emprof

At my institution, these funds are sometimes located for admitted students who are under-represented minorities, whom we are especially eager to recruit and retain. It's not a super-common practice, but it has happened. I'd write to whoever has been communicating with you about your admission and your matriculation, whether that's the DGS or an administrator. That person will know whom to contact if this is an option.

Honestly, this is the kind of information that is probably only going to be gleaned through unofficial channels, because programs rarely publicize their rates of tenure and promotion. (There's a lot of confidentiality entailed in both processes--and programs that tenure regularly worry that it might suggest a lack of rigor, while programs that tenure rarely worry that it might make them seem unable to nurture junior scholars, and/or inhospitable.) Do they hire lots of junior people straight out of graduate school? Do they usually tenure those people? Do those assistant professors stay after tenure? So I think that asking a trusted advisor or writer of your LoR might be the best route. When you visit the program, you can ask the advisors themselves--tactfully--about the culture of the department for junior faculty. Does the department have a strong record of tenuring its junior faculty? Are many of the senior faculty in the department people who were hired there as junior faculty--and then stayed? Professors are unfortunately not likely to disclose their own individual plans even if they hope to leave for another institution (because making that knowledge public could threaten their ability to do so), but they might be able to speak in general terms about the history and culture of the department. This can also be useful information because programs that treat junior faculty with respect and support are likely to extend the same courtesy to graduate students--and the inverse is also true.

This is a little tough to answer in the abstract without knowing your subfield or the institutions, as there are lots of different configurations that can make a place desirable. (For instance: what if there is not as much funding available to support travel to libraries, but the institution is within spitting distance of an archive that will be valuable for your research?) I suppose I would have to prioritize a "deep bench" of faculty in your field--ideally, enough that you would have multiple course offerings in your field, some choice of advisors and committee members, and fellow graduate students in your subfield in your cohort and neighboring cohorts. I would want to know that graduate students in the program felt supported financially, academically, and personally by the institution and the department. (This is the kind of information that I think is best gleaned from an on-campus visit.) And I would want to know that the department has some success in placing students despite the abysmal job market--and that perhaps there were efforts underway to help students recognize and secure alt-ac training during the program.

The quality of the research and the writing is definitely more important--and publications in peer-reviewed journals are certainly one attestation to the importance and quality of the research. A "famous" advisor isn't necessarily going to help if that advisor is so busy being famous that s/he/they doesn't offer much hands-on mentorship, doesn't read your work carefully, and doesn't know you or your work well enough to write a detailed and compelling LoR. So it's important to talk to current graduate students in the programs you visit and to inquire about the availability and responsiveness of the faculty you plan to work with. That said, our field functions on a kind of apprenticeship model--and even though I'm tenured, I am still sometimes identified as a Student of X (and thought of as part of a cohort of students, at various stages in our careers, who were trained by X--and I've even been identified before as a 2nd-generation Student of Y, who was X's advisor in graduate school). So that identity does stay with you and help to render you legible, on the job market as well as in other contexts, as a particular kind of scholar with a particular kind of training. Having an advisor who is well known and well connected can absolutely give you a leg up on the job market. If your advisor reaches out to a colleague at an institution where you're applying for a job and says "Look out for an application from thismortalcoil, who is my student and is doing really important work," that can get your application moved to the top of a pile and given more thorough attention. If a search committee is trying to sift through 300 applications for one position, a heads-up from a trusted colleague can make sure that it doesn't lose track of a promising candidate in the shuffle. But if the quality of the work isn't there, all the phone calls in the world won't matter.

Do they have tenure? Or, if they don't, are they on track to get tenure? You'll probably be in the Ph.D. program for around 6 years, which is enough time for a junior scholar to establish a name in the field and to achieve professional stature. Obviously, it depends a little bit on the institution. If you're talking about the "Big Three," they have a reputation for a revolving door of junior scholars; I wouldn't want to count on a junior professor getting tenure there. If, on the other hand, you're talking about a program that has a strong record of mentoring and tenuring its junior faculty, then I wouldn't worry about having advisors who are early in their careers--especially if the fit is good, as you say. If you were choosing between two institutions, and one had more senior scholars in the field, then perhaps it would be slightly "safer" to go with the latter--but even then, I think fit would be more decisive for me than seniority. If you can speak with your undergraduate (or MA?) advisors with more specifics (or if you'd like to PM me with specifics), you might be able to glean more inside-baseball information about the program, the advisors, and their career trajectories. But in general, I wouldn't worry too much about this issue.

