ChrisTOEFert

You're applying to grad school. It's a horrible experience and while some people get in everywhere, some get into a school right away, others, sadly (like myself and many more on this board) get shut out. It's a fact of the experience. Nobody can predict what the department adcoms are specifically looking for in a certain year because they have no idea how deep the talent pool is until they have the candidates laid out in front of them. A prof can be all gung-ho about you because you seem interested in a topic and are giving a novel approach a shot...but when push comes to shove, if there are 10 "better" applicants in the pool, you're not going to make the cut. I use the term "better" here because there is no real better as it is specific to the year you're applying. What I suggest for all of you who may get shut out this year is a couple of things, if you are interested in re-applying next year: 1) Re-take the GRE (if you're applying to U.S. schools). Study, and study well for this thing. I got in with pretty low scores but I am definitely the exception, not the rule. You should always find ways to make your application better, and the easiest way to do that is to re-take the GRE! Just study your ass off for 6-7 months and blow the thing out of the water. You'll probably have the word list memorized and be able to bang out a 4.5+ essay in your sleep by the time you're ready to go on test day. 2) Narrow the focus of your research. The year I got shut out I had 2 people look over my SOP and both commented saying it was fine for a Master's project. It didn't mean diddly-squat. A good PhD SOP shows a specific research problem, why it needs to be solved, how you think you know how to solve it (i.e. using sources as evidence), and why the school you're applying to is the only school in the world where you will be successful in completing it. Use action words and strong language that still shows you are not a know-it-all headache waiting to happen and are eager to be taught the tools of the trade by the department. Your previous research experience, volunteer work, thesis(theses), grades, conference attendances, and publications are all a testament to your capability of completing the suggested research. If you have a weak SOP that lacks direction, supporting evidence/research, project methodology, and less than stellar grades/research background it just tells the adcom you're not ready to undertake the ground breaking discovery they are paying you to do for 5+ years. I can go on further but these are the big 2 that are the most important.

This is very, very odd. I would e-mail the department head and not do a thing until I heard back. If you are worried and feel like he is bullying you, you can just say you don't want to do the project and thank him/her for their time and just forget about it. I have never heard of a school doing something like this...is it in North America?

No worries, good luck in your endeavors. On a read through it does seem like I phrased it a little more hostile than I had hoped. But hey, it is the internet, someone would get upset over a picture of a fluffy kitten (not saying you're upset, just agreeing with you about the internet thing). You sound like you really want this. COngratulations I hope it all works out for you, you certainly have the battle-scars and mental toughness to get it done. Hopefully Plan A works and at worst Plan B is fruitful!

I totally, totally agree.

Bold A: There are just only a few schools in the world who do it. I can think of perhaps 5 in Canada, maybe 5 more in the US, and probably about 10 off the top of my head in Europe, and one in Australia. But to more narrowly answer your question, yes, my topic of interest is kind of narrow. While it is generalizable to anything that has to do with ancient DNA (I am interested in research that will prolong the usability of the extracted DNA and ways in which to repair the damaged DNA to make it more readable), only maybe 5, ten tops, have labs equipped to do what I want to do, let alone have profs that are interested in repair work. Most are interested in ancient pathogens, migrations, and population genetics. Those are all topics of interest and are relevant to the study of humanity as a whole, but I feel the "market" so to speak is saturated with this type of research and it is beginning to reach a foreseeable end point of not being able to evolve. Bold B: I agree that a Master's is not the best for everybody. However, does a Master's not make it easier to get accepted for a PhD? In Canada and Europe school's won't even look at you if you don't have some sort of Master's degree, unless you are some God in your undergrad with at least 2 first author publications, a crazy high GPA, conference presentations, etc. I consider it an evolution, undergrad, Master's, PhD. Each of these growing off of one another to give you the skills and prepare you mentally for the next step in your life. I guess I could ask then, if a 4 year PhD was the norm for the U.S., would you then do a Master's and then a PhD? That way you could see whether or not a PhD was for you (as in the choice that will give you the most net advantage in your life goals) and you'd still be out in the same time frame of ~6 years...because in my experience, and I cannot speak for others, but a Master's is not quite the same intensity level as a PhD but it gives you a looking glass into what to expect. Bold C: It was just a question. You're right nobody cares about me, whether or not I get in, or end up dead in a ditch tomorrow. My account will just fade into obscurity. I was just curious is all, you didn't have to respond or you could have downvoted me if I upset you. But as I said, that was not my intention I am just overall curious to other people's thoughts and wishes to grad school.

