sayf

Yep. Thought it was kind of brutal too: "your application has not been successful." Yike. 

Haha, they're not playing. Stanford's was a 3-4 line email. Least you can do is write a proper email after raking in that sweet application fee. Alas. 

There's still hope if there's still apps out. Sending you lots of good vibes. 
BTW, does anyone know how many Drew takes?

Sorry to hear about UTS as well. And, thank you. Hoping for the same! Would be great to catch a break. sigh. 

@sayf Hey there! I'm the Brown (& UNC) admit. My subfield is ancient med, so I'm not sure if they release all acceptances at the same time, but I did receive a formal letter notification. Hope everyone is doing well!

@sayf Beta Blockers have been my friend, for sure. My GP is god sent; prescribed them to me after I told her I was submitting PhD apps and said, "you're going to need them." Red flags everywhere lol

Hey folks, when do we hear from Cornell? 

Hey folks, when do we hear from Cornell? 

Saw a brown acceptance! Are results out? Haven't heard anything yet. 

Okay then, here we go. May be a tad early but thought I would get this started for people applying this fall to start in 2022. 
This will be my second cycle. Hoping to apply to a mixture of religion/history departments. Looking forward to getting some conversations started on here. 

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!

LONG POST, sorry!
Since the application season is nearly over and I’ve heard from mostly all programs (aside from NYU, waitlist or rejection at this point), I thought I’d debrief. I am usually not one for these type of posts, or even forums, I frequent only when needed, to relieve anxiety or boredom, and never visit again. But having read many posts, and followed some people's successes and failures, even rooted for some, I wanted to leave whatever words of wisdom I could, to help out whoever may end up coming across my post.
First off, I am a ‘unique’ case, well not unique but different than the traditional history student, I’ve flunked out of my undergrad, changed my major 3/4 times, before finally settling on history. I retook all the courses I failed (7), as well as any course I got less than a B, about (3-4). It took me, with a mandatory gap year, 7 years to finish. BUT because my university did this funny transcript thing, it ended up being that it took me 5 years to finish my BA, instead of 7. Nevertheless, once I decided on history, I took primarily history courses, and graduated Cum Laude, gpa 3.6-3.7. But I will list my exact scores and gpa below. 
Anyway, I have been immensely privileged to have received close mentorship from a very dear MA advisor, who was my confidant, editor, and guide. He is an extremely well respected senior academic, friends with many Ivy professors, and through his connections I received a lot of advice and kind words from them, in turn. He told me which schools to apply to, read over each and every one of my SOPs to each school, told me how to approach his friends (for me they were POIs), and told me which ones to avoid. And really, most importantly, he never stopped believing in me, and that helped me believe in myself. The reason I am harping on about my supervisor, is because I truly believe having a strong support network is crucial. You need someone to believe in you, especially when you stop believing in yourself, and you will. I am pretty confidant/arrogant and I had moments of intense doubt.
I was extremely reluctant to embark upon the academic path because of the job market, so when I did my MA, I promised myself my academic aspirations would continue no further than my MA thesis. I needed to prove to myself that if I wanted to do academia I could do it and I did. However, when I got to writing my MA thesis, I worked closely with my supervisor, and he made me fall in love with my field, and academia, and I simply couldn’t resist the pull. Nevertheless, my supervisor is a very sober man, and he told me that the job market is tough, and if I want it, I needed to take the ivy route. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to offend, but that’s the advice I got). He did warn me of the difficulty, but as months went by he was more confident I’d get in than I was initially. I am not sure what changed.
Next, while I am a history student/scholar pure and simple, I did my MA thesis on a history of science topic, and just fell in love with the field. I wanted to pursue my degree in history of science BUT with a strong emphasis on history and less science. Here is the thing, I am and I remain a student of history proper. That’s just a fact that I had to finally admit to myself and to my interviewees, at an unsuccessful interview at UPenn HSS, which is the reason I didn’t get in.  This is important, you need to be clear about your identity as a scholar. I have no science, anthro, or STS background to speak of. I took one psych course, and one history of astronomy course both 101, and did well, but that’s pretty much it. My complete lack of any ‘science’ background played against me at Penn, but also my interests are very history centered rather than science. My supervisor however disagreed with my thinking and said that I could style myself as a history of science student regardless of my lack of background because of my MA thesis. Perhaps, or not.
This is my second year applying. First year, I applied to Harvard and Princeton, I visited both schools, and interviewed at Harvard (unofficially), with a POI that is a close friend of my supervisor. Very encouraging and positive interview. Now for the History of Science at Harvard, it is not housed within the history program, and the interview was unofficial. HOWEVER, you absolutely must contact professors before applying to the History of Science department, in fact, in the application they ask you if you contacted anyone, and they expect you to do so. So if you get advised against this, don’t listen, contact! The same goes for Princeton! AND DO NOT JUST CONTACT ONE, CONTACT AS MANY FACULTY MEMBERS AS YOU CAN. But do so prudently, and don’t forget to read their works and speak about them in the email!
