nevermind

Posted in Wine, Wait, and Whine... RE: @nevermind if that's the case with HoS, then I'm kinda screwed. I feel like Harvard's class was pretty diverse; I also looked at the profiles, many came from non-ivies or smaller colleges (though many were harvard undergrads). I have a BA from an Ivy, but no Master's, so I guess that places me in a weird liminal space of a prestigious undergrad but no master's. But I'd like to think that its probably the same 30-40 applicants applying to most HoS departments, so hopefully that spreads out the acceptances. -- There are certainly a handful of exceptions (there's a couple people from state schools, etc.) I was just noting a general trend, not saying it's tried and true in every case. And their class is certainly diverse in research interests---one of the things that attracts me to their program...just educational backgrounds? Not so much. That being said, it seems like a great department and is definitely my first choice! I also like to think that it's probably the same 30-40 applicants too. :-) At least we're not competing with each other. I'm interested in STS/Technology, so I won't be taking any HoS Medicine spots!

We should probably take this discussion to the HoS page. I'll post there.

Really? I think 7-10% is pretty competitive! Granted, I wonder how many applicants apply for STS / HoS without sufficient preparation since it's kind of an emerging/niche field (and not offered a lot of places yet). Not a lot of people here seem to study it or be interested in it (or maybe they're lurking or too busy kicking ass at other things to be interested in internet forums)...so who knows definitively. Obviously, an unfunded Master's degree will be a little bit easier to swing (admissions rate wise) than a funded Ph.D, so hopefully your chances are a little bit better than 7-10% @Neist! I think HoS / STS attracts competitive applicants because you're expected to be both left/right brained, to a degree. Thus, the expectation is that an applicant needs to excel in many different areas, rather than just one focused area (and the way to do that...is to get more experience/education/both). It's not enough just to be a good reader analyzing Latour or Kuhn, but research experience (in labs or fieldwork) is really valued as well. In that way, I think there's a lot of diversity in the applicant pool (how many applicants are applying to history of medicine? technology? STS?) and it's really hard to gauge one's "competitiveness". I only took one class in STS at Cornell (3 years ago). The Ph.D. students in the department (that I knew of...but my sample size is only about 5-6 students) all had Master's degrees in-hand from Ivy-level institutions (usually their undergrad degrees as well) in related fields (if not Ivies, then Berkeley, Stanford, etc. etc.).I feel that Cornell is incredibly competitive for admissions to STS, just based on who I interacted with, their experience, and their level of knowledge (but then again, I could've been the dumb student where average people might've looked absolutely stellar!). Similarly, if you look at each student profile in Harvard's HoS class, in a class size of about 50, just a handful enter with only Bachelor's degree (and most of those admits receive their A.B.'s from Harvard College)...the rest have a Master's degree (again) with Ivy-like pedigree. (I also don't mean to imply that Ivy = exceptional educational experience and nowhere else can provide as good of opportunities/education...just some trends I've noticed in scouring the pages of potential programs/current graduate students.) It just seems to be a tough field to break into if you're looking for Ph.D. admittance without much previous exposure.

I went to an Ivy Master's program with a cumulative 2.85 GPA (undergrad), but then I did my first Master's degree with a 3.7+ GPA ( + a ton of other stuff, like adjuncting, presenting, etc). It was unfunded but I was lucky enough to use my first Master's degree to leverage a funded TA position. The Master's program wasn't incredibly competitive (something like a 50% admit rate) and didn't even require GRE scores. Similarly, a friend of mine got into a Ph.D. program at Harvard with a 2.4 cumulative undergrad GPA, but then he (also) did two Master's degrees, published, presented, took classes at Harvard (where he got great LORs), and got in because his research fit the program and he worked VERY hard during his two Master's degrees (and killed the GRE with an above 1500 GRE score). That being said, each admit is different--different circumstances to them achieving a less-than-stellar GPA and how they've overcome it. I'm not really sure how productive this thread would be to prospective grad students. Just because someone was once admitted with a low GPA, it doesn't logically follow that the GPA was the determining factor for admissions.

I've worked full-time during a Master's degree and I applied this cycle working full-time (as a writer). I did a complete overhaul on a writing sample for 2.5 weeks, where I worked 8 hours, drove my 30 minute commute home, and then researched/wrote 6-7 hours at night. Get up, do it over again. I'd written my personal statement over the summer, studied a lot of verbal GRE over the summer etc. so I tried to manage my time well, balancing work/school/relationships.

