commcycle

FYI, there's an AEJMC tweet-up at 8:30 on Thursday the 5th at rock bottom brewery. I'm presenting at AEJMC and did IAMCR. Next year I think I'll try ICA and NCA, just to switch it up. Doing more than 2 a year doesn't make sense to me, financially or intellectually.

Well that's the nice thing about communication - you can't do it alone Your overall picture is interesting (UCLA's a good school, GPA is reasonable). GREs are a little low... generally speaking below 500 may put you off a school's radar. That said, health is a very hot area in comm right now. Good luck!

Those programs are all completely different. It would be tough to gauge your chances without knowing more about your background. You also don't state whether you applied for MA or Ph.D.

PRGuy - you nailed it - the admissions process is very unpredictable. Truth of the matter is, once you get to a certain level, how good you are doesn't matter. You do everything you can do to strengthen your application. But it may not matter if you have a 1300 GRE with 2 conference papers or 1450 GRE with none. So say you have 300 applications for, say, 15 spots. Many get tossed immediately - anybody can apply to a Ph.D program, but many don't even seem aware what it is all about. Some departments cull based on low GREs or GPA. So say you're left with 60 decent apps for the 15 spots. Fit to the professors and department matters in the final admit decision. Especially in communications. Also, there are what basically amount to quotas. If a program has, say, 15 spots per year, they're not going to let in, say, 7 mass comm people. They need to get 50% humanistic vs. social science, give health comm three (because they're getting funding), get Dr. BigProf RAs for her online games project... I'm making these up, but these are the kinds of balancing acts the committee has to make. And if you've geared your application to work with Dr. NewHotGuy and someone else whose app is stronger does as well, you may be screwed that year. Some professors are known to be GRE kings/queens, others are more interested in work experience. These scenarios are back room, discussed in committee and never get talked about. I'm still not sure who was even on the admissions committee. So to answer your question in a very roundabout fashion. I strengthened my app by re-taking the GRE, doing research over several years and getting good recommendations. But in the end, I wasn't sure exactly what made the difference. Although secondhand feedback was that recommendations from people the committee members knew helped (hardly a secret).

No offense, but if you can't figure this out, you shouldn't be applying to communication Ph.D programs.

Your general experience (teaching experience, a few conference papers) is in-line with what doctoral programs are looking for. GPA is fine - GPA doesn't matter too much for MAs because there's so much grade inflation around. But 1180 is below average (strong programs are admitting around 1350-1375 average), so I would be suspicious of people in your program who aren't worried about having lower scores. Not that it can't happen, but lower definitely raises eyebrows. Provide a clear message, particularly in your SOP. It sounds like you have experience in speech, politics, and mass comm. How do all these pieces fit together? Just as a general comment, mass topics, per se, are not the hottest right now in doctoral programs. Talk about the evolution of the mass audience, or spin your experience to fit a particular program or professor. Are you getting the strongest references you can? Have you thought about re-taking the GRE?

Naptown, I got in last year for a comm doctoral program at a strong school. I'd suggest getting strong, specific recommendations from professors that the admissions committee members know. Accent your potential for success in their program. Mention a few areas of research that would fit with current professors. Don't raise weak areas in your SOP! I think there's a temptation to "explain" your application in a way that makes sense to you. For instance, say you bombed stats 101 in undergrad. Don't mention it. They might never look through your undergrad transcript to find out. Have a history of completing projects, particularly those that lead to publications.

More publications will never hurt you. Unless you have been publishing for ten years and admissions would be confused as to why you're applying to a Ph.D. I don't know if Annenberg "East" publishes average GRE/GPA, but Annenberg "West" does.

I have it on good authority that, in the doctoral program I was accepted to, it's not unusual to have 1-2 candidates get cold feet between now and the fall.

Personally I wouldn't bother inquiring. It probably won't be helpful. Even if you get a straight answer, it may be related to something entirely out of your control.

Well, what can they do? Make you attend? They might be pissed, and there might be some word-of-mouth backlash, but there's nothing else they will do.

I'll drink to that! And congrats on Brandeis - my undergrad alma mater.

I know the feeling. My MA thesis adviser wrote a LOR for my first pass at doctoral programs. I saw it ahead of time (he let me) and I submitted it with my packet. I was rejected from every program. Later on I took a second look at his LOR and realized how terrible it was. It didn't even mention that he was my thesis chair, or the research we worked on! He was also vague in areas where he could have been enthusiastic, and it was peppered with general statements such as how I can quickly absorb knowledge, that kind of thing. Strangely, in retrospect, my best LOR that year was from the person who knew me the least, but was the most impressed with my abilities. Your LORs should be balanced, specific, and enthusiastic. Anything less is putting you out on a limb. OP, you are probably right in your inkling that your MA adviser is the problem. My advice would be not to sniff around. You don't want to get the kind of reputation that would come with that being known by anybody. I'd just move on and start working no a new crop of references. Getting references that the committee knows is also priceless. Unfortunately, name recognition can be everything, especially in top programs. If your reference can talk about a major research project you've undertaken, that's gold as well, because it shows to the committee that you have dedication and autonomy.

If it makes you feel better, I got rejected from every program I applied to two years ago, and this year got into 4/5 and was waitlisted on the last one. You're on the right track! Think about revising your SOP and getting killer recommendations from people that the admissions committee knows. Getting an article or two published (or even a conference paper) would speak volumes. You could also up your GRE a bit, probably - most people get a bump the second time they take it. These are the things that separate you from the hundreds of other applicants out there.

Exactly. Joel418 raises some good points, but at the end of the day, there is a reason these tests exist. According to repeated studies in multiple disciplines, GRE scores do accurately predict success (GPA, likelihood of graduation) in Ph.D programs. The argument about needing to "think like test takers" may be true, but demonstrates a point: graduate programs are about absorbing and applying large amounts of frequently esoteric information. In that sense, graduate school is all about learning how to play "the game" - which you may or may not be naturally inclined to. I don't think any faculty would be very sympathetic to students saying that the reason they didn't do well in their class is because it's unfairly biased against them, and that they just don't think that way. How much the GRE impacts your particularly chances is difficult to say. Some faculty are serious GRE kings/queens. Others place high value on LORs, SOP or GPA. I can tell you informal brackets of how the doctoral program I was accepted to uses GREs as ballpark figures. Below 1200 and your application won't get looked at. Above 1300 is good, and (for those faculty who put stock in such things) above 1400 will have faculty fighting over you. Below 1000 is truly the kiss of death, unless you are an exceptional candidate (touring promoting your award-winning book and a signed SOP from Obama) or that year is particularly bad for applicants. I also think that some applicants exaggerate what they mean when they say they got a "terrible" score. You really need above a 50th or 60th percentile to get looked at in many programs. Depending on the program, the rest could be gravy. Like OP (bowdoinstudent) - he thought that he got a bad score and was in the 81st percentile (a fine score, really).