L13

Yes, I second this.
I think communicating with potential doctoral advisors plays a different role in the application process in the UK than it does in the US. From what I remember, at Cambridge at least it's pretty much impossible to get admitted without speaking to your potential advisor and securing their support for your proposed project first. That's not the case in America, where PhD programs are longer and include coursework. Most POIs pretty much assume the topic of your dissertation won't be the same as what you put down in your statement of purpose, unless you have two master's degrees or are transferring from another PhD program or something. So emailing your potential advisor is entirely optional, and not a method of establishing a shared understanding of what your research will be about. All the information they need from you is in the application, so if they like your materials, they'll push for your acceptance regardless of whether there's been prior communication or not. I hadn't said/written a single word to my advisor before I got my acceptance email.
Anyway. I don't know how well this advice will go over in this thread, where seemingly everyone is in constant communication with multiple POIs throughout the entire application cycle, but unless you have a good reason for emailing someone, like wanting to know whether they're too old/junior to accept grad students, well, don't email them before you've been accepted. It has no bearing on the outcome of your application and it's frankly a waste of their time.

Yes, I second this.
I think communicating with potential doctoral advisors plays a different role in the application process in the UK than it does in the US. From what I remember, at Cambridge at least it's pretty much impossible to get admitted without speaking to your potential advisor and securing their support for your proposed project first. That's not the case in America, where PhD programs are longer and include coursework. Most POIs pretty much assume the topic of your dissertation won't be the same as what you put down in your statement of purpose, unless you have two master's degrees or are transferring from another PhD program or something. So emailing your potential advisor is entirely optional, and not a method of establishing a shared understanding of what your research will be about. All the information they need from you is in the application, so if they like your materials, they'll push for your acceptance regardless of whether there's been prior communication or not. I hadn't said/written a single word to my advisor before I got my acceptance email.
Anyway. I don't know how well this advice will go over in this thread, where seemingly everyone is in constant communication with multiple POIs throughout the entire application cycle, but unless you have a good reason for emailing someone, like wanting to know whether they're too old/junior to accept grad students, well, don't email them before you've been accepted. It has no bearing on the outcome of your application and it's frankly a waste of their time.

Yes, I second this.
I think communicating with potential doctoral advisors plays a different role in the application process in the UK than it does in the US. From what I remember, at Cambridge at least it's pretty much impossible to get admitted without speaking to your potential advisor and securing their support for your proposed project first. That's not the case in America, where PhD programs are longer and include coursework. Most POIs pretty much assume the topic of your dissertation won't be the same as what you put down in your statement of purpose, unless you have two master's degrees or are transferring from another PhD program or something. So emailing your potential advisor is entirely optional, and not a method of establishing a shared understanding of what your research will be about. All the information they need from you is in the application, so if they like your materials, they'll push for your acceptance regardless of whether there's been prior communication or not. I hadn't said/written a single word to my advisor before I got my acceptance email.
Anyway. I don't know how well this advice will go over in this thread, where seemingly everyone is in constant communication with multiple POIs throughout the entire application cycle, but unless you have a good reason for emailing someone, like wanting to know whether they're too old/junior to accept grad students, well, don't email them before you've been accepted. It has no bearing on the outcome of your application and it's frankly a waste of their time.

In answer to the first question -- what are the "smaller schools" on your list, in your opinion? And what are you thinking of as the "top programs". The top programs on a ranked list are not going to be the same as the top programs for you personally given your interests, personality, field, advisor etc. I attend the "lowest ranked" school that I was accepted to when I applied (5 acceptances, including an ivy league school and two in the "top ten") and four years into the phd I have no regrets about the decision and, importantly, have been able to win the kinds of major grants that can be just as important for getting a job as the school you attend. I definitely attribute the success with grants to having the right advisor. A friend who just completed at a very "low ranked" school (but with an advisor who is basically the leader in my friend's field) has secured a TT position. Others might disagree with me but imo advisor > school. 

Re the writing sample -- submit your best writing. Without having read the samples no one can really tell you which one you should use. There are plenty of undergrad essays that outshine "MA level" essays. 
Noooooo!!! To be blunt, that's a terrible terrible terrible basis on which to rule out schools. Don't think like this! There are so many reasons a potentially excellent advisor might not reply to your June email. They might be having a bad summer, they might be traveling, they might have family stuff going on, they might just miss your email because their inbox is being flooded. If a POI responds, cool; they don't reply, you have no idea why and it likely has nothing to do with you. 