I didn't, but it sounds really interesting! Keep us posted!

Is anyone else having weird admissions dreams? Last night I had two....one where (in my dreams) I worked for my first-choice department (I don't) and was able to listen in on admissions committees decisions, only I fell asleep and didn't see if I made the "yes" or "no" pile. Another where I logged in to check my status and it updated to "recommended for admissions" but quickly changed to "DENIED: LOW GRE SCORES AND NO KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE!!!" (only my quant. GPA is low but I've taken 3 graduate level environmental engineering seminars, TA'd an undergrad level class, and my adviser/LOR writer was the chair of an engineering department...) I will be glad when this cycle is over.

Congrats Neist! Where did you get accepted? If it is Cornell (which Ithaca is definitely expensive!), I took an STS class when I was a student and the faculty/students are top notch!

Wisconsin-Madison sent an email this morning that applications have been sent to their subfields for review!

It's not an exact science and sometimes the statistics are outdated, so exactly *how* helpful it is is unclear. It was just a gauge I used to make sure I didn't throw all my apps to super-selective programs. Your application might fit what they're looking for this year, so don't completely lose hope. (Easier said than done, I know...) :-)

I understand this sentiment, but I also like to hear about other applicants who have made mistakes...I think it provides a welcome counterpoint to a lot of the ridiculously competitive profiles that are listed on this site.

Most of my applications were due around Jan. 5th...It's only the 11th, so I really doubt anybody has glanced at my file yet. I would suspect either this week through the end of January, I'll see more activity on my linkedin/academia.edu profiles...I wouldn't start contacting professors yet.

I used "Additionally" as a transition two times in a row in my first choice SOP, as in "Additionally, I performed research on A, B, C. Additionally, I believe I would be a great fit..." *Cries* I did send them an updated SOP mentioning another professor I wanted to work with (he replied to an email after I submitted my applications...he's not directly in the department, but is affiliated faculty and seemed positive about my research and said he would "be on my committee")...in the updated version, I took out the second "additionally"...but I'm not sure if doing that will help/hurt. :-/

Yep! I applied to 6 programs...I only applied to programs with 3 (or more) faculty working in similar areas and cross-referencing my applications with a (relatively) high acceptance rate (25%+ via Petersons.com). I have pretty decent stats (with the exception of my undergrad GPA from 12+ years ago and a low quant. GRE score)...I thought my SOP was focused and cogent. My LOR writers are all from professors from an Ivy (including my thesis adviser)...and I have two Master's degrees, so I feel incredibly prepared for Ph.D. level work. 2 of my LOR writers got their letters in after the deadline (about a week after the deadline)...and one of my programs notifies for interviews about 3 days after the applications are submitted. I didn't get an interview, so I'm not sure how much of it is due to an underwhelming application or simply due to the fact that my application was incomplete (my LOR writers submitting late). Now I'm just thinking about how it's a realistic possibility that I'm unilaterally rejected across the board, and it's not like I can do *another* Master's degree to bolster my app and I don't want to spend more time in a job that I'm less-than-passionate about. Fun thoughts.

If you're in the area, I don't see why not. You might email him, say you were thinking about what he said during your informal chat (maybe reference a date), and that you'd love to sit in on some lectures and learn more about the program. Ask how the process generally is treated by the department (usually you make plans via the department coordinator) and any other questions you may have. At this point (after applications are submitted/being reviewed), it might come across as lobbying really hard for a slot in their program, but honestly, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that at all.

Some programs do, some programs don't. I believe this is the only program out of my applications that conducts interviews.

One of my programs traditionally sends out interview invites a week after the application deadline (Dec. 15)...it was the only application where my LORs were incomplete (my adviser's LOR shows as "in progress" but not "submitted"...despite the fact that I've sent follow up emails)...now I fear that it's too late (I haven't heard from them) and I'm pretty much rejected at this place anyway. Honestly, it wasn't as good match of a match as my top choices and it was a long shot (I think they really value quantitative metrics as a filter over a "holistic" approach)...but it's kind of a bummer to start out an application cycle with an implied rejection.

Anybody know if UPenn's sent out interviews? Someone posted this question on the results page and now I'm curious!