Anyway, with Princeton I visited the campus, sat in on their Monday seminar, which I really liked. My POI was out of town, so I just met with the DGS, it was a formal meeting, nothing special. I loved Princeton, the atmosphere, the campus.
I got rejected from both, and because my supervisor is good friends with both POIs at Princeton and Harvard, he got a lengthy explanation of why I got rejected. The problem was my SOP for both, and letters for Princeton. My supervisor asked the Harvard prof if I was a strong candidate for the Ivies and heard a resounding YES, and with this he urged me to reapply. 
For Harvard my SOP was too narrow, the project I presented was too thought out, and I seemed rigid and inflexible, because unlike the regular history program, in HOS you take 2 years of courses, in which the department actually encourages students to explore different fields, even to change your initial topic. I seemed like I was ready to hit the ground running and I would not be receptive to other avenues of thought.
Now for Princeton, the problem was entirely different. I had initially pitched to them a different topic, but then decided to ditch it, and run with the same proposal as I sent to Harvard, and Princeton was blindsided. And felt I’d reject them for Harvard that they were sure I would get in. I thought so too, so I understand completely. L And I would have rejected them for Harvard, so no hard feelings. They also felt I needed more focused letters of reference, mine were from history professors, I needed history of science. I wasn’t science enough on paper. I agree, and I am still not!
Before applying the first time around, I had finished my MA, so I could have lots of time to apply to schools. When I got rejected, in the gap year, actually immediately after handing in my MA thesis, I decided to turn some of my thesis into a journal article, with my supervisor’s blessing. The paper has since received ‘Major Revisions’ to a respect well ranked journal, so I knew my paper was solid, and this paper I submitted as my writing sample for my second round of applications.
The first time applying, I submitted more or less the same paper but it didn’t yet undergo rigorous peer review at 3 journals. Anyway, Harvard prof said they liked my writing sample, very strong, and after the peer review it was even stronger and better. So I knew I had a great writing sample. THAT IS IMPORTANT! As a history applicant, the writing sample, together with the SOP, is one of the single most important pieces of your application. WORK ON IT!
I had also volunteered for an international history of science project, so this made it seem like I was busy during my gap year. Also I only had 1 history of science recommendation, and 2 from history, so I needed another history of science recommendation, which I got from a coordinator of the project.  The letters were important, I didn’t really think so, but they are. Princeton told me this.
So my profile was as follows:
BA GPA: 3.6-3.7 Cum Laude (history)
MA GPA: 4.0 Summa Cum Laude (history) – in the results page I erroneously listed 3.8 that’s a mistake (pls ignore)
Volunteer for a history of science project for over a year
1 paper to by published in a well ranked academic journal in my field, ‘major revisions’
2 letters from history of science professors, 1 history
GRE: 163 (V), 153 (Q), 5 (AW).
And I speak/read/write 2 foreign European languages, aside from English.
As you can see I didn’t do well on Quantitative, but I was told by both Harvard and Princeton it was good enough, so long as I am not studying history of math. I didn’t retake it because of that. Harvard was my gold standard and what was good for them will be good for everyone. They don’t focus on GREs, only if they are really terrible, mine weren’t.
Now reapplying! I applied to in earnest, and with a lot of effort, to Princeton (HOS), Penn (HSS), Columbia (history), and Yale (HSHM), and I’ll include Brown (history) but the statement was not my best work by any stretch of the imagination (the deadline was Dec 1, first one, and I waffled, it was my own fault). For NYU, I threw in the app on the last day it was due, my statement was written in 15 min. Because I didn’t yet hear for Penn (HSS) interview and I got really nervous. I made contact with an NYU professor back in August but ultimately felt it wasn’t for me. Radio silence from Penn made me rethink only Ivy rule or that NYU made zero sense, so I just threw 127$ down the drain to allay my anxieties. I got contacted to interview at Penn the next day. L I should’ve just withdrawn my app but having paid already I felt I should just stick with it. So for NYU’s sake, I hope they reject me and use the 127$ to buy themselves something pretty.
The reason Harvard is patently absent from my list is because my POI is retiring and will not be taking anymore students, and I would have no one to work with. That was important for me, to have at least one person I could conceivably work with, BECAUSE, when I wrote up my new SOP, I tailored it to schools, and to the faculty. I got in touch with people at every school, they told me their interests and I wrote up an SOP to reflect their interests and mine, to an extent of course. The strategy was TO GET IN! But also, have someone I could work with, potentially, but be open to possibilities, be flexible. That’s what I wished to convey, flexibility and passion.
