lily_

Rejection sucks doesn't it? You have two options, pick yourself up dust off and try again, or figure out what else you're going to do with your life. Nothing wrong with either choice (no matter how many people tell you you're stupid for trying). Ask those admissions committees what you could have done better (this does not mean to beg them to reconsider!). Find an (affordable) MA program to boost your application. Retake those GRE's (or GMATs or whatever) and kick their asses! Find a professor who is rooting for you and try to jump on board a research project. Learn a new language. Volunteer. There are a million things you can do to prepare for the next round and just because a few people told you "no" doesn't mean the answer will always be "no." This journey isn't over until you say it's over. Best of luck to everyone in their future plans!

I was told by the director of the Joukowsky Institute for the Ancient World (essentially classical archaeology) at Brown that they don't really look at GRE scores. I did some time as a non-matriculated student at University of Chicago, and know people who got into the NELC department with scores similar to yours with funding, however one of the professors there told me that they consider GRE when they making funding decisions. If you've got the time, study and retake it. A higher score can't hurt, but your other stats appear very competitive. Another thing a lot of classical archaeology programs look at is language, infact some of them weight that over GPA and GRE. I assume if you have a BA in Classics then you have the Greek & Latin, however many programs require you to also have two modern languages, normally French and German (sometimes, but not always, Italian). I know the departments at Brown and Boston will not consider applicants who have at least 2 or 3 of these languages requirements. Best of luck!

Frankly I think that contacting your hopeful professor (and others in the department) is essential to this entire process. This person will be of the utmost importance, way after you have been accepted, they will be someone you will be working closely with for over 5 years and likely be a part of the rest of your career. You want to know that you will get along with this person, whether your intellectual interests truly mesh, and that this person has the time to properly mentor you as well as the desire to do so. You can find professor's contact information on faculty web pages for most departments. A simple e-mail, giving a brief description of yourself, and a request for a meeting would suffice. I met with many professors this way. When you go, it's good to have a few questions prepared that are specific to the program and their research. Another plus to meeting with them is it places a face on your application. It is not necessary, as there are many applicants who receive acceptances without doing this, but I think it's certainly a good idea. You might find that you don't want to work with a certain person, or that they are not accepting students that year, or other things that might dissuade you from applying. Plus it's good practice for the networking you will inevitably have to do for your career, whether you choose to stay in academia or not. If the professor does not reply, you can e-mail most department secretaries with questions. Their e-mail addresses are either explicitly listed on faculty webpages or a general department@university.edu type address. They usually can answer general questions about the department and application process, and sometimes can arrange a meeting with the professor for you. Of course, professors are very busy individuals and a lack of response simply might mean that they are too busy to speak with a potential applicant, but nothing ventured nothing gained. Best of luck!

I'd say that a hand-written thank you card is more than sufficient for your LOR writers. I echo the statement above that if you do decide to do a gift, make it one that's under $10, perhaps a gift card to a local coffee shop you know they like? There is no reason to go overboard, but definitely do something to show your appreciation!

I shed my tears and sucked it up. I'm actually really proud - I ended up practically doubling my running mileage during the period in which the rejections came in! Then I contacted the departments I was rejected from, and asked them (hopefully without sounding too desperate or emo) what I could have done better. The answer was the same from all: earn an MA and do really, really well. So, low and behold, I found an MA program in my city and met with the person I'd most like to work with, who said he would write me a LOR for that department. The application is due Thursday, and I have everything in and have been sending my SOP to anyone willing to read it to tear apart. I also contacted another colleague of mine who supervises a project that I could participate in and potentially craft a thesis topic out of that is parallel to what this professor at the MA program does. So my SOP says essentially, "HEY LOOK AT ME I HAVE A RELEVANT PROJECT!" So, my plan is, get into this MA program and kick major ass, take names, run a marathon and try my luck for the PhD in 2012. Best part about this MA, it's dirt cheap, instate tuition with opportunities for work-study, and the grad courses are in the evening, so I could work and go to school and not owe the government a house. Yay. And here are some cheesey quotes that help me get through the day: It look Babe Ruth over 1,300 strike-outs to achieve his 716 (correct me if I'm wrong) homers! And Thomas Jefferson said that he believed in luck, the harder he worked, the more of it he found. Best of luck everyone!