I was originally interested in learning Hebrew in college (I double-majored in religion and English), and did an interdisciplinary Master's degree in Judaic Studies, where I took 2+ years of Hebrew and a semester of Aramaic. I spent time on an archaeological dig (in Israel) and our town was shelled by rockets before a ceasefire (everyone on the dig was safe). It made me confront issues of how natural resources played a role in political conflict. After being rejected from all my PhD programs (except for two unfunded offers as a consolation prize) in 2009, I wasn't sure if I wanted to pursue academia at the PhD level (it's hard to put yourself out there for numerous rejections), or pursue law or work for an NGO, etc. but I loved teaching and researching...so I entered another Master's degree in International Agriculture and Rural Development, where I focused on the political, social, and economic dimensions of agriculture and the environment. I took a ton of sociological theory / STS classes (and two environmental engineering classes that weren't quant heavy), and I really fell in love with the broad aims of STS, while exploring questions related to the development of water technology in the Middle East. Hence my decision to pursue this topic for the rest of my life. :-)

Neist, how do you know that their acceptance rates are decent? It's probably my #1 program (hoping I don't jinx myself) and nothing on their website says anything about acceptance rates. Petersons.com has a pretty high listing (at 38%), but I wasn't sure how accurate those stats are. The professor I've been in contact with seemed pretty positive about my application, but I've read too many stories of people planning work with a POI only not to get accepted.

I finished my Ph.D. apps in Geography...applying to Oregon & Wisconsin-Madison (with applications in History/Science Studies elsewhere). My research interests are human geography, water technology, environmental history (specifically focusing on the Middle East), religious history and identity, political ecology, resource conflict and territoriality, and STS. I have two Master's degrees, one (no-name institution, religion) with a 3.7 and one (Ivy, agriculture and development) with a 3.99 GPA. My B.A. (English and religion) was an atrocious 2.85 (cumulative), but at least it is from almost 15 years ago. My GRE scores are a little mixed: 165 (verbal), 148 (quant), and a 4.5 AW. -1 published paper (in a book that was published from a conference I presented at), 1 poster contribution -Adjunct 6 courses (in English and Religion) -TA for 3 courses (two in a Near Eastern Studies department and one in a Biological and Environmental Engineering department). -3 years of Hebrew, 1 year of Levantine Arabic -Research on 3 projects, including my Master's project on water sustainability. I've worked the past three years as a copywriter and a technical writer, so hopefully, my writing sample and personal statement are decent. Good luck to everybody that is applying!

I applied to History of Science Ph.D. programs...does anybody know how competitive they are? I have one that my heart is set on, but I don't really know what to expect. (I do more environmental history/political ecology/STS.)

I think you're competitive for all your listed programs. Yale's Hebrew Bible MAR is the most competitive of the programs in the Div. school (as far as I was told in 2008)...so if you're going for M.Div, I think you'll be okay.

I went to a school that uses a 4.3 system. I don't think they'll scale it down, but it'll stay relative to a 4.0 scale. If you did get A+s, that might help them evaluate what you're particularly good at, but I don't think they'd penalize you (give you a 3.7) simply because of the grading scale (of which you have no control over). In addition, it's unrealistic to expect a student to get an a+ in every single class they take (not to say it can't be done), especially since some professors could also be reticent in giving a+'s, so questioning the validity of the scale can be a slippery slope. They'll see the transcripts determine what your strengths are from that.

My point was simply: If he failed Hebrew after learning Arabic, it would raise red flags based on the similarities between the two languages (specifically at the introductory level) and he should address it. This does not seem to be the case. --- It has sadly turned into something else. "Most of your examples could be turned on their head to show how knowing any one Semitic language would help with another." That's basically my entire point. Your example of Arabic (tilifizion....or tilifizyun) basically illustrates nunation that is standardized for case endings, something someone with MSA proficiency would identify. My point wasn't that it's "more complicated" in Hebrew--just the opposite. It's not a hard leap between two, nor is it difficult to see how they change. I said that going from Hebrew-to-Arabic might be initially *little* bit more complex based on a couple of different factors (Including final forms). My apologies if that came across as unclear and I apologize if I came across as glib. I never intended this to be a "pissing contest". My experience is based on my experience studying Semitic languages as a graduate student and as a TA in an NES department for 2 years. This post was never intended to discuss language acquisition methods or the Canaanite Vowel Shift or anything that it has become. I was asked to provide concrete examples, so I did that. If you, as a moderator, could remove my comments from this thread--since they aren't relevant to the discussion anyway (he learned Hebrew first)--please do so. Thanks and have a good night.