Strong Flat White

I don't pretend to know much about anything, but I feel strongly enough to weigh-in on this line at least: while it may be true that not offering funding correlates to a program being willing (and/or able) to accept a higher number of applicants, that's not the same thing as the program being willing (and/or able) to accept weak applicants. If you got in, they wanted you. Even non-funded MA programs want good students! Even those programs have placement records (though they are "placement," in this case, into good PhD programs rather than into tenure-track positions) and reputations to defend. Even those MA students will often consort formally or informally with the PhD students. Not even a non-funded MA program wants poor-fitting students or weak scholars - no department wants that at any level, and while there are certainly degrees of competitive admissions, with perhaps the unfunded MA vs. the prestigiously-fellowshipped PhD falling at different points along the spectrum, I think it's safe to say that this admission that you speak of was a positive thing, not a negative thing...I don't think, in other words, that the whole "if they didn't offer you funding it means they didn't want you" line, as that line is reserved for PhD programs that generally guarantee some level of funding for the students they admit (and even this is field-specific). So two different animals on the funding front, but pretty comparable on the "they want you there" front. Unfunded ≠ "admissions indifference," or even, as no doubt many will come to say, "cash cow." Preemptive qualification: I have ruffled feathers already by going to bat for unfunded MA programs. Sorry! That is not my intention. I'm not categorically "for" it, or anything like that. But I do see quite a few assumptions floating around that I think are either unfounded or else something short of universal. As with so many discussions, there is probably huge room for "it depends on a trillion factors." But NYU, are you kidding me? Not just anyone can get into NYU, my friends. Not even undergrad admissions operate like that. So good work, Christi. I would be proud, if I were you.

Cool thread - I am torn between gearing up to try another application cycle vs. moving on and going another direction. The dreamer in me would want to reapply, but since I'm already gearing up for a massive cycle and have tons of time to dedicate to it, it is hard to imagine recovering from so many rejections and then somehow doing better the following cycle. But then again, it's just as hard to imagine not pursuing the life of literature. Hm. Will be a very interesting spot to be in if that's what it comes to...the entrepreneur in me would be excited to explore something totally new = open up a restaurant or something equally insane. By the way, I don't see this as a negative post at all. It's good to go through the scenarios and besides, as disappointing as getting shut out must be, this kind of discussion should serve as healthy reminder that the world is big and life is good. There are worse fates than having to go a new direction. New directions can be exciting. Short story: once upon a time my wife applied to med school at a top program and got waitlisted. It was a months-long waitlist and the uncertainty was very stressful. In the meantime, I thought, perhaps we can devise a Plan B to rival Plan A...and that's just what we did - we applied to other degrees overseas and cleaned house on acceptances. This became so exciting to us that we spent our first married years getting masters degrees in New Zealand. Plan B became Plan A, and we wouldn't trade it for the world. And now look at us? We're back Stateside and the whole reason that I have so much time on my hands is that I'm now waiting for my wife to complete a PA program. So, after a stint abroad, then nearly a decade of gainful career experience, she's back in medicine and loving it. And Plan B allowed me to discover my true passion. Sometimes it's good to be forced into certain situations that you wouldn't have chosen for yourself, so long as you can adjust and keep some perspective and not get too depressed or tunnel-visioned. Ain't no negativity in that!

