farty14

Similar discussions have gone on elsewhere, but I thought I'd open it up to a particular thread. Comment on each.

Let's hear what people have to say about neighborhoods, cost of living, night life, and other things I won't have time to do as a grad student.

If that's the case, then 4 unofficial waitlists and 1 official waitlist. It still is very lame.

I have been waitlisted, unofficially, at 5 schools. I figure I am in line to be accepted to at least one of the programs, but I really have no idea of the likelihood of being accepted at any one of these schools. Does anyone have any insight into this--perhaps a prediction? EDIT: Also, I really don't understand why some schools haven't been more forthright about this. I have had to call every school to get my status. Most all schools tell me that I will hear more "in mid-march" or "later this month." Why can't these schools at least notify me of the "waitlist" status? Is it because I am actually in the "second wave" of accepts/rejects?

Not sure you ever posted: interests? Stats?

I put in an app. I think admits will hear today or, more likely, next week.

You are a brave soul. I guess that is good. Thanks for the info!

Who wants to be brave enough to call and ask about decisions status at Chicago and/or Texas? Any takers?

In the screen where it its displays two links (credentials and application), there should be something (not a hyperlink) that says "application status." That is my best guess.

I called the department earlier in the week. I was told decisions had been made and should would go out this week. I cannot say whether the past was a fake because I did not post it; i hope it was a fake. My guess is that more people would hear from UofC than one person. That is, I think it notifies all of its admits in one day and leaves everyone else to languish in silence.

As was posted earlier: All decisions at Chicago have been made (a la UTexas) and should be going out this week.

Go to wolverineaccess.umich.edu

I'm not really sure how the waitlisting process works at Michigan. I would assume it is different at every school. Some schools may send acceptances in waves, essentially creating a de facto waitlist. Judging from the archives, it looks like UM does not do this; it usually sends out a notice. Maybe you will get a notice in the mail or via email. Good luck.

You have most likely been denied, though you may be waitlisted. Michigan has already made its decisions.

It is possible . . . and highly recommended.

I have a "feeling" that acceptances (and possibly rejections) will start rolling out next week, with most decisions in the following two weeks after that. My "feeling" is based on looking through archives of the "results" of gradcafe and yuster. So, basically, this is my thread to kill time until I start hearing back. Who is with me? What should we do to distract ourselves?

I'm glad my question sparked such rancorous debate. But, to return to my question--Is the Quant score important for History admissions?--I guess the answer is, sort of. It probably depends on the program. Average GRE scores in this category are fairly low across the board, leading me to believe that someone with a 580Q would probably not be at a disadvantage. On a separate note, regardless of what the Haaahvard study found, I'd say those findings are pretty meaningless. If the GRE's correlation with success is minimal, then the fact that math may correlate better with success seems largely irrelevant. This is especially true considering the fact that the test has three parts. If math were the be-all-end-all, then the test should contain only a Q section, no verbal or writing. For people in History (not me), I would think that the V and W sections are much more important than math. Terms like "problem-solving" are euphemisms that substitute for"solving math problems"--i.e., it is a circular claim. In other words, when the study claims that the Q section better illustrates problem-solving abilities, it is really claiming that it illustrates better ability to solve math problems. Indeed, even if the claim that the Q better predicts success on average, I find this to be completely disingenuous. Indeed, my (anecdotal) experience with many brilliant History professors and students is that their math skills are low but their research ability (i.e., their ability to research history and draw (novel) conclusions from their research) is exceptional. My personal opinion is that too much emphasis is placed on the Q section.

Does Quant score matter at all for History PhD admissions. I would assume it does not.

What is eljay?

Right, universities do not admit 25% of their applicants. Here is a link to Minnesota's statistics for admission in political science: http://www.grad.umn.edu/data/stats/ad/1071200.html 25 students were offered admission to the program in 2007-2008. This was equivalent to 10% acceptance rate. Also note, however, that the rate for all doctoral programs in social science was 16%--though several years ago it was around 25%. Admissions has gotten more competitive in recent years. Basically, acceptance rates for competitive programs are typically between 5-10%.

Likewise, Peppermint. Good luck and hopefully we'll hear sooner rather than later.

totallyfreakingout: In what field are you applying?

Peppermint: I noticed that, too. I think I saw some dates as early as January 22, but I'm not sure. I think most were late-January--so, unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait another few weeks!

Wait, you mean there isn't a black box that produces admissions results!?

My SO and I just got a dog over the summer; we adopted a wiemaraner. Here is my advice: adopt a dog! He is a sweet boy and he keeps me great company when I am writing alone. Plus, as one person noted, they don't judge you and love you nearly unconditionally--all you have to do is bring them food.