jillcicle

This is so nice thank you ?

As a friend said to me back when I still thought I might have decisions to make, "Does it matter if more prestige will mean a better placement if you aren't able to finish the program?"
I think you have to honestly ask yourself how vulnerable you are to mental illness and what kinds of pressure are hardest for you to hold up under, considering that between 30 and 60% of grad students qualify for diagnosis with moderate to severe depression. That's worse at more prestigious programs, typically, and the higher end of the spectrum correlates to being a woman, non-white, not hetero/cis, etc. You know your own risks, and you probably have the best sense of whether or not you're at risk of being in the 50% of grad students who don't complete their degrees. I find it helpful to think of the differences in appeal, financial comfort, fit, etc. as differences in risk to you, your health, and your program completion. (Cheery, I know, but we're playing a dangerous game entering academia anyway.)

NYU sending a pitch for a master's that's 70% out of pocket is something - worse when you ALREADY have a master's degree. PLEASE. When I pay $100+ to apply to a well-respected academic institution's PhD program I do not want them to then try to sell me things after rejecting me ?

I'm about to say yes to a program and I'm suddenly panicking. SEND HELP. 

NYU sending a pitch for a master's that's 70% out of pocket is something - worse when you ALREADY have a master's degree. PLEASE. When I pay $100+ to apply to a well-respected academic institution's PhD program I do not want them to then try to sell me things after rejecting me ?

NYU sending a pitch for a master's that's 70% out of pocket is something - worse when you ALREADY have a master's degree. PLEASE. When I pay $100+ to apply to a well-respected academic institution's PhD program I do not want them to then try to sell me things after rejecting me ?

If you're not a dependent, then are you providing more than one-half of your own support (less this fellowship)?

When I emailed weeks ago they made it fairly clear they wouldn't send out the rest of their official notifications until April. Other people on the forum have made clear that Berkeley isn't going to extend any other offers or waitlists, so I just assumed it meant a giant middle finger to their rejects pile. It really soured me on Berkeley in general. I mean, they've already had their accepted students weekend/visit; what purpose does it serve to delay rejections this long?

As a friend said to me back when I still thought I might have decisions to make, "Does it matter if more prestige will mean a better placement if you aren't able to finish the program?"
I think you have to honestly ask yourself how vulnerable you are to mental illness and what kinds of pressure are hardest for you to hold up under, considering that between 30 and 60% of grad students qualify for diagnosis with moderate to severe depression. That's worse at more prestigious programs, typically, and the higher end of the spectrum correlates to being a woman, non-white, not hetero/cis, etc. You know your own risks, and you probably have the best sense of whether or not you're at risk of being in the 50% of grad students who don't complete their degrees. I find it helpful to think of the differences in appeal, financial comfort, fit, etc. as differences in risk to you, your health, and your program completion. (Cheery, I know, but we're playing a dangerous game entering academia anyway.)

Has Berkeley really STILL not sent out their rejections? Like c'mon. Last year they went out mid-March - this year are they sending them out ON April 15 or what? I know it's a rejection but I would sure like something definite anyway. I told myself I'd submit my official acceptance once all my rejections were in but apparently that's going to be unreasonable ?

As a friend said to me back when I still thought I might have decisions to make, "Does it matter if more prestige will mean a better placement if you aren't able to finish the program?"
I think you have to honestly ask yourself how vulnerable you are to mental illness and what kinds of pressure are hardest for you to hold up under, considering that between 30 and 60% of grad students qualify for diagnosis with moderate to severe depression. That's worse at more prestigious programs, typically, and the higher end of the spectrum correlates to being a woman, non-white, not hetero/cis, etc. You know your own risks, and you probably have the best sense of whether or not you're at risk of being in the 50% of grad students who don't complete their degrees. I find it helpful to think of the differences in appeal, financial comfort, fit, etc. as differences in risk to you, your health, and your program completion. (Cheery, I know, but we're playing a dangerous game entering academia anyway.)

As a friend said to me back when I still thought I might have decisions to make, "Does it matter if more prestige will mean a better placement if you aren't able to finish the program?"
I think you have to honestly ask yourself how vulnerable you are to mental illness and what kinds of pressure are hardest for you to hold up under, considering that between 30 and 60% of grad students qualify for diagnosis with moderate to severe depression. That's worse at more prestigious programs, typically, and the higher end of the spectrum correlates to being a woman, non-white, not hetero/cis, etc. You know your own risks, and you probably have the best sense of whether or not you're at risk of being in the 50% of grad students who don't complete their degrees. I find it helpful to think of the differences in appeal, financial comfort, fit, etc. as differences in risk to you, your health, and your program completion. (Cheery, I know, but we're playing a dangerous game entering academia anyway.)

