WildeThing

I agree with Old Bill, under the assumption that you are hoping to use the thesis for your WS. The WS is one of your key documents so if you don't have a paper you can use, a thesis would be a good way to accomplish that (assuming you'd have it finalized and feedback-ed by the application deadline). However, if you're taking grad classes, you might already have a WS you can use (and seminar papers fit the length better, so it will be easier to cut them down and polish them). If you do have a strong seminar paper I would actually recommend doing comps. Comps were both the hardest and most rewarding experience for me in the PhD. They're a great opportunity to read the things you've been meaning to read, think you have to read, or should read for breadth/specialization. My dissertation idea came from this process and has nothing to do with the things I applied to do. By its very nature, if you read across your field (and adjacent fields) you will discover a lot of interesting things and you will be better versed to make research claims about it. While I was successful on the grad application trail, I think that had I had this type of experience and knowledge when I applied I would have been even more successful. Note that this will depend on what the structure of comps are. Are you forced to pick from an assigned list? Do you have freedom to choose what you want? In my case, I had a lot of freedom to pick what I wanted to read, but people who did lists in other fields faced some limitations. This is especially a good opportunity to read some theory and new scholarship in your field, if the structure allows for it. Again, this would be most useful if you can do the comps before you apply so you can use this knowledge. So, ultimately, I would think about whether you feel comfortable with your WS and how dates work out, and then think about how either route would help you compose your other documents (breadth could help with your SoP, but a thesis could also help (and a thesis MIGHT get you a stronger letter of recommendation, depending on your advisor experience)), and finally you could think about what you think would help you most as a PhD student. All of this is based on the assumption that you are applying to PhDs. If you might be leaving academia with the MA, the considerations will be different (not sure if this would even matter).

I'm really sorry about your rejections, being shut out is really rough. I would strongly advise against going into debt for any graduate program, especially when it's not a prerequisite for entry for your next stage. While many PhD admits have MAs, there are also many that don't (not sure what the actual breakdown is). Having an MA would not necessarily make you more competitive, but it does put a burden on you to make a decent living once you're hopefully out of the PhD and while the market might change dramatically by then, right now that is not a guarantee, as many of the jobs currently offered (which do not cover the labor pool) are equivalent to graduate stipends, which are generally around minimum wage. Your best bet is to take a beat to reassess and try to think what, out of the things you have control over, might have hindered your chances and then attempt to address that in the next round (and you might want to look into things like the Institute for the Recruitment of Teachers for support in the next cycle). What MAs are good for, assuming you make good use of them, is a. demonstrating an ability to do graduate-level work, b. developing a more sophisticated understanding of the field, c. giving you opportunities to develop and execute on ideas, and d. offer you an extended pool of faculty and colleagues who can support you (I'm sure there are other things, but I think these are the main ones). None of these things are necessary, and some of them are things you can do on your own. While having a wider network of support is hard to replicate outside of an institution, if you're able to, you can spend this time reading and developing your ideas, and the WS you submit would override any graduate experience anyway. The best thing you can do is polish your SoP and WS over the coming year. If you were considering funded MAs my answer would be different, but given the prerequisites for grad admissions and the realities of job market on the other side, we are currently debating whether graduate programs themselves are worth it, so unfunded ones are definitely not.

I would not listen to this advice. Once you’re in there is no difference between being a direct admit or an off-the-waitlist person. There’s a lot of reasons why you might be waitlisted one place and accepted another and it’s not necessarily a matter of fit. Do not take yourself off a waitlist unless you are sure you would not take their offer anyway. To the original question, you can and should email them to say that you are still interested but that you have another offer and ask if they can give you any more information (e.g. is the waitlist ranked or by area? where do you stand on it? are they waiting on many responses or have most people accepted already? do they expect to hear back or respond to you by a certain date (e.g. after visit days), etc.). None of these answers will actually help you get in (nor will having another offer) but at least you’ll have some info. If you have a strong sense that you might take the waitlist offer if it is made, I would just hold on until the deadline (and follow up with the waitlist). The other school knows this is a thing and will respect it. There is still more than a month to go and often waitlist movement happens at the very end.

I don't know about the acceptances rates for funded MAs but I imagine that the entry bar is a bit lower than for funded PhDs. But yes, it will probably help you to apply to places with faculty and resources that coincide with your interests. You can reach out to them but it's certainly not required.

