woolfie

Also, a professor who I respect very much told me recently to apply for as many programs that is physically and financially possible because it's such a crapshoot right now. Obviously a competitive application is required and she honestly told me mine was just that. But with so many applicants competing for so few spots, it's best to apply to more and not less programs. Just one person's opinion but I tend to agree with her. I think that everyone is giving good advice, however my goals are focused on teaching, not research. And community college is completely an option for me. So to say that I need to reevaluate my research interests, I can see why someone would say that and might agree, but for me I think it is not exactly applicable. I do have specific research interests, but I'm banking on spending my MA training as a generalist as well. So when that is a goal, the number of school options widens considerably.

Well what I'm planning on doing, is applying to 7 phd programs that I really really like and I think are good fits with specific research interests. And now (down to 14 instead) I am doing 7 fully funded terminal MA programs. The MA programs are for training as generalists, for the purpose of applying to phd programs at other schools. My grades are not that great because of working full time, bad first semester, etc. I really expect to get rejected from the phd programs and I don't think I need super special interests to get a general MA degree. And also, the MA route will help me hone in on specific research interests. I guess I feel like, this being my first round of applying wherever I chose, I will regret not trying for my top choice phd programs, even though I'm feeling confident that I won't get getting in this round until I have an MA.

I guess I exaggerated a bit: I do have specific research interests, but I have too many and they are fluid. I haven't been able to decide between a few areas. So I think I have more options as far as schools go, though I know enough to be very specific in my statement of purpose. I know that the PhD programs are going to be a long-shot, because of this (I'm expecting to get rejected by all of them), which is why the MA first route is probably what is going to happen.

I am, if I can afford it, applying to 16 schools. About three are on the "if i have the money" list and might not get included. I've been told by PhD students and faculty alike, repeatedly, that you should apply to as many as you like/can afford. Some of these schools are better fits than others, but they are all certainly places I would love to go, and would benefit from. My research interests are not specific yet; I only have a Bachelor's, so I'm hoping to go the MA first route and then, the next application round would only be the best fits. So it's pretty individualized I think, and mostly depends on what you can afford. I've been working on these apps ever since March when I got my rejections, so I'm hoping I'll be giving each of them the attention they need. I'm having the problem right now of not being able to scrounge up the money to pay for the costs. I added it up, and if I applied to all the schools I want to, it would be $2,100 including all fees (I have three different school transcripts, so that makes that cost thrice as much). How much are people spending? How are you finding the money? I'm on a strict budget and looking for a second job...

Having been rejected and being able to spend this year carefully deciding what it is I want to do, I decided that I want to commit to studying early American and colonial literature. Does anyone know what the best programs for this subject are? I also am wondering how people research things like this, besides just constantly reviewing faculty profiles and looking for buzzwords. There's got to be a better, and more accurate way than that, right? I'm doing a pretty big research interest change, from digital literacies to colonial American, so I basically have to start my research all over again. (And before anyone assumes too much, I am not changing my specialty just to get in, or because I didn't get in. Previously, my specialty in digital literacies was chosen ONLY because that was the subject of my writing sample, my senior thesis in undergrad. I thought honestly about what I would want to do in an ideal world, and decided that I am truly interested in early American lit. I took a graduate seminar and wrote a new paper to use, and decided beforehand to write it about an early American text.)

I think it must be outdated because they used to have a seperate, terminal MA program so maybe that's what it's referring to. Because I also read this on another page: "All students admitted to the M.A. program for fall 2010 are automatically admitted to the Ph.D. program. All students progressing to the Ph.D. must complete all of the requirements for the M.A. degree and maintain satisfactory academic standing. The Graduate Admissions Committee will consider any qualified candidate with a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university for admission to the M.A. program." Maybe I'm confused, but I think their website it contradictory because they are in the process of changing the program.

What kinds of programs did people get into?