As a friend said to me back when I still thought I might have decisions to make, "Does it matter if more prestige will mean a better placement if you aren't able to finish the program?"
I think you have to honestly ask yourself how vulnerable you are to mental illness and what kinds of pressure are hardest for you to hold up under, considering that between 30 and 60% of grad students qualify for diagnosis with moderate to severe depression. That's worse at more prestigious programs, typically, and the higher end of the spectrum correlates to being a woman, non-white, not hetero/cis, etc. You know your own risks, and you probably have the best sense of whether or not you're at risk of being in the 50% of grad students who don't complete their degrees. I find it helpful to think of the differences in appeal, financial comfort, fit, etc. as differences in risk to you, your health, and your program completion. (Cheery, I know, but we're playing a dangerous game entering academia anyway.)

Maybe this isn't relevant, but one of the things that swayed me to SMU was how dedicated the department is to growing its prestige.  The resources they offer students are unmatched anywhere else, IMO.  They want their students producing the best possible work, for the university as well as for themselves.  I personally believe that this mission of theirs means they are and will be much more invested in my finding a job than other schools may be.  Furthermore, while right now their placements are mainly in TX, they have previously mostly recruited students from TX, so it's likely many folks are not entering the job market upon graduation.  According to their new recruitment head, the school is actively looking to diversify its incoming cohorts.  I believe this means I have a good chance of getting support from the school when I do enter the job market with an eye to getting placed outside the region. 
In short, the school may not be quite where I want it right now, but they are actively committed (or at least seem to be) to moving in that direction, and I believe my success will be viewed as a part of that movement- good for the school.  All I'm trying to say here is that there are so many more things to consider than just current ranking.  
 
However, as @rhetoricus aesalon 's comment reaffirms for me, the market is in general shite.  We know there are many good candidates not getting jobs offers.  This is just the reality.  So I don't blame anyone for going with the top ranked program they get into.  We all have to do whatever we can to try to make ourselves as competitive as possible.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We don't know what the OP's end goal is. The OP did mention that being close to family is an allure to them. There are universities (like SMU) that have historically placed well in Texas. We also know that not all universities post their jobs (whether this be due to a sudden opening or because they choose not to) on the job market. Some do conduct more local-searches and being at a nearby city could be beneficial. Having family reside nearby could be a very positive impact. However, I don't think any college can guarantee that you'll be considered equally by all colleges because of the way they value different things. I also don't think that interviewing at a teaching college is any easier or harder than interviewing at a research-based college. Rather, I think it's easier about what you're most interested in and I think colleges can pick up on that. This is why you shouldn't try to feign interest in a specific topic if you're not genuinely interested in that subfield. I do think that the colleges you might be considered for might depend on where you go, but I don't think that any reasonable school will turn you down if you present a strong resume and if there is someone on your committee that they trust. This very well could be the reason why some schools prefer to skip the job market and prefer local candidates.

We're also not aware of how strong the #18 school is in the OP's subfield. There are programs outside the top 20 which have stronger placements in certain subfields than those in the top 20. It's also possible that the program could be deciding to move in a new direction and eliminate certain subfields. In recent years, Notre Dame stopped admitting people into their Ph.D. in Literature program.

I agree that stats about where students end up only tell part of the story. However, I would argue that students from "top programs" aren't the only ones getting multiple offers. It's very likely that a good candidate is likely to get multiple offers of differing types. Part of that might be based on their school. But it's also likely that certain candidates will get looked over by the hiring school if the hiring university has had a high turnover from that school. I think it's also important to note that not everyone's end goal is to be placed at a school which focuses heavily on research. And I think it's equally as important to remember that we often have very little choice of where we end up if we decide to go on the job market. Considering most schools are not research-focused, being open to non-R1 schools will broaden our chances of being placed.
As a side note, there are some fairly well-known colleges that do have a permanent teaching-track. This remains to be a viable option for a fair amount of people and I wouldn't consider people holding these positions to be less deserving of tenure than those on a research-track. Different departments have different needs at a time and it's possible that a person's specific subfield may never open up at the R-1 school they were hoping for.
Some students might also have no desire to leave their city. I can't remember how many people I spoke with doing their Ph.D. in NYC and Austin that said they had no desire to leave their city. They said they would rather adjunct than be placed elsewhere. Likewise, there are a number of candidates in my program who have made a decision to stay because they're ready to settle down and start a family. Many have started the process of buying a house. They don't plan on entering the job market but demand from local colleges for permanent positions have always been high here. Likewise, some have expressed interest in alt-ac jobs and have no interest in the job market.Those who put in the extra effort here tend to be well rewarded on the job market. This is not a top 10 program but there are a lot of resources offered to those who do seek it.
I agree with this so much. Funding is critical. You won't be rich at anytime during your program. But not having to worry about funding is important. Even if a program guarantees five years of funding, it might be worthwhile to ask what the average time-to-degree is. If there's a difference, it might also be wise to ask them how funding is determined for the additional years and whether you're responible for any additional fees.