Couldn't agree more, never meant to insist on avoid thinking about anything - in fact, just the opposite, and you bring up some really good points. I still think we're falling short of assuming that people know what they're doing. To invoke the theory programs like Duke and Chicago...yeah, dude, yeah. When I talk about applying to more programs, I don't mean to do it completely blindly or randomly. Obviously we have information at our disposal to help indicate what may or may not be a good fit. However, my point is that that determination is limited to such a degree, and that the potential of a good fit happening for any given applicant could be any number of numbers (and certainly numbers bigger than, I don't know, 8? 12? 19?), that those two facts also have to be dealt with. I relate to the scenario in which a super solid piece of writing is not what you would necessarily use as a writing sample. I have a killer paper on Spenser and Milton that I won't use for exactly the reason you mention. So when I talk about "sending out your absolute best work" I guess I wasn't accounting for that exact scenario (because I assume that people know what they're doing and it would therefore go without saying). Maybe better wording would be, "based on your area of interest, work your ass off to make it your best work so that your best work and your application can align." If that's not possible, then get it as close to possible as possible. But again, isn't this the sort of thing we're already trying to do? I would assume that all of us are working really hard on each piece of the application, meaning that my call for a bigger application cycle presupposes all of these things already...and yet, you still don't really know much about fit, and yet, you still increase your odds. Or, for the insistent, I ask again and refer to my original post, which has garnered two sorts of replies. The first sort appears to think I'm nuts, because of course you gotta go w/ fit. And I'm inclined to agree, but am confused as to how one can do a good job of anticipating what a department will want to accept. The second seems to agree w/ me that fit is pretty elusive, even for really sharp cookies. But in no response have a seen a clear way of avoiding the totally legit pitfalls that I sketched in trying to determine fit in the first place. Those are real, theology or no.

Ex-ACT-ly. Thank you, SleepyOldMan, this is precisely what I've been driving at. I apologize if it has rubbed some the wrong way. I don't mean to be cynical about the process, but I do think that there are competing accounts bouncing around that need resolution. In any case I certainly admit to being confused, and I think that clarifying the rhetoric and the process is indeed productive. So...it goes like this. From the applicant's point of view, one should not apply to places where one cannot see oneself - in whatever way that is determined, which is of course totally subjective. I sorta thought that went without saying, but hey, let it be said. But, since it has been pretty well established (at least in my opinion, though I am still open to knowing how/if others see it differently) that there is really no way to know how your application might fit a department from the school's point of view, then it stands to reason that you send your absolute best work out and hope that someone deems it a good fit. Now, not to beat the dead horse, but if this is all accurate, then yes, you are likely to fare better by applying to more schools. Doubling your applications could certainly seem extreme and get expensive in a hurry...or, it could seem totally reasonable. If you double from 6 to 12, that's one thing...doubling from 18 to 36? Quite another. However, I think it's an altogether third thing to come round and insinuate that 15 rejections is indicative of your problematic application and that a 16th school would be a wasted application fee. Let's give folks some benefit of the doubt, no? I've tried to be a really big proponent of assuming that people know what the hell they're doing. Wasn't it just a few posts back when someone lamented being told by the bitter soul on the results board that the job market sucks? I will tell you, my bid for a big application cycle has nothing to do with my having been rejected to a whole bunch of schools and my inability to look in the mirror and figure it out. That's not what's going on here, so that's a hypothetical that doesn't do much for me. Besides, nobody can know these things, and if we assume we're not dealing with a clueless applicant who is blind to larger problematic issues, then frankly the only way to find out is to apply. The only other alternative here is a pedantic one, even if a well-meaning pedantic one. And finally, judging by some comments, one more application fee in the $60-$100 range is basically the end of the world. That may be, but then the conversation has taken a decided turn away from all things fit and odds and probability and toward all things being broke as hell. I've been there, too, and I feel ya. Tight is tight, and it's not a fun place to be. But if it's really that dire, then I would suggest that we have an altogether different kind of conversation going on. That would be my impression anyway. For my own part, I shall be casting a pretty wide net. I haven't yet, but I will later, for the '16 intake cycle. Should be fun!