Thank you for the honest and great reply. You've answered pretty much all of my questions! Good luck with that amazing sounding project! I hope to hear about you in the news one day

Hi I am a follower of this forum every year around this time. I'm on my 2nd or 3rd account since I can't for the life of me remember my username or password from years previous; anyways, I am digressing. I just have a few questions for the populous and I am fully aware I am probably going to get downvoted all to hell and back but this has been nagging me for a couple of years and I've finally decided to ask them. 1) Why does a PhD program in the U.S. last so freaking long? I applied to a school in California that I was interested in going to but a few posters on the results page were talking about 6+ year PhDs! That is insane to me! Is it because you end up with a terminal Masters degree as well once you graduate? I asked my potential supervisor the same question, told him I was going to be out in 4 years flat, maybe 5 if I hit a research hiccup, I just don't have that much time to commit to a program that may or may not help me in my future in a dwindling job market. In Canada, it's usually a 2 year Master's degree, and a 4-5 year PhD, but usually 4 if you are willing to be dedicated to the program and stay motivated. Or, sometimes if you know you really want to attend a PhD in your Master's university, you do a one year MA and then get promoted to the PhD program for 5 years. My potential POI couldn't answer the question, just saying that the way the courses and requirements were set, that he had never seen anybody graduate in less than 5-5.5 years and even then it was very rare. 2) Why do so many of you apply to so many programs? Looking at a lot of signatures and I see sometimes 10+ applications pending. I understand that my field of choice has very few locations in where I can study, so my personal experience is a little bit skewed. However, applying to grad school is expensive (~$100 per app), and I see a lot of results boards saying "not surprised, poor fit/extreme long shot" etc. I understand applying to your dream school, everybody does it and should have that one reach they are going to jump at. Why all the others? Surely there aren't 15 profs in 15 different states/locations that are exactly interested in what you want to study? In certain fields is it not common to send a feeler e-mail out to a prof at a school and see if they are willing to take on new students and if your project would be a good fit in their lab/department/research interests? To come full circle, I would never apply to a school where I either received no response about my inquiry, was told that there is nothing really there for me, or was just interested in the school because it is said school and I would never fit in. Case in point: I was interested in attending Harvard in a certain ancient DNA lab with a very prominent prof. He emailed me back and told me not to bother because he only takes students who are extremely proficient in bioinformatics, a strength I definitely do not have. Even if he was lying, why would I waste my money on applying there just for him to think to himself "why am I wasting my time reading this app when I told him there is no spot for his skills (or lack thereof in this case) here"? To extend that, how do you ever make a choice if multiple are presented to you? What if you got into all 10? What if you only got into 1 and it was your absolute lowest ranked "safety" school, would you reject it and chance it all again next year or would you attend and wonder what if I had just waited one more year and applied to x, y, and z again for the next 6 years? 3) Do all of you really want to go to grad school? Like really? Or is it because it is the next logical step? I personally don't have an answer to this myself. I did fine in my MSc, and don't feel like I want to quit and hide under a blanket fort yet. So do I really want to do a PhD? I'm not sure, but I sure as hell can stomach a 3 year program over a 5+ year one! So that is why I decided to attend my choice. I see this on Reddit and here a lot too, why do you low GPA students that admittedly had no motivation for your entire undergrad suddenly feel like you have to go to grad school? I've seen a few threads where a 2.5-2.9 GPA (in their major) student wants nothing more than to go to X school, and I totally admire the drive, I too was a confused undergrad, but I did well in my major and found my stride in my 3rd year. So why the sudden change of heart? Why do you feel that a grad school situation, where you are pressured to do well in exams, complete complex and sometimes unrealistic project deadlines, publish, present at conferences, fight tooth and nail for a below the poverty line salary, and do it all with a smile and asking how much higher you want your POI to make you jump? Why go straight into a PhD (which someone pointed out to me has a very low finish percentage...but I don't know where they know their stats and they didn't cite their source ) when a Master's degree seems like the best step so you can test the waters of grad school without the massive time commitment and soul-crushing (supposedly) atmosphere? I did not do this to attack anyone, so if you feel like I have personally slighted you, that is not my intention. I do not have anyone I know who fits any of these criteria so I am genuinely curious. Thank you for your respectful and mature responses to any/all of these questions.

