space-cat

I think it depends on what you want to do, career-wise. If you're really tied to the PhD for a career in academia, then getting an MA in History from your current institution or just waiting and reapplying next year would be your best bet. If you go for the MA, then you'll also keep your access to academia and be able to improve your CV. If you're interested in being, say, a librarian specializing in historical research, then either the MLIS or the MA would be a good bet. I know an MA isn't necessary for that career path, but I do remember most higher-level academic librarians I've come in to contact with having more than just a BA in their subject area, so it could very well make you more competitive in the job market. Of course, I imagine this depends on the structure of your MLIS program, and whether you think it would be helpful to supplement that degree with one that's more research-based. If I were you, I'd go for the MA. It sounds like you're not quite sure which path you want to take, and doing the MA would leave more options open.

Ouch. I'm so sorry you're put in this position. From what I now know about departmental politics, I'd hazard a guess that you had at least one person really fighting for you, but unfortunately they couldn't win over the majority (or overwhelming majority, depending on how many letters would have been required). Regardless of the circumstances, though, their actions were incredibly irresponsible (I have a really hard time believing no one in the whole committee would think to check the GPA benchmark before admitting you). On the other hand, as others have said, at least you're finding out now that this program doesn't stick up for its students... Best of luck for your other schools!!

This. I can't count the number of times I've told people, "Look, it's not like applying to college, where anyone with scores above a certain level can reasonably expect to get in. It's more like applying to a ridiculously competitive dream job...where half of the qualifications they want are kept secret...and they may or may not decide to pay you..."

You might also ask whether the school is part of any local consortia that will allow you to take classes at or pull dissertation committee members from other nearby institutions. Whether that's helpful to you depends on how important easy access to the film component is for your research, but it's worth a shot. For funding, you'll generally want to talk to the Director of Graduate Studies for your department. They're used to those sorts of questions, so just be diplomatic and you'll be fine. You might want to talk to grad students first to get an idea of cost of living and how difficult it is to live on the school stipend. At the very least, this knowledge will put you in a better position to negotiate for a higher stipend: "I'm concerned about the cost of living in City A" sounds a lot better than "Give me more dollars." On principle, I would tell you to seriously consider this offer and the POI until you're absolutely sure that you've made your final decision. Ask questions, talk to different people, etc. Even if you don't choose this school, it never hurts to have a contact or two elsewhere in your field.

First off, to my knowledge, anthropology programs tend to weight your essays and writing samples much more than your scores and pedigree. GPA is important, but like Blur said, your 3.9 may or may not be comparable to a 3.9 from another institution. Basically, it's impossible to tell whether you are in fact "far more qualified" than someone else based on those stats alone. You're confused and upset, and that's completely understandable, but I don't think you meant to imply that two top tier programs admitted classes of raging idiots. In addition to others' excellent points about fit and the specificity of your SOP, you might also want to think about your proposed research areas/project in the context of your field as a whole. Is it something that's already been done to death in your sub-field (not sure what your sub-field is, but I assume sociocultural)? Is it an area that's going out of vogue, or that those schools are no longer really pushing? Or, conversely, is it something that's very trendy right now and thus very competitive (medical anthro comes to mind)? Did you convey an understanding of how your interests fit in with work that's being done in your field - citing relevant publications or theorists, etc.? Beyond that...you applied to two ridiculously, insanely competitive schools. Statistically, there was always a strong chance you'd be rejected from both, and quite possibly for reasons that had nothing to do with you. Maybe your essays were indeed not as strong as other applicants', but maybe someone else with an identical profile spoke one more language, had one more interesting side project, was from another country that they wanted represented, etc. Only the ad coms know for sure.

Right on! You never know what's going to make you stand out in a crowd of applicants with similar scores and backgrounds. A good 40% of this game is just getting someone to remember who you are. As far as GC posts go...unless you're really being an asshat, I don't think ad coms can blame you for being a human instead of a brain on a stick.

Then comes fellowship?