@eddyrynesI'm sure you've heard this before, but it's important to note that the ranking might be different if one were to rank particular subfields within the program. My department has two subfields in which we have a large number of faculty and a strong placement record, for example--but other subfields with few faculty and weak placement records. The USNews ranking is helpful in broad strokes--i.e., in differentiating the top 20 programs from the top 40 or 60--but within those divisions, I think it's more important to consider the prestige of the faculty mentors with whom you would be working: their visibility in the field, their reputation as mentors among current graduate students, their record of placing students in desirable jobs.

For a less anecdotal version of the so-called "humanities plunge," here's The Atlantic's take from last April. Nothing you don't already know, I'm sure, but a concrete reason why there aren't enough jobs for humanities Ph.D.s. In my department and in the those of friends and colleagues at other institutions, we regularly revisit the size of our cohorts in view of the bleak data. I know some institutions with huge undergraduate populations admit graduate students because they need them as a source of cheap labor to staff composition courses. That's not the case at my institution (though it was the case where I did my graduate training). So is it ethical for us to admit more students than we know we can place in (good--i.e., fulfilling, financially sustainable, and using the degree) jobs? I'm not sure of the answer. I'm not sure what percentage of us (and by "us" I mean "all of us who sought or are seeking a humanities Ph.D.) would/will be happy to have spent 6-ish years working on the degree if the job at the end of the line is one that we could have secured 5 years earlier with a MA. But I would genuinely welcome your thoughts about this ethical question, which is one that we are continuously grappling with.

Thanks for this generous interpretation, which I can endorse! Each admissions season, I read about 200 applications of roughly 60 pages each--while teaching, writing, and completing departmental searches for any new hires (which would usually entail 3-4 files of several hundred pages each). There's just no way to offer meaningful and personalized feedback to each application that doesn't make the final cut. (And the pangs of conscience about that are part of why I'm on these forums, in hopes that I can humanize the process a little bit in another way.) @MetaphysicalDrama I definitely appreciate the systematic and infrastructural issues you raise. And you're of course right that it is a position of privilege to be sitting on an admissions committee with the reassurance of tenure, and not one that anyone I know takes for granted. For what it's worth, I don't think that there is any pleasure in "gatekeeping" on admissions committees; it's not a particularly coveted committee assignment, because it's a lot of work, and it's demoralizing. We know that we are disappointing a large number of very talented people by rejecting them, and we know that we are possibly doing a disservice to those we admit, because we cannot guarantee that we will be able to secure them jobs, even if they do everything right. No humanities professor I know--and I know a lot of them--is excited about the fact that there aren't enough jobs for Ph.D.s. But humanities enrollments in undergraduate classes have plummeted to half what they were a decade ago. Universities can't hire computer science professors fast enough to staff their courses, but humanities courses at my institution are regularly canceled for under-enrollment. Under those conditions, it's hard to make a case to a central administration that we need to hire more faculty. The crisis I perceive is the one between those of us dedicated to humanistic learning and those who insist, increasingly, that liberal arts educations be transformed into vocational training--as I'm afraid American culture has increasingly done. Finally, every academic I know (myself included) has experienced a lot of rejection, and had many long, dark nights of the soul. Living a life of the mind, and caring intensely about your work, mean that every rejection feels deeply personal. Among just the tenured faculty I'm close to in my department, two were initially denied tenure, two nearly left the profession having crises of faith finishing the first book manuscript, one failed his qualifying exams in graduate school, and all are rejected annually for fellowships and grants. All of us, too, were rejected from at least one graduate program we applied to. Fall down seven times; stand up eight.