I'm sorry to say that there aren't any programs with high acceptance rates. Maybe some are higher than others, but I'm not sure there's data and anyway, it wouldn't make for a great strategy. Any funded PhD program is bound to receive hundreds of applicants so it's really going to be a matter of finding the programs with the best fit. I was accepted by a school that rejected me the first time. The general logic is to limit the schools you reapply to because if they rejected you once it is likelier than not that they will again. Nevertheless I reapplied to a few and one did accept me. I did not retake any exams, my WS was the same, and my transcripts were basically the same. I don't remember exactly how the LoRs were similar or not but I think at least 2 repeated. Ultimately, the only thing I changed, but changed significantly, was the SoP. I was still basically proposing to work in the same field (20th c. African American) but the first time my project was, though defined, constructed in a way that didn't make me very legible (I was combining postcolonial criticism, existential philosophy, and critical race theory while referring to early century African American lit, across French and English). My second SoP focused on a more cohesive group of authors and proposed a specific topic that was easier to pin down within the discipline. I dunno if that is helpful; for me the ilegibility of my scholarship and the difficulty of classifying it was the main thing my LoRs and I interpreted as the reason I had no success, so - given that I had a different interest I was also interested in pursuing - I just abandoned the first project entirely. Unless that's your same situation, my experience is unlikely to be helpful. My advice would be be as self-critical as you can and talk to your advisors to really pin down why you didn't get accepted (the numbers game and luck will of course be relevant, but they're unhelpful because you cannot do anything to improve them). To the degree that you can change your SoP and address those things while still being true to your interests, I would make those changes. Of course, there's always the chance that you were a borderline acceptance and making changes might push you away from acceptance, so take this with a pinch of salt.

I think maybe you should consider your own advice (and also read the OP's post). They asked about studying at two different universities, not a dual degree. While this is technically possible, as an international student there are many loopholes one would have to jump through (here's just an example from one institution), which can make this practically unfeasible (if it is actually feasible, UMich for instance, would require part-time enrollment in both programs, which can be a tremendous roadblock for many administrative reasons). I feel like sometimes domestic students aren't fully aware of the limitations of being an international student; contrary to what another poster has said, visa status IS the foremost concern for an international student, and dismissing these concerns for incoming students can produce a lot of headaches later on (I cannot begin to describe how much bullshit you can go through as an international student doing basic things like just receiving your stipend, accepting your offer-letter employment, etc.). Of course, if you can get into a dual program then most of the concerns go out of the window because the structure is in place; but, again, this is not what OP, who was already in a PhD program, was discussing and thus is not relevant (for them, but certainly helpful for future readers).

I think you're fine, we've all done work in multiple fields and reasonably have interests beyond the artificially-delimitated fields we ultimately work/market ourselves in, so committees are aware of this. You can make connections between them if you think it will help your cause but otherwise you can just talk about the work you want to do.

I'm not familiar with UChicago but as others have said here in the past, the prestige of their other departments does not necessarily (and many have argued it in fact does not at all) translate to the MAPH program. The main thing I did want to say is to not be fooled by offers of partial scholarships. 1.5k is just a small percentage of what you'll be paying, so ultimately it's just like a store offering you a tiny discount (if you buy this $3000 couch we'll waive delivery). It sounds like a ploy more than anything else (consider that even NYU's maligned cash-grab MA offers "awards" up to 60% of tuition, but of course, you're still paying 40% which translates to thousands and thousands of dollars).

This seems like a school-specific policy so your best bet is to look through the graduate school, department, or registrar websites about grading policies. Assuming S/U means Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory, my first instinct is that this is a COVID-based policy that allows students to take a course for transcript credit but without being graded (so anything between a C - A+ would be the same), since my school has the same policy, and it was just meant to give students flexibility given our current situation.

No, I think you should reach out ASAP. All initial decisions should be made by now (though there were posts here recently about Penn State abhorrently doing rolling admissions).

Congratulations! It's always so great to see people succeed after persevering through multiple cycles!

Oh wow I had no idea any program had such high acceptance rates, even if temporarily.

That does seem insanely high, especially given the numbers this cycle and how popular a school they've been in previous cycle. Perhaps they typoed and meant to say 2%? That would suggest a pool of over 250 which is closer to the numbers from other schools. The cynical perspective might see the 20%, if not an error, to be a ploy to suggest that it's worth applying to the school; but this would be cruel, disingenuous, and would clash with what you've said about their letter. Of course, if it is simply the truth then holy shit, why is no one applying to UI-Champaign?

