sra08

I'm waiting on USC, American History. USC has been lower on my list since the beginning, but I'm still a bit anxious waiting for a definitive answer, and having more than one offer and an offer with guaranteed funding would be nice. It's also one of two privates I haven't heard from (not counting Columbia, where I'm almost certainly rejected), and the only California school I have left to hear from. I have to admit, though, that I would have a hard time choosing USC and most of the other places I have left over UCLA, my one acceptance so far. Funding is the problem. Sigh. Speaking of schools which have been awfully quiet, has anyone heard anything from Maryland - College Park?

I think we need a statistical study of what proportion of graduate school applicants post results on this site for any given program. :wink:

As someone who has just been through the admissions process as an Americanist with only Italian (though not as much of it as you), I'd suggest seriously considering your research interests and what languages might be useful to have. I didn't do this, selecting Italian as a freshmen because I liked the language and heard my college had a great department. I stopped Italian after three semesters, after fulfilling my graduation requirement, only to take a fourth semester right now, my last semester. I don't like languages much either. But I suspect, with competition being so tight, that the poor language preparation was the weakest aspect of my application and may have hurt my chances, especially since I proposed a research topic in which French and German are quite useful. I've heard from 6 top programs so far, with one acceptance without funding. Though I still have to hear back from some places, it looks like my options are more limited than I'd ideally like. Granted, this is not unexpected, given the selectiveness of the 5 programs I've been rejected from. But it still helps to have every advantage you can, and starting a second language will make you a more attractive applicant. This is especially true because Italian is generally not as useful as some other languages in studying American History. (A generalization, of course. Italian is necessary for Italian immigration history, obviously.) So, it's not just knowing a language, but knowing a relevant language.

Yeah, I definitely understand why someone would pick good school + funding over UCLA with no funding. I also share many of synthla's concerns about the size about the department. I'm coming from a school where there are five tenured faculty positions in History and twelve senior majors, so going to the largest History department in the world (I think) will be quite the shock. At this point UCLA is the only acceptance I have, and there are only a few places I have left to hear from that are comparable to UCLA in terms of fit and program quality. And I'm probably rejected at Columbia, which leaves one. So, I will probably be matriculating at UCLA in spite of no first-year funds, but I'm lucky enough to have some family financial support for that. I've also been able to talk to one of Prospective Adviser's former grad students, and she sounds like a great adviser in addition to being a top scholar in my field. If it weren't for my family's willingness to juggle things around to make this work, and if I had a funding offer from a comparable institution, I'd definitely feel differently, though.

A few more things I've found out about UCLA funding and recruitment: After a year, you're automatically classified as in-state if you weren't already. All students are eligible to apply for jobs as readers/graders for undergraduate courses. The website says there are 60 anticipated openings for that and the grad counselor who I talked to on the phone made it sound as though these positions aren't terribly competitive. Still, I'm not sure as to the pay for that, and there are no guarantees. The department also is not having a special recruitment weekend like many other schools are doing. Not really a problem for me, as I can visit most Fridays, but it does seem as though they make less of an effort to recruit people as many other schools. Probably a combination of the state budget being in crisis and not having the funds and them assuming that a lot of acceptees will want to go there even without funding and recruitment events.

Thank you for all of the great advice in this thread. I was really starting to like and accept the idea of taking a year off and re-applying next year. I've investigated various job and living possibilities. And today I came home to find an e-mail informing me of my acceptance to UCLA. Unfortunately it's without funding, so that presents some complications, but at any rate I know that a great program wants me. That does so much to erase the negative feelings of five rejections. It also lets me know that there weren't really any big problems with my application. I was feeling irrationally paranoid that my LoRs had something off-putting in them, but that appears not to be the case. I still have a handful of places left to hear from, though only a few which I'd prefer over UCLA. I also now realize there isn't really a heck of a lot that I can do to improve my basic profile. Sure, more foreign language prep, a more focused SoP, and possibly an improving economy might help my changes at Harvard/Stanford--my top choices--but it's still a huge crapshoot. (And who knows if the economy has reached its nadir.) At least if I do end up re-applying I'll know that I'm doing so because a great school can't give me funding.