Now for the SOP, I didn’t, and urge the rest of you, please please do not write about your bad grades or about your bad gre scores, do not get defensive, do not explain, otherwise you will draw unwanted attention in one of THE deciding documents of your admissions, your SOP! Instead, I suggest, and it’s what I did, when attaching your BA grades, copy paste the images into a WORD file, on the last page include a little short blurb about your grades, to explain them, then convert the file to PDF. The shorter the better, have it read by others (brutally honest people), to check if your explanation is suggestive of something. You don’t want to be suggestive, and invite further scrutiny. Don’t give a life story, they don’t care. In fact, they don’t want to hear it. The first thing the Harvard prof told me at my interview, ‘do not mention anything personal in your statement, we aren’t psychologists, we aren’t your friends, we may feel bad for you, but you won’t get in this way’. Stay professional. This is a phd application, not grief counseling.  (Again, I am sorry this offends, but that’s the advice I got, and I kind of understand it, you need to demonstrate your ability to withstand 5-7 years of intense and protracted research and writing). Any weaknesses in health, mental or physical, will make the committee think you’ll drop out. Remember, they are investing in you, and you need to be a solid investment.
If anyone wants to see my SOP, I’ll happily share it, if someone can learn from it, all the better! Someone did it for me, granted I struck out at Princeton, but I got into Columbia and I was interviewed for UPenn. That’s to me a success.
I struck out at Brown, Yale, Princeton, and eventually UPenn. BUT UPenn was after interview, and it was apparent that I wasn’t a good fit, however, on paper I was a very strong candidate, and they told me this at every interview. Some faculty members liked me a lot, others did not at all. They did not like my purely history background. The interview was intense, I had a horror stricken look on my face. To the point that other Penn students came up to me to ask what went wrong. I was grilled. Actually grilled by at least 3-4 professors. I met with about 9, intense is an understatement. But then also, I already had an offer from Columbia which I was going to accept, and I came in relaxed, even though I prepared hard, I didn’t prepare enough for the questions they asked. And I wouldn’t have needed to prepare as hard, had I had a history of science background, rather than history. Or STS or any science background.
I don’t mean to brag (who am I kidding? Obviously I want to brag! I got into bloody Columbia!!!) but for Columbia, I got elected a Richard Hofstadter fellow, with a stipend of 31,925$ per year for 5 years. That’s more than Princeton and Penn. So I know I got a competitive offer. I also know that Columbia has around 600 (probably closer to 400-500) applications per year to 25 spots. That’s intensely competitive. I got in. It is and will remain the greatest achievement of my history career thus far.
Also, I hate to admit it, the reason I applied to the history of science programs, even though I am clearly a history student all the way with a sub-field interest in history of science, is because statistically it is easier to get into history of science programs. I know you’ll all scream that it’s just as competitive, IT IS NOT! With the definite exception of Harvard (acceptance rate 10-13%), History of science programs are not as competitive as history programs. And maybe with the exception of MIT and Johns Hopkins. There! I said it. Statistically, the acceptance rate is 20-30 percent across the board, I am not exaggerating, I have actual numbers from my POIs, with the exception of MIT and Hopkins, I don’t know those but I heard their acceptance rate is brutal. For goodness sake, I was good enough for Harvard and Princeton, I was encouraged to apply, AFTER they saw my profile, my grades, my writing sample. Princeton POI encouraged to reapply. You may bulk, but again look at my profile, is it competitive? That’s up to you to decide.
I will say this to everyone, believe in yourself! You can do it! I got into Columbia, if I did it, you can too! I am not special by any stretch of the imagination.
I can tell you the specifics of every rejection, Yale, Princeton, and Brown. Well, Brown I mucked up pretty bad. But I won’t bore you further. If you would like to hear what advice I got from Princeton and Harvard, PM me. I didn’t get in, but I could certainly pass on the advice. But then I didn’t reapply to Harvard. So who knows. For Princeton, I shouldn’t have applied at all, not with my topic, I was a bad bad bad fit.
My first choice were Penn, Columbia, and Princeton. My back ups (as ridiculous as they are for phd apps) were Yale, Brown, and NYU.
I read somewhere, and was also advised by my supervisor to apply to 5, and will likely get 1 acceptance. Also, my supervisor actively discouraged me from applying to Yale and NYU. But at the end relented, clearly to assuage my anxieties.
What I would do differently?
I would have applied only to Penn, Columbia and Brown. I would still keep Penn, because it is a first-rate program, by all standards, even if it is an STS/HOS program, and not too aligned with my interests. But it is an excellent program, with outstanding faculty. To prepare, I would have tried to develop and further my interests in STS/HOS, and style myself less of a regional/temporal historian (which is how we are taught in History) and more of a historian of biology or chemistry. Also, I would have worked harder on the Brown application. Brown has some great faculty, and I should not have made it a back up, and I did that against my supervisor’s advice. He thought Brown should have been one of my top choices.
I am extremely happy with the outcome, and I wish everyone the best!
Good luck and Excelsior!
 