I think I see one aspect of the notion of fit that is fundamentally different, here: some people seem to be basing it on "where one can see oneself." I guess I have been operating on something that (I thought) I was taught in a proseminar, which is that "fit" has less to do with "ideal vision" and more to do with a more visceral account of the field. Fit was equated to ministry = you don't go where you want, you go where you are called, and where you are called might indeed suck, according to certain criteria that human beings consider important even if they are not squarely academic or intellectual criteria. I "can see myself" in a number of lovely locales and/or shitty locales for a wide variety of reasons. But...what are the reasons or the combination of reasons that people are using? Palm trees sounds nice, but that won't cut it, so what will? Placement records are completely ridiculous to go by, because what is good for you is good for me and what's bad for you is bad for me (to quote The Refreshments). Mutual interest has proven a doozy. These are the things that get talked about, and what I'm saying is, well, great, how does that really work out for you? Are you making the determination, or is the department doing unpredictable things? And, if so, then don't you want your application to land somewhere where something unpredictable and glorious can happen? And isn't that more likely to be the case if you are less limited by number of schools to apply to? I agree that it can add up; for immediate purposes I am leaving finances out of it, though it is a FANTASTIC point that limited means can make you shrewd in determining fit. Sah-WEEET. So, in your admirable shrewdness, how are you doing it? Where "do you ideally see yourself," and how do you make that determination anyway? Because I gotta level with you - if it's just a matter of "being able to ideally see myself" in a certain place, well, I am open, my friends. Do you know how many schools are out there? THOUSANDS! And each and every one is a potential fit for a potential applicant, and all the normal ways of figuring this out seem strangely elusive and problematic to me. And that is what I am curious about.

Right. So...you still have to figure out the right "fit formula," which is what I am bitching and moaning about in the first place. How, sir? Or, ma'am? How? Pretty please tell me how.

Ok, got it - fair enough. In fact, I think you're right, that my conception or articulation of fit is indeed flawed, but my original post was to figure out how it's flawed, and I'm still not entirely sure. A lot of my points were geared toward the difficulty in even determining fit, let along working with that, whereas you seem to be presupposing (unless I'm misreading it) that nailing the optimum amount of schools to apply to is based on a correct or unflawed conception/articulation of it. Perfect. So where am I (and evidently legions of others) flawed? I feel as though, when I explore fit, I'm doing the conventionally-agreed upon things, yet I seem no closer to my goals. I'm not being hard-headed, here - I'm asking: what criteria, exactly?

I feel like this is correcting me with my own argument = sure you can find a good fit and that may or may not translate to acceptance. Funny how people react to that differently. I would simply try to increase my odds, and have yet to see a reason based on fit (separate from finances) why that's a bad idea, or even just a neutral idea. How is it not a good idea - again, if the discussion is fit and not finances or other things?

I appreciate it, but it sounds as if the issue becomes less about fit, then? And more about what's financially feasible in a single application cycle? I guess I am just not the regular sort of applicant, but my ability to pay for application fees has nothing to do with fitting into a department, or thinking or wishiing or hoping or applying to fit into a department.

