me on this, but I am kind of looking forward to when my applications are all in, but it's too early to expect any results. This is because there's very little chance of me getting into the programs I really want, so until I hear back, I can live in my dream world, in which I pretend that next year I'm going to be in some amazing place, participating in some amazing program. And I can think about this without then thinking "shoot, I need to remember to mail this to University X" or "I need to rewrite those couple sentences in my writing sample" and other little things that add up to a giant stressful monster.

That's really nice for you, and I'm jealous. But do not think for a minute that if your applications are simple, all grad applications must be, and that the rest of us are just overthinking it and need to "chill" (jesus, how many heads did you explode with THAT little piece of advice??).

I'm assuming that if your applications were so easy peasy and only took "maybe 15 minutes to an hour," it's largely a numbers game for you. How grand. It's not for me, or for most of the people on this forum. As the get ether of the interwebs keeps telling us, in humanities/social sciences graduate programs, bad numbers will keep you out but good numbers will NOT get you in. The statement of purpose, the writing sample, etc. do that for you.

So, what did that mean for me? A solid six hours, minimum, per day, every day (with I think seven days off--total--all of which were spent at intensive dance workshops) from the first week of August to the last week of November working on these apps. Hunting down facsimiles of manuscripts to compare various editions of sonnet sequences to original manuscripts in order to double-check my three-year-old research; resurrecting said old research to find that I needed to overhaul my arguments completely in light of current scholarship. Seventeen drafts of my primary writing sample (at least twelve of them major rewrites), which had already been polished enough to submit as an honors thesis. Seven drafts, ALL major rewrites, of my secondary writing sample (required by only one program). Twenty drafts (at least fifteen major rewrites) of my statement of purpose BEFORE I started tailoring it individual schools. For each of the TWELVE schools to which I applied, at least five individualized drafts of the statement of purpose. Five drafts of a personal history statement, subsequently scrapped; seven drafts of a significantly different personal history statement (plus substantive changes to and several drafts for that statement for each individual school that required it). This is not counting the hours spent researching programs, contacting professors, researching and reading and annotating faculty members' scholarship. Not counting the work on my CV. Not counting the work on the actual applications (the easy, but goddamn annoying part).

I've worked my ass off. And I have the advantage of badass numbers to back up that work. But you know what? I still might get rejected from all twelve programs to which I'm applying. Most of them average 1-3% acceptance rates in a good year (not this one).

Your advice about keeping "destressing activities" in one's daily life is very good--and I did that. I kept going to dance classes, have been working on new and challenging choreographies; I got up and danced or played music when I became too frustrated with the application process. Made time to practice and train a shitload, and to drive six hours to attend workshops with a master teacher (my personal dance guru...), where I performed well enough to move up in her format. That was VERY cathartic. I watch a lot of Buffy and played with my cat. Listened to a lot of Prince. And I made a list, too, like you did! (Though it took longer than fifteen minutes to check something off of it.) All of that was helpful, but the application process still sucked out loud. If you applications were easy, bully for you. Mine were not.


P.S. Sorry if I sound mean. I honestly do think it's amazing that you have managed to remain stress free while applying to grad school. But hearing yet another person implying, or seeming to imply, that this process should be easy and I'm just worrying my little head too much about it...it sort of...filled me with rage, momentarily. I'm better now! Venting is good. Let's be friends.

It's all about stress management. I'm of the opinion that stress is the worst part of any process like this. If you start to overthink things, they begin to consume your life, making you sleep worse, making you feel worse, really making you unhealthier. And worst of all, we put all of this stress on ourselves.

All I did was make a list of everything I needed to do at the beginning of this process. Every couple of days, I would take one item on my list, and work for maybe 15 minutes to an hour. Then I would go out with friends or do something fun the rest of the night.

Yeah, there are a lot of elements and variables to the application process, a lot of things out of our control (slow professors on LoRs, I was pretty worried around Dec 1), but the worst part is what we do to ourselves.

The more we include destressing activities in our day (different for everyone, could be exercising, weed, watching tv, anything really), the easier the process becomes.

But that's just my attitude, and who knows if I'll get in to my programs. But I'm still confident, and that's probably because I never let the stress get the best of me. To be honest applying to college was a lot more work than this.

You obviously missed the above post where this kind of comment? Is NOT A GOOD THING!!!! It makes me angry...and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

Spend several weeks deciding on the right programs, taking into account rank, faculty, fit, availability of schools/programs for husband, cost of living, schools for children

Study off and on all summer for GRE, bomb it, spend several weeks studying to retake

Spend many many hours over two or three months writing, rewriting, receiving feedback, reworking, and polishing SOP.

Spend several hours revising my writing sample.

Several hours on CV

LORs: write "fantasy letter" for one, write talking points for another.

Fill out seven applications online. The most time-consuming part of this has been the college search part, since I have 6 undergraduate schools.

Maybe I do need to chill. But my least competitive program has a 30% acceptance rate, so why would I take any chances?

Not sure how it is for other programs but Neuroscience grad apps are not exactly very difficult or time-consuming.

- GRE: alright, study some vocab for a week or two
- SoP: write a two page essay, modify a paragraph or two for each school
- LoR: send your SoP to three profs and they do the rest...
- applications: fill out a few forms online
- send your transcripts.

Seems pretty simple to me. I started and completed most of my apps within a few hours.

The hard part is the waiting, which doesn't exactly require any effort. Sounds like you guys need to chill