GL551

Cheers - thank you. Like I said, I have ruled out MA's thus far but I'm rapidly thinking that some type of terminal MA or MS program might be the only way to go at this juncture. I haven't seen any MA's that offer funding in the US; at least not in the social sciences. So far all the programs that I've been filtered into after PhD rejections have offered utterly pathetic partial scholarships (1/3 or 1/2 tuition at best). I typically state in letters that my research focus is a blend of history and sociology (two topics big enough to encompass the bulk of my research). I'm sympathetic to your situation. Despite being the only undergraduate in the history of my department who has ever had a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable journal and having a stuffed CV four pages longer than any other candidate who has applied in the past three years; I have seen virtually every other student I have worked with go on to decently funded PhD programs. Whatever constitutes "fit" may well be tied into the fact that I am simply not as hyper-specialized as those other students. That just baffles me. How can being well-read across the board and capable of researching a variety of disparate topics be a hindrance to one's academic career? That concept even sounded insane to me as I read this out-loud to myself.

Well my first question is: why would three degrees be a problem? I double majored and my third degree was somewhat incidental to taking a number of classes over that period (I also qualified for two minors). Now I should confess that I have spent over seven years in college taking various classes (learning an extra language, taking some literature classes that really interested me, etc.) - whether that is an issue or not might be an interesting point of discussion. My mentor suggested that picking up a few extra B.S. degrees over my undergrad/post-bacc career certainly couldn't hurt application. The conferences and publications are a strange one - like I said I have one publication in a higher impact peer-reviewed journal (which I'm told is an impressive feat for an undergrad in the social sciences). I'm hoping to get another publication in this mid-tier impact journal soon, but these things seem to take the the better part of year so who knows? The cohesion angle is interesting - one I certainly haven't considered. If I'm being honest my publications are scattered. One is in history, one is in sociology, another is in economics, and the two under review are in sociology and psychology respectively. My conference presentations have ranged from topics in education and journalism to modern art theory. I like being well-rounded I suppose. But I will admit that it is extraordinarily difficult to bundle everything together into a neat package. Shouldn't being well-rounded be seen as a positive thing though? Certainly specialization is critical in contemporary academia, but would it really preclude me from entering into an upper-echelon grad program? I tend, in both my letter and CV, to highlight the fact that I have done a lot of different things and am capable of speaking to a wide array of topics. Is that really a negative in this day and age?

At a certain point in time, like anything else, the industry of academia is going to let you know if you're a good fit or not. After two years of applying (with extremely limited success) I'm debating on whether to apply next year or not. With that in mind, I'd like some general advice as to what might be some critical problems that I've overlooked or what my mindset should be going into next year's application cycle. Preliminary background: I'm applying to programs in the social sciences and humanities. I have three B.S.'s from a smaller to medium sized state school, and over the past two years I've spread my applications across upper mid-range to top-tier PhD programs (essentially choosing to forgo a terminal MA program due to a lack of funding). Here's my stat breakdown thus far: GPA: 3.4 (admittedly some shoddy spots here - a couple F's my junior year, and my major GPA is only slightly better at 3.5) GRE: 165/155/6 LoR's: Four solid ones from professor's I worked with on and off throughout my undergrad SoP: Solid - I should think - it's been through numerous revisions. I've had five different professors read it and two friends who are current grad students. Conferences presentations: I'm well into the double digits at this point. I've presented research at numerous conferences both as an undergrad and a post-bacc and conferences have ranged from professional academic conferences to smaller undergraduate/graduate conferences. Academic Publications: Three, with two more under review. One publication is in a higher impact journal, two are in undergraduate journals. My two under review are currently with a mid-impact journal and an undergrad/post-bacc journal. Teaching Experience: I've taught a class with a professor, currently teach inner-city students through a program with my department, and have been a tutor in my field on and off for two years. Misc Items: I've served as a president for various clubs, was on my student government, volunteered a lot over several years with various academic bodies, received a few minor grants and awards for my papers and conference presentations, have been a grader for two professors, and was an editor for my school news paper for a year. Now it's possible I'm just overestimating my application competitiveness. Whenever I look at my application packet (certainly relative to my peers at my alma mater) I think it looks competitive enough to apply to upper mid level to higher level programs. After two years of applications - I'm willing to just chalk up my long string of rejections (18 applications total, 15 rejections, 3 "acceptances" after filtering my app to the MA level with no funding to speak of) to either poor fit, not being cut out for better programs, or just a weak GPA compared to what others are bringing to the table. But who knows - maybe I'm falling victim to some classic mistake that I just haven't caught on to yet. My former professors haven't been able to offer any serious advice. My mentor has repeatedly stated that I should get in and essentially encourages me to keep applying until something works out. My department chair has suggested that maybe I'm aiming to high and should look toward mid to lower tier PhD programs or simply apply to an MA. My other professors have expressed some level of shock that I haven't gotten into a decent PhD program yet, and essentially repeat that it's all "fit" and maybe I just didn't "fit" as well as other candidates did these past two years. Needless to say I'm putting all this out there in the off chance that maybe it's not just luck, but that I've missed something. Any advice or notes on potential red flags would be appreciated.

