georgica2

Who wants to bet that it's because there isn't any funding this year? NYC is in the midst of a massive budget crisis. But seriously, I was so put off by the insanity of their application and total lack of information on the website that I almost didn't apply -- if it's this hard just to get the application in, I can't imagine what it's like actually being a student there -- however, the faculty is a great match for my interests and the location is ideal. I know someone said that last year there were a bunch of notifications posted in March, but does that mean that CUNY is rolling admissions? April 15th is when most programs require a final decision from admitted applicants, so clearly they're not evaluating applications all at once if the final deadline is in April. This sort of thing is what's so frustrating about this whole process -- there's no consistency or transparency, not only between all of the different programs, but within individual programs as well. Some people get random interviews, some get unofficial calls/emails from professors, some schools inexplicably (and cruelly) notify acceptances weeks before rejections so we all sit around clinging to that last shred of hope... If I knew that notifications were going to go out on March 20th, for instance, I'd be able to just calm down and realize that there's nothing that I can do about it, but knowing that I could hear something at any moment is turning me into a nervous wreck (has anyone else been stress-eating like a maniac?) Enough whining -- needed to get that off my chest, even though it's really just stating the obvious. Positive thinking! We're ALL getting accepted this week, right?

Ugh, the dreaded CAA -- also known as the reason why Art History notifies later than EVERY other subject. As I recall, Yale sent out the bloodbath shortly after CAA last year, so I bet we'll hear something from them soon. IFA is notoriously slow (late March - and acceptances and rejections are sent all at once.) And even though Columbia started unofficially notifying people of acceptances relatively early, I didn't get the rejection letter until the last week in March. Princeton notified 1st week in March, so that should be coming along shortly as well. Since Chicago and Penn have already sent a handful of people of acceptances and waitlists, I'm hoping they'll get it over with and send the rest of us our rejection letters this week or next. It would be nice to hear something definitive -- I've reached the point where I obsessively check the results page at work (embarrassing and not productive.)

I applied to CUNY -- the deadlines are here: http://www.gc.cuny.e...m_deadlines.htm I'm assuming that's the page you've already seen, but one thing I very nearly missed (caught it just in time) was that Feb 1 was the deadline to be considered for funding. Honestly, the CUNY application/website was the most confusing and disorganized thing I've ever seen, so I'm still not entirely sure if that's accurate (or if I even completed the application correctly -- still haven't received any confirmation of my application. They said it takes 2 weeks to process, so I guess I'll give them until tomorrow?) [edit: oops, totally missed the other responses with the same answer, though it seems the consensus is that no one actually has a clue what's going on with CUNY.]

Did anyone else hear anything today? I got an email this afternoon saying that we'd get final first choice decisions on the 15th, even though last week's email said it'd be today. Confusing! With that said, Courtauld lost/never received my recs, and I was told there was a chance my application might not be evaluated until the 2nd round at all, depending on whether or not they had time to look at it.

Out of curiosity, which did you all put for your first choice?

I got a 'no interview' email as well. I guess we'll see on Friday what it means as that's when they're sending out the first round decisions. It's quite possible that they just couldn't be bothered scheduling interviews for overseas candidates -- even a phone interview is difficult when there's a 5+ hour time difference. Regardless, I'd imagine that they only interview the "maybe" candidates. With regard to acceptances floating in (in addition to the one posted on the board yesterday/today, I had a friend who heard she was accepted late last week) I'm guessing it has something to do with which course option you apply for. Each tutor is in charge of his/her own acceptances, so the options with fewer applications probably finished reviewing them earlier.

So, I'm assuming if I haven't heard anything from Penn it's a rejection since I see 2 waitliststs on the status page? Not surprised as I totally bungled that application. Thankfully, it wasn't one of my top choices. I was doing REALLY well in terms of not obsessing over my applications/checking the results page every 10 minutes until I saw that 2 schools I applied to have started notifying.

Even though funded graduate students are relatively cheaper than professors, they're unlikely to fire tenured or tenure-track profs unless it's absolutely necessary. Also, there are going to be people who accept offers from Berkeley unfunded because it's their dream school/they have outside funding/are independently wealthy and can afford it. Lastly, state school budgets are often set by the state government rather than the university itself, and they may have limited control over how much funding they are allowed to offer/what each department gets.