I would ask UCDavis if you'd be able to be long-distance/online once you finished coursework. If so (and you'd need to get this in writing) you could do your coursework, get to know the faculty, etc. while your partner is deployed, do one year of separation (in which you might be able to progressively relocate to NY so it's not so jarring for the kids), and then relocate to NY and do everything long-distance. Of course, the negative here is that you and the kids would have to relocate twice in a short amount of time. If not, while there are no guarantees you'd get another offer in a new cycle (especially if you're limiting yourself to the NY area), I might relocate to NY. I did 2 years of separation from then-girlfriend now-wife while I did my MA and it was awful. I know some people do fine, and it was indeed fine, it was just noticeably worse than spending time together (I know of multiple couples who did a full PhD in different countries). But, the complicating factor here are the kids and I imagine it would be very difficult to basically raise your kids as faux-single parents for such a long time. I just don't think the PhD is worth it (especially given all the pre-existing negatives of the PhD). Note that I am assuming here that the question is whether YOU should give up on UCDavis rather than whether it's a question of you doing it or your husband giving up on the job. You could have a whole debate on who should do what but that's a personal issue and not something anyone can (or should) comment on. (Also I am assuming your partner has the job, your post suggested they might still be in the process of it).

I agree that rankings are meaningless, but I didn't say ranking, I said prestige (or at least, perceived prestige) and that is meaningful. I've said this many times (and I know not everyone agrees on this), but coming from a known quantity institution plays a big role in your image and perceived risk for committees. Doing graduate-level work at a respected program, and having the LoRs and SoP to show that, will carry some weight, especially for those who do not have the privilege of coming from well-known programs. I agree with these notions in the abstract, but they are abstracts. I see no reason to assume any letter writer is being discounted because they keep recommending people energetically but yes, if such a person exists, they letter might be perceived as less valuable. And while, again, in theory professor might be too busy to connect with students, in the specific context OP is asking about my claim is that this is not a fear. I'm not saying all profs are always available, but that a prof being available to you does not depend on your status as MA/PhD. Of course, perhaps an MA student here will have a different perspective but many of my MA classmates have formed deeper bonds with professors than I have and, based on my experience, there is no difference between MA students and PhD students at this stage (other than what I noted above). But yes, funding is the single most important factor and I would think long and hard before committing to an unfunded program, no matter which one it is.

I think this is partly true. If you come from an institution that is not well-know, doing your MA at an institution that is (and demonstrating that you have performed well in that context) can mitigate your perceived risk. The other issue with prestige comes in the form of letter writers: if a well-known scholar is able to speak highly of you that also mitigates your perceived risk. This is why if you choose to take the financial risk of doing an unfunded MA (which I'm not saying you should), I think a 2-year MA gives you more opportunities to build rapport (and develop your materials) than a 1-year MA. For what it's worth, I'll repeat that MAs and PhD students, during coursework, are indistinguishable from each other at UVA both in coursework and in advising; we are provided the same access and resources (except for some funding opportunities for research). Again, none of this should be perceived as an encouragement to do a unfunded MA.

I’m not in the MA program but during coursework it’s basically the same thing so I do have familiarity with it. In terms of cohort sizes it probably depends on the amount of applicants but the last cohort was 11 and the previous one was nearly 30 (there’s also a small group of students who are BA/MAs). These cohorts include the partly-funded teaching concentration MAs. The 30-person cohort was abnormally large so I think most years it’s 10-20. MAs do various things. I know some go into K-12 teaching, other humanities positions, and some go into PhDs. I don’t know their placement rate but it might be something you could ask. I don’t know many of the MAs from the cohort above mine but I do know that one got into a PhD program and another was waitlisted by a couple. This year I know at least 2 have applied to PhDs and one has an offer but this year is strange and he cycle isn’t over anyway. I only know of one person who did their MA and then got accepted for the PhD here, so I would say making the jump is unlikely. Generally speaking I’d say MAs are useful for two things: the prestige/name recognition of the institution and developing your potential research proposal. If you come from a top program already I’d say the first is mitigated. The second will depend. Personally I have learned a lot during coursework and if I was reapplying now I’d imagine I’d do much better (in a normal cycle anyway) and that’s despite having done previous MAs. I know a lot of the MAs have learned a lot and developed exciting projects and established good rapport with professors so with 2 years with the MA I’d say you’re likely to develop a more competitive candidacy. The department also has a wonderful placement officer who helps students during the application process. Now, is that worth paying for an MA? That’s up to you, and you can read up on advice here about paying for a graduate degree. My general approach, and this has nothing to do with UVA specifically, is that paying for a graduate degree is very risky given the academic job market. If you DO decide it’s a risk worth taking I’d say UVA is a good option but I don’t know how equivalent programs operate to make an informed call. (Also I don’t think departments care if you got rejected in previous cycles or that that they assume someone from an MA program must have been rejected from a PhD).

UVA's virtual visits are this week though I'm not sure what's on deck or how it works (in general and re: waitlists).

If they were still deliberating on who to select I'd say maybe, but now I'm not sure it accomplishes much since they already think you're capable, they're just waiting to see who takes their spot so they can offer one to you. That said, will it hurt your chances? Probably not.

