Rustin

Was it a funded offer? I turned down my spot on their waitlist a month ago, in part because they said coming off the waitlist would include a tuition waiver but not necessarily a stipend. I was quite happy with my other choices and didn't want to complicate it further. Doesn't affect me anymore, just curious.

Just declined UPenn in case anyone is waiting. Going to Harvard!

Three things helped me: 1) Speak louder than you think you need to. 2) Speak slower than you think you need to. 3) You are the expert on your presentation- you likely know more than 99.9% of the people in the world on your specific topic. So, be confident and have fun.

I agree with this to an extent. The caveat is that it is much easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a top 10 graduate program. It is also much more predictable: What is your GPA? What is your LSAT? The answer to those two questions can easily tell you the range of law schools you'll get into in a way that a GPA/GRE scores can't for graduate programs. Personal interests aside, I'd recommend going a top-20 law school over a middle of the road history PhD for employment and career options. I should also add, my specific field is 20th century U.S. history with an emphasis on gender and race. The type of research and questions I am interested in could be approached from the vantage point of law school research and the law academy. So, considering law school for me made sense although I didn't ultimately apply.

I think this thread is a great idea, particularly since we've all taken different paths to graduate school and have had unique application experiences. I actually did not contact professors before I applied. I know a lot of people recommend it, and it may be a good thing for some, but my professors recommended against it. Ultimately at competitive programs, at least a couple things are true: Professors are incredibly busy and they only get to admit a very few number of applicants. So, responding to lots of e-mails ahead of time isn't their favorite thing to do, especially since it is difficult in an e-mail to tell a competitive potential graduate student from a time-waster. Its also kind of awkward. If you're really that curious, I think contacting the graduate coordinator may be a better place to start. Obviously once you are admitted, that changes. Many will disagree with me, but that is my experience. Start early on your personal statements and solicit feedback from as many academics as possible. Don't be afraid to scrap entire drafts. For me, applying to fellowships in my junior and early parts of my senior year helped me refine my statements a lot so that by the time I applied to graduate schools, I only had to make minor tweaks. The statements can be daunting though and the stakes are high since it often is a deciding factor in the application process. Avoid cliches and trite statements: Even if it is true you've wanted to study history since you were 8 years old, saying so in your application makes potential advisors think you have little idea what really goes into being an historian. Have compelling reasons for your interests and articulate them clearly. Don't be afraid to ask questions in your statements. Always include specifics about who you want to work with, how your research interests interact, and how you'd be a good fit for the program. Control the things you can control. The summer before you apply, you can't go back and do more research, study more for classes where you slacked, or things like that. But you can take studying for the GREs very seriously. You can do a summer independent study on a cool historical topic that becomes either a senior thesis, a writing sample, or a conference presentation. You can take language courses (through your school or a CC) to demonstrate you can meet the necessary language requirements. You can start talking to your recommenders so they have plenty of notice and they'll be able to respond to your requests to read drafts and such. Take the time to write a resume and edit it many times, since nearly every application requires it. All of these things will strengthen your application and reduce stress levels in the November/December crunch periods. I'd take the safety school advice with a grain of salt. Do you want to attend a history phd program next year no matter what? If so, definitely lock in some safety schools. Otherwise, have safety options. Things like Fulbright, real jobs, or (gasp) law school. Don't be afraid to take a multi-year approach to the process. A lot of history PhD programs like people to have some life experiences before enrolling, if nothing else than to be sure that the PhD is a commitment you are really ready to make. Anyways, those are my thoughts tonight as I wind up the application cycle.

I agree with the rest- this just does not happen. From speaking to the professors at my undergraduate institution, as well as where I've been admitted, there is some informal banter between friends and past colleagues that occurs and is natural. It isn't a bartering or negotiation process, just a normal checking out by people who may have went to graduate school together, worked together, or present at similar conferences regularly. There isn't a smoky room where 10 or 15 people get and decide which school gets who. The wide variety of acceptances and rejects has more to do with the incredible number of applications and limited spots. If a school takes 8 people and waitlists 4, the 13 person gets the same rejection letter as the 600th person. I'd also disagree with the OP's assertion that yield (the percentage that accept an offer of admissions) matters at all for rankings. It does in the formula for ranking undergraduate institutions for some surveys but not at all in graduate school rankings. The graduate US News & World Report rankings are based upon surveying of department chairs and the government rankings do not include yield as a factor.

Hey everyone. Anyone else headed to Cambridge this Wednesday and Thursday for the recruitment days? I will be there and wanted to see if anyone else on these boards would be around. PM me or something so we each know someone there.

Accepted at Penn today via an e-mail from the director of graduate studies. Formal letter and package to be forthcoming. Waitlisted at Michigan today, but I am almost certain I'll be e-mailing them tomorrow to decline my spot on the waitlist.

It is a fair point. For me, there are professors at Berkeley I am interested in working with and I wrote about them in my application. Between my application and my comment about fit, two things happened: They rejected me and I got into another school. So, I think it is natural to re-evaluate the situation and rationalize it a bit. I also think of fit along a spectrum anyways- there are better fits and worse fits and no fits at all. Berkeley was not an ideal fit, but I think I would have been happy there if I was admitted and attended.

I'll add my name to the list of Berkeley rejects today. I knew it wasn't a great fit going in since Prof. Levine passed away in 2006. Ah well.

I think a large part of the decision is: How did you prepare for the GRE the first time around? If you went all out, and really took the time to prepare for it the best you could, then take the 620 and be happy with it. If you didn't, then take three months and study right, taking practice tests along the way to measure your progress. You have the time since you're not up against any application deadlines yet. If you see consistent improvement in your practice, take the GRE again and bump the score up. For example, my first practice tests without any studying were in the 600 to 650 range verbal and the 400-450 range for math (it'd been eight years since I looked at a math course, book, or actual problem). Three months, 1500 flashcards, and lots of math prep books later, I ended up with a 700v/760q/6aw score. This was a bit lower on the verbal than I'd been practicing at and a bit higher on the math, so I was pleased- taking it again, with more practice, could not have substantially changed my scores. Looks like you're doing a lot of the things right to prepare. Good luck.

Congratulations! Two for two must feel good.

While in a different discipline and circumstances, I had a similar issue in terms of health affecting coursework initially. I overcame it by stating it simply and succinctly in the proper part of the application rather than developing a large narrative about it or letting it seep into other parts of my application. The "sob story" detriment only comes into play if you make it one, I think. Stating it and moving on shows you recognize it, you've addressed it, and it won't affect your graduate work. Having said that, a 2.3 is rough (at least for history phd's, where I have most of my experience). You may want to think about finding a good masters program or something similar to demonstrate you've 1) overcome your previous health issue, and 2) are capable of high level coursework. This will also help you secure better recommendations and maybe a publication or two. Good luck, I know how tough it can be to go through the process having to explain yourself. Edit: Also, cast a wide net. The application fees may be rough, but it only takes one person or program to believe in you.

I've been waitlisted at Princeton. I heard from Harvard first though, which took out most of the normal frustration of being placed on a waitlist.

Congratulations to the Princeton admits! Waitlisted here.