I'm glad this came up (again) - I've been giving "fit" quite a bit of thought... First, it seems more or less bulletproof to conclude that "fit" matters greatly in getting an acceptance. I think there's enough common ground there to just sort of concede it and move forward with it as a working premise: yes, fit is incredibly important, and has been so thoroughly documented all over the place, it is so important that it often trumps even things like publications, etc. Ok - fit is huge, yes? Yes! However! I very much take Kamisha's desire to apply to 28 schools to heart...yes I know that's a bunch and I understand that some good-humored exaggeration may have been involved in her comment, but I get it it, and here's why: DETERMINING fit is an entirely different story. INTERPRETING fit is another story again. ARTICULATING fit? Are you kidding me? If this was in any way easy, SOP discussion boards would cease to exist. Now here are some very concrete things that I have experienced, and I invite anyone to let me know where I'm missing the boat on fit - please. I am being sincere, not sarcastic. First, for all the universal consensus regarding fit, there is just as much ambivalence and ambiguity concerning whether (and how) to contact POI's - some even go so far as to say, "don't do it," or else you get a highly qualified, "ok, do it, but be careful and here's a laundry list of etiquette...". Very rarely does the universal conclusion regarding fit equate to, "well, you have to determine good fit, so you might as well make as much contact as possible! Go nuts!" Nope, those two things just seem not to go together. Very well, I resort to in-print resources. Namely, departmental websites, replete with faculty profiles, dissertation titles, placement records, etc. Now then, let's say I'm perusing a website to try to figure out if a particular school is a "good fit" for me. I look for faculty with similar interests (right? right?!). When I find them, I start reading up on them, including where they went, what they have published, etc. (right?! RIGHT?!). But right about here, many factors begin to complicate "fit." Intuitively, I would gravitate toward departments that have a tradition or a reputation in working in my interests (right? right?), but I find 4 very concrete difficulties in this approach. 1. Most departments are well-rounded enough that it makes it fairly difficult to cross "fit" off your list based on that alone - in fact this (in my humble experience) becomes a tiresome and fruitless exercise very quickly, simply because how could you not want to study at every single department you look up?! On paper, they all look great! 2. Faculty profiles are misleading. In my current program, I have made some very important faculty relationships, but not one of them would have been in any way predictable based on website profiles. Furthermore, the ones that would indicate common interest have proven to be some of the less meaningful relationships of my time here. Thus, even "common interest" is not necessarily equal to "good fit," whereas often quite divergent interests - at least on paper - render incredible working relationships and killer productivity. If you are discouraged from making contacts, then that sort of experience/knowledge would simply be impossible to anticipate. 3. Even if you were successful in "determining fit," I've heard too many stories about how "such and such department wanted to take on a [insert specialty here] precisely because they didn't have any!" Thus, in some cases, the logic of fit works literally in reverse. 4. Finally, most of the professors with whom I am intimately familiar with (as far as their body of work goes), I tend to write off as the kind of rockstars not worth making an application for. Right? I mean, you can't very well apply saying, "...and so I'd like to work with Jameson." And to the counterarguments that say, sure you can, that's exactly what you do, I'd say, true, but then your competition just got that much stiffer, so much as to basically make it either come down to luck or futility. Then again, let's say you temper such an approach by finding not the rockstar but the under-the-radar scholar...well then, you have a problem of a different order, do you not?! Very well, fit is extremely important, but also very hard to determine and/or make a case for yourself. Often you can't know what the department is considering "good fit" based on their print materials, and even/when you can, you still have a very uphill battle on the competitive front. This very board has some story from someone being told their rejection was based on fit even though the applicant had been convinced that the department was a great fit (my apology for not citing this more specifically). If it can't be known, and if contacting people is at all discouraged, then it makes very good sense to boost your odds by throwing as many hats into as many rings as possible. Right? Right? By doing so, are you not saying, "I hope one of these is a great fit!"? A last bone of contention...there are those who try to be very concrete about how to scout out fit, and I appreciate it very much. I do. But if find it somewhat troubling that there is a very direct correlation between "concrete" and "missing the point altogether," where the more concrete, also the less helpful. Example: "When I researched fit, I looked at placement records...". Well, yeah. No shit. That's great, but it reduces pretty quickly, does it not? Isn't that basically the same thing as saying, "What's better for me is better for me" or "the best program that I can get into is the best fit for me." Of course it is! The thing that's absurd about this approach is that EVERYBODY'S best fit is the school with the biggest stipends, fellowships, placement records, etc., rendering fit not so much this subjective thing to be thoughtful and introspective about, but just a thing to be flat-out pragmatic about: go to a good place. And if that's the case, then wouldn't applying to as many programs as possible be the same as saying, "well, it's a damn tough thing to get in to good places, so I'll try to get into as many good places as possible and hope that one of them sees me as fitting well."? I am not trying to be a smartass. I am sincerely trying to know how one can resolve the premise of fit with the reality that matching fit between applicant and school seems complicated to an overwhelming degree. My response would be exactly Kamisha's (and anyone else's) who says, damn, better apply to more schools! As to mikers86's response to this response, I don't mean any disrespect, I hear what you're saying, but I guess I'm wondering how you figure you can identify some number of good-fit programs with which you can apply with confidence, and further, how that number is so obviously less than 28? I honestly have no idea how one does that. Help me out, here. I, too, want to make a good-fit application.

Awesome - just finished this for a term project last semester and loved it. Would love to know your thoughts when you finish.

The Instructions by Adam Levin.