While I was at work, while my girlfriend was cooking me dinner, while I was sleeping, and one while I was anxiously waiting. I think I need to have my mind preoccupied to work in my favour.

I think that is overly harsh. The only reason I brought up postdoc positions to profs is because I am very interested in working with them and continuing to stay in contact with them. I realize there is a large drop out rate for PhD students but for some reason I think that is a very U.S. thing due to the length of the program (5+ years). I never really thought about a post-doc until 3 of my accepts brought it up to me before I even rejected them. How am I being ridiculous and naive when I am acknowledging what they said to me, and for thinking ahead about my future? Maybe I don't want to teach!

Either waitlisted or rejected. It depends though, if you've only seen one or two acceptances per school I wouldn't fret. If you see multiple (like at least 6-8) then I would be a little bummed because chances are they just haven't gotten around to sending out the rejection letters yet. Have you seen any rejections for 2016 yet?

A little bit different, but I'm still waiting on one more school. It (was) my top choice, but I got a great offer I couldn't refuse that had a very short window of acceptance and I had to jump on it. I feel all of your pain, but you will hear results soon! Hopefully all good! I'm secretly hoping that even though I have decided that I get into the other school to make it a shut out 5/5 for Fall 2016...and maybe a free trip to Germany for a couple days?

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, Physics: "waitlisted and then rejected. Thank you for not declining offers in time." Orrrr....you know, everyone else accepted it ahead of you or you were low on the waitlist? The amount of salt sometimes is strong!

And why is that?

I too have a meh GRE score (152 Verbal, 148 Quant, 4.5 Written) and it really depends on the school in which you are applying. I only applied to one US school (UCSC) and apparently my test scores were quite low compared to the other applicants (according to my POI), but I got in anyways due to other circumstances such as apparently better than average marks and strong LORs. You have to remember that schools look at a collection of things, it even says on the UCSC site that they are looking for a certain score on the test, high grades, a good fit/strong purpose statement, and strong LORs. However, they say right after that that one of those things alone is not enough to admit you, nor is one weak section compared to strong everything else going to hurt you (yet I'd hazard that middle to weak LORs would DEFINITELY hurt you...but they can't say that). If you hear back from the schools about why your application was weak (usually they don't, as in most of the responses they say they will not field questions about the failure of your app...they just don't have that much time and are probably sick of butthurt snowflakes keyboard yelling at them....just take a quick look at the Results page for the type of pompous self worth a lot of students have), aim to improve it for next application cycle. That is what I did when I first got rejected. Also, maybe aim for a Master's degree instead of a full out PhD right out of the gate? I am confused by the US system...why are Master's degrees so rare, and why is a PhD a thing people aim for right out of undergrad? I feel the commitment jump and workload would be like going from strolling up a moderate incline to suddenly scaling K2 with an oxen strapped to your back.

Undergrad Institution: Liberal Arts/Research Major(s): Anthropology Minor(s): Psychology (undergrad only) GPA in Major: 10/12 (Undergrad); 3.88/4 (Grad) Overall GPA: 8.75/12; 3.88/4 (Grad) Position in Class: Above average in undergrad; Average to above average in Grad Type of Student: Domestic Male GRE Scores (revised/old version): Revised Q: 148 V: 152 W: 4.5

I think your best bet is to schedule a meeting (via Skype or in person if it is a reasonable commute) with both the grad co-ordinator/head of the program and your PI. You can allude to what you need in an e-mail, but push that you feel a meeting is preferred so you can explain what needs to be said more easily. While somewhat related, I had thought about doing this for one of my schools (my current MSc location) but having them hold a backup spot for me in case the location I chose does not work out. A friend of mine did this over the summer, her current school is saving a spot for her for a year if the position she chose is not to her liking (or so she says). It never hurts to ask, and I would highly stress in your email/meeting that you do definitely want to attend but extenuating circumstances are preventing you from going 100% into grad life until mid-late 2017.

From UMass, Creative Writing-Fiction MFA: "Honestly, how hard is it for a Writing Department to write a decent denial letter? While it's highly likely I'll need to reapply to programs next year, it's a certainty I'll not be reapplying here. Your communications reflect your program's personality, people, and yours screams Soulless Robot." I feel for them, but some need to realize that there are SO many things outside of your control when you apply that you shouldn't blacklist an entire department/school over a rejection or because of a basic rejection letter.