While this doesn't directly answer your question, I just want to let that you know that you are not "a bit late to the game" at this point in the year. For Fall 2021, I didn't even begin researching programs until the school year ended in late June (I'm currently a teacher). I didn't begin writing my SoP until mid-to-late summer and I even wrote an entirely knew, originally researched writing sample which I started in August.
In my experience, you're not late to the game by any means.

About your dog: I think that depends entirely on you and your program. I am in a social science program where the majority of my analysis and writing can be done from home, and I prefer to work from home or from a library (as opposed to my cube in the windowless cube farm). When I was taking classes I was generally there from 9-6 or so, but now that my coursework is finished I am rarely at the school itself. I go for meetings, seminars, interesting kinds of things and I do most of my work remotely. My time is verrry flexible, and if my building didn't prohibit it I would get a dog in a heartbeat. Another thing to keep in mind: a dog can be a great comfort when you're all stressed out over graduate school.

Advice?

Age:
-Don't feel like you have nothing to offer just because you are younger. I was 22 when I started graduate school. You got accepted to the program for a reason, and chances are you are just as equipped as any older students are to successfully complete the program, just in a different way.

-Your older classmates may be just as terrified as you. Talk to them. You have a lot in common. You are, after all, in the same place.

-You will feel like an imposter, like you don't belong, or like you are constantly behind. Or all three. It's normal. It will pass. (Well, sort of.) People of all ages go through this.

Adviser related:
-If you are lucky enough to get both research interest fit and personality fit perfect, congratulations! But sometimes, personality fit is more important than research interest fit as long as the research isn't too different. A great adviser is interested in your career development, likes you as a person, advocates for you, and wants to hear your ideas. Even if his or her research is quite different from yours, they may give you the autonomy to work on your own projects and just supervise you. A bad personality fit will drive you nuts, even if you love his or her research. Consider that when evaluating your adviser fit. (This will vary by field: research fit may be less important in the humanities, more important in the natural and physical sciences. Social sciences are somewhere in-between.)