The answer to your first point, to me at least, is how do graduates of your dream program fare on the job market? This is something to look at and ask your potential adviser prior to accepting. Many of the programs I looked into when I asked this question said, "well graduate x went onto get their law degree afterwards." Some programs will not help you at all in the job market. Others will. However, there is a saying that "it's the gunner, not the gun." So even if your program does not have great stats for job placement in academia afterwards, if you come out with a few publications and a revolutionary dissertation that gets cited a lot in other publications by various bigwigs, you're likely to be more successful on the job market. It seems a lot of anthropology PhDs find post-docs and adjunct positions, which usually do not pay as well as tenured professorships, but it's a way to get your foot in the door. Unfortunately adjuncting typically does not give you time or funding to do research and continue to publish after you graduate, however many post-docs the end result is a publication with your name on it (if you're lucky it's a monograph or a long article). PhDs in anthropology can end up teaching (it varies state-by-state whether you need additional school or testing to get a teaching certificate) highschool, and even some community colleges allow MA graduates or ABDs to teach. Again though, these jobs will likely not offer you funding to continue to publish or research your desired area. If you're in the archaeology subfield, there is always CRM, however with this economy and the housing market collapse these jobs are often few and far between, but you fare much better if you have the PhD than a BA or MA to get a permanent, salaried position. Some CRM is even funded by the government, overseeing state and local parks and whatnot. There are possibilities, but it appears that no matter how you slice it you're going to be running up hill. That said, I'm of the belief that nothing in this life that's worth doing is supposed to be easy. If this is your dream and your passion, then go for it. Do what it takes. Work hard, do your best and see where your chips fall. Thomas Jefferson said, "the harder I work, the more luck I find." About the funding, if you have saved enough to survive for a year without taking loans then I would not worry about it, however, be careful in departments where TA/RAships can be competitive. One year without funding, especially if you have savings and can afford it, is not that bad. Many programs don't offer funding period. In the end, don't worry about what the smartest thing to do is. Do you love the field? Are you passionate about what you intend to study? Does the idea of following the "path of least resistance" give you a sinking feeling in your gut like you just got stood up for the prom? Then go for it. Do what it takes. Would you rather look back at your life and see that you did the "smart" thing, or that you took risks that may or may not pay off financially in the long run, but are so much more interesting and fulfilling then say going for that MBA or finding yourself in a cubicle for the rest of your life. Best of luck!!!

I'm applying to Hunter as well, only not in education. I would contact someone in the department and be upfront and honest about your situation, the person you'd like to work with most for example. Definitely have your LOR writers submit their letters and go forward with the application. I think that it would probably be wise to explain why you are transferring, so long as you don't come off sounding childish. You're at risk here, unfortunately, because of low GPAs and transferring at the graduate level. However, MA programs tend to be a lot less competitive than PhDs, and Hunter does not offer any funding outside of financial aid for first-year students as far as I know (I could be wrong) which as far as admissions are concerned is in your favor. I would definitely apply, however I'm of the belief that the only way to truly guarantee yourself a "no" is to not apply. For the department I am applying to they have a non-matriculated option, so in the event that I don't get in, I shall work my way in going that route. If you are willing to do so, I would look into the education department to see if they offer that kind of option as well. Best of luck!

Yeah I wish my mom was on the admissions committee too.

The first time I ever applied to graduate school, I thought that I had a shot at getting into a Turkish University (I'm an American) master's program where I heard (from the director at an open house when I was doing some study abroad in Ankara) that they REALLY wanted American students and would accept pretty much anyone. I applied. My rejection came in the form of an e-mail, from a graduate student. It was poorly written, and granted the person writing it was not a native English speaker, but they did not even bother to use any capital letters. I did not follow up, nor will I ever apply there again (especially because an MA from a Turkish university to be competitive for US PhD schools? right, bad idea from the get go). My rejects from PhD programs this year were just the standard fare. I did get feedback from both adcomms that I should pursue a MA, and then reapply. So at least they knew who I was and liked the positive parts of my application.

Before I applied, I went and visited each person I wanted to work with at programs I was thinking about applying to. It took me less than five minutes to decide that I would rather eat glass than spend the next 5-7 years at Columbia during my interview with a nameless individual!