Also, was it an official email, or something from a particular professor? Is there anything on the online application? (and, of course, congratulations!)

Unfortunately, this is a situation that too many of us have been in. One of my rec writers was in constant communication, always responded to emails quickly, and submitted all of my rec letters in a timely fashion. He even sent me an email confirming that he'd submitted the recs, listing all of the schools. Until I went to submit my application the day before the deadline and saw a glaring NOT RECEIVED next to his name. Turns out he'd started the application, submitted all the other ones, and simply forgotten about it, assuming he'd already done it. And, by the time I pointed out that he hadn't, he was away doing research and didn't end up submitting the letter until after the winter break, almost a month late. Not sure whether to be more upset with the professor for missing the deadline, or with myself for neglecting to check whether it had in fact been submitted. Honestly, I was too stressed to call the school and ask about it -- I'm not sure I could handle it if they told me that they wouldn't review my application because of a late letter, so I'm choosing to believe that it's fine. Sorry to hear that your writer has totally disappeared. That's totally irresponsible. Though it probably won't help for this application, I'd suggest possibly talking to the head of the department -- a prof is much less likely to ignore an email/call/etc. from a supervisor than a former student. (Indeed, when I didn't hear back from another rec writer initially, I casually mentioned it to my former advisor, a prof in the same department...lo and behold, I got a response hours later.)

ETS doesn't mail individual score reports for each applicant when they're requested; it sends a CD with the reports for ALL applicants to the school a few times a month (something I never knew until I frantically called ETS last year wondering if they could expedite my scores when I realized I had somehow neglected to add one of my schools.) I wouldn't worry too much, they know that the applicant has no control over when ETS mails out the reports.

I'm guessing this is something schools deal with ALL the time, especially if their deadlines are over the holidays. I know some schools are absolutely adamant about deadlines, but thus far, I have yet to encounter a program that has refused to accept late supplemental materials, especially if it's totally out of the applicant's control (eg transcripts.) Chances are they're still going to be processing materials for weeks. The 'grace period' is an unwritten rule for most programs (though some, eg Columbia, explicitly state that they'll allow 2 weeks for the receipt of transcripts, GRE scores, recs, etc. -- pretty sure Yale has something similar on their application site.) I wouldn't stress about it too much.

I didn't get in anywhere last year. I applied to 4 (very, very competitive) PhD programs, hoping to go straight from undergrad. Honestly? It sucked, but I quickly realized after a week or two of wallowing in self-pity (and feeling really humiliated when friends/family asked about my applications) that it wasn't the end of the world. Telling people was definitely the hardest part -- I was incredibly embarrassed and felt like a total failure, especially when talking to people who knew nothing about grad school/academia and just assumed that because I had a pretty stellar GPA meant that I would automatically be accepted. What really made me feel better was talking to my professors/recommenders, all of whom were totally supportive, offered to write letters again, and reassured me that getting rejected from a program that only accepts a handful of people isn't necessarily a statement about my (or anyone's) aptitude or potential as a graduate student. The best way to think about it is as a learning experience. Before reapplying this year, I had an extra 6 months to think critically about my applications and how I could strengthen them going forward. Instead of getting depressed about not getting in, think about a backup plan: what can you do to make sure that your 2nd attempt is better? Look into research/publishing opportunities, internships, etc -- anything in your field that might make you stand out. If you're concerned about your GPA, consider taking or auditing some graduate level courses at a local university to prove that you're capable of doing advanced work. In short: not getting in isn't the end of the world.

Couldn't figure out how to edit the last post about the Harvard status check, so another post it is. Is anyone else's Penn application marked incomplete with a missing transcript after uploading an online transcript? The application instructions stated that a scanned copy was fine for the purposes of reviewing applications, but when I checked my status page it said that my transcript was missing. I emailed them directly to ask, but just wondering if this is happening to everyone. Sorry for all of the frantic posts, just feeling a bit paranoid after realizing that one of my schools lost/misplaced/didn't receive(?) my GRE scores even though I have a paper confirmation from ETS confirming that they sent my scores weeks ago (and all the other score reports that I ordered at the same time were received.)

Thanks for the reply. After searching every imaginable part of the site, I figured that contacting them was the only way. I wonder why they make it so much harder for themselves -- surely it would be easier to have a status check page on the online application site (like virtually every other program has) than to be bombarded by every applicant.