Yawn. Call me when cutting down cohort sizes in response to job market contraction is accompanied by redirecting that money to either creating new TT faculty lines (which would improve the job market!) or even just funding and training for existing grad students, instead of cutting the department's budget.
It's easy to say programs that admit more students than they can place are irresponsible given the current market conditions, but simply admitting fewer students without investing in improving the dire state of academic hiring is not some principled decision; it's laying the groundwork for further cuts down the line. Undergraduate history enrollments keep trending downward and administrators are finding history departments increasingly costly relative to how many majors they support. Reducing grad student enrollment is the first step to reducing the size of the faculty. Why do you need so many professors when you only have so few grad students? You don't.
You're not gonna catch me applauding provosts, trustees and chancellors for pretending to be concerned about a crisis they have personally created. If they cared so much, they could just hire more TT historians.

Yawn. Call me when cutting down cohort sizes in response to job market contraction is accompanied by redirecting that money to either creating new TT faculty lines (which would improve the job market!) or even just funding and training for existing grad students, instead of cutting the department's budget.
It's easy to say programs that admit more students than they can place are irresponsible given the current market conditions, but simply admitting fewer students without investing in improving the dire state of academic hiring is not some principled decision; it's laying the groundwork for further cuts down the line. Undergraduate history enrollments keep trending downward and administrators are finding history departments increasingly costly relative to how many majors they support. Reducing grad student enrollment is the first step to reducing the size of the faculty. Why do you need so many professors when you only have so few grad students? You don't.
You're not gonna catch me applauding provosts, trustees and chancellors for pretending to be concerned about a crisis they have personally created. If they cared so much, they could just hire more TT historians.

Yawn. Call me when cutting down cohort sizes in response to job market contraction is accompanied by redirecting that money to either creating new TT faculty lines (which would improve the job market!) or even just funding and training for existing grad students, instead of cutting the department's budget.
It's easy to say programs that admit more students than they can place are irresponsible given the current market conditions, but simply admitting fewer students without investing in improving the dire state of academic hiring is not some principled decision; it's laying the groundwork for further cuts down the line. Undergraduate history enrollments keep trending downward and administrators are finding history departments increasingly costly relative to how many majors they support. Reducing grad student enrollment is the first step to reducing the size of the faculty. Why do you need so many professors when you only have so few grad students? You don't.
You're not gonna catch me applauding provosts, trustees and chancellors for pretending to be concerned about a crisis they have personally created. If they cared so much, they could just hire more TT historians.

Yawn. Call me when cutting down cohort sizes in response to job market contraction is accompanied by redirecting that money to either creating new TT faculty lines (which would improve the job market!) or even just funding and training for existing grad students, instead of cutting the department's budget.
It's easy to say programs that admit more students than they can place are irresponsible given the current market conditions, but simply admitting fewer students without investing in improving the dire state of academic hiring is not some principled decision; it's laying the groundwork for further cuts down the line. Undergraduate history enrollments keep trending downward and administrators are finding history departments increasingly costly relative to how many majors they support. Reducing grad student enrollment is the first step to reducing the size of the faculty. Why do you need so many professors when you only have so few grad students? You don't.
You're not gonna catch me applauding provosts, trustees and chancellors for pretending to be concerned about a crisis they have personally created. If they cared so much, they could just hire more TT historians.

Many have/will.

It depends. Based on the information you are providing, it seems you did not "click" with the discipline, not with the work. If the recommender makes this distinction, I'm sure it won't hurt. 
Let me also add this: it hurts more not to have a LOR from your last school than a non-stellar one. 
Faculty here, this is not necessarily true. You don't show consistency by emailing people just because you emailed them before. Unless you have a specific question, there is no need to email anyone.
Before you email a POI looking for answers, remember that:
Nobody owes you an explanation, no matter how bad the rejection stings. I've said this many times in this forum, so apologies for those re-reading this but: applying to grad school is already part of your graduate training. You will get rejections in the future from grants, fellowships, and jobs. No one, except maybe one of the big grants, will offer feedback. There are reasons that are bigger than you, your program, or your professor. Sometimes it has to do with long-term funding. Sometimes with TA/RA appointments availability. Often, faculty at not at liberty to discuss these with you (and some other times, they don't even know). This one is the one I use on me a lot: A rejection of your application is not a rejection of you as a person. We sacrifice a lot to apply and go to grad school, so it is very easy to take things personally. However, this rejection does not speak to you as person, and not even as an academic. Trust that.  If you do email them, be strategic. Instead of asking "Why was I rejected?" (which makes you sound bitter), ask "Is there any advice you could share so that I can improve my application?" Remember that you might not have gotten into Northwestern, but that doesn't mean you won't cross paths again. In a couple years, you can organize a panel for a national conference and invite this POI to comment. You might collaborate with one of their students. This is not the end. 
It's always, always fundamental to contact POIs before applying!
When I was at that stage, I almost didn't contact one POI who was the POI. When I did, he said he school was not prepared to fund international applicants (me). Then I almost didn't contact another POI because they did something different from me. In the end I did and, well, they became my advisor. 
Good luck everyone.