Ok, my quick question is for a SOP that is supposed to be 500 words, is it ok to go very slightly over that? I am trying to cut out all flowery words and extras that are not necessary and don't detract from the points I am trying to make, but I am stuck at 522 words. This might be arbitrary, but I just want to be sure!!! And if anyone wants to give it a quick read with a super critical eye that would be much appreciated! Thanks!

If you are first author on a publication that's placed in something important (a scholarly journal, the New York Times, etc) and what you wrote about relates to the project you're proposing in your SOP, then I would definitely say something like, "The research I performed on my publication in Aren't Primates Interesting on the slow loris inspired me to raise this question that I could pursue under the direction of Dr. X and thus makes me an ideal candidate for this program" (ok, not EXACTLY like that, but you know what I'm saying!). I'm going to have to agree that the adcomms, especially in this application season where the number of applicants are high, are probably going to look at the basics first, and then your awards second. It sucks, you did hard work and was recognized for it, but a lot of this is simply a numbers game. If your application makes it to a "short list" that's when I think they will be say, "Minnares not only exceeds the qualifications for this department, but on her CV it says that she's won all sorts of awards for being fabulously talented! That certainly puts her above poor sap #45 who only have grades and test scores to go off of." The process sucks, it's not fair, and all of that. I think that at some point your extras do matter, but think of them like the icing on the top of the cake that is your application.

I'm definitely not ready to throw in the towel and am gearing myself up for round 2. Round 2 for me, however, involves applying to a terminal MA program (at a very affordable in-state school) which I have been told by faculty members I have a "very good chance" of getting in. If not, then I shall enter said program non-matriculated for a semester and kick ass (pardon my casual typing, the admissions committee won't be reading this!) and work my way in. In 2 years then I shall reapply for the PhDs, with hopefully a publication, a 4.0 Master's, a higher GRE scores, and even better LORs. Kudos for the awesome positive attitude! And hopefully the economy will come around which will open up more opportunities for us all as far as funding and admittance are concerned! (I heard due to economic constraints one university decided to reject all applicants in my subfield on the basis of no funding, and other departments decreased the amount of acceptances even though they had record high numbers of applicants due to the strained economy).

Most graduate programs want you to have above a 3.0 to be considered. I'm not in the "hard" sciences, however. Focus on improvement. It's a little late now to try to enroll as a non-matriculated student at U of C to take some graduate level coursework, but the fact that your names are on publications is a huge plus. Here is what you need: 1. High GRE's, probably higher in quantitative for your field than in verbal. There are places on this page where you can find some decent advice about preparation and getting a high score. Study a little bit everyday, starting as soon as possible. 2. Find professors who are either letting you be a second or third author, you are working with in the lab, or have taken coursework with (multiple courses if possible) and solidify strong, personal LORs. It's important to do this early, because a professor is more likely to write a positive LOR for a student that makes effort to see them aside from asking them for favors. If there are bigwigs in your field at U of C seek them out first, and go for junior scholars second. It helps if you have someone singing your praises if they are buddies with the admissions committee you are applying to. 3. To reiterate what the others said, start researching your program. You need to find a happy medium between having a plan that's specialized enough to be interesting, but not overly specialized. This is what goes into your SOP, which you should work extremely hard on. The SOP is the most important part of your application (in my opinion) because you have complete control over its content and what it says, unlike other aspects of your application. It's also not a bad idea to contact people you envision being your future advisor. E-mail to start, and if it's possible arrange a phone call or face-to-face visit. Your adviser is someone who you are going to have to work with probably for the rest of your life in many fields - best to get an idea of what kind of person they are and their intellectual interests before spending time and money on a lengthy degree. I second Matt's suggestion of reading "Getting What You Came For." I would suggest reading the entire thing, and not just the sections on applications! Best of luck!

Honestly, even with a couple small bumps in the road considering your GPA (which is still very high)I think you would be a competitive candidate for most graduate programs. So long as you don't bomb the GRE and continue to do well I think you'll do great.

Hunter College has a terminal MA and appears that some graduates from that have gone on to study at top universities for PhD's afterward. They have a lot of people there for cultural and arch. It's also linked into the CUNY school system.