-Don't be afraid to be straight up blunt with your adviser when it comes to asking about your progress. Ask if you are where you should be both academic program wise and getting-a-job-after-this-mess-wise.

-Be proactive. Advisers love when you draw up an agenda for your one-on-one meetings, come with talking points and progress to share, have concrete questions to ask, and have overall shown that you have been thoughtful and taken control of your own program. Of course, this won't immediately come easily to you, but in time you will work up to it. Every semester I type up my semester goals, and at the beginning of the year I type up annual goals. I show them to my adviser and we talk about whether they are too ambitious, or whether I need to revise them, and how I can meet them.

-Don't expect your adviser to actually know what courses you have to take to graduate. They will know about comprehensive exams and the dissertation, but a lot of professors don't really keep up with the course requirements, especially if their program is in flux. Get you a student handbook, and find out what you need to take. Map it out in a grid, and check off things when you finish them. Show this to your adviser every semester. You may have to explain how such and such class fills a requirement.

-Nobody loves you as much as you, except your mother. Keep this in mind as you take in advice from all sources, including your adviser. Your adviser is there to guide you, but that doesn't mean you have to do everything he says.

Studying:
-You will have to read more than you ever did before, in less time than you ever have before, and you will be expected to retain more than you ever have before. The way that you studied in undergrad may need some tweaking. Be prepared for this.

-Corollary: you may find that your methods change with age or interests or time. I preferred to study alone in college, but in grad school, I prefer to study in groups. It keeps me on task and the socialization keeps me motivated. You may find that you shift from being a more auditory learner to a visual learner or whatever.

-You will feel behind at first. This is normal.

-At some point you will realize that your professors don't actually expect you to read everything they assign you. This, of course, will vary by program, but there will be at least one class where the reading is actually impossible to do in one week. The point is to read enough that you know the major themes and can talk intelligently about them, and then pick some of the readings to really dig into and think more deeply about.

-For most programs, don't worry so much about grades. If you stay on top of your work and do what you're supposed to, you will probably get an A. How much grades matter varies from program to program. In some programs, a B is a signal that you are not up to par, and more than a few Bs will warrant a discussion with your adviser or the DGS. My program isn't like that - A, B, it's all meaningless. My adviser doesn't even know what my grades are. But at almost all programs, a C means you need to retake the course, and two Cs means you have to convince the DGS not to kick you out.

Extracurricular activity: What's that? No, seriously:
-A lot of your time will be unstructured. You will have coursework, but most grad classes meet once a week for two hours and you may have three classes. You may have meetings with your adviser every so often and some seminars or things to catch (like we have grand rounds and colloquia that are required), but a lot of time will be unstructured. However, since you have so much more work than you had in undergrad, you actually will have less free time than you had in undergrad. This may initially cause you great anxiety. It did for me. Some people love unstructured time, though. (I don't.)

-Because of this, you'll have to be planful about your non-grad school related stuff.

-TAKE TIME OFF. DO it. It's important for your mental health. However you do it doesn't matter. Some people work it like a 9-5 job. Some people take a day off per week (me) and maybe a few hours spread across the week. Some people work half days 7 days a week. However you do it, there needs to be a time when you say "f this, I'm going to the movies."

-Find your happy place, something that keeps you the you you were when you came in. I love working out. It gives me energy and I feel good. I stay healthy. I also love reading fiction, so sometimes I just curl up with a good book, work be damned. You have to give yourself permission to not think about work, at least for a couple of hours a week. You may also discover new hobbies! (I never worked out before I came to graduate school.)

-Your work will creep into all aspects of your life, if you let it. This is why I hate unstructured time. You will feel guilty for not doing something, because in graduate school, there is ALWAYS something you can do. ALWAYS. But since there will always be more work, there's no harm in putting it aside for tomorrow, as long as you don't have a deadline.

-You may need to reach outside of your cohort for a social life. None of my close friends are in my doctoral cohort. I've met master's students in my program, master's students in other programs, and I know a few non-graduate students I hang out with, too. Go to graduate student mixers. (If your university doesn't have any, organize some, if you like planning parties.) Join a student group that doesn't take up too much time. I had a doctoral acquaintance who kinda laughed at me because I joined some student groups other than the doctoral student one, and I was usually the only doctoral student in those groups, but I met some close friends (and future job contacts) and had a good time.

