lordtiandao

We typically give out two offers, but this year the pool was very large (we had the second highest number of applicants) and very strong, so we're trying to get a third offer made. Otherwise we don't feel like it's fair.?

We typically give out two offers, but this year the pool was very large (we had the second highest number of applicants) and very strong, so we're trying to get a third offer made. Otherwise we don't feel like it's fair.?

Having a MA doesn't matter at UCLA. I came in with an MPhil and plenty of my cohort members have MAs, but we're still required to take courses and get an MA from UCLA. You can't use your MA credits to exempt out of courses here, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you'll have the opportunity to learn new things and build relationships with different professors.

Having a MA doesn't matter at UCLA. I came in with an MPhil and plenty of my cohort members have MAs, but we're still required to take courses and get an MA from UCLA. You can't use your MA credits to exempt out of courses here, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you'll have the opportunity to learn new things and build relationships with different professors.

Having a MA doesn't matter at UCLA. I came in with an MPhil and plenty of my cohort members have MAs, but we're still required to take courses and get an MA from UCLA. You can't use your MA credits to exempt out of courses here, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you'll have the opportunity to learn new things and build relationships with different professors.

Having a MA doesn't matter at UCLA. I came in with an MPhil and plenty of my cohort members have MAs, but we're still required to take courses and get an MA from UCLA. You can't use your MA credits to exempt out of courses here, which is not necessarily a bad thing because you'll have the opportunity to learn new things and build relationships with different professors.

Congrats on UCLA! 
You can accept if you're dead set on coming to UCLA, but it's perfectly acceptable to accept afterwards. It's really important to meet your potential advisors in person and see the campus for yourself. You're going to be spending many years here and the last thing you want is to hate the campus and/or your advisors! I didn't accept until after I visited, even though I was 90% sure I was going to choose UCLA. Let me know if you have any questions about UCLA!

The US is not China. GPA and scores mean very little (unless your scores are absolutely terrible...) to the admissions committee. They are mainly used to weed out the unqualified applicants, so as long as your scores are over a certain threshold you are fine. There is nothing you can do about your GPA anymore, instead trying to explain why your GPA is low you should instead be pointing out your achievements and your qualifications.

I wouldn't say this is very true for those who are applying to PhD programs. I'm Chinese and when I was applying all of my senpai kept reminding me that SOP and writing sample are the most important material which one uses to demonstrate credentials and potential. Like lordtiandao said, there is nothing you can do about your GPA. And although I didn't have a GPA issue that warrants an explanation, I've seen more advanced graduate students on this forum advise against using the limited space of your SOP to "justify" GPA, which may actually ends up bringing negative attention to it.

I tell this story often, but when I was reaching out, I was worried that my AW score (4.5) was low enough to merit a retake. The DGS paused for a second to think and then asked, "is that the one that's out of 6?"

Yeah, when I was interviewing for UCLA the professor talked a little about why he thought the UCLA program was better than Princeton's. I didn't think this was a coincidence since I listed Princeton as one of the schools I applied to on the application.

I'm most likely going to accept. Since my contract is only for 10 months, I plan on moving out and finding my own place next summer.

お久しぶり〜Long time no post EALCers!
I hope everyone is doing well and has decided their plans for next year!? I've accepted my offer from U-Michigan and I'm really excited! I went to A2 last week to take part in the visit day and really enjoyed it. It's a relief to finally know where I'll be this fall!

'The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated.' - Oscar Wilde

Dear Professor X,
Thank you very much for the encouragement to work with you at University A.  I appreciated our conversations and I learned a lot.  However, after much consideration, I have decided that University B is a stronger fit for my needs.
I look forward to continuing our conversations and seeing each other at future conversations.

Well, folks, this marks the end of my application cycle. I wanted to say thank you to everyone for the advice and commiseration during these stressful months. Gradcafe is such a valuable resource, and I hope to meet some of you in person in the future!
后会有期！
加油！
P.S To RSEA admits: I spoke with financial aid, and they will be mailing the official offers tomorrow. See you guys in Cambridge! 

I don't see why not. As far as I know, it's not uncommon. How much the school is willing to pay really depends on how much money the department has. USC never gave me an upper limit as to how much they were willing to pay, UCLA was willing to pay anything under $500, and my friend told me Northwestern could only cover $350. It doesn't hurt to send an e-mail and ask.