What a sad application cycle for me! Applied to Northwestern and Buffalo, PhD African history. Interviewed with my POI at Northwestern (though he warned of super-low admits based on research field), hence, not that sad but sad lol that i've got a reject. 
The sadness doubled when I heard from an informal source few days ago that Buffalo (SUNY) have budgetary cut and won't be going forward with all application.... though no formal information about this yet...I had high hopes at SUNY as I've secured both Primary and  Secondary POI already!
Those are the only schools I applied to! Any shoulders to  cry on here...lol
 
(I just got a personal note from my POI at Northwestern, so emotional and motivational, Covid-19 really wrecked a lot) drops mic! Withdrawing to my closet!!!

What’s likely is that after some initial discussion within their departments some profs have learned they’re not going to be able to accept students this year even though the list of accepted students has not been finalised yet, so they’re starting to send early rejection notices to those applicants they’ve been in touch with/hoping to push for as a courtesy.
It doesn’t mean official acceptance emails are imminent.

No, my program at least is aiming for a smaller cohort this year.
I think they're doing this because they want to redirect funding for incoming grad students to dissertation completion fellowships and other forms of financial relief for current grad students, but they've been very tight-lipped about the specifics.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

Well, that's not entirely true. Anecdotally, I know of a person who did a terminal master's in classics there and enrolled in their PhD program immediately afterwards. From what I understand, the faculty got to know them as a master's student and that gave them a (potentially unfair?) advantage in admissions. Not sure if their rec letters were from the faculty there, but they might have been. I imagine there are other cases like this across the humanities.
That said, I agree you shouldn't do a master's if you can't afford it comfortably, and second the observation that top graduate programs that offer terminal master's degrees tend to assign them secondary importance, which puts the students in a strange position in terms of social and professional networks. But, as I said above, that can be overcome.

First and second years are always overflowing with advice and information but tend to know way less about the department and academia than they think they do.
People in their fifth year and above tend to be extremely cynical about the department, academia and the world, which may be warranted but often results in unhelpful/inaccessible advice.
In conclusion, ask third and fourth years.

First and second years are always overflowing with advice and information but tend to know way less about the department and academia than they think they do.
People in their fifth year and above tend to be extremely cynical about the department, academia and the world, which may be warranted but often results in unhelpful/inaccessible advice.
In conclusion, ask third and fourth years.

First and second years are always overflowing with advice and information but tend to know way less about the department and academia than they think they do.
People in their fifth year and above tend to be extremely cynical about the department, academia and the world, which may be warranted but often results in unhelpful/inaccessible advice.
In conclusion, ask third and fourth years.

First and second years are always overflowing with advice and information but tend to know way less about the department and academia than they think they do.
People in their fifth year and above tend to be extremely cynical about the department, academia and the world, which may be warranted but often results in unhelpful/inaccessible advice.
In conclusion, ask third and fourth years.

Hello All,
I just discovered this forum and wanted to introduce myself briefly. I did my undergrad work in Poli Sci at Wisconsin and graduated in 2010. I completed my Master’s in Secondary Education in 2015 at Edgewood. I applied to Wisconsin for 2020.
I taught for some time at the middle school and HS level in history, poli sci, and also worked with special education students. I served in the US Navy for twelve years. I have volunteered for my local government for three years and continue to do so. I am the Vice Commander for my local American Legion Post.
UG GPA: 3.0
Grad GPA: 3.96
Average GRE scores.
No published papers but I submitted my Master’s thesis as my writing sample.
 
Excellent LORs.
I have been a stay-at-home dad for three years.
I have just been trying to be patient while waiting to hear back.
Good luck!

Clapperton Mavhunga at MIT and Nancy Jacobs at Brown spring to mind. I can think of many others who are unfortunately not at degree granting institutions.