accept offer or apply again next year?

[maewest]

So I've been accepted to two schools, one with full funding and one with funding information pending. Both schools are in areas I'd like to live, and the faculty seem to be courting me quite aggressively. My interests match fairly well (although not perfectly) with said faculty.

However, these schools are not top 10 or even top 20 programs. So I'm wondering if, with the current state of the job market and economy, a degree from these universities would be even helpful or advisable, and worth the time and effort. I was told by one professor at my undergrad institution not to bother with a program that wasn't extremely highly ranked.

Would it be stupid for me to do another round of applications next year and hold out for the Ivies? (I was rejected by 5 this time around). I really did have my heart set on Brown or Yale, both of which have faculty that entice me more, and I don't know if I should give up yet. There are also a few schools I overlooked this time around (Penn, Berkeley, Columbia) that I want to give a shot. Am I being unrealistic? I don't exactly have a "Plan B" for next year.

I can just picture myself in the midst of a program thinking "if only i had tried again and applied somewhere else." On the other hand, it's completely possible I wouldn't get into my top choices next year either. (What concerns me is that this time I wasn't even waitlisted by the ones I wanted). Maybe I'm simply not Ivy material?

[genotype]

Maewest,

I am not in the humanities so definitely keep that in mind. However, what I have heard is that the school itself isn't necessarily as important as the advisor you end up working with. Some of the other important factors appear to be networking and having great letters of reference from your committee members when you finish. As long as the school is reasonably ranked (i.e. in the top 50 or 75), I would think that it makes sense to go for it. Consider why you applied to the school(s) that accepted you in the first place. Was it simply so you would be assured of getting in somewhere or did you actually consider these to be places where you would want to spend the next 5-7 years (I'm assuming you applied for PHD programs)? Did you visit and find the schools to be good fits for you?

This is my second time around starting a doctoral program. The first time, about 10 years ago, I ended up leaving mostly for family reasons. However, being in a program for three years underscored the importance of research fit and being in an environment where you are happy and supported (I did have the "happy and supported" piece, just not the research fit). So I would keep these things in mind as you make your decision.

Best of luck!

[chlobot]

So I've been accepted to two schools, one with full funding and one with funding information pending. Both schools are in areas I'd like to live, and the faculty seem to be courting me quite aggressively. My interests match fairly well (although not perfectly) with said faculty.

However, these schools are not top 10 or even top 20 programs. So I'm wondering if, with the current state of the job market and economy, a degree from these universities would be even helpful or advisable, and worth the time and effort. I was told by one professor at my undergrad institution not to bother with a program that wasn't extremely highly ranked.

Would it be stupid for me to do another round of applications next year and hold out for the Ivies? (I was rejected by 5 this time around). I really did have my heart set on Brown or Yale, both of which have faculty that entice me more, and I don't know if I should give up yet. There are also a few schools I overlooked this time around (Penn, Berkeley, Columbia) that I want to give a shot. Am I being unrealistic? I don't exactly have a "Plan B" for next year.

I can just picture myself in the midst of a program thinking "if only i had tried again and applied somewhere else." On the other hand, it's completely possible I wouldn't get into my top choices next year either. (What concerns me is that this time I wasn't even waitlisted by the ones I wanted). Maybe I'm simply not Ivy material?

I would say it depends on whether you have been admitted to M.A. or PhD programs. If you can get a fully funded M.A. at a decent place, I would do it. I was in a similar situation last year, took my fully funded M.A. offer at a well-regarded, but certainly not Ivy institution, and am applying to PhD programs this year. I've had significantly better results this time around. I agree with many of the posters on this board who have noted that having an M.A. gives one a leg up in the admissions competition. First, by being in an M.A. program, you've shown your commitment to and ability to excel in a graduate program. With the economy the way it is, I think schools want students with a track record of commitment and success on the graduate level (which is very different from undergrad). Next, you can get additional letters of recommendation from folks who have graduate education experience. Moreover, you will have a better idea of how the system works, what you really want to do (I thought I did, but changed my mind completely during the course of my graduate studies), and most importantly, what the current state of your field is. This will inevitably translate into a more realistic and well-researched statement of purpose. Finally, you're cheaper -- your potential PhD school will be able to fund you for fewer years than those who are starting at the beginning.

If you're talking about straight-up PhD programs, I certainly would not take an unfunded offer. Again, as many posters have noted, unfunded students are often edged out of the competition for prestigious fellowships/grants later on. Moreover, I think getting funding becomes more difficult with time, as schools want to fund stellar students in their entering classes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's increasingly a challenge.

I would definitely think long and hard about turning down a fully funded PhD offer, though. Make sure you are being realistic about your application package if you would have to apply again without any additional academic experience to improve things. Many folks here with superb stats have been rejected by top programs, so there is certainly a risk that it will happen again. I don't know that your chances improve by casting only a slightly wider net without providing these schools with a better application package -- Columbia, Penn and Berkeley are also extremely competitive, after all.

Best of luck making your decision!