It's definitely a bit backwards: if the current expectation is that a school will fund you to complete a PhD, then schools will, in turn, make sure they get their "money's worth" by investing in someone who will benefit the school in ways that are not necessarily tangible at the time of admission. For most schools, the bottom line is indeed admitting people who will finish on time, publish early and often, and be placed in tenure track positions right away (see the "behind the scenes" thread in Poli Sci for an example). This benefits the school by raising their rates of attrition and placement, strengthening political connections with major journals, peer institutions, and grant awarding agencies, bumping up their NRC ranking, increasing the department's funding from the university itself, attracting more top notch grad students, and so on. Maybe things are different in other fields (again, I'm in the social sciences), but in mine you are also expected to keep up a mutually beneficial relationship with your adviser and, to a lesser degree, your institution for the rest of your academic career. We all know academia is a very political place, and connections are everything. With all that in mind, maybe it makes more sense to think of the stipend as a fair salary for work and the tuition remission and fellowship as comparable to the signing bonus or continuing education bonus one would find in the job market. The grad school admission season is also competitive for the schools: most successful applicants will receive more than one offer, and will have to choose. What's the most effective way to snag a competitive candidate from a peer institution? Offer more money. Hence the OP's sadness at not receiving funding (which, for the record, I completely understand).

My first acceptance was a phone call from my professor of interest. She also happens to be someone whose work I've admired since undergrad. So, the first 20 seconds of that phone call was me trying desperately to avoid going all fangirl on her. (I very nearly interrupted her introduction to yell I KNOW WHO YOU ARE! I swear I'm normally very well spoken.) I was rejected or consolation prize-d across the board last year, so hearing high praise from her was the best possible way to kick off admission response season. I was halfway through my workday at the time, and had to go run around/happy dance outside until I calmed down enough to hold it together for the next five hours Second acceptance was also a phone call, and I was much more composed this time around. On the other hand, I did stare at the phone in disbelief for 4-5 rings before picking up. I remember just watching the little Android animation and thinking, "I don't know that number" (pause) "Wait...is that Awesome U?" (pause, check cheat sheet with contact info for all my schools) "Oh my god, it's Awesome U" (pause, fidget in chair, pause) "I should answer that" (suddenly feel paranoid) "OH NO IT'S BEEN RINGING FOR FOREVER THEY'LL THINK I'M CRAZY" (answer). Fortunately, this call was at the end of the business day, so I could go be crazy at home.

You're dead on for the social sciences, as well. I would also add that grad students are generally (implicitly) expected to put significant time and effort in to their adviser's projects, which may or may not be related to their research. Plus teaching expectations, particularly if you're running discussion groups and help sessions on top of grading papers. And, of course, you're doing all of this while being reminded that the success or failure of your academic career will ultimately have some impact on the prestige of your department, your adviser, and possibly the members of your dissertation committee. Bottom line: PhD programs are investing in you and what you can do--not the other way around--and they expect returns.

It's a tough situation, but also kind of a nice problem to have I understand your enthusiasm for A, but the fact of the matter is you don't have a full acceptance from them just yet. And, if your interview is tomorrow (Thursday), it's very possible that they won't be able to give you a final answer less than two days later. You haven't mentioned what kind of visit B is offering. Is this a recruitment event for admitted students, or are they interviewing you? If it's the latter, will not interviewing in person hurt your chances of getting in? My thought here is that the worst case scenario is: 1. You don't visit B because you're waiting on A 2. A waits until next week to tell you you're not admitted anyway 3. B doesn't admit you either because they figure you're not really interested 4. At least you didn't lose 4 days of pay? It's not worth losing your rent money, but if you can take the hit to your paycheck I'd say go ahead and visit B next week. Keep A in your back pocket until you have a definite response from them.

Dear Stan, Do you like me? Circle YES or NO. Ok, bye. -spacecat

Because I'm paranoid, I would suggest you at least wait until you have a formal written offer from the graduate school in your hands. Just in case. You probably need that before you can give an official acceptance anyway. Once you have that, though, go forth and accept!!

"Why Don't You Love Me?" by Beyonce, which I seriously considered sending to schools that rejected me last year.

For the three day weekend, four more days and counting... For spring hiking season!

Honestly, School A sounds kind of shady. If this school is a member of CGS, they're not allowed to pressure you for a response to a funded offer until April 15th. Doing the whole "we can't discuss funding until after you accept this funding-neutral offer" thing to get around that deadline--if that is indeed what they're doing--makes me seriously question how they're going to treat you if and when you matriculate. Is the person you corresponded with an admin or faculty? Were they actually looking for a formal, binding acceptance, or was this a poorly-worded attempt to gauge your interest in the school? I would definitely call someone else in the department of School A and clarify what exactly is going on. It is not unreasonable to need to know your funding situation before you accept an offer. In the meantime, I second newms' advice to hang on to your other offer.