I just had a professor who sits on admissions committees look over my SOP. My introduction was talking about how I liked to go to museums as a child and was fascinated by the ancient world. He said that starting out like this is a huge mistake. Obviously if you are applying to study archaeology at the graduate level, it's pretty much assumed that you're fascinated by the ancient world and probably enjoy museums. But so do lots of people. What makes you unique. Attempt to illustrate your passion for the field without really telling some kind of silly story about your childhood. This is also an approach that many people take, and if you really want a strong SOP you'll find a better, more mature, and more creative way to say it. The next point is, whether or not to talk about the negatives on your application. I wrote mine this year mentioning them extremely briefly and moving on. My thought behind this was to simply focus heavily on all the points that make me a competitive applicant. However, some graduate programs explicitly say that your SOP is the place on your application to mention your negatives and why the committee should overlook them. Obviously, this should not be the focus of your SOP. What the committees are looking for here is growth and improvement above all. Do not make excuses for poor grades, weak GRE scores, or a spotty work record. Do, however, point out how you have grown, how the committee can see improvement, and then highlight the things that make you a fabulous candidate. The last thing I will mention is also very important, particularly for PhDs. Make sure that you know who you are applying to study under, and what your project is. Demonstrate that you would fit into the department like a glove and that you read Dr. Octopus' latest article on the newest theory, etc. etc. etc. Also, have a concise project in mind. Remember, you're not married to this idea, but you need to show the committee that you can ask the right kind of questions concerning your proposed research and that the project is something that the faculty could help you on based off of their interests and previous work. Do not make this project a carbon-copy of something they have previously accomplished, but a project that complements the research they have already performed. It is also highly advisable, since your job as a PhD student is essentially to perform lots of independent research, to demonstrate that you are capable of performing independent research. Although you want to show that you are a good fit for the program, you do not want to appear as though your adviser will have to hold your hand for the next five years. Hope that helps! I'm no expert, but these are simply my thoughts on the process.

Your stats are pretty good. I'm not sure about their communications department, but I know that many of their "liberal arts" departments don't weigh the GRE very heavily. MA programs also tend to be less competitive than PhDs. However, this application season due to the struggling economy in the US, competition is very high, and I know that many departments at NYU had to accept less students than they normally do because of financial reasons. I'd say that so long as you have strong LORs and a well-written, concise SOP you probably have a good chance. But remember, sometimes people get rejected from programs because of things that have nothing to do with your application. It's definitely worth a shot though. Best of luck!

Hi Neil. You might find better feedback if you reposted this in the Applied Mathematics & Sciences Forum (subforum: engineering). Your questions are very specific to your field! Best of luck.

Brian, I admire your tenacity to improve your practice GRE scores! However, if you want my advice, (regardless of the ETS rules concerning how often you take the test) I would either take it once, and see where you need to improve (ie if the verbal section was particularly hard, then practice vocab), or simply continue to study and periodically retake the practice tests until you start seeing scores that you (and your potential programs) would be satisfied with. I wouldn't schedule back-to-back tests, because if you end up doing poorly the next time that would leave you an extremely limited amount of time to prepare for the second attempt. And taking the GRE is not cheap (especially if you're looking at spending the next decade on a grad student's stipend!). I'll spare you my rant about giving money to ETS on a test that only really tests your ability to take said test and how silly it is that it is a part of the application process...but yeah. In this economy you don't want to just throw your money away particularly if you're looking at spending quite a bit of time working on a graduate degree where your earning potential until you graduate will be slim-to-none. Just buy yourself a couple practice books, make yourself some flashcards, read some 19th century lit (I've been told that they use a lot more words that appear on the GRE than current novels do, plus if you ever want to be a contestant on Jeopardy! it would help) practice practice practice, take a couple more practice tests, see where you stand, then take the GRE once you're totally confident. No use wasting your money on multiple tests in the mean time! That's just my two cents. Again, best of luck!