Interesting! I've never heard of this practice for waitlisted students. Then again, my program doesn't use waitlists regularly, so I might be behind the curve. This definitely seems like a great sign! I agree with your mentor that there's no difference between this conversation and the one you would have with the faculty member if you were visiting after being accepted. Since the faculty member is initiating the conversation, I would imagine that s/he/they will set the agenda for the call, at least initially, asking you to speak about your interests, your PS, perhaps asking some specific questions about topics, theoretical approaches, or critical methodologies you engaged in your WS. I recommend being prepared to speak about how the faculty in your field in their program would be especially good fit for you. If you haven't already, do some poking around to find out about colloquia, working groups, or interdisciplinary initiatives that you might participate in. Asking questions about those will demonstrate your ambitions to expand your academic horizons and to contribute to the culture of the department/university, and shows that you've taken the time to learn about them. I think you can ask some practical questions about what kinds of mentorship faculty in the program typically provide. How do graduate students learn to prepare conference proposals, apply for fellowships, turn seminar papers into articles, organize conference panels, prepare for the job market? Do committees advise students individually about these matters, or are there any initiatives such as professionalization workshops or proseminars? You can also ask the faculty member broad questions such as, "What do you think makes your program a strong one for training graduate students in our field?" That gives him/her/them a chance to brag a little bit, but also will give you useful information about what the program prioritizes in graduate training and mentorship. I would probably steer clear of nuts-and-bolts questions such as stipend amounts, health insurance, and other information related to your benefits package (though I think it would be fine to ask about support for conference attendance and/or work in different library archives, which are really questions about the academic program). Faculty members are often unclear on the details anyway (since they're usually handled by administrators), and it's probably safer to wait until you have the official acceptance in hand before you address these practicalities. Hope some of this is helpful! Happy to talk more either here or via PM if it could be useful. Good luck!

This is really helpful and sound advice! Thanks for posting. To echo/underscore: • Faculty will not experience meeting with prospective students as "networking" opportunities. They will be focused on presenting the program and the institution as a good fit for you. If you decline the institution's offer, it is unlikely that they will have any interest in staying in touch with you through the early stages of your graduate career, unless they are independently invested in your work (because they served as undergraduate advisors, for example). Only when you are further along--publishing, presenting at conferences--would you be legible as a colleague. I don't mean this to be dismissive--only to point out that faculty are busy mentoring and advising the students in their own programs. They're not looking to mentor and advise students elsewhere, especially in the early years of coursework and qualifying exams. And if they become suspicious that you are wasting their time and resources without any intention of attending, they will be likely to remember you for all the wrong reasons--and to steer clear in the future. • None of the institutions I've been affiliated with (3, both public and private, all top 10 programs) has the ability or the inclination to negotiate individual graduate offers. If we learn that students have gone someplace else that offers a higher stipend, we might try to restructure our funding packages for the coming years. But unlike tenure-line job offers, graduate funding packages are not usually flexible. Of course, I can't speak for every institution! But I know this is true for a significant number of prestigious programs. • One qualification, just in the interest of managing expectations: a candidate declining an offer before April 15 will not necessarily (and at my institution, not even probably) result in another offer going out. At most programs I know, 2x offers go out with the expectation that x number will accept. We maintain a waitlist only for unusual situations, such as a candidate being eligible for some kind of special funding from another part of the university that may or may not become available. Obviously, given the successes of people admitted from the waitlists on these forums, this is not the case everywhere! But it's worth being aware that meaningful waitlists are not maintained everywhere.

Speaking from a bunch of years down the line: all the MORE reason to celebrate! (And maybe this is your point, in which case I don't mean to belabor the obvious.) This is one of the things about the academic life cycle: it's never over. You wait to get into grad school, you wait to pass your QEs, you wait to "advance to candidacy," you wait to pass a prospectus, you wait to get a fellowship, you wait to publish your first article, you wait to get a job interview, you wait to get a campus visit, you wait to get a job, you wait to get a book contract, you wait for the book to come out, you wait for book reviews, you wait to get tenure, you wait to get a fellowship, you wait for your graduate student to get hired, you wait to get a second book, you wait to get promoted ... I'm listing all of this not to be demoralizing, but to say that one of the best things you can do for yourself and your career is to create time for rest and celebration and rejuvenation. It will make you better at your job. Have a time every night when you stop working. Have a "sabbath" of some sort: a 24-hour period each week when you don't work. There will be weeks when it's impossible (as at any job), but don't make that the norm. Academic life can be the best gig out there, because you can work on something you love; you can have constant intellectual challenge; you can have tremendous flexibility in your schedule; you can work with brilliant people. It can be the worst gig out there if you drive something you love into the ground; you never feel satisfied with having met challenges; you never give yourself a break; and you never feel like you measure up to your brilliant colleagues. Choose the happier version. At least most of the time. [End soapbox rant.] I hope this comes across as encouraging and not patronizing! I only say all of this so urgently because it's hard-fought knowledge that I don't always remember. But when I do, I work better and I am more content.