If your goal is to enjoy grad school, feel supported and valued in your department, and get the best education possible: go to the lower-ranked school. If your goal is to be as competitive as you can on the imploding academic job market: go to the elite private school.
I’m not saying both aren’t possible at the same institution. But without knowing more about your specific situation, this is the (problematic) assumption that still predominates in academia. Especially from the perspective of the academic job market.

Can we, for the briefest of moments, reflect on the fact that Berkeley’s accepted students weekend is next weekend and they’ve yet to send out rejections? I’m under absolutely no delusion about my status with them, but it’s just rude. 

UVA movement - I got my rejection FINALLY and someone else at the visiting weekend i’m at at UNC got official waitlist notification.

*Clicks on hand held recorder*
Day 472 - still no word from UVA. All is silent here. Not sure how much longer I can go on.

*Clicks on hand held recorder*
Day 472 - still no word from UVA. All is silent here. Not sure how much longer I can go on.

*Clicks on hand held recorder*
Day 472 - still no word from UVA. All is silent here. Not sure how much longer I can go on.

this just goes to show how little difference there is between the students who were offered acceptance first and those who are waitlisted. both groups of students are wanted or they would've rejected you. this is also why no one should feel like an imposter if they're accepted off the waitlist. they wouldn't have accepted you if you were lesser in any way.

I asked my questions at Loyola and got a very kind and detailed response, which also let me know I am #1 on the waitlist.  *excitement*

Thanks for this generous interpretation, which I can endorse! Each admissions season, I read about 200 applications of roughly 60 pages each--while teaching, writing, and completing departmental searches for any new hires (which would usually entail 3-4 files of several hundred pages each). There's just no way to offer meaningful and personalized feedback to each application that doesn't make the final cut. (And the pangs of conscience about that are part of why I'm on these forums, in hopes that I can humanize the process a little bit in another way.)
@MetaphysicalDrama I definitely appreciate the systematic and infrastructural issues you raise. And you're of course right that it is a position of privilege to be sitting on an admissions committee with the reassurance of tenure, and not one that anyone I know takes for granted. For what it's worth, I don't think that there is any pleasure in "gatekeeping" on admissions committees; it's not a particularly coveted committee assignment, because it's a lot of work, and it's demoralizing. We know that we are disappointing a large number of very talented people by rejecting them, and we know that we are possibly doing a disservice to those we admit, because we cannot guarantee that we will be able to secure them jobs, even if they do everything right. No humanities professor I know--and I know a lot of them--is excited about the fact that there aren't enough jobs for Ph.D.s. But humanities enrollments in undergraduate classes have plummeted to half what they were a decade ago. Universities can't hire computer science professors fast enough to staff their courses, but humanities courses at my institution are regularly canceled for under-enrollment. Under those conditions, it's hard to make a case to a central administration that we need to hire more faculty. The crisis I perceive is the one between those of us dedicated to humanistic learning and those who insist, increasingly, that liberal arts educations be transformed into vocational training--as I'm afraid American culture has increasingly done. 
Finally, every academic I know (myself included) has experienced a lot of rejection, and had many long, dark nights of the soul. Living a life of the mind, and caring intensely about your work,  mean that every rejection feels deeply personal. Among just the tenured faculty I'm close to in my department, two were initially denied tenure, two nearly left the profession having crises of faith finishing the first book manuscript, one failed his qualifying exams in graduate school, and all are rejected annually for fellowships and grants. All of us, too, were rejected from at least one graduate program we applied to. Fall down seven times; stand up eight.