margarets

Hang on, you have all this psychology background, plus a nursing/surgical background, plus a dancer/choreographer background...huh? How old are you? How have you had time to fit in the education for all these careers plus, presumably, doing the careers for a while? Even if you were 50, that is a lot to squeeze in. And maybe that is part of the issue - all the chopping and changing. An adcomm might not think you were committed to pursuing psychology as a career. It's my understanding that adcomms want candidates who will stick it out and finish.

It must happen all the time, especially with strong applicants, so grad schools must expect it. And that's how waiting lists are made! I don't think there is anything wrong with waiting to see how ALL of your applications pan out. Withdrawing them won't necessarily speed up the process for someone else. It would probably just shuffle the waiting lists a bit, so someone somewhere will still be waiting to hear, no matter what you do.

OP, is it usual in psychology to go directly from undergrad to a doctorate? I was under the impression that in general, in most disciplines, people do a master's first. So, is it possible that you tried to make a very rare, big jump, and that's why you were rejected? If so, does that help to put it in perspective?

Um... I think the OP was just having an online vent. We shouldn't assume this is how the OP presented themselves at interview, or that the vent is indicative of deep psychological problems. Four rejections in one day is enough to upset anyone.

I think you can deal with this with a single line in your SoP. Something like "During my first two years at Cornell, I struggled to find my way, then..." or however you would say it. Acknowledge it lightly, then move on to your solid track record since.

I think the time to meet with a PoI is before you submit your application. At this stage, I'd just leave it.

You just made me appreciate the application process I'm going through. It has an online checklist thing, and you can see what items are outstanding. I wonder why Harvard doesn't have such a system.

Zabius, that really sucks. I wonder if the unsupportive letter was only a dealbreaker because the adcomm needed to whittle down the list. If there were 30 places but 35 strong applicants, the adcomm needed to start looking for reasons to reject five people, and they latched on to whatever they found. I know that's not much comfort, but I've seen that sort of thing happen in hiring decisions. Now, about these "subtle signs". How to tell the difference between a subtle sign and general flakiness and procrastination?

Not really. Just two are required, and I have those. This would be the third. I'm more just worried about how it looks to an adcomm to have an LoR bail on you.

Or...they can send mixed signals so you don't know where you stand. At least, that's what's happening for me right now. Sent an email to one prof asking for an LoR about 3 months ahead of time. Got a prompt response, saying yes, did I need it right away? because prof was just leaving for a conference. I replied that there was plenty of time and that I would email him again closer to the actual time. Which I did. And I got no reply. Which isn't really like this prof. Since the university is not far from my workplace, I dropped by his office to check in. Prof was all "Oh did I not reply? I thought I did. Anyway, yes, it's fine." So I submitted the application and everything. I can see online that my other two LoRs are in the system, but not you-know-who. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? I know - there are a million posts like this on the forums. I have to just sit tight for a bit. The office doesn't even have my transcripts yet, according to the online system, so it's not like this LoR is holding up my application. But if/when it gets to that stage, I'll follow up with this prof. I really hope this isn't passive-aggressive sabotage of my application, but I am too paranoid not to think about it!!!

The challenge is to pretend to submit to twisted values, but remain yourself, at least during your off-work hours.

tiarabun, I appreciate your honesty. It takes guts to put it all out there like that. I'll bet your post will resonate with many on this board. It does with me, and I'm 18 years older than you! So, yeah, it messes with your head to hear all through your childhood how important school is, to be rewarded for doing well at school, for being smart, etc and then to find in the adult workaday world that being smart isn't much help and might even be a hindrance! WTF????? You end up working with people who are true morons, and sometimes they move up before you do! Some of them even look down on YOU! It's a topsy-turvy world. You don't know what to believe in or hold onto anymore. And then for the one place where you thought you would be valued to reject you as well. What NOW? Of course, having family & cultural stuff in the mix only makes it harder. Please be gentle with yourself and give yourself time to process this. You have a lot invested in this path and it's only natural you would have a strong reaction to this news. Now I'm going to get all parental on you (one of the few advantages of being older-ha): Academia is not a safe haven. There are toxic people, dysfunction, outright stupidity, and at least some corruption in every workplace. I mean every. single. one. Only the level of the dysfunction etc will vary. Sometimes you'll get lucky and find a place that isn't too bad, at least for now, but that's the best you can hope for. Other than self-employment, which has its own hassles and headaches, the only survival strategy is to develop as thick a skin as possible and a sense of when to play nice and when to play nasty and with whom. Cultivate as satisfying a personal life as you can. You will need it to maintain your sanity when work is really sh1t. Do not expect your job to give you any satisfaction (if/when it does, bonus!). If at all possible, have F--- You savings that will enable you to just walk away from a job that is truly horrible. Just having that option means that every day you work at the horrible job is a choice, which is psychologically very empowering. Now, you're only 27, so you are just starting to learn these lessons. Which is totally normal - at 27 you shouldn't be as jaded and cynical as someone in their mid-40s. So, take what you can from it, and the next time you are dealt some crappy career cards, you will be better equipped to handle it. I hope the other applications work out for you.

