goldfinch1880

I'm never going to be a huge fan of his I just think he's one of those creative types that likes to do everything. I.e. he's probably not a total scam even if I don't love his style.

both are true

who will ever take Vanity Fair seriously now? *sarcasm* Franco never bothered me for whatever reason. I think because he really does seem to have some sort of manic creative genius to him, when he's not taking selfies.

Ahhhhh I can't believe i bought this!

No, I totally agree! My comment was meant to joke/imply that we shouldn't worry about the future of our branch of academia because if the smart, beautiful Emma Watson believes in us and is one of us, we'll stick around somehow. Edited after finding out about the hoax: aaaaand now we're back to the drawing board.

Emma Watson is getting her English PhD so we're all going to be okay! http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/emma-watson-graduate-school-penn

I've also read placement rates in areas like the South, PNW, etc. phrased something like: "Most of our students look for jobs in a specific geographic area, so our placement rate is 50%, but of those that search nationally it's 65%." So I suppose there's probably a factor of students wanting to stay in that geographic area (for a variety of reasons such as spouse's job, cost of living), creating placement rates that are slightly skewed geographically. (For instance, if I attended UCSD and loved the area I'd at least look at nearby job possibilities!)

I guess I'm just trying to get a general sense for if staying in the same area, because the area is a great location, and going for a program with less-than-perfect fit is somewhat foolish.

Hypothetically, what if I'm a student who got a BA in the Midwest, and the Midwestern PhD I've been offered is a 7/10 in terms ofprogram fit, but the location is ideal for my life situation and funding is great, whereas the California degree is an expensive, less than ideal location, funding is full but has a lower stipend and in a more expensive area, but the program is a 8 or 9 out of 10? Would it be stupid to take the Midwestern PhD?

Do you think the South should be a special consideration however? I have a friend who got his BA from a Southern school and is accepted at a Southern university for his Phd, in addition to a few in the NW and NE....do you think biases against the South could make the geography question valid in his case? For some reason people perceive of the South as a less adequate environment for free thought in universities, and maybe that's why he received the advice he did? Personally I find that kind of ridiculous but I wouldn't want him to limit his job opportunites for something so stupid, especially if he has other options. IF it's actually something that would affect his prospects at all.

I've heard conflicting advice from established sources in academia and I'm hoping you all can weigh in....Do you think geography of undergrad/grad degrees matters in reference to one another? Meaning if I got my BA in California, and have the opportunity to get my PhD from CA or from somewhere else, should I go for the one in a different state/area of the country? Or if I have my BA from a SLAC in the South, is it better to choose a program in the Northeast or does it matter if I get the PhD also in the South, if it's in a different state? Etc....

saw someone start one of these a couple of years ago and it seemed to go over well. This isn't meant to be a place to harass people to make decisions, just a place to reveal what programs you've declined (and accepted if possible) and what subfield you're in, to give waitlisters a way to gauge waitlist movement. good luck! On that note.....I'm almost positive I'll be turning down a funded PhD offer at Northeastern within the next week. Hope that helps someone!

found this old thread a while back....what do you guys think?

absolutely! I haven't heard anything yet but it's still the weekend, so I'm hopeful for tomorrow.

Thanks, pal!!

Agreed. Although I would say this is more common to state universities in conservative areas, and explicitly Christian colleges. I know of a plethora of private, liberal arts colleges that don't resemble the conservative demographic surrounding them at all.

I've heard nothing from UNC-Chapel Hill so I'm assuming I'm on some kind of unofficial waitlist, but I'd like to get some verification. Does anyone know whom to contact and how?

I KNOW I'M FREAKING OUT. "An untenured member of the humanities faculty, who requested anonymity, wrote in an e-mail, “I am constantly aware of the state’s charged political atmosphere and the scrutiny of the university’s political enemies. I know there are certain subjects I simply cannot write about in a public forum and topics I must handle gingerly in my teaching.” "

does this affect decisions about UNC? http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/new-politics-at-the-university-of-north-carolina

Sometimes I think the sterility of GRE scores gives us a false sense of control. I've gone through the forums for past years over the past months and I see a definite trend that goes something like: "I didn't get in many/any places, so I'm going to try to bump my GRE a few points! AND work on my SOP/WS" I think that's dangerous (and natural for this demographic; we all generally have some level of Type A obsession) because it gives us the illusion of control (I can study and if I can bump up these standardized numbers, THEN i'll be worthy). Get a decent score and then move on to the harder stuff. I know it's scarier to buckle down and fix something as personal and "ethereal" as your WS or SOP because there aren't really any guidelines, you don't know what one program will like more, and you don't really know what's wrong with it. But that's 98% of your application and if you can find a way to make it represent who YOU are, then that's all you can do, because it's a crapshoot regardless. A program wants YOU, not the scholar that got a 165 instead of a 162. I know it makes us feel better to hold something like GRE scores partially (even if minimally) responsible, because it doesn't feel personal. But this whole process is one long sucker punch to the ego, and you would do much better to dig in to the painful/personal stuff that represents YOU better than a set of numbers. (Not that GRE scores are totally unimportant, I'm going off the assumption that you've already gotten a decent score like a 162.) This isn't to say any failure to get in wasn't a product of a crapshoot of a system, but if you received almost all rejections, chances are you could bone up some part of your application. Also, if I'm not mistaken, when you send your GRE scores to a program I believe it sends all past scores for every iteration of the test you've taken. Which shouldn't technically be an issue, but it's worth considering that it may be better to have one decent score on there than 3+ scores, all about the same, or potentially worse. Personally I would rather have the 162 than to appear obsessive and like I'm valuing the wrong portion of the application by re-taking the GRE multiple times.

Thanks so much, you guys! my contact is the DGS so I won't be able to make quite the same personal connections but I think I know where to head now!

Same question for you Christa.....what did you say to your POI? I'm planning to email the DGS at my top school again after a month (where I'm waitlisted) and I want to come across as strongly as possible!

Caroline how did you structure your email? I'm on a couple of waitlists and haven't contacted them for about a month and I'm throwing around the idea of saying something, I'm just not sure what!

does anyone have news about Emory decisions or how their waitlist has moved historically? I've found very few Emory acceptees/waitlistees or anyone with information.

you are amazing!