santraash

Not officially buuuuut I got a phone call with some preliminary good news  

Nothing from NYU and UC Davis yet. Don’t know about Davis but certainly a rejection at NYU! Apparently for Davis, it isn’t a rejection until it is one. 

Oh! Good to know. In that case, I really hope I don’t hear from them in, what, three days from now?! Will be a welcome change when I frantically check my email in the hope of not getting anything! 

Well, Brown has always informed people over emails. A lot of things going differently this year. But it's strange how NO ONE else here has heard anything from them since the notification. They take 18 people, for crying out loud! Someone ought to have heard something! 

I'm bumping this thread because I think the current cohort could find it helpful when they make their decisions.

I was thinking about this while I went for a run, and I did think of two concrete pieces of advice. 
1) When identifying faculty with whom you think you'd like to work in a particular department (and you should definitely do this, to make a case for why you are a good fit for this department specifically), make sure they are full-time, tenure-line faculty with publications. Lecturers, visiting professors, and "instructors" generally cannot sit on dissertation committees. Applications that talk about working with such faculty can come across as naive or under-advised. (There are of course major ethical issues about the exploitation of non-tenure-line faculty, which is an issue for another conversation ...) 
2) Applications often provide an opportunity to draft an optional statement that explains how you would contribute to the diversity of the scholarly community. If you are a URM (under-represented minority), or a first-generation college-student, or have an unusual educational trajectory (started in community college, say, or worked full-time to pay your way through college), or a minoritized gender/sexual identity, or have a diagnosed disability: this is a great opportunity to disclose that information. Admissions committees are ethically obligated to ensure the diversity of their cohorts, and committees are dedicated to making sure that candidates with these markers compose a substantial part of their admitted cohort. (Could you imagine the rightful outcry if a prestigious institution admitted an all-white, all-male class? Cf. this article.) BUT: if you are a white, straight, cis, relatively privileged child of professional parents, this is NOT a good place to talk about how you have volunteered with underprivileged populations and so understand their plight, or are committed to teaching writers of color. Such diversity statements, however well-intentioned, can inadvertently communicate a kind of "white savior" attitude that can actually work against you. Although it seems counter-intuitive *not* to respond to an opportunity to make a case for yourself with additional information, it's probably safer not to submit a diversity statement than to make a far-fetched or unconvincing case.

Congrats guys! ?
Big fortnight ahead of us or what! Oh dear God, I believe in you! If only till Feb 15. ?

Congrats guys! ?
Big fortnight ahead of us or what! Oh dear God, I believe in you! If only till Feb 15. ?

To be fair, GradCafe isn't exactly the place to be reassured. It's the place we come to get any information on the programs. For most of us, much of that information is going to be disheartening. Ultimately, information is information and will be useful to some, reassuring others and unnerving for the rest. Any information any of us shares after applications have been submitted can be dangerous in this way (for instance, Warelin has made the opposite argument multiple times: that Chicago seems to only accept people from the interview list). I think we just have to hope for the best and power through. And as someone said, if this is true, this information can be helpful to someone being interviewed. For those of us with no news, this is but a green light across the bay with no real significance (and going the other way, the comment could be construed as disheartening for this camp because it gives false hope). Most of us with no news will be rejected, maybe some won't. But I don't want anyone to be discouraged any information because next cycle there will be others like us panicking over Chicago and it could help them.
 

for everyone panicking, i emailed the dgs to clarify if they're carrying out interviews for this application cycle (because they did so a few years ago) and the answer is no. whomever posted about their invitation to interview on the results page is either mistaken, or trying to mess with us, or there might, perhaps, be special cases that necessitate interviews. otherwise, they "should be able to start notifying people next week". (fingers crossed!) 

Longtime lurker, just making an account to reply to this. A professor of mine was supervised by Berlant, and this professor told me Chicago would not interview candidates they were certain they wished to accept; doing so, after all, would be a waste of resources. She said that the candidates who are interviewed are candidates which the university is "on the fence" about—candidates with, say, a lower GPA or GRE, but an interesting SOP. (Or vice versa.) Hence why, on another forum, an individual who called Chicago said something along the lines of "interviews don't indicate application standing. They're for extra questions about projects."
This is all to say: the candidates that the University of Chicago accepts are not always the candidates that are asked to interview, or who receive interviews. So, don't fret if you have not received an interview; if you have, good luck. Rejections are rejections only when they're finalized. 

Hey! Also a lurker, finally decided to join the conversation. If only to talk to someone in the same boat as me. It has become increasingly difficult for me to do anything else. Anyway, I just wanted to revive this earlier discussion on the thread regarding the importance of interviews. Someone had posted about it being necessary if and only if the adcom people seek clarifications on your profile etc. I mean, why do all the interview programs never mention it on their websites? I mean, why would you want to keep it out? I understand the bias angle that seeps in once you let a face to face interaction decide qualifiability. However, if you're protecting yourselves, you're also going against some basic principles of transparency in the admission process in the first place! I don't know. It just seems unfair to be thrown into this purgatorial abyss where you don't even know what to make of these developments! An implied rejection is just as heartbreaking if not worse. With Chicago taking it upon itself to make it even more ambiguous, all my angst is getting channelled into this rage against the helplessness of it all. I remember this post from last season(?) where someone got accepted to Columbia and mentioned how surprised she was since she didn't get an interview! Really? What do we make of this? Do interviews imply a shortlist of sorts? Any clarity on this would be highly appreciated. 

Bureaucratically shellacked!