Actually, I really don’t think this is the case. While the UChicago situation was much publicized, I’m not sure we should draw too many conclusions from it. For one, the Covid situation was only partly the determinant in that decision. Historical inequalities in admissions and in the academy led to a decision to create a seismic change in the department culture (I imagine). While many departments have probably considered this given the past year, we shouldn’t forget that humanities departments are liberal havens and liberals love to make small temporal changes in lieu of massive systemic ones. I would bet anything that Chicago and other departments in similar positions will go back to the usual soon, having patted themselves on the back. More importantly, departments know that it’s impossible to predict trends or accurately predict what students will work on. To select ultra-specifically is simply not going to work, and is a recipe for some fields going unrepresented. Even if you get the best future scholar of X in your cohort, by the time they defend their thesis X might not really be a thing anymore or the student might have moved on from X. My guess is departments will continue to use the general formula of “do we have all the general areas covered?” Not saying it’s good; it’s a shitty formula and has created many inequalities.

I’m afraid it’s just a matter of waiting. Replying stating your continued interest (and perhaps a “let me know if you require anything else” type line) is all you can really do. Definitely do not send a million emails. Infrequent check-ins might be fine, but depends on how nice the admissions people are. I think I found out I was waitlisted in early March so in early April I asked about movement on the waitlist and then again a couple of days before the deadline. Both times I was told they were waiting for responses and had no new information but a few hours later I was notified that an offer might be coming (and later I received it). So, ultimately, there’s nothing you can so but wait. If they need something they’ll let you know. Good luck!

I don't have an answer to your question because there are so many factors and so many questions to navigate (and for the most part they have been addressed on this forum). I just wanted to say that you should make sure to investigate cost of living before making a decision based on finances. I'm sure you've already considered this, but 10k can seem like a big difference but if rent is higher at the latter place then you might find that the offers are equivalent. I would also say, if money is the reason why you'd choose one over the other, it might be worth going back to the first school and seeing if they'd increase their offer.

As an international student who went through two cycles and applied to many schools, here's my take: school prestige is a thing and it is very important. There's a reason why the "higher" you go up the alleged rankings and look at current students, the less variety you will see and less likely you will be to find a school you're unfamiliar with. Part of admissions is risk assessment; how likely is a student to perform and finish the degree? Schools are investing time and money that is ultimately supposed to pay off by producing brilliant scholars and so they want to get the best students that fit what they're looking for every year. While a great student is a great student, there are hundreds of applicants every year and for the most part, they're all brilliant. Even when you narrow down to specific fields and interest areas, you might still have multiple great students with similarly-brilliant supporting materials. If one of those went to an ivy league school and another to a school no one on the committee has every heard of - and, perhaps, from an a national content they've never dealt with before - well, the latter student is just a more unknown quantity. Personally I think this plays a large part in admissions, but there's also just the access privilege issue someone mentioned above. Someone who spent 4 years at Yale is more likely to be able to speak the Harvard adcomm's language better than someone who went to Arizona State (and both are more likely than someone who went to lesser known university in Spain). These things have an effect and while it's certainly possible to get in regardless - an amazing candidate is an amazing candidate - it's probably just a bit harder. The good and the bad thing is that you have no control over this so it's pointless to worry about it. No one is going to throw your app out because of it so you should still apply to your top places, but, and this is always true, you should be realistic about your chances. So, my advice to anyone in this position is to do A LOT of research on schools so you apply to the places with the best fit and can tailor your application (though there are many people who get in without tailoring their materials). Craft and re-craft your documents so they're perfect. And, and this I think is something that is less self-evident than the previous things I've said, diversify your school-list. Consider that if someone has a very similar profile to yours they are likely to apply to similar places. Now, someone who applies to Harvard is more likely to also apply to Yale or Chicago than to San Diego or Arizona State. Someone applying to UCLA is more likely to apply to UT Austin or Berkeley, etc. People generally apply via some structure and sometimes that's the school type (public, private, etc.), location, prestige, etc. If you only apply to ivies or only apply in a particular geographical area, you're more likely to be competing with the same people. So, if you're unlucky and your cycle has that person who is doing very similar things to you but for whatever reason is getting offers and you're not, applying to a wider variety of schools will give you more opportunities at schools where this person has not applied. There's a whole bunch of factors and no one really knows how any of this works and no single factor is ever determinant so, ultimately, your best bet is to produce the best documents as you can, be as honest as you can about who you are and what you want to do, and just hope that you resonate with a committee. (But yes, strong SoPs and WS will trump average scores and a spectacular SoP can probably balance out anything, but what's a spectacular SoP?)

FWIW, as someone living here, they never stop and they're really annoying.

Congratulations! I'm so glad to see this cycle is going so well for you!