Does anyone know if there's a status check page for the Harvard application? I couldn't find any information on the application FAQ. Is the only way to check the status of supplemental materials by contacting the office directly?

Last year, a few unofficial acceptances started trickling in around late February, but as I recall, a number of them came straight from potential advisors whom applicants had been in contact with prior to applying. The bulk of the responses came in around mid to late March, though one or two of the schools I applied to last year didn't notify until April (cough, NYU IFA.) However, foreign universities work on a completely different timeline -- British schools, for instance, tend to be rolling admissions, and I'm assuming a lot of other European schools are the same. It's pretty difficult to generalize since every program has its own way of doing things, but a lot of schools sent out notifications in rounds -- the superstar first-draft-pick types heard in Feb (usually only one or two people per school, if even.) With IFA, the only one I can clearly remember, there was an initial flurry of posts on the results page (both acceptances and rejections) in the very beginning of April; since I hadn't heard anything, I called and they said I was 'still under consideration' -- I ended up getting rejected a week or two later, but I'm assuming that means they send out notifications for the people they're sure about either way, and then hold on to the 'maybe' pile for a little while longer while they debate.

If you've already submitted the application, it probably doesn't matter. However, as the poster above said, if you're going for an art history grad program, studio art courses won't help you -- I'd definitely suggest taking as many art history courses as possible. Though it's probably too late to update the programs you've applied to with a list of additional classes you're taking next semester (though it wouldn't hurt to ask, especially if you choose courses that are particularly relevant to your proposed area of specialization), you mentioned that you're taking classes at a university where you're applying; taking more classes in the department will be a good way to network with professors and to show them that you're capable of advanced work in art history, especially since your undergrad degree is in another field. Maybe try to take a class or two with a professor you particularly hope to work with as a grad student - if you make a good impression, it should definitely boost your chances.

I don't know anything about the UCSC program specifically, but visual studies tends to take a broader approach than art history, encompassing art, architecture, media, film, design, and so on. To oversimplify, it's the study of all things that are looked at, as opposed to art history, which is concerned exclusively with objects/practices that are designated as 'art'. Visual studies is definitely related to art history and a great deal of visual studies people come from art history backgrounds. The program website is http://havc.ucsc.edu/visual_studies_phd -- that will be the best source of information about the program. If you're unsure of whether or not you're a good fit for a visual studies program, I'd suggest contacting the program director or professors there. It's a new program, so I'm sure they're expecting to field a lot of questions from prospective applicants.

Thanks for the response. I ended up cutting it because of word count more than anything, but I asked around and the consensus seemed to be that there was no real benefit to bringing it up. With that said, just to clarify, I wasn't planning on spending a lot of time discussing it, more of a brief 'since my prior application, I have done the following ____.' I didn't really feel the need to make excuses for my earlier application (decent GREs, high GPA, no typos), but since last December, I finished undergrad (including taking 2 further courses directly related to my proposed graduate research, one of which was with a big name in my area who wrote one of my recs,) finished my senior thesis, and did a curatorial internship at a major museum. When I say I'm more prepared now, I don't necessarily mean that I ever doubted my commitment or preparedness last time around, just that my application seems more convincing now.

Hey all -- I used to post under the name Georgica1 but couldn't remember the password. Anyway, I have an SOP question -- I'm re-applying to a couple of programs after being rejected last year and wondering what everyone thinks about discussing a prior application in the SOP. I'm inclined to mention it -- I've addressed a lot of the glaring weaknesses of my prior application and I think my application is substantially stronger this time around. Does this seem like a major mistake? Or a waste of space? They're going to know I'm applying for the 2nd time anyway, so I figured might as well discuss how I'm more prepared now than before. Also, my research interests have changed somewhat (more of a shift in focus than a dramatic changed; I stayed in the same region/period) so I don't want to come off as flaky and unfocused if I apply again with a different proposed course of study. Any opinions?

I'm re-applying to a couple of programs after being rejected last year and wondering what everyone thinks about discussing a prior application in the SOP. I'm inclined to mention it -- I've addressed a lot of the glaring weaknesses of my prior application and I think my application is substantially stronger (at least I'd like to think so...) this time around. Does this seem like a major mistake? Or a waste of space? They're going to know I'm applying for the 2nd time anyway, so I figured might as well discuss how I'm more prepared now than before. Any opinions?