This has been a thread I'd like to contribute to for a while, and I am so very glad that I finally am in a position to do so! Please pardon my typos and the bad grammar. 
Current status (2017-2018): 
Applied (7): Columbia (History - East Asia), Michigan —Ann Arbor (History and Women's Studies joint program), UChicago (History), UCSB (History), Wisconsin - Madison (History) , U of Toronto (History), Princeton (East Asian Studies)
Accepted (declined) : UChicago, UCSB, U of Toronto, Columbia
Rejected: Princeton, Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan
Past status (2016-2017):
Applied (6): Columbia (PolSci), Berkeley (PolSci), GWU (PolSci), UVA (PolSci), Harvard (History), UPenn (History)
Accepted: N/A
Rejected: All of them (UPenn post-interview)
Executive Summary:
1. Choose programs that are the best fit (in my case, this begins with choosing the right discipline...)
2. Contact not just one but multiple POIs (not just to gauge fit, but for advice)
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP (make sure some of the reviewers are advanced PhD students)
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
4. (if applicable) Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experiences/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
Background Info:
I'm an international student with no degree in History but two Master's degrees from non-U.S. schools. I would like a career in the academia not bc this is the only option I have, but the one I desire most. So, to some extent, I am aware of the trade-off, the opportunity cost, and the risk, which means applying to PhD programs itself is an informed decision. And, in my humble opinion, the lessons I've learned are--
1. Choose programs that are the best fit
I know this is a bit cliche, but in my case this was a fundamental and challenging task to complete. To begin with, I needed to know who I am as an academic in order to choose the discipline that is the best fit given my intellectual identity. On paper, I am a significantly better applicant for PhD programs in PolSci than I am for programs in History.  And I wasn't sure if I wanted to become a historian or a political scientist during my first cycle of application. For instance, I didn't know if I want to approach international politics as a historian or become a political scientist with a historical perspective. When I was preparing for my applications to History programs in 2016, I felt like I was "defecting" from one field to another. That identity crisis did real damage to my first cycle, and completely turned my existent academic training against me. Multiple POIs  even (explicitly or implicitly) asked  me why I wanted to be trained into a historian. 
So, the lesson is, if I cannot even identify my intellectual self, then the committees and POIs cannot either.
I spent the past year painstakingly coming to terms with the fact that I want to be a historian (with my research interests encompassing field A, B, C...). And this has not only made the "searching for programs that are the best fit" process in 2017 a lot easier, but also helped me to concentrate all my energy on accumulating more research experiences in field A, B, C. And I am a lot happier. 
From the results you can see that I applied to Columbia twice, once to the PhD program in PolSci (rejected) and this time to the PhD program called History - East Asia (accepted). I think the results speak for themselves. (And I am openly glad that I only need to send TOEFL and GRE scores once!)
2. Contact POIs
For the first cycle, I only contacted one POI for each of the program I applied to, and the contacting itself was of a very superficial nature- I simply asked if a given POI was interested in my research plans/academic background and if they were taking students. That was helpful but not productive. For the second cycle, I made sure to at least contact 2-3 POI for every program I was considering to apply to, and also asked all of my POIs if they have any advice on how to further develop my research interests and prepare my application. Most of them replied and most of those who replied gave advice in great detail. Two POIs literally pointed out that some of my research topics were not as original as the others, and have been already well studied. As you can imagine, I avoided writing about those research topics in my SOP. Some POIs shared their idea about what a good writing sample was, e.g. based on solid and original work, creative narrating, etc. And others suggested that I elaborated on a few research topics I originally considered not so important, bc they thought these topics could potentially lead to important research.
In short, by contacting POIs via dozens of emails, I became a better applicant already, even before I made a decision on which programs I should apply to. In retrospect, contacting POIs was a significantly helpful experience where I had a perfect excuse to ask renowned historians to take time to mentor me on how the mind of a professional historian should work. 
3. Ask multiple people to review SOP
Many people have offered excellent advice on how to revise one's SOP, so my focus here is rather on asking reviewers to help with the revision. For the first cycle, I asked three PhD students to review my SOP, but none of them are actually doing PhDs in History (oops!). For this cycle, six PhD students selflessly offered insight. Three of them were my own senpai, who are doing PhDs in top History PhD programs and would like to go the extra mile to get me in a top program too. Three others were people I know from this very forum - I didn't ask for their permission, so please allow me to refrain from revealing their identities - with two of them being advanced PhD students/candidates. I did lots of heavy revisions to my SOPs according to their advice, e.g. I abandoned all the language about "passion", "hope", "enthusiasm" bc they show nothing about my expertise or my professionalism. 
What prevented me from asking more people to review my SOP during the first cycle was that I was shy, and unconsciously afraid of hearing people say "this wouldn't work, you need to rewrite everything". Yes, showing my SOP - a piece of my mind and my intellectual self - to other people, especially strangers made me feel exposed and vulnerable, but this was nevertheless a must do. It's way much better to consciously feel vulnerable rewriting a SOP for the 17th time than to unknowingly submit a vulnerable SOP to the committee and get it slaughtered. I am so very grateful that so many people took their time (while being crazy busy with their own work) to selflessly rescue my SOP again and again. And in my humble opinion, it is significant that one always humbly asks for permission to send a SOP to a potential reviewer in advance, with great respect and gratitude, before sending out the SOP.