Yes, we're definitely aware of where you are and what the time difference might be. Sometimes makes for some bleary-eyed phone calls to international students ...

Aw, thanks for asking! First: this is a professional decision, and you are not going to hurt anyone's feelings. Admissions committees will indeed be disappointed when we fail to recruit our top choices, but no one will be personally upset or offended. Don't feel awkward or hesitant about informing programs in a prompt and direct way. As others have suggested in the forums, institutions that maintain waitlists often depend on admitted students turning them down before the April 15 deadline in order to admit anyone from the waitlist. So if you know that you won't be attending, you are doing the program (and waitlisted students) a favor by informing them promptly. Second: you are not obligated to explain your reasons for your choice, especially if that hinges in part on private factors that you would rather not disclose (such as the decision to relocate a partner and/or family to a particular geographic area, for example). That said, if there was anything about the program that gave you pause--the stipend was lower, or the placement seemed weak, or the teaching responsibilities weren't what you hoped, or the graduate students you spoke to were unhappy--and you feel comfortable sharing that information with the DGS, or whoever has been communicating with you about your status: that information will be deeply appreciated by the program (at least if it's a program that knows what's good for it). We are constantly reviewing and refining our recruitment practices as well as our graduate program. If there are issues that are going to make us less appealing to students, we really want to know about that earlier rather than later! (Also: some programs I know of issue an anonymous survey to prospective students who turn them down, giving them an opportunity to express such feedback without having to worry that they are causing offense. But even if you don't get this formal opportunity, please know that your thoughts will be taken seriously and appreciated, so long as they are expressed cordially.) You can express your concerns collegially, along the lines of: "I'm writing, regretfully, to let you know that I won't be matriculating at X University. While I so appreciated the chance to speak with your wonderful faculty and students, the lower stipend combined with the higher cost of living in your city ultimately led me to another decision." And so on. Third: I think most programs have online portals where you can record your decision electronically, without requiring any explanation. But if you've corresponded at any length or spent a significant amount of time with specific faculty, you can't go wrong with a brief and professional email thanking them for their time and saying how much you look forward to seeing them and their work at conferences and in print. (In fact, you can't go wrong with a brief thank you to such faculty at the school you do choose to attend! Keep it short and sweet: thanks so much for your time, enjoyed talking to you, look forward to working with you in the coming years.)

I agree that when schools are willing to put resources into having you visit, it demonstrates their commitment to you. It's an auspicious sign of what you might expect as a student in the program. T he only qualifier I would offer is that some state universities--even amazing flagships, like UC Berkeley, Wisconsin-Madison (just examples; I don't know what their specific policies are these days)--are under financial pressures that the administration might handle in idiosyncratic ways. So, a Board of Trustees might mandate that its university cut costs by a certain percentage; the central administration, left to decide how to distribute those cuts, might unilaterally cut funding for prospective student visits while preserving stipends and graduate benefits. So while receiving funding from a university for a visit is definitely a good sign, *not* receiving funding, or receiving only partial reimbursement, doesn't necessarily mean that current graduate students will struggle for resources. It's definitely worth looking into, especially by asking current graduate students about whether they feel supported by the department and the university (both materially and academically). I just don't think it should be a nail in the coffin.

Yes, this is great advice. And you're absolutely right that anyone seeking reimbursement from multiple sources needs to be meticulously up-front and above-board about it. It would be very unethical (and possibly even illegal) to accept reimbursement amounts that exceed what you've spent. Thanks for the reassurance that my chiming-in might be helpful! I've been scrolling through the forums because I don't feel up to concentrating on real work ... but obviously this cold has me a little bit scatter-brained.