Ok here's some points 1. I have a poor UGPA as well, however, the last 2 years of my undergrad plus 1 year of non-matriculated grad school grades are stellar, meaning above 3.5. I'm not sure how a Master's for what you're going for works, but this is extremely important. Can you demonstrate that you have improved and grown up and gotten beyond the "youthful indiscretions" that helped you earn your 2.3? Again, this is extremely important. As much as I would like to believe that your application is not all based on your UGPA (it's not) this is the main way admissions committees will judge you, and you will be competing with other applicants who did not do so poorly. This is reality, and you have to figure out a game plan to show that you are capable of independent research and (here comes point #2). 2. You must find at least one academic LOR. Someone who likes you, who believes in you, who gives you the impression that they are invested in your future. Someone who will write a personal letter saying that you are bright, intelligent, deserving, and the committee would be at a major loss if they rejected you. These committees are academics, even for MA programs and will inevitably take those LORs more seriously than ones from employers, and especially more serious than ones from co-workers. Taking the coursework you mentioned will certainly help, however, ensure that you get one of the top grades in that class, and make sure that you spend a lot of time with the professor. Even see if there is some kind of independent research he/she can get you involved with. Unlike your UGPA, this is something that you have control over. 3. Learning Spanish will probably be an asset for you in general -whether you continue on this career trajectory or not. Again, even if you just take it at your local community college, make sure that you come out with an A in the course. 4. A perfect GRE score will not guarantee you a scholarship, especially with your UGPA. I normally try to be as kind as possible on this forum, but that is reality. Most MA programs are totally unfunded, meaning you will pay out of pocket. Most available funding goes to PhD students, and if there is actually funding available for your Master's program, it will likely be extremely competitive. If you get into a two year program and earn a 4.0, and make a name for yourself as a responsible, hard-working individual, you might have a shot at getting funded for your second year, but that is unlikely as well. I would imagine that if you got into a program with your credentials you would not be considered for funding at all. Again, I am in a similar situation as you and I will be happy with a simple acceptance to the MA program I am applying to and realize that most likely the entire degree will be unfunded. 5. Retaking those courses will help, however, it would be best to focus on your aforementioned coursework at this point. Some more competitive programs will see that you retook it and assume that you got an "F" the first time and factor that into your non-matriculated GPA. Some might look on it positively, and some might see it as a sign that you are not a very serious student. 6. Also re-write your SOP and have someone other than your boyfriend edit it. They mean well, but they don't want to hurt your feelings. Not saying you didn't write a good SOP, but find someone you trust who is involved in your field or the school you are applying to to completely rip your SOP to pieces and then make a second draft, and repeat if necessary. This is potentially the most important aspect of your entire application because you have the most control over it. Best of luck. Thomas Jefferson said that he believed in luck, and the harder he worked the more luck he found.

Thanks for your post medanthro, definitely gives me a lot to think about the next round of applications and writing my SOPs. Great advice!

me 3.

The best advice on the applications process comes from professors who actually serve on admissions committees. Definitely demonstrating that you are capable of performing independent research will help, and I would take that a step further and see if this professor might be willing to list you as a second (or third) author on a project he/she might be working on. I would also recommend having this professor you know and trust (who is writing you a positive LOR) rip apart the SOP you used this year. The only way to really make an impact in improving this aspect is to have someone rip it to shreds, give it back to you so you know how to make it stronger. Have him/her do this a few times if necessary. The SOP is probably the most important part of your application because it's your own time to show exactly how you as an individual would fit into your desired departments, succeed, and why you are better than all of the other applicants. I believe that the AW section on the GRE is the easiest score to raise. I wrote about this on a similar post, but essentially the AW section is testing your ability to spit out a formulaic, logical 5-6 paragraph essay. Once you figure out the formula the graders are looking for, it becomes much easier to raise that score. Also, next time you take it, make sure to edit because it's easy to overlook grammatical and spelling errors that pull that score down. I'm not sure how it is for CS students, but at least for my field the problem with applying to a broader range of schools is difficult because each departments wants you to "fit" intellectually and as far as interests are concerned with faculty members. However, applying to a safety school or two would probably help. Best of luck!

I apologize, I didn't want to come off as anything but giving advice. In the arts, humanities, and social sciences GRE is less of a deciding factor as it is in the "hard" sciences and engineering. Plus a lot of admissions committees are aware that the only thing the GRE is useful for is testing your ability to take the GRE. Hope all works out, and most departments certainly weigh more on the other aspects of your application.