I would definitely suggest retaking the GRE. In a similar thread elsewhere, someone said that your goal in this situation should be to make a low GPA the only bump in your application. Right now, even if you do an excellent job of addressing your GPA situation, your lowish GRE scores might make an admissions committee question whether your GPA is really an isolated incident, especially if you took the GRE more recently (i.e. after you stabilized your depression). It sounds like you plan to retake it anyway, so this is just a friendly nudge That said, I think your field experience will count a great deal towards proving your capability and commitment. I would make that the major focus of your application, and I second Rustin's advice on acknowledging your health issues honestly and concisely in the "is there anything else not reflected in other parts of your application" field.

I think (hope?) most Grad Cafe users understand that the results page should be used as a general overview of what's going on, not a perfect recreation. Not all acceptances or rejections are sent at once, and there's no way to verify that the submitted results are even accurate, especially when you have people adding comments like, "my friend said they got 4, 327 applications for 4 spots and they're sending carrier pigeons this week!" or "I have a perfect GRE and GPA with 14 first author pubs and they still rejected me!" Actually, maybe there should be a disclaimer of sorts at the top of the page..."Please note that all results are user-submitted and not verified for accuracy," or some such. Personally, I do a quick search for my subject area maybe once or twice a week. I had an idea of when to expect notifications to come out for my schools, and the results board "confirmed" that things seem to be running a bit slow this year, so that kind of set my mind at ease. Although there is definitely a point of diminishing returns for that kind of intel, I really wish I would have known about the results board last year, when I first applied. I had one rejection and one consolation prize arrive very, very late in the game (like mid-April), and I could have spared myself a good 3-4 weeks of anxiety.

Interesting example about the new professor! On a related note, I'm guessing this whole thread started because people on the results board were whining that their Ivy League "safety school" rejected them, or they're clearly overqualified for MIT, or whatever...

Wow, that's kind of...passive aggressive

Agreed. If you don't think you'd get a chance to check your messages, or if you're expecting a sneak attack phone interview type of call rather than a straightforward acceptance call, you could always change your outgoing message to say something like "I will be out of town with sporadic access to voicemail [dates of the visit]. Please leave me a message, and I will return your call on [date you return]."

If I were you, I would at least attend the official "admitted student" visit before accepting. I'm very much a "gut instinct" person, so I get where you're coming from, but this is a big commitment and I'd want to set my mind at ease. It's great that you've worked with your POI in the past and know the other students, but things may very well be different if/when you actually become a student. So, make the rounds, ask all the questions you're supposed to ask of your POI and the other students, make sure there aren't any skeletons in the closet, etc. If you know these people well enough, you can even be totally honest that this is your top choice and you're really just doing a final look over. If you're still sure at the end of the visit, then go ahead and tell everyone you intend to accept. You're not wasting anyone's time--least of all yours!!--by making absolutely sure that this is where you want to be.

This absolutely happens for med school - a good friend of mine actually received a rejection because she was overqualified, and they assumed she wouldn't accept. But, med school admissions are rolling, so it (maybe) makes sense in that context: you don't want to admit a bunch of people who are going to wait until the last second to tell you they're not coming, then go back and fight for more applicants who will come after everyone has already made up their minds. For PhD programs, I have heard of schools rejecting a student because their research interests were too focused and/or well developed: the student is already on a very clear and narrow path, and the school either can't provide the resources they want or isn't interested in a student they can't "mold" or develop. One of my LOR writers actually suggested that I broaden the focus of my SOP specifically to avoid this. While the student might read this as a rejection for being overqualified, I agree with socialpsych that it's really more of a fit issue. That said, anyone who tosses out "Oh, Idiot University rejected me because I'm OVERQUALIFIED" is probably just bitter

Ok, since this has now become the "Worst. Rejection. Ever." thread, here's a somewhat related story that will make all of us feel better about ourselves... A few years ago, I applied for a job with my state's Dept. of Health and Human Services. About five weeks later, I received a fat envelope in the mail. The cover sheet was a letter that read, "Dear Applicant, We are unable to consider your application to Job Code #1234567 due to reason codes A5, Q14, and R23." They also included what turned out to be a ridiculously detailed, multi-page table of all the possible reasons that your application could be rejected, categorized by letter and number. That's right: my state had not only quantified my failure, but thoughtfully included my very own TABLE OF FAIL. I really, really should have framed it

I'm in the same boat: I heard back from one school about a month ago, and the visit is at the end of March. I'm planning to send a quick, friendly email to my POI a few weeks before the visit, just reconfirming my enthusiasm for meeting her and a colleague she recommended, maybe a comment or two about some recent news in the field. The questions I have about the program, her research, etc. will be better answered in person anyway, so there's no need for anything else in advance.