If anyone remembers my freaking-out post from a few pages ago, I'm pleased to report that I have been accepted to UCLA, though without funding. (This was after receiving five rejections and no acceptances.) I'm not sure whether I can accept the offer without funding, but I still have to hear from a few places and find out more about the workings of UCLA's department. (Unfortunately, most of the places I have yet to hear from aren't as good as UCLA both location-wise and in terms of the program.) It's kind of funny, because today I was finally accepting the idea that I might not get into a program of my choice this year, and I can just take a year off, improve myself as a candidate, and re-apply to some new places and some of the same places. I was getting to like that idea, too, and talked about it a fair bit with my profs. Then I get home today to find the UCLA acceptance letter in my e-mail! Wow. I was a bit uncertain about getting into UCLA, because while I had an interview back in October with Famous Potential Adviser, I wasn't sure how well I did and Potential Adviser made it clear that I'd need more languages. Our research interests match up, though I've since altered my own interests, and my profs. are friends with her. So, all of that was probably helpful, but it still felt great to know that I'm in somewhere I like and that there wasn't something really off-putting in my LoRs or something. I still want to find out more about the finances, and the experiences of UCLA grad students. I know they have the largest department in the country, which certainly has its advantages, but going there I couldn't help but feel kind of nervous and overwhelmed, coming from a school with about 800 undergrads. Well, at least I feel like I have the choice of grad school next year, though the funding situation is certainly suboptimal.

Count me in as someone else who got into UCLA without funding. I'm thrilled, as it's my first acceptance after five rejections and UCLA is a good fit for me. But the funding situation is rather nerve-racking. I need to find out more about how funding gets decided after the first year, and how the department predicts its funding situation changing in subsequent years. (Yes, if only we all knew where the economy is going.)

I had three semesters of Italian when I applied, am now taking a fourth semester (Advanced). When I applied my Italian was quite rusty, so I put down "beginner" on all my applications out of honesty, though now I feel I know more than a true "beginner." Unfortunately, Italian isn't really considered a useful language for my field; I kick myself for not choosing French to fulfill my language requirement. I said that I wanted to look at the American pacifist movement, including international organizations. I was lucky enough to find out that a prof. at a great program is doing very similar research, and I live close enough that I was able to interview. (I even had the good luck that my profs know her well.) When I spoke with her, she pretty much made it clear that I'd need French and German. I said I'd be willing to learn, but I feel that not having the languages already was a drawback. (I haven't heard the decision from this school yet.) Additionally, my Italian grades are some of the lowest grades on my transcript, which does reflect the fact that my facility for foreign languages is poor in comparison to my abilities in History and English, my minor. (Though my grades in Italian are by no means poor.) In the process of doing my thesis, I've realized that pacifism is not what I want to focus my graduate school scholarship on, though I'm still very excited about my chosen subfield and rough time period. If I end up re-applying, I'll try to study French on my own or at a community college, and my SoP will reflect my new research interests, in which foreign languages are less important. I agree that grad school admissions right now is just plain difficult for everyone, but I think there may be a perception that those of us who are applying right out of undergrad aren't serious. The first question the prof. who interviewed me was, "why do you want to go to graduate school right after college?" The point about LAC professors not fully understanding the admissions process is probably true, as well. My profs applied to grad school about 30 years ago, and we have no grad program.

Well, misery loves company, and I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who's 0-for right now. 0-5 to be precise--nos from Berkeley, Wisconsin, Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. Granted, those are all very competitive schools, and Berkeley wasn't even a good fit, but it still hurts. A lot. (I assume I'm probably rejected from Columbia as well, quite possibly UCLA.) My adviser told me a year ago that she was sure I'd get into a top place, and various other profs. and acquaintances in the academic field have said the same thing. It's been hard to let go of the dream of going to Harvard or Stanford, my two top places. I'm still holding out hope for Rutgers, and a few other places which are lower on my list, but it's been incredibly disappointing. My GRE scores are not stellar, but certainly in range, and I have great grades, especially in history, from a well-regarded LAC. I have one conference presentation, and one interdisciplinary summer research award. My adviser, known to be a tough grader, gave my writing sample, a semi-final draft of a thesis chapter, an A+. I know I should have been aware how competitive these programs are, especially in this economy, and since I've spent so much time researching the process. But I still had some probably unrealistic hopes which were deflated, and it feels crappy. I'm starting to investigate other plans for next year, with the hopes of reapplying. I want to address my languages, which I suspect is the weakest aspect of my application. (Even though I'm an Americanist, I stupidly suggested a specific research interest that's pretty international in scope. I now have a clearer idea of what I really want to do. Perhaps I should have waited to apply in the first place.) Anyway, I just wanted to vent a little, and this seemed like a good place to do it. I know some of you here have been through the re-application process, and I'd be curious to hear about your experiences.