There are just so many scenarios in which an unfunded MA not only works but is even a good idea for so many people that they cease to be "exceptions to [some random] rule" and have to be accepted as legitimate possibilities for a wide cross-section of aspiring literature scholars. Hashslinger actually points out one such scenario (being "independently wealthy *and* unable to relocate"), which I take from its rhetorical flourish to be seen by Hashslinger as wildly improbable, but I'm not sure why. Not everybody is a broke young single person emerging directly from undergrad (or whatever demographics would supposedly constitute those two extreme determinants), and the narrowness of the statement brings along a whole set of assumptions that I know to not necessarily hold for many many many students. There are so many positions along both of these spectrums - finances and mobility - that even just that single scenario is in desperate need of nuance and reconsideration. But even apart from that, please consider, too, that an MA degree is only a small fraction of the time of a PhD, that many of the "unfunded" options provide any number of TA-ships, RA-ships, tutoring gigs, guest-editing options, work-study eligibility, travel grant accessibility, etc. Consider that some people might very easily make that small fraction even smaller by accelerating the time-to-degree within an already-short program. Consider the possibility that even vaguely-defined "members of a campus community" might somehow have access to a "tuition remission" or "credit benefit" or even just flat-out have jobs that cover the cost of a higher degree. Consider that these boards are pretty thoroughly dominated already by the notions of both "fit" and "placement record," either of which might *on its own* (not to mention in tandem) warrant strong consideration of attending a non-funded program *even if* the student has an admission from another program that *is* funded. Someone else suggested that an unfunded program might be a good idea for not-so-ideal applicants to earn their lit cred and get up to snuff on the competitive side of things - maybe rocking out that unfunded program is precisely how an applicant obtains a glowing rec from a huge name in the right specialty. Some people might not be independently wealthy enough to just fire tuition into a black hole, but that is, in my own experience, a caricatured image of reality anyway - I am far from independently wealthy, but my domestic situation nevertheless affords me a way to go to a really great program that fits me very well in terms of interest and is known for its MA-to-PhD placement reputation and I have been fortunate enough to creatively round up a number of these factors to help me from spiraling into a crippling debt...and that will remain true regardless of whether I ever "make it" in the fiercely competitive job market, and as I said earlier, that is also true of most of my cohort, at least from the information they give me. And we're not exactly creatures from outer space, either - we come from all walks of life, all over the globe (i.e., I'm surrounded by what I'm talking about, and I know it's not a local phenomenon). I'm also quite certain these scenarios are not exhaustive - it wouldn't take much imagination to expand them - and what's even crazier is that each of these scenarios is so far from improbable that I either identify with every single one or (in the case of accelerating time-to-degree, which is the single consideration here that does not fit my circumstance), I know plenty of others for whom it has made it worth it. From what I can tell, the broke person with unlimited mobility is actually a lot less likely than some conglomeration of the above factors: I've yet to meet this person. The likelihood of me continuing on to a solid PhD program and therefore continuing to succeed in this crazy journey is far higher for having chosen an unfunded MA, and I can say (again) that I am not alone in this. Very far from it. If I get into a good PhD program, I will have my unfunded MA to thank for it - this incredible experience that professionalized the crap out of me and left me standing, financially. Look, nobody here actually knows MariElizabeth's situation, or anyone else's for that matter. There's not really a right or wrong, a should or should not. OP said, "give it to me straight." Well, here's straight: As with all the hyper-cautionary rhetoric that zooms around these boards, I will say again that I appreciate the sentiment. I bet there's a lot of students for whom the advice is dead-on...we just don't know who they are. For everyone else, the sentiment is the take-away here. It says, "be thoughtful, please don't do any permanent damage to yourself." But I usually find that I'm inclined to temper the doomsday do's and don't's with a healthy dose of "trust that the applicant has a good grasp of the situation." Of course we're all sharp cookies, otherwise we wouldn't be trying to do what we're trying to do (which should probably be a categorical don't, following Hashslinger's logic). On top of that, if any of us were trying to do what we're trying to do out of a conventional sense pragmatism or prudence, we're all ridiculous anyway...so yes, maximize your odds in a tough arena. Do right by yourself. Do what you can to make it less of a "slaughter." Make thoughtful decisions about what's right for you. That may or may not include an unfunded MA. And don't kid yourself that a funded MA necessarily brings you any closer to your endgame. Unless, of course, it does, because you are, you know, you, and you happen to be all the way desperate, financially, yet somehow completely mobile, geographically.