PanicMode, I have seen similar situations play out in the non-academia workplace more times than I can count. Often people chalk it up to "politics", but that's just another word for favouritism, cronyism, etc. My guess is that it's a factor in your case as well. Who knows what the real issues were - many workplaces have the same dynamics as dysfunctional families, where the #1 rule is "pretend everything is OK". And there's a reason why academia is known as a vipers' nest. Given the circumstances, it sounds like the adcomm knew you had only applied to their program. Maybe they interpreted that as hubris, like you thought it was a slam-dunk? I'm just speculating, but I've seen that kind of toxic "take down tall poppies" thinking amongst so-called professionals before. Whatever the reason, it REALLY sucks. I hope your next round of apps get you a much better result.

I'm a bumpy non-traditional too. I posted it about it and these are the responses I got: I don't think age alone is a major factor, if the rest of your application is strong. People go to grad school in their 50s and 60s, so.

It might help to break this down into smaller problems/issues. Why do you need a PhD to pursue your dream? Is there another path to this dream? Do you have other dreams that might be more within reach? Why this dream? (It's not uncommon for people to find that their dream job is actually pretty horrible, once they're in it.) Do you know why you have been rejected three times, and is it something you can improve? It's pretty rare for a human being to be passionate about the one thing for which they are completely ill-suited. When you're ready, try thinking broadly about your options. You probably have lots.

Ugh. I hope not. I don't have any of that stuff - by choice - and I really don't want to invest time in cultivating an appealing professional online persona AND a real-life one.

Just you wait, grasshopper.

Nope! I'm 45. I "win", I guess?

OK, I'm going to be harsh. Lose the first two paragraphs. They aren't about you at all, except to note that you were there at the time. They aren't about museum studies either. It's a long bow indeed from a Japanese earthquake and tsunami to your reasons for pursuing a public administration degree in Indiana. I think you could tighten up the whole discussion of that experience. The last two paragraphs could be merged if you cut out all the stuff about the university's ranking and its accomplished faculty. They already know about their program. If your application includes a resume, it will tell them about where & when you've worked and volunteered, so you don't need to repeat it here. Instead, focus on how those experiences influenced your choices and goals.

Admissions committees spend all their time trying to find SOMETHING wrong with every applicant, because they get their jollies from doing the rejecting. They are drunk with power! So even if you have great grades, a super SoP, and awesome LoRs, they will hunt for that C you got in first year, that unexplained 5 month gap in your resume (which TOTALLY means you were in prison, not just working at Starbucks while you looked for your first career job), or if you bugged the program secretary too much while you were preparing your application, or if they didn't like the cut of your jib at interview. You CANNOT put a single foot wrong or you will be TOAST. Admissions committees love nothing better than crushing your hopes and dreams!

That would tick me off too.

I totally get what you're saying. I'm a plain-style writer (hello George Orwell!) so I think it's clear which parts of my SoP answer which questions. But I also know what it's like to be stuck in a room for a day, reading one proposal after another, filling out score sheets as you go. After a while the words swim before your eyes... I'll do it both ways, sleep on it, and see which one feels right in the morning. Thanks all.

The program I'm applying to wants the following in the SoP: A written statement of approximately 500 words outlining your research interests and reasons for pursuing graduate study in X. Your statement should outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct, potential supervisors whom you may want to work with, your preparation for the X program through previous studies and work experience, and your career objectives and how the program relates to them. So, would you put sub-headings in your SoP to make it perfectly clear which sections cover which topic. E.g. "reasons for graduate study in X" and "specific research project". To be honest, when I've had to read a bunch of proposals for work, I really appreciated having things laid our clearly for me. Fatigue sets in after a while and it's annoying to have to deduce where someone has put the info you seek. Thoughts?

I had a face-to-face meeting with a PoI (in Canada) and that is not at all the impression I got. We didn't discuss that directly but based on other remarks it sounded like sometimes good applicants are admitted without an obvious fit with a supervisor. They get assigned a supervisor anyway and between them they work it out. My guess is it depends a lot on the program and the pool of applicants that year and how it all comes out in the wash. Of course, it certainly doesn't hurt to have a prof who really wants you!

I've looked at that page and always wondered: What proof is there that these are actual successful SoPs? How did she get all these SoPs? That page hasn't been updated since 2004. I haven't read all the statements but the ones I did read had lots of cliches and Dr. Suess-type anecdotes. I'm a bit suss on it.