I was wondering if any of you have experience with/knowledge of re-applying. I've heard only four rejections so far, for American History, but I'm looking at a distinct possibility that I won't get in anywhere I feel excited about going to. One issue is that I'm a graduating senior, and did not fully realize what my research interests "really" are until the past couple of months, though I'm still in the same general subfield. I think lack of focus in some of the SoPs may have hurt me, in addition to the awful economy and high competition levels of the programs I've heard back from. If I were to re-apply next year, I would have more foreign language training, a complete (hopefully honors) thesis, and possibly better GRE scores, though my scores are by no means weak. I'm just feeling at a loss right now because I thought my application was so strong. I have high grades from a well-regarded LAC and my adviser told me she was sure I'd get into a top program. (That's not completely out of the question, but seems unlikely right now.) And, if I may be a bit immodest, I am a very talented writer. I sent a chapter of my thesis as a writing sample, and while it wasn't the final draft, I believe it to be very strong. My adviser/senior seminar professor gave it an A+, and I know she's regarded as a tough grader. I've wondered whether there was something in the LoRs which hurt me, but rationally that doesn't seem likely. Since there were (I think) no glaring holes in my application this time, would re-applying to some of the same places be completely useless? I am working to rectify my lack of languages, which I suspect was a problem given the research focus which I proposed. I wouldn't mind taking a break from academics, though I don't look forward to the job market, and was wondering if I should even bother re-applying to some of the same places.

[quote name="Louiselab

Congratulations to all those with good news, and condolences to those with bad. Since I was the one who brought up Rutgers, I found out through contact with the department that they've been meeting in sub-committees this week and will meet as a full committee next week. So it might be some time before we hear anything. Is it confirmed that Harvard already sent out a "first round" of rejections? With 3 rejections and no acceptances, knowing that I at least made it past round one at Harvard would be a confidence boost.

Hey, New Jersey is a great place to live, speaking as someone who grew up there. It's a very diverse state in terms of what's there, and gets a bad rep unfairly. I didn't apply to Princeton, but I am REALLY hoping for Rutgers--both because it's a great place for my subfield, and because I want to go back to New Jersey! It also seems to be the best school left which I feel like I have any chance.

Thanks to everyone brave enough to call for this information. I actually broke down and called Stanford last week, and was told that we would know by the end of the month/early March. I know at least one person heard an acceptance from Stanford a few weeks ago, though, because my adviser told me another one of her students was accepted. So I'm pessimistic on Stanford, which was my first choice. Sigh. Trying not to get my hopes up for Harvard. I live on the opposite side of the country, so who knows how long a rejection letter will take to arrive with the federal holiday.

Do you happen to know if Harvard rejections went out via e-mail or post mail? I don't want to get my hopes up...not that there's much hope with 500 other applicants.

Still haven't heard anything besides the Yale rejection and am getting nervous. I talked to my adviser today and my heart sank when she mentioned that another student of hers (from an adjacent college) got an acceptance from Stanford last week. That was my first choice. She reminded me that it doesn't mean I'm definitely out, and that a lot of this has to do with who is taking grad students/has funding/is on the admissions committee, but it still hurts. I also wondered if admissions committee compares recommendation letters from students from the same departments. I know of at least one other student who is applying to some of the same schools, though in a different field. I'm not worried about what my recommendation letters say, but I am wondering about it.

elanvita, try logging on to your Yale application. I didn't get anything from them, either--I think their message got caught in my spam filter--but when I logged in the decision (rejection) was there.

Congratulations to everyone who has gotten acceptances thus far. It must feel great. I'll now continue fretting about Wisconsin and Yale.

About UCSB: I didn't apply, but met a prof. who is very involved with their grad admissions process yesterday. I got the impression that they're still deciding who to admit.

Second that. Yale's application was only due a month ago...?

Shall us Americanists who applied to Wisconsin and still have our status as "pending" start to freak out?

Well, Stanford's deadline was the earliest. I've applied to all three of those as well, in U.S. history. Is it wistful thinking to hope of hearing news this week? Obsessive study of results patterns from previous years indicate the University of Wisconsin-Madison often start giving acceptances around this time. This thread is also reminding me that I should probably spend some time working on my Italian for class, rather than refreshing my e-mail and this board every ten minutes.

I'm a current college senior applying to History PhD programs this year, more specifically American history. I took the GRE today and am feeling a bit antsy. I do not want to take the test again. Will a 670 verbal/630 math keep me out of top programs? I have high grades from a well-respected liberal arts college and feel that the rest of the application will be strong. From what I gather, GRE scores don't mean much past a certain threshold. I just want to feel as though I can reasonably accept these scores and not regret it later.