No, unless you have established a decent rapport with them. It is never their decision, they have to champion you to the department, the department has to be reasonably unanimous in their selection, and then the graduate office has to finally approve all offers. I would bypass the POI and send a concise email to the grad coordinator in the department and let them know you have a couple of offers pending and you wanted to know your status so you could make an informed decision about where you want to go. This will not positively or negatively impact your application unless you're rude, email them every day, or become hostile if they don't respond immediately.

Every offer I've received this year has asked for my other offers (if I choose to give it) so they could try and match it or get close to it. It would be tacky to offer it up without asking first, but I think it's generally seen that if a school really wants you they will do what they can to try and keep competitive in your choices.

As many say, always follow the money. If you get in everywhere, go where you will first have enough money to eat and live without worrying about where your next paycheque is going to come from, and second, where you feel will benefit you the most. A grad offer is training and also a job of sorts. You wouldn't take a job with a horrible company with no pay and iffy credentials would you? Same goes for grad school, if UCSD is one of the top programs in your field, I say jump at it. School name has very little to do with where you get accepted to later. The results page is filled with top 10 graduates bemoaning their rejections and seem to use it as a crutch for why they should have gotten in. Fit of program, grades, GRE scores, work/volunteer experience and impact of research all contribute to whether or not you will get into a high-ranked PhD program. The name of the school stamped on the top of your degree does not. It may help you get a job, but it will not help you get a PhD position. Personally, in my field of interest (molecular anthropology), my MSc school doesn't even have the ability to conduct this research. I set up collaborations to make sure I could get some extra volunteer experience as my advisor already had a collaboration set up elsewhere to conduct my project when needed. You are ultimately in charge of your education and need to make sure you are getting the most of your experience provided you are still being given the basics necessary not to die (i.e. they need to pay you).

I think it really depends on what you want to get out of it, no? It sounds like your end goal is professor, as you mention teaching positions. If that is worrying you, and you don't mind the extra year or two of schooling I would pursue the US. Funding is a bit scattered in the UK, but it depends on what school you get into. I know somebody who goes to Cambridge and their funding is only 19k pounds per year and she is barred from getting a job. Another friend of mine gets €1,300 per month take home money, and myself, am supposed to get around €2,500 per month take home money. Also, a lot of the North American schools only fund for a certain number of years and then you are on your own to fund yourself. Personal experience, I was going to have to find funding in the US my final 2 years if I chose to attend, and for me that was wayyy too stressful a situation to be begging for scraps here and there, trying to work a job so I could eat and pay rent, and making progress in research. For my situation it made more sense to go to Europe. Ask me again in a year and I may give you a different answer once I've slogged through the trenches a bit. But on paper this seemed like the best for my end goal. For you, it seems like unless you nail a mega-prestigious position (Cambridge, Oxford, to name a few) you may have some trouble finding work afterwards. But on the flip side, you're out earlier and you may be able to work your way up from that. Good luck.

Follow the money, my friend! If money is not an issue (i.e. comparable funding or complete lack of funding at all three) then it sounds like Pittsburgh would be the best bet, no? You're saying it is already exactly what you are looking for, but the other school's you could maybe tailor something to fit your needs. Personally I would rather attend something that is set up perfectly and has a track record of success as opposed to making something myself that could be unfinishable or very tough to set up.

Came here to basically comment this. I got rejected over the summer for a very prestigious PhD offer after being flown out to attend an interview week. Looking back on it, I was not very prepared. I hadn't practiced at all, stammered my way through the answers and was very cyclical in my dialogue. I was nervous, sure, but nothing that I hadn't felt before. I should have prepared a little better and I may have come out with the win. However, knowing what I know now, I was prepared for an interview for a better program, nailed the interview, and subsequently got the position (and where I will be attending in the Fall). You can't change the past, but you can improve on what needs to be done for the future. Good luck in your next interview and relax and try to gather as much information as possible about the school from the process.

I honestly never thought about it either until a friend of mine joked about it. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. You really are considering them, but there is sometimes a better offer. Good luck in your decisions.

I'm still really confused how you came to that conclusion, so I'm just going to leave one of my previous statements here....good luck with everything and stay healthy.