Ohio State has recently changed and no longer has an MA program. I'm pretty sure it's just direct admit PhD and you don't necessarily need an MA. I don't know about those other schools though.

That's a good point, I've heard the same thing about MAs sometimes being a detriment and sometimes not. I'm wondering how we find out which programs prefer what? For instance, I wonder what some top 25 programs state schools like Texas, Illinois, Michigan want and for some reason I'm inclined to say they prefer BAs with no MAs, though I'm basically just making that up.

I'm wondering about my own experience and would like to hear about PhD admits to top 50 schools. Did you have an MA from a lower ranked school or were you fresh out of undergrad? I myself am fresh out of undergrad, auditing graduate classes right now. I'm wondering if I will be rejected across the board for top phd programs as I know some of the people I'm competing with are way more advanced in their graduate work than I am.

I just thought it was a funny picture. I didn't say "look what I've never done."

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I got rejected all around and have to apply again next year so I'm annoyed at someone who may or may not have gotten in based on his ability to bring publicity (though we don't know about that). On the other hand, I want to be supportive of anyone who chooses to pursue an intellectual life, especially people that we don't normally think of as doing that. But again, I read that he just sends his assistant to classes for him, so what's the point?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/james-franco-yale_n_517769.html Discuss.

Hey all. It sounds like there are a few of us unfortunates that are facing the fact that we have to do this all over again. I thought I'd start a thread where we share things that we've learned this time around and things that we are going to work on for next year's round. What would you/are you doing differently? Are you reapplying to the same schools or a brand new list? Personally, I'm retaking the GREs which I think is mostly unnecessary, but my math score is the worst you can get (long story) so I think that looks bad. I'm working on a strategic list and leaving no school unresearched. I'm sending out my writing sample to professors to critique and will start a long and arduous editing process to get it perfect, especially since I just learned that adcoms might just read the beginning, skim, and then throw you out! Gotta work on that first couple pages... Also, auditing classes to perhaps produce better writing as well as show dedication.

I think that is a very good suggestion, especially for a person like me. I'm interested in Cultural Studies and New Media and have been pondering this suggestion for a long time. The problem is, interdisciplinary programs, while getting fewer applicants, also have less spots and way less funding (usually the TAships are in other departments are sparse and with low pay). Granted I haven't done nearly as much research as with English programs, but that has been my impression. I think that I've decided to do a mix; because the CS programs are still less competitive, while English departments have more spots and funding. Yet, another problem for me, is that CS or CL programs have a much bigger emphasis on languages. I have one proficiency in a language, and CL programs usually are expecting two. I might try and audit a course this summer, but I don't know if that's enough. I, too, have been rejected this round, and am preparing for next years apps. I only applied to three programs so I am not surprised, and next round I'm going to do about 15, maybe three or four of those being CS/Interdisciplinary studies. The main things I'm planning on doing to improve my application is 1.) I sent my writing sample to a professor (a recommender too) and asked him to give me an honest critique and his opinion on whether the sample is competitive. If the consensus is yes, I will furiously editing the paper until it is perfect, if not, that leads me to 2.) I am lucky to be near a top-ish tier school that I work for. I'm currently enrolled to audit two graduate courses. Hopefully I can get a new writing sample out of one of them, and maybe even a new recommender that has an in on the program. 3.) I think that for some people with good scores, retaking the GRE general might be a waste of time, but I had a 200 on the math (long story) so I'm studying furiously to retake that and then take the subject test too (haven't taken that, my programs didn't require it). 4.) I am doing much better research this year- I'm leaving no school unresearched (before I would have discounted, say, University of Nebraska) as I am discovering good, well funded programs that I hadn't known about before and making sure they are a the best fit in order to up my chances for acceptance. Also, for the lower tiered schools, I am making sure I am applying to schools that have funded terminal MAs, in case I want out and to reapply. So far, I think that's a good start. If anyone else has any other advice on what to work on, please tell!