4. Not just make an effort to revise the writing sample, but make sure that the original research in this writing sample is very strong
My writing samples for both of the two cycles are actually about the same research topic. And no, my English skill/narrating style didn't improve that much in the past year. What changed is that I wrote my master's thesis based on the 2016 version of the writing sample, adding to it a lot more original research, then wrote the 2017 version of the writing sample based on the thesis. In other words, the research itself was stronger, more sophisticated, and significantly more mature. I thought revising the writing of a writing sample took a lot less time than enriching the original research the writing sample was based on, so in 2016 i focused solely on the "writing" part of the writing sample. But this was a tactical decision instead of a strategic one. A stellar research may end up producing a good (but not extraordinary) writing sample, but i feel it is unlikely that an immature and weak research can produce an original and solid writing sample. After all, the people who make decisions are established historians themselves, they can see.
4. Think of ways to proactively make the non-History related work experience/degrees in non-History disciplines into one's advantage
I don't have any degree in History, so this is more like my own "demon" to deal with. Please ignore the following if you don't have the awkward disadvantage of never having majored or even minored in History. 
This is easier to say than to do, but is doable. I have been spending my gap year working as a researcher for an NGO and was hired bc of my expertise in politics instead of history.(ironic~)  Bc of the nature of my work, I got to travel a lot (domestically and internationally) and communicate with academics from non-History disciplines, activists, and other professionals on a regular basis. At first, I was afraid that this kind of non-History experience was bound to further add to my disadvantage of not having a degree in History, but i was wrong. Many of the ideas - especially the good ones- in my SOP were a result of my learning from these people's perspectives. Hypothetically speaking, if one's interested in the historical transformation of gender norms, it doesn't hurt to work with those who endeavor to shape gender norms in our era. No, they are not the historians who study what I study and what happened one century ago, but they (are trying to) make or shape the history someone's gonna write about 100 years later.
So how did this play out? During my first interview with Columbia, the professor asked nothing about my research in History but a lot of my "work", and was very interested in knowing how i make connections between my work and my research. I later learned that another applicant who was also interviewed was asked similar questions - not about their research in History, but their non-History experiences. So, when it comes to the final decision and the quality of everything else  is the same/highly similar, the committee may also look at applicants' non-History experiences.
So, if you are also in a similar situation where you have a significant amount of non-History training and (work) experiences for whatever reasons, which can potentially lead the committee to assume that you are not committed to/experienced in History,  don't think about defending or justifying yourself (like i desperately tried doing in 2016 but in vain). Instead, think about how you can offer the program something special which they don't usually find in other applicants. 
5. Make sure that one has a strong support system
And don't just confine it to family and friends. For instance and in my case, I would say a very important part of my support system is my colleagues from work. After I failed my first cycle, my supervisor made an effort to send me to attend more conferences and do more business trips. I think part of this was bc I was obliviously very upset and needed distraction, and part of this was bc (my supervisor from work confirmed) my supervisor believed that this kind of experience would help me mature more as a researcher (regardless of the discipline), which, in turn, could help with my second cycle of application.
Meanwhile, a colleague from work who's a native English speaker checked the language of all my SOPs and writing sample for me, that was A LOT of time-consuming work. 
In addition, I would also say that all the POIs I contacted were also part of this support system. First, they were all very kind and encouraging. (and this is pretty much a guaranteed response from them) More importantly, many of them would offer advice on how to better prepare one's application if one asks nicely and skillfully, and this kind of support is what, in my humble opinion, an applicant might need more - even more than the emotional support (not saying emotional support is not important, though) from family and friends.
6. (this may only apply to me, but at least in my case) If applying to PhD programs is like shooting a target under great pressure with your life at stake (to some extent), then one may want to present oneself as a professionally trained sniper, instead of a passionate soldier. 
In my humble opinion, one won't be offered admissions to top programs bc one is passionate about one's research. I believe I was only offered admissions bc, first of all, the committees and POIs saw me as a professional historian in the making. In retrospect, during the first cycle i acted like a passionate soldier marching towards my targets like (no offense) a lot of people did or would do, but during the second cycle I somehow managed to behave, to some extent, like a sniper -  I was a lot more precise, I made calculations,  and I shot at my target professionally with the intention of getting the job done. 
My final two cents: there are many many soldiers and significantly fewer snipers in this world. Many soldiers can be replaced by other soldiers, but each good sniper has their professional signature and style (and even self-made bullets!) which eventually make them stand out and get "caught" by the "good people". (yes, I've watched too much crime drama...)
 