I also cannot offer the sort of advice you seek, but I'm going to say "love." Call me crazy, but I never understood the "hate." Plath rocks.

CU Boulder is also unfunded. As to what someone "should" or "should not" do, I appreciate the intention behind the advice but I can't sit comfortably with the notion that this particular kernel of wisdom categorically fits all cases (for PhD I'd happily go along with this, but not MA). An unfunded MA might be just the ticket for someone...indeed, an unfunded MA has been just the ticket for a lot of someones, like me and pretty much my whole cohort, from what I know of them at least.

If I have a deadline of this coming Monday and dude hasn't submitted it yet, do I wait until Monday before I email or do I email now? Other? And...hey, can we all make an agreement? Can we all agree that if and when we ever make it in our respective fields, that we remember what it was like to be completely in the dark about how people thought of us, and what it was like to be so reliant on those whose thoughts we're trying to read? Can we maybe vow, here and now, to uphold commitments that we make to aspiring students, and then, when we freak them out by being on our schedule and not theirs, to at least acknowledge them and let them know where they stand and what we intend to do about it? A quick email: Will have your letter submitted by x...and then actually DO it? Would a friendly follow-up email kill us?: Hey kid, I sent'em your letter, best of luck. It takes less than 4 seconds to type and send those messages that will save students literally hours, days, weeks, even months of anxiety. For my part, I'm ready to say yes and make that commitment. Who's with me?

I gave books that I thought they'd appreciate along w/ thank you card or note to go w/ it. I'm in an English department, so I figured they'd appreciate nerding out over common interests and it was something nice I could do that didn't break the bank. I am proud of my idea. 2 of my 3 recommenders have acknowledged that they received it (I used campus mail) and I'd say their reactions were worth the cost of an Amazon Prime order. Weirdly, though, one - who already thanked me for my thank you - has to to submit my letter, and it has me on the brink of absolutely losing my shit!

How do you know that the Fulbright rec was lackluster? Isn't it conventional to waive the rights to read letters of rec - or did you have a third party assess it for you, or what? I ask out of pure curiosity and I guess a little jealousy...I've never seen my letters of rec since we're always told it's best to waive rights.

Of course, if you're writing dialogue and majored in English, too, maybe you want to pursue something literary? Come on over, the water's fine! We pretend to do some philosophical things, too, but we call it "theory" so as not to step on the philosopher's toes. I throw it out there in earnest - you seem to have the right background to go either direction and good handle on creativity. As someone who "switched fields" I encourage an open mind, disciplinarily. I don't mean to be presumptuous, and maybe you get in to a great philosophy program, and maybe that's exactly where you belong. But if not, it was a post much like this one that got the ball rolling for me. Good luck!

So not to belabor this, because I do agree wholeheartedly with the recent posts from pinkrobot on down that say not to mess with font sizes, margins, etc., but I do have a question about the conventionality/acceptability of shrinking font sizes ONLY for block text citations and/or for abstracted portions, specifically to set it apart formally in a way that signals abstraction. I could see it going either way: I believe the most recent MLA guidelines call for these sorts of things to remain at 12 pt. Times New Roman; by the same token, it's not exactly crazy - I've seen plenty of journals and/or Chicago-style formats that actually instruct authors to shrink certain texts to 10 pt. when it falls into those categories. A recent PhD admit who was helping me to workshop my writing sample, for example, suggested that I abstract certain portions and we had a little discussion about how formally odd it felt to do so but that it nonetheless was a part of the "genre" of a writing sample, sometimes. I asked how it really worked: do you put the abstracted text in brackets or what, and he said that he's seen it indented or inset so as to call attention to a section as formally abstracted, and this got me to wondering whether it fit the sometimes-acceptable shrunken fonts of a block text...So the question is, should I still avoid that like the plague, or is it an acceptable convention in those rare instances? Penny for everyone's thoughts, and, as always, apologies if this is covered in another thread somewhere (it seemed in keeping with the spirit and direction of recent conversation).

