practical cat

You've convinced ME to go to Maryland, proflorax.

Washington, yeah? Congratulations on making your decision!

I took the old test (but did quite well on the verbal) so grain of salt: I found Princeton Review's list to be more productive and expansive. I also wrote all of my cards by hand and I would, while reading or taking practice tests, note any words that I wasn't confident I would be able to define on the spot (there is a difference between understanding a word in context and being able to provide a workable definition sans context -- best advice I got from the prep books) and made flashcards out of them. I had something like 2000 flashcards but I didn't ultimately spend a ton of time preparing.

Oh, sorry. I wish I'd known you didn't know! It's the 20-22! Many programs list them on the events calendars of their websites in case anyone else is curious about other schools and hopefully that will help you spare some nerves until the 23?

I TOTALLY get what you're saying (and I do apologize for my earlier grumpiness). But it's an idea that gets churned up a LOT here and it never fails to freak me out (mostly because I can't conceive of even factoring that into a decision). Sorry that happened to you though, that sounds like a terrible headache. Again, not trying to talk you (or anyone else!) into Michigan -- I am even willing to help talk you OUT of it -- or even into waiting it out, just you know. Just got rejected from Berkeley as I was writing this comment. So glad to be officially done. Ish.

I'm not trying to tell anyone to wait it out but let's be clear that you just don't get actively recruited on a wait list (what if they did that and then couldn't offer you a place?) and that it doesn't mean ANYTHING. I would not advise anyone to make a decision based on the warm fuzzies they get via email. Your other reasons are much more valid (I'm not even sure anyone at Michigan is doing science stuff anymore?) but the initial thoughts keep popping up in this thread and I find it really troubling.

Don't slander the good name of good gossip!

Regardless, congrats!

I'm expecting the same call from Berkeley any day now. ;-) Edited because I forgot to actually respond: no, that sounds wild -- did they forget or was it a lost letter?

I think that's where the real hope of the wait list lies. Congratulations!

That post kind of made me want to apply to NYU next year.

Seemed even slightly less warm than the latter. The tuition information wasn't even included as stated. I do not think there is really much available for the MA (someone correct me if this is false). Will likely be turning it down. Their information did state that there is a wait list for the MA but I'm not sure about the PhD this year.

Claiming the Buffalo consolation MA on the board. A little surprised(?) as I specifically asked not to be considered for it but ok. Edit: forgot to add for the record, letter dated 2/26, the same date as my application was marked "under review" on the status site.

I think what I have been trying somewhat unsuccessfully to say is that FOR ME, when I was at the point where I was naming how specific professors have/will continue to shape my work, I was at a point where the fit was such that it was only tenuous connections with a handful (sometimes even many!) specific professors rather than what the department is as a whole. FOR ME, that just didn't work. I honestly don't think naming professors actually matters -- I certainly do not think I got rejected for doing it and I doubt anyone else was either -- but I think the SOP as a whole conveys fit and some people are more successful than others at naming specifics and some are more successful with broad strokes. I want to be at a school with a strong intradepartmental focus -- I don't want to work with just the modernists or whatever -- and I think where I went awry this cycle and where my SOP reflected that is in not being able to express this prior to, like, two weeks ago. Like the application as a whole, the SOP isn't so much about what you say as about what you show (and I think there are many different ways to pull this off). So, yes, I agree with what you are saying and I VERY strongly suspect you may be on target with Michigan.

It seems to me that the latter is just... an SOP? I'm not sure what's happening in that document if it's not talking about research interests and their relation to the field. I just don't think you need to list specific names and projects to accomplish that. But, sebastiansteddy's comment about Michigan is interesting in light of my own views on this. Maybe that's true -- I was certainly not told to do it.

And for what it's worth here, my three wait lists are from the schools where I didn't mention names and explicitly explain fit because I thought the fit spoke for itself. The rest, I did and, well. I also do not think that the difference between acceptance and wait list was in the absence of a fit paragraph, that difference was clearly in a rough patch in my writing sample and a relatively light undergrad record in the field. I thought that fit paragraphs were bull then and I feel it even more strongly now. Adcomms know how we fit far better than we do; we're working in a relative information desert.

I would recommend dropping by the Political Science boards and reading what some of the faculty have to say under "Faculty Perspectives." The consensus seems to be that the selection-bias of the LOR process renders the whole thing kind of pointless. A letter from someone the admissions committee has seen letters from MEANS more than one from someone they don't know but it's hard to say if they MATTER more.

FINALLY got my Harvard letter. Huge relief to know I don't have to keep looking for it.

Wolverine Access is not really working and they're on spring break. It could be a while still for rejections.

Owning it. I see and have experienced donthate as much more than just a discursive bomb thrower. It goes so far beyond mere nuisance and I'm increasingly bothered by the insistence that this is in any way ok.

Eh, maybe. Still, though, not really interested in making arguments here about what is/isn't in the canon. (And I was being flippant in the first place. No need to rush to the defense of the canon!) My test was almost exclusively male Romantic poets so my familiarity with Woolf, Austen, and Eliot was not at all helpful. Then again, being very comfortable with Chaucer, Shakespeare, and (TS) Eliot didn't help me either.

Congratulations! I promise not to try to talk you out of Brandeis.

Man, I WISH having knowledge of women writers actually helped on the subject test.

2. I didn't contact any faculty/departments prior to applying but I have very well connected letter writers. It's an advantage that kind of fell into my lap but I think it is the only kind of connection that makes a tangible difference. This is to say that I think the whole issue of connections and networking is kind of out of our hands at this point and that makes more sense to focus on other aspects of the application (the writing sample). 3. I don't think there is a wrong way of thinking about the subject test. If you take it, you don't have to worry about eliminating schools based on that factor but, honestly, there's a point where most of us need to start crossing schools off our lists for small/insignificant reasons so that might not be terrible. I would say do it if you have the time/money but, once again, focus elsewhere. That said, I did pretty poorly -- no survey courses, relatively weak background in the discipline. Got wait listed at most of the schools that didn't require it, straight rejections at the schools that did (that's more correlation than causation though, honestly).

I noticed a while ago and am ridiculously glad that I didn't have to be the one to point it out.