thedig13

Sorry if I'm about to ask a stupid question, but what does your undergraduate program's prestige have to do with anything?

Basically, this. The annual income of a graduate student or an adjunct is a lot of money to a lot of people. Most income-earning individuals in the U.S. make less than 25K a year. No matter how you cut it, the lifestyle of an academic is relatively cushy and the salary is enough to survive on; anybody who argues otherwise is, frankly, a little out-of-touch with reality.

Not to nit-pick, but I'm getting paid very, very generously to spend 5-8 years "giving up pay."

Vaguely interesting anecdote: At a prospective student weekend, I ran into a pair of current graduate students who were Latin Americanists. When they found out that I briefly studied in Argentina, they asked me if I knew Spanish. Just to show off a bit, I responded in Spanish, and then we chatted in Spanish for about 2 minutes. It was pretty fun until I realized that my Spanish can't hold a candle to a native speaker's. I've also heard graduate students (one non-native-speaking Americanist and two native-speaking Latin Americanists) chat in Spanish at a bar, so I guess it happens occasionally. OP: If you want to show off a bit, find a clever excuse to squeeze a line of German into a conversation and see where the professor takes it from there. To be frank, though, if he/she has seen your application and/or knows you've lived in Germany, he/she has probably already assumed that you're a fluent speaker.

From what I've heard, non-elite programs will consider the other places where a prospect has applied before making an admissions decision. The logic is that, if a particularly promising applicant has an outstanding chance of getting into a top-ranked program, he'll probably choose to go there no matter who else admits him. From an adcom's point of view, admitting that student would be a waste of an admissions offer, so it makes more sense to admit a slightly-less-promising (but still outstanding) applicant who might not get into a top-ranked program and whom the non-elite programs have a fighting chance of drawing in. If this practice does exist, I doubt that it takes precedence over fit or perceived quality, and it's highly unlikely that it's applied so aggressively that no top-tier prospects are admitted. It probably makes sense to still admit top-tier candidates on the off-chance that they'll accept. I was told all of this by a pair of professors in STEM fields, so this may not be the case in a History department, although I don't see why adcom practices would differ between disciplines like that.

I haven't heard anything, either.

Stanford rejections are out.

Appropriate question to ask a DGS or not? Also, let me know if it's a stupid question with an answer that I should know without asking. "Although the program is structured to allow students to finish in five years, many graduate students need additional time before they complete their studies. What sort of setbacks might hinder my progress, and how frequently do they arise at your program? If I find myself in such a situation, am I permitted take on additional TAships in the department in exchange for continued university funding, or will I be expected to rely on outside funding instead?"

Honestly, this entire application season has been like Alice in Wonderland for me. I've been admitted by programs that I thought were long-shots (highly selective, good-not-great fit), but I've been rejected by programs where I was almost certain I'd be admitted (slightly-less-selective, fantastic fit). Lots of people on this thread have mentioned how much of a blind-luck crapshoot the admissions process is, but the reality of it never struck me until last week.

Same here. A bit shocking, as UCLA was my strongest fit.

Well, a lot of my questions so far have revolved around teaching opportunities (i.e.: are there opportunities to teach my own courses, or will I be stuck as a TA?), language requirements (i.e.: if I fail, then what happens?), and the stability of the funding (one funding package had semi-tricky wording regarding fifth-year funding, and I had to ask a graduate student to clarify). Cost-of-living has also factored into my consideration; a $25K funding package might be plenty in, say, New Haven, but wouldn't support you in New York. I also plan to ask questions about the degree of individual attention I can expect (I've heard that graduate students can sometimes be neglected in bigger programs), opportunities to minor in outside departments (I consider some of my interests to be inherently interdisciplinary), and the average time to completion (hopefully 5 years, but some programs have students who stick around a lot longer, and I'd like to know how/why that might happen).

I'm heading to my first prospective student weekend in about a week. What sort of questions should I be asking? What should I be on the lookout for? Are there any specific telltale signs that should serve to either scream "This program is perfect for you!" or "Stay away!"?

Oh, man. Of all the programs I applied to, UCLA was probably the strongest fit. An admission from them would be huge.

Have they? I haven't received anything. UCLA is such a great fit, too.

I second this. There are veterans on this thread who went through two or three admissions cycles before being admitted to the right program.

Check your PMs. I'd love to continue this chat, but would hate to hijack the thread.

Same boat here. It's been a week since I was admitted to a top program, and I'm still waiting for that "system error" e-mail. I've developed this intense insecurity that, for some reason or other, the adcom wildly overestimated my ability to do graduate work and that I'll show up for the first day of classes only to realize that I'm insanely underqualified and unprepared for graduate school.

Maybe it's a massive system error. MIT accidentally sent out a batch of admissions letters earlier this year, and immediately followed them up with apology/clarification e-mails saying that applications were still being considered and that no final admissions decisions had been made.

Where? Was it the punctuation one at the end of the first paragraph, or are you referring to something else?

Thanks. Other programs have, indeed, admitted me. Really, I have no reason to complain; some people would love to be in my situation. My disappointment reflects my egoistic greed more than a situation of actual desperation.

Well, Princeton letters are out. I was sent a rejection e-mail not ten minutes ago. Kinda sad. For reasons that I'll not bore you with, Princeton has sentimental value to me, and it would've been nice to have a letter of admission from them.

I respectfully disagree. On three separate cases, I was able to schedule appointments for telephone conversations (each one lasted about 20-30 minutes). On several other cases, POIs notified me that they were retiring and therefore unable to take on graduate students, which helped me refine my SOP (i.e.: which POI names to suggest as viable mentors). I've also been told by professors that, even if all I get in response is "I look forward to reading your application," at least I get my name in the back of their heads, and, when they're reading applications, that pays off more often than one might expect. Long story short, I'm glad I contacted POIs in October/November. It took minimal effort and, at times, paid off substantially.

Sorry about the accidental +1. My mouse has been excited lately.

This is surprising. Schools that were good-not-great fits ended up admitting me, and Columbia, which was my strongest fit by a country mile, hasn't contacted me at all. I am slightly shocked.

Are they? My inbox is mysteriously empty!