Also, some programs, for instance Florida State, require a minimum overall score (1000 for FSU). So while they don't necessarily care about the math specifically, the overall minimum score is affected by the math (obvs).

Oh okay. I have been wondering about CUNY... it's a good but not great fit for me. According to Peterson's their acceptance rate is 31%. Maybe Peterson's is wrong as I think that they sometimes are, but if that's true, that's pretty good for it's ranking. Also, moderate funding in NYC versus any where else means your going to be struggling much more. Yeah, Washington is also having funding problems and is not too highly ranked, comparatively; I'm surprised at how popular their program is considering. But again, it's a good fit and some professors I'd really like to work with. Though I'd have to disagree about Michigan. They are ranked I think 13 and have a great program and faculty. I'm not surprised at all at their selectivity.

No, no, no! I'm sorry, I tried to not sound like that. I meant more so that the selectivity does not match the ranking, which is in NO WAY reflective of the quality of the program. I'm sorry if I sounded like that, and I do not think that rankings are a definite guide to quality. As we talk about here time and again, rankings are at once completely useless, but at the same time they do matter for R1 jobs somewhat, but not definitively. I don't mean to malign any program; I would be ecstatic to go to Oregon.

Wait, which category; that they are more selective than quality? Yeah, I know that that's true about FSU, Florida, and maybe ASU, but which ones are you talking about? I have picked my schools based on the fit of the faculty and their interests and then tried to cast a wide net as far as rankings go. Alot of the lower ranked schools on my list have large funded MA programs which is my back up plan for not getting into direct phd programs. Also, I thought that places like UWM, Missouri, and Miami were not that selective?

I'm not sure how much other people rely on it, but I usually obsess over the stats that are on Peterson's website. Alot of schools have stats for number of applicants and % accepted. But I sometimes wonder if they are correct? For instance Illinois Chicago says on their website that they accept something like less than 10% of applicants, yet peterson's says 29%. Also, for University of Louisville it gives a 95% rate !! That seems almost impossible; Louisville admits almost every single applicant? I mean I know they aren't super competitive, but still. And I know that Peterson's accounts for an entire department, while the stats given might be for the PhD program or another. I'm just wondering what other people think of Peterson's, and these kinds of stats. Do you use them in deciding which places to apply? Do you just look at them out of curiosity? I have found that I have used them somewhat. Obviously there are more important factors, but I have tried to cast a wide net using not just the rankings, but also these acceptance rates to try and even out my applications. Do other people do this? Am I stupid for trusting Peterson's and doing this?

Also, a former professor of mine from Indiana University referred to this program as "a scam." I think that's pretty damning. Though I do know one person who did the program, while supported by her parents, and she got a great job at the u of c press. So that worked out for her, but only because she had parents to support her. The only way I think that program would be a good idea is if you didn't get in anywhere that was funded and you can't afford to wait another year, or you are a richie rich with rich parents who just see "university of Chicago" and think it's a great idea.

I don't understand which parts of this are sarcastic, which parts are serious, or what the overall point is.

You should DEFINITELY go to the funded programs, and NOT Chicago. 1. Because I have heard nothing but bad things about the MAPH. 2. Your terminal master's degree doesn't matter as far as prestige of school. I know someone who got her MA from Sacramento State and she got into OSU's phd program and I've heard that that happens alot. 3. A funded terminal MA program is a lucky thing to have. You will be funded while you get a clear picture of what you want to do in a phd program, get a great writing sample, make connections, etc and you will be fully prepared next time around to apply to top tier phd programs. GO TO THE FUNDED PROGRAMS.

I'm currently falling in love with the program at Boulder, but I'm trying to see if there is any hope for funding. I don't have an MA, which I see is required for the phd program that is fully funded. But I see no mention of funding for MA students, only links to the graduate school financial aid pages. This is probably a bad sign, but I have read on other websites that Colorado has a 'terminal, funded MA program" though I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Did or has anyone ever gotten into UCB for a master's with funding?