-DO NOT FEEL GUILTY FOR WANTING A LIFE OUTSIDE OF GRADUATE SCHOOL. This is paramount. This is important. You are a well-rounded, complex, multifaceted human being. NEVER feel bad for this. Everybody wants some kind of life outside of work. Yes, you may loooove your field, but that doesn't mean you want to do it all day long. Some other doctoral students, and perhaps professors, may make you feel bad about this. Don't let them. Just smile and nod. Then disappear when you need to.

Career:
-This is job preparation. Remember that from Day One. Always be looking for ways to enhance your skills. Read job ads and find out what's hot in your field, what's necessary, what's in demand. For example, in my field statistics and methods are a hot commodity, and they're not a passing fad. I happen to really like statistics and methods, so I have pursued that as a concentration of mine.

-Don't be afraid to take on volunteer work and part-time gigs that will give you skills that will be useful both inside academia and out, as long as it's not against your contract. Your adviser may be against it, but he doesn't have to know as long as it doesn't interfere with your work.

-If you want to work outside of academia - if you are even *considering* the possibility - please please definitely do the above. Even if you aren't considering it, consider the possibility that you won't get a tenure-track job out the box and that you may need to support yourself doing something else for a while. You will have to prove to employers that you have developed usable, useful skills and this is one of the easiest ways to do it. But don't overdo it - get the degree done.

-For more academic related ones - always look for opportunities to present and publish. Presentations look good on your CV. Publications look better. When you write seminar papers, wonder if you can publish them with some revision. Write your seminar papers on what you maybe think you may want to do your dissertation on. Even if you look at them three years later and think "these suck," you can at least glean some useful references and pieces from them. Discuss publication with your adviser early and often, and if you have the time and desire, seek out publication options with other professors and researchers. But if you commit to a project, COMMIT. You don't want to leave a bad impression.

-If you can afford it, occasionally go to conferences even if you aren't presenting. You can network, and you can hear some interesting talks, and you may think about new directions for your own research. You can also meet people who may tell you about jobs, money, opportunities, etc.

-Always try to get someone else to pay for conference travel before you come out of pocket. Including your adviser. Do not be shy about asking if he or she can pay. If he can't, he'll just say no. Usually the department has a travel fund for students, but often it's only if you are presenting.

-If you are interested in academia, you should get some teaching experience. There are two traditional ways to do this: TAing a course, and teaching as a sole instructor. If you can help it, I wouldn't recommend doing a sole instructor position until you are finished with coursework. Teaching takes a LOT of time to do right. You should definitely TA at least one course, and probably a few different ones. But don't overdo it, if you can help it, because again, it takes a LOT of time. More than you expect at the outset. If you are in the humanities, I think sole instructor positions are very important for nabbing jobs so when you are in the exam/ABD phase, you may want to try at least one. If your own university has none, look at adjuncting for nearby colleges, including community colleges. (I would wager that the majority of natural science/physical science students, and most social science students, have never sole taught a class before they get an assistant professor job. At least, it's not that common n my field, which straddles the social and natural sciences.)

-Always look for money. Money is awesome. If you can fund yourself you can do what you want, within reason. Your university will be thrilled, your adviser will be happy, and you can put it on your CV. It's win-win-win! Don't put yourself out of the running before anyone else has a chance to. Apply even if you think you won't get it or the odds are against you (they always are), as long as you are eligible. Apply often. Apply even if it's only $500. (That's conference travel!) Money begets money. The more awards you get, the more awards you will get. They will get bigger over time. If you are in the sciences and social sciences, you should get practice writing at least one grant. You don't have to write the whole thing, but at least get in on the process so that you can see how it's done. Grant-writing is very valuable both in and outside of graduate school.

-Revise your CV every so often. Then look and decide what you want to add to it. Then go get that thing, so you can add it.