A hopefully entertaining rant: I have this incredibly supportive professor advising me who has encouraged me to make an application to a program that I was previously not going to apply to. This super cool professor asked early on that I send background information in the form of academic and professional CVs/resumes, etc. Each time this request was made, I sent the requested materials. This happened about 3 times throughout September and October. This super cool professor also asks that I send a reminder to write my letter, which I did, as of last week. In response, this super supportive person responds, saying that she's sorry for not making it clear, but that she will need to see all of those things that I keep sending her. Sooooooooo...I know she gets my emails with attachments, because she thanks me for them. We have always had clear lines of communication and have always been in close touch. I would call this a GOOD relationship. But then she forgets things and asks me again for stuff I already sent several times. And so now I begin to look like the ungrateful and unresponsive and irresponsible student who just takes for granted that someone would do me the magnanimous favor of writing me a letter of recommendation. Which is emphatically not the case. The irony, of course, is that she is the one who talked me into making this application (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is true! A professor truly asked, "are you applying to such-and-such program?" and I said, "no," and she said, "why not?" and after many wonderful discussions, I am deferring to her advice and I am applying), and that she therefore talked me into asking her for this favor in the first place. For the record, I'm holding up well. I check in occasionally on this board to see all the drama and to feel in solidarity with everyone in the same boat. I have classmates who seem really stressed out about applications. I should probably be more stressed than I am, but hey, I'm glad I'm not. Yet...isn't this weird? It's like she's put out with me, somehow, that she's got to write me this letter, and all I'm trying to do is everything she ever tells me to do. Basically our relationship is me taking her advice as graciously as I know how to do. I know I can chalk it up to her organizational skills and my reading too much into her latest request. That would be the optimistic way to go. But the irony lingers and the weird feeling persists. Anyway, like I said - I hope that entertains you. It's my best shot.

Ah, funny - this thread is really old, didn't realize. My bad.

I was totally thinking the exact same thing, and was going to ask myself (sincerely) until I saw that Amalia had done so...am I missing the response? I see no response! I truly don't get it. Unless Blop is making a different kind of point that I'm misunderstanding (like, maybe "save your application fee" or "even funded students will get their funding unexpectedly cut during their studies"??), and assuming it's a good fit for a given applicant, then wouldn't you still apply and then base a decision on the sort of acceptance AND funding package being offered? I realize that for some people even the cost of a single application fee factors into the decision to apply or not...but that's not exactly a universal, right? Sorry if I'm either misunderstanding the original point and/or if I've missed an answer to Amalia's question, but I think it's pretty central to this thread.

I had the exact same question and every professor I've ever asked about it (4) has said it's absolutely no problem whatsoever. Without qualification, no short-answer/long-answer, no in-this-case-or-that-case, nothing. One of these professors has a reputation for all things professional, and helps grad students professionalize in a proseminar. She is highly respected in this capacity and in fact I'm working on a project out of a piece of theory that acknowledges her help specifically as a matter of professionalization and process-oriented logistics. Basically a non issue all the way around. To quote Forrest Gump: "Great! One less thing!"

In my humble opinion, bfat says sorry yet has nothing whatsoever to apologize for. Swagato is in full admiration and simply hopes that the oldies know what they are getting themselves into. That was after asking "Why?" with so much concern regarding the putative disadvantages (which Swagato seems to know so much about) that come with age. I appreciate bfat's laudably diplomatic overture about the grumpiness that comes with turning 30, but for my own part, there is nothing helpful about this olive branch, only good-humored essentialism that does me (for example) a disservice. But nevermind. Let's continue in the spirit of good will. Allow me to reciprocate Swagato's courtesy. Let me ask "Why?", full of tender concern...wait, no. Because of my age, I am full of a seasoned wisdom that tells me it is none of my fucking business. I'll just hope with bated breath that the PhD-to-tenure-track trajectory of Swagato's life has no unexpected detours on the horizon. Because, goodness me, those are some "significant disadvantages" that I (in all my 33 youthful summers) happen to know something about. Or are they advantages, rather? Hmm, I guess it depends on how you view the process of changing as a person.