2bphd

Lets get real here!

1. When you say you are too-good to admit for a particular program, it actually means that you deserve a better program and you can get that. When Adcoms look at your profile, they can also figure that out, so you might get rejected.

2. You are too-good to admit in a particular program, but you still apply there for a backup. You should understand that there are other too-good to admit students who will think the same way and apply there for a backup. When Adcom reviews the application of these too-good applicants, its possible that there were some too-too-good applicants who had better profile/LOR/SOP fit than you, and they were accepted and you got a reject.


When I say lets get real, I want to stress on the 2nd point. I personally dont think adcoms will reject a candidate who is too-good because thats what adcoms are for - to select the best of the applicants. Also, a very honest advice, nobody is too-good, the world is full of smart , harworking people. You show me a too-smart guy.. in a moment I can bring someone who will make him look dumb as a rock.

Good Luck

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

Is going to Harvard a Stupid Idea?

Daaaaaaah!!
of course it is.. and you dont need to go to Harvard to know that

Lets get real here!

1. When you say you are too-good to admit for a particular program, it actually means that you deserve a better program and you can get that. When Adcoms look at your profile, they can also figure that out, so you might get rejected.

2. You are too-good to admit in a particular program, but you still apply there for a backup. You should understand that there are other too-good to admit students who will think the same way and apply there for a backup. When Adcom reviews the application of these too-good applicants, its possible that there were some too-too-good applicants who had better profile/LOR/SOP fit than you, and they were accepted and you got a reject.


When I say lets get real, I want to stress on the 2nd point. I personally dont think adcoms will reject a candidate who is too-good because thats what adcoms are for - to select the best of the applicants. Also, a very honest advice, nobody is too-good, the world is full of smart , harworking people. You show me a too-smart guy.. in a moment I can bring someone who will make him look dumb as a rock.

Good Luck

Lets get real here!

1. When you say you are too-good to admit for a particular program, it actually means that you deserve a better program and you can get that. When Adcoms look at your profile, they can also figure that out, so you might get rejected.

2. You are too-good to admit in a particular program, but you still apply there for a backup. You should understand that there are other too-good to admit students who will think the same way and apply there for a backup. When Adcom reviews the application of these too-good applicants, its possible that there were some too-too-good applicants who had better profile/LOR/SOP fit than you, and they were accepted and you got a reject.


When I say lets get real, I want to stress on the 2nd point. I personally dont think adcoms will reject a candidate who is too-good because thats what adcoms are for - to select the best of the applicants. Also, a very honest advice, nobody is too-good, the world is full of smart , harworking people. You show me a too-smart guy.. in a moment I can bring someone who will make him look dumb as a rock.

Good Luck

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

That's an excellent way of putting it. The only thing I'd add is that it IS often very difficult, as a naive applicant, to evaluate fit before you've been accepted to a program, visited, etc. - it's especially difficult to tell whether you'd be happy at a certain department when all you have to go on is what you can learn from the internet, the professors' books, and, perhaps, a couple of email exchanges. I had the least remorse about getting rejected by the two highest ranked programs I applied to because I realized in the ensuing months that they were not as strong a fit as I had originally thought. A couple of other schools I applied to because something about them excited me and they looked like a good fit on paper, but I wasn't sure that they were great options until I had emailed professors and visited. A couple of the schools I was initially very excited about the prospect of attending disappointed in areas such as funding that were new developments I couldn't have known about in advance. So I wouldn't discourage applicants from applying broadly, but genuine enthusiasm for each program is certainly a must.

Wow. What a thread.

I'll begin by saying congratulations to your top-20 admit. You were clearly fishing for compliments, so I won't let your efforts go unrecognized. You are much better than all of us who accepted offers at schools ranked "way down there" in the 60's and 70's according to USNWR, and you were too good a candidate for these programs. One wonders why you even bothered to apply. I mean, surely you could have gotten accepted to any top-10 program of your choice.

Or rather, seeing as how completely transparent your writing is, perhaps the admissions committee at these "low ranked" schools saw right through your statement of purpose. Pretentious? Check. Pompous? Check. Thinks she is too good for our program? Check. It's clear from your post that you didn't want to go to any of these. They were merely a back-up in case of a rejection from one of the "better" ivy programs.

Enjoy your top-20 program. You'll probably fit right in. Don't worry about the rest of us plebs in our terribly low ranked programs.



I just wanted to agree with this. Fantastic post with a lot of great information.

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

Yes you are too gud to admit .. in any university.
now, happy?

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I just wanted to add to my previous post that despite my income (relatively high for a grad student), I do not spend a lot, and save a lot. I have the cheapest phone plan. I am a pretty decent cook, so I cook myself. I also share my wireless Internet connection with my immediate apartment neighbours, and I do not have a TV, so no cable bills there. I think that lots of grad students complain about not having enough income, and yet they spend a lot too. There are a few others in my program who have 50" plasma TV screens in their apartments, Blu-ray players (remember a Blu-ray DVD is like $30 each!), and Blackberries with $100 phone plans. These are the people I find who complain that they need more money. Well, I seriously want to slap them in the face and show them reality!

the rankings are meaningless. example: the USNWR ranks harvard as the #9 school for latin american history. they don't have a latin american history program. they have one person on their faculty, who for all i know may be a very talented scholar but who has zero name recognition in the field. they don't take on latin americanist masters students because they never offer seminars for that field. the small handful of latin americanists there received their MAs elsewhere and are attending harvard to work with that lone professor in particular. how is that a top 10 program? these rankings are based in large part on surveys of professors. to formulate the subfield rankings, they don't just survey the professors of that subfield; they ask every prof in the profession. the many historians that don't know anything about latin american history but know that harvard's supposed to be good at everything put the school into their top 10. the profs that do know a bit ("professor X is great and he's at school Y") don't necessarily know enough to realize that professor X moved to a different school half a decade ago. they don't keep up with the field enough to know which professors moved or retired, so their rankings are often based on former reputations that may or may not still hold true.

here is my advice for future and current applicants: THE RANKINGS DON'T MATTER. leave the confines of this website and no one talks about rankings. you look for the best academics in your field. you find out where they're teaching and (if they're young) where they went to school. those are the places you apply to.

noticing a pattern based on biased data is not evidence of a causal relationship. if the rankings actually reflected the quality of the faculty and the placement rates of graduate students, then you might have something. but they don't. i also don't understand how this thread is supposed to "help" future applicants. to me, it came off like you wanted someone to validate your rejections from lower-ranked schools based on you being too good, rather than programs which are beneath you somehow deeming you unworthy.

The fact that some people who jumped from a plane, survived... is no excuse to jump from a plane.

One should play safe, see what is best for him not what went good with others.

just a thought!

The fact that some people who jumped from a plane, survived... is no excuse to jump from a plane.

One should play safe, see what is best for him not what went good with others.

just a thought!

The fact that some people who jumped from a plane, survived... is no excuse to jump from a plane.

One should play safe, see what is best for him not what went good with others.

just a thought!

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.

Just a thought.