-The career office at big universities is often not just for undergrads. I was surprised to learn that my career center offers help on CV organization and the academic job search, as well as alternative/non-academic career searches for doctoral students. In fact, there are two people whose sole purpose it is to help PhD students find nonacademic careers, and they both have PhDs. This will vary by university - some universities will have very little for grad students. Find out before you write the office off.

-It's never too early to go to seminars/workshops like "the academic job search inside and out", "creating the perfect CV," "getting the job," etc. NEVER. Often the leader will share tips that are more aimed towards early graduate students, or tidbits that are kind of too late for more advanced students to take care of. This will also help you keep a pulse on what's hot in your field. It'll help you know what lines you need to add to your CV. And they're interesting.

Other:

-Decide ahead of time what you are NOT willing to sacrifice on the altar of academia. Then stick to it.
I'm serious. If you decide that you do NOT want to sacrifice your relationship, don't. If it's your geographical mobility, don't. I mean, be realistic, and realize that there will always be trade-offs. But you have to think about what's important to you for your quality of life, and realize that there is always more to you than graduate school.

-If you don't want to be a professor, do not feel guilty about this. At all. Zero. However, you will have to do things differently than most doctoral students. Your adviser will probably never have worked outside of the academy (although this may vary depending on the field) so he may or may not be able to help you. But you have a special mission to seek out the kinds of experiences that will help you find a non-academic job. Test the waters with your adviser before you tell him this. My adviser was quite amenable to it, but that's because I told him that my goal was to still do research and policy work in my field just not at a university, AND because it's quite common in my field for doctoral students to do non-academic work. If you're in a field where it's not common (or where your professors refuse to believe it's common, or it's not supposed to be common)…well, you may be a little more on your own.

-Every so often, you will need to reflect on the reasons you came to graduate school. Sometimes, just sit and think quietly. Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you love your field? Do you need this degree to do what you want to do? Usually the answer is yes and yes, and usually you'll keep on trucking. But sometimes when the chips are down you will need to reevaluate why you put yourself through this in the first place.

-To my great dismay, depression is quite common in doctoral students. Graduate work can be isolating and stressful. Luckily your health insurance usually includes counseling sessions. TAKE THEM if you need them. Do not be ashamed. You may be surprised with who else is getting them. (I found out that everyone in my cohort, including me, was getting mental health counseling at a certain point.) Exercise can help, as can taking that mental health day once a week and just chilling. Don't be surprised if you get the blues…

-…but be self-aware and able to recognize when the depression is clouding your ability to function. Doctoral programs have a 50% attrition rate, and this is rarely because that 50% is less intelligent than, less motivated than, less driven than, or less ambitious than the other 50% that stays. Often they realize that they are ridiculously unhappy in the field, or that they don't need the degree anymore, or that they'd rather focus on other things in life, or their interests have changed. All of this is okay!

-You will, at some point, be like "eff this, I'm leaving." I think almost every doctoral student has thought about dropping out and just kicking this all to the curb. You need to listen to yourself, and find out whether it is idle thought (nothing to worry about, very normal) or whether you are truly unhappy to the point that you need to leave. Counseling can help you figure this out.

-Don't be afraid to take a semester or a year off if you need to. That's what leaves of absence are for.

Lastly, and positively…

…graduate school is great! Seriously, when else will you ever have the time to study what you want for hours on end, talk to just as interested others about it, and live in an intellectual community of scholars and intellectuals? And occasionally wake up at 11 am and go to the bank at 2 pm? Sometimes you will want to pull out all of your hair but most of the time, you will feel fulfilled and wonderfully encouraged and edified. So enjoy this time!