So I recently had some poetry published and I'm wondering whether it's worth mentioning in my CV or SOP. I did not get my degree in English and I'm only applying to grad programs in the social sciences. Given that: is it just a waste of space to mention something as arbitrary as a non-academic poetry publication?

Much obliged all!

Earlier in the year I asked what the relative weight was of publications and conferences. I received some very useful feedback from fuzzylogician regarding the apparent weight of those items and their applicability to my overall application. As it is rapidly closing in on "that time of year" for applications I was hoping I could get a bit more information as to how conferences and publications should be placed in a statement of purpose or personal statement. A bit of personal background regarding this question: I recently graduated with two B.S. degrees and a minor from a medium sized state school. I am applying to political science and philosophy graduate programs in Europe and Canada (I am a US citizen). As it stands, I have presented multiple pieces of research at twelve conferences (several undergraduate conferences, several graduate conferences, and two professional conferences). I have also published two pieces; one in an undergraduate journal and one in an academic magazine. I also have one piece currently in the "Revise and Resubmit" stage for a professional peer-reviewed journal and two other pieces currently under review by an undergraduate journal in the US and another in the UK. Three immediate questions spring to mind: (1) should I attempt to include these conferences and publications in my SOP? (Obviously it could become a quantity issue at a certain point) (2) If yes to (1) - should I attempt to showcase the more prestigious or professional-level conferences over the regional and undergraduate conferences, and (3) The pride-and-joy of my undergraduate career is undoubtedly my political theory paper being reviewed and as requisitioned for re-submission for a professional academic journal. Unfortunately, given the average time frame for publication by this journal, the fact that is has yet to be published, and that several application deadlines will likely pass before I receive any information as to its publication status - how can I include this in my SOP? I want to include something about this paper - it is something I am extremely proud of given my status as an undergraduate. But obviously having a publication to list on your CV and claiming in an SOP that you might be published assuming everything goes perfectly in the editing process, are two dramatically different things. Any thoughts?

Cheers, that was sort of my concern as well - I've thought about trying to get some work into American Political Science Association journals this summer. Of course for all I know I have one professor who secretly hates me writing terrible letters - no idea. The only consistent feedback I was hearing last year post-rejection season was comments on "fit" and how it related to my research. Which, okay, yeah, is admittedly a wee bit of a problem given most of the my conference presentations and publications are centered around European issues and schools of thought and not North American ones. Whether the the relative "weight" of conferences and publications is that contingent on geographical location or type of theory or not is a mystery to me. But maybe it's code for "apply to European schools"...

Yes, "participate" does, in this case, mean "present" and typically chair a session when possible - I know it sounds like overkill right? And I've presented seven original pieces (obviously I've done double-duty on a few of them). Comically enough, I've never gone to a conference to hang-out. Granted, I have seen a number of students do this and I think it's great for networking, but I'm not sure I have the social chops to be buddy-buddy with random folks I'll see for a day or two. As far as a SOP goes: they were alright depending on the school. I had several folks look them over and several professors who had done admissions before give me some feedback - I don't anticipate they were anything outstanding, but I also can't imagine there was too much to complain about. The writing sample I sent out last year was decent (I had another but I only sent it out to one school); it was a piece that had been published and passed around my department and received a number of edits from profs. It may have been a bit two comparative and less theoretical than it otherwise could have been, but I wouldn't call the piece "bad" by any means. The LOR's are just an X-factor to me. I don't know what my department heads or professors wrote. They are all folks who are well published I guess, so I figure that counts for something.

I know questions on the value of conferences and publications have been floated a number of times, but I haven't found the answers all that satisfying (in part because it clearly varies by field and also by the quality of said publications and conferences). First a bit of background: I'm applying to programs in political theory both here in the US and in Canada, I'm prepping for Round 2 of grad applications (last year was sub-par in terms of acceptances) and that has included participating in more academic conferences, trying to get a couple publications under my belt, etc. My GPA is sub-par 3.2 from an average sized state school, GRE was pretty good (165/155/6), but I've always sort of banked on the idea that I could counter balance shortcomings in both of those areas with conferences and publications. Thus far I've participated in eleven conferences, both international and regional, and a mix of undergraduate and professional. I've also managed to publish twice, with the potential for an additional publication that is currently under review. Both publications have thus far been in undergraduate journals. Again, the motivation has always been to attempt to engage in these sorts of activities under the assumption that it would show research potential over a pretty weak GPA. But are conferences and publications in political theory or even the social sciences and humanities really weighted that heavily? Last year I only had one publication and 5 conferences I could list on my CV, which aided in securing only two (technically three if you include a laughable MA program) acceptances out of twelve with virtually no funding to speak of. I initially assumed maybe it was the quality of the conferences, but upon further investigation none of the conferences I'm participating in are at all questionable or unknown to folks in the field. Have I simply overestimated the value of these sorts of things? Is GPA really a better indicator of research potential than publications and what have you at at a undergraduate level? Application season is still several months away, but I figure I should at least get some input on this now so I can either redouble my efforts or maybe look to strengthen other areas (e.g. retake GRE, connect with a few different profs, etc.)