Best wishes to everyone!

@Math48 Messaged you.
Well guys this pretty much concludes my cycle. Still waiting on two more schools but I've already made up my mind to accept UCLA's offer for a PhD in Chinese history.

@Math48 Messaged you.
Well guys this pretty much concludes my cycle. Still waiting on two more schools but I've already made up my mind to accept UCLA's offer for a PhD in Chinese history.

Thanks guys for the insight! I think all of you make some very valid points. It seems like the potential benefit of learning Manchu right now simply doesn’t outweigh the penalty of a Chinese (classical and modern) language deficiency. Additionally, I've only spent 3months in China, so more time in Asia can only help my chances. While the Berkeley program is a rare opportunity, it seems Taiwan is both cheaper and more pertinent right now. Moving forward I will just need to keep my eye out for more convenient opportunities to learn Manchu.  

Definitely not trying to undersell. I recognize the importance of Manchu in studying the Early and High Qing. There are a lot of Manchu language documents that are going to be indispensable when writing the dissertation. Still, at this stage, he needs Classical Chinese more than he does Manchu.
 
Sorry, I should rephrase so it's clearer. You can absolutely continue Chinese courses in PhD, but I think the keyword should be "continue". Since OP would like to get into a top program, he needs to know Classical Chinese right now, and if he gets in, then continue, rather than know zero Classical Chinese and start from scratch once he is in the program. I don't think that's good for him.

I'll also add; save the Manchu program for when you are actually in the PhD program.  You can then apply for grants and FLAS in your university to help cover the costs of attending a Manchu program.  No need to go into unnecessary debt.  I would heed @pudewen and @lordtiandao's advice.  Also I know you can apply for a full-ride Mandarin immersion program at Middlebury too if you need more Chinese.  I'll also agree on the basis of secondary source literature.  I'm discovering it for myself now as I'm reading up secondary literature for my dissertation which engages with China (although Chinese history isn't my main field).  It would definitely have been a bit useful to know some Chinese to assess the scholarship over in China on my own rather than rely on book reviews and newly published books in English.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. You can't expect to study Classical Chinese once you're in a Ph.D. program. Working knowledge of Classical Chinese is pretty much a requirement to get into any Chinese history Ph.D. You will be expected to submit a writing sample that will demonstrate your knowledge of your primary language of study. If you don't know any Classical Chinese, what will you do about your writing sample? The language issue will come up when your documents are reviewed (my Classical Chinese was self-taught and during interviews, I was asked why I didn't take any Classical Chinese courses in undergrad). Furthermore, even if you get in, you will lag behind others who already have good knowledge of Classical Chinese. Manchu is an important language for studying the Early and High Qing, but the majority of your sources will still be in Chinese and you will be required to read a lot of Chinese secondary literature. Discuss it with your advisors, but I would suggest you work on your Classical Chinese first.

Definitely not trying to undersell. I recognize the importance of Manchu in studying the Early and High Qing. There are a lot of Manchu language documents that are going to be indispensable when writing the dissertation. Still, at this stage, he needs Classical Chinese more than he does Manchu.
 
Sorry, I should rephrase so it's clearer. You can absolutely continue Chinese courses in PhD, but I think the keyword should be "continue". Since OP would like to get into a top program, he needs to know Classical Chinese right now, and if he gets in, then continue, rather than know zero Classical Chinese and start from scratch once he is in the program. I don't think that's good for him.