@adamchaya I promise it will all work out. If you don't end up attending this institution, you will take the year to reflect and research and find a school that does feel like a confident fit. If you do end up attending this institution, you will find goodness in the experience. At the very least, you will be challenged academically and socially, and emerge stronger, smarter, and clearer on who you are, what you stand for, and the types of environments and people you do/don't want to surround yourself with going forward. If you go, and it sucks, then you transfer! You are never stuck. Walk through the doors that open (if you feel moved to do so) and just embrace the adventure

Sorry to hear about this. Take care of your health. This is hard enough craft already. Hope things work out. It is okay to take time away to recharge. There are no guarantees in this game, but if it's meant to be, it's meant to be. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Hi, just want to chime in here. These are good questions. HDS is in no way more prestigious than Chicago within rlst circles. Chicago would be more academically rigorous, no question. Quarter system means you will have to be on top of your game. Money: south side chicago is much much more viable than Cambridge/Boston. If you're gunning for top phd programs in your field, both will serve you equally well. Would also try to pinpoint whose faculty you're most interested in. Don't worry about hyper-competition, a lot of these things are self-imposed but you can't slack either. Stay calm and you'll be fine. Harvard gets hyped up due to prestige chasing behavior (sorry, but it's true.) Be strategic with what professors you want to work with (either harvard or chicago) because professors at both schools can fall into two camps: they'll either give you attention or you'll just be a number as an MA. Being proactive is the best way to enhance your phd acceptance chances later on. Just make sure you don't fall thru the cracks
as both institutes are big. Be open to working with professors whom you didn't think would be part of your academic journey (they might turn out to be your biggest supporters rather than the big name in your field). Overall, it is my estimation that Chicago might even have a slight edge for PhD apps (but this is subjective and may not apply to everyone). If money is of concern, Chicago hands down. That stipend means someone thought you were excellent. 
Also, it's okay to be non-confrontational, but it would be an asset to be assertive some of the times, esp if you're heading into a phd later. colleagues and professors respect someone with an independence of voice. trust me on this if you can. 
Hope that's helpful in someway. 
Best of luck. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Will echo @_Athena_. For people going for the MA,  do focus on the subfields before committing. Also, I should say that at the MA level, you can get away with not having a very close alignment of research interests with the faculty. The aim is to have breadth and just some depth. this is a time to refine your research interests, so remain focused but open as well, if that is not too much of a paradox. 
 
Chicago and Harvard's 2 year MAs do not have theses, which means that you'll not get to do in-depth research about a topic. That is fine. If you wish, you can do that through independent reading courses with faculty. Also, very important is that you do not freak out if there aren't relevant courses within the div school, these are massive research universities with a lot of departments, so it's always good to rigorously browse through courses being offered in other relevant departments. for instance, secularism stuff in anthro department etc. what you need from the MA is solid letters, evidence of thorough coursework (focus on something but also be diverse to an extent, the idea is to get acquainted with the field of religion as well, you will benefit from conversations outside your field), language training (if applicable) and solid writing sample. Take courses that require you to write a research (!!) paper not only essays, critical paper and the likes. When you apply for the PhD, you may want not even want to apply to these schools again because then academic fit becomes the most important factor. Without being a calculative robot all the time, it is important to internalize that the MA has two jobs: a) get into a PhD program b) actually develop as a scholar-in-training. all best. 

Hi, just want to chime in here. These are good questions. HDS is in no way more prestigious than Chicago within rlst circles. Chicago would be more academically rigorous, no question. Quarter system means you will have to be on top of your game. Money: south side chicago is much much more viable than Cambridge/Boston. If you're gunning for top phd programs in your field, both will serve you equally well. Would also try to pinpoint whose faculty you're most interested in. Don't worry about hyper-competition, a lot of these things are self-imposed but you can't slack either. Stay calm and you'll be fine. Harvard gets hyped up due to prestige chasing behavior (sorry, but it's true.) Be strategic with what professors you want to work with (either harvard or chicago) because professors at both schools can fall into two camps: they'll either give you attention or you'll just be a number as an MA. Being proactive is the best way to enhance your phd acceptance chances later on. Just make sure you don't fall thru the cracks
as both institutes are big. Be open to working with professors whom you didn't think would be part of your academic journey (they might turn out to be your biggest supporters rather than the big name in your field). Overall, it is my estimation that Chicago might even have a slight edge for PhD apps (but this is subjective and may not apply to everyone). If money is of concern, Chicago hands down. That stipend means someone thought you were excellent. 
Also, it's okay to be non-confrontational, but it would be an asset to be assertive some of the times, esp if you're heading into a phd later. colleagues and professors respect someone with an independence of voice. trust me on this if you can. 
Hope that's helpful in someway. 
Best of luck.