[maewest]

I would say it depends on whether you have been admitted to M.A. or PhD programs. If you can get a fully funded M.A. at a decent place, I would do it. I was in a similar situation last year, took my fully funded M.A. offer at a well-regarded, but certainly not Ivy institution, and am applying to PhD programs this year. I've had significantly better results this time around. I agree with many of the posters on this board who have noted that having an M.A. gives one a leg up in the admissions competition. First, by being in an M.A. program, you've shown your commitment to and ability to excel in a graduate program. With the economy the way it is, I think schools want students with a track record of commitment and success on the graduate level (which is very different from undergrad). Next, you can get additional letters of recommendation from folks who have graduate education experience. Moreover, you will have a better idea of how the system works, what you really want to do (I thought I did, but changed my mind completely during the course of my graduate studies), and most importantly, what the current state of your field is. This will inevitably translate into a more realistic and well-researched statement of purpose. Finally, you're cheaper -- your potential PhD school will be able to fund you for fewer years than those who are starting at the beginning.

If you're talking about straight-up PhD programs, I certainly would not take an unfunded offer. Again, as many posters have noted, unfunded students are often edged out of the competition for prestigious fellowships/grants later on. Moreover, I think getting funding becomes more difficult with time, as schools want to fund stellar students in their entering classes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's increasingly a challenge.

I would definitely think long and hard about turning down a fully funded PhD offer, though. Make sure you are being realistic about your application package if you would have to apply again without any additional academic experience to improve things. Many folks here with superb stats have been rejected by top programs, so there is certainly a risk that it will happen again. I don't know that your chances improve by casting only a slightly wider net without providing these schools with a better application package -- Columbia, Penn and Berkeley are also extremely competitive, after all.

Best of luck making your decision!

Thanks for the tips. I actually will be completing my MA in a few months! I did manage to get into a funded MA program, and my advisors seemed really certain I'd end up at a top school. : (

[ChibaCityBlues]

I was looking at the USNWR rankings of grad programs and there is nothing defective about any of the universities in the top fifty. If you are being offered a funded PhD at any of these institutions, take it, kick ass, and then make a name for yourself despite not having graduated from Brown or whatever.

[chlobot]

Thanks for the tips. I actually will be completing my MA in a few months! I did manage to get into a funded MA program, and my advisors seemed really certain I'd end up at a top school. : (

Oh, okay, that's a totally different story then. If I was in your shoes I'd take the funded offer unless you're going to have the chance to do some research/writing in the intervening period to improve your application. If the environment and the fit are great, who cares whether it's not a top 10 program? None of us are getting jobs anyway

[Dylan]

Funny--I was going to post an almost identical question, as I'm in nearly the same boat.

While I have one application still pending, I've been rejected by six schools and accepted by one (Temple), which I applied to as a stop-gap afterthought (and is the only school I considered out of the Top 20 due to an excellent faculty/department match).

The initial affront of receiving so many rejections has faded. Now I'm left with two not-so-great choices: attend a school with an unremarkable national reputation but featuring strong faculty in my field (U.S. post-WWII social/cultural) and a solid funding package, or start from scratch back in the dreaded corporate world.

Is it worth committing to a PhD program of this ilk? I have no pretensions of grandeur when it comes to the name of the school on my resume, but I don't want to languish unemployed after finishing up.

I know we all repeat the same nostrums about how your publishing and research record is what counts re: hiring...I just don't know if it'll matter if I'm toiling in obscurity at Temple. That said, it does not look like it's getting any easier to find spots in any top programs in years to come.

Sigh...what are others doing who are in the same situation?

[StrangeLight]

i'd definitely reapply if i were you. my god, can you imagine not going to an ivy league school? those other programs never place their PhDs in tenure track jobs. it's amazing anyone even applies there.

[Goober]

I think you said earlier you got accepted to Brandeis. Just as an example of what you can do with a degree from that school - check out Hendrik Hartog's bio - he's at Princeton. Enough said, I think:))

[spamalot]

i'd definitely reapply if i were you. my god, can you imagine not going to an ivy league school? those other programs never place their PhDs in tenure track jobs. it's amazing anyone even applies there.

I must say that strangely enough, I would agree with some parts of this statement, although I would phrase it differently, and it would (hopefully) be a more accurate representation of the truth. First, I was here last year, and got into a good school. I am revisiting to see if I could help. I go to an ivy league school, and I would agree that the faculty and the department takes immense pains to ensure that their students get placed into tenure track jobs in good schools. To rephrase StrangeLight's statement more precisely (and with less prejudice, I think), more faculty in Ivy League schools are more likely to watch out for their students than at other schools. HOWEVER - they also *have* to do that to keep their reputation up, and not solely out of the goodness of their hearts. Further, this does not mean that other faculty elsewhere would not do that. Baseline: make sure that your you *really* get along with your adviser. Not just in terms of fields etc - but as a personal connection. I am friends with my adviser. well, almost.

The second "truth" about a good school (not only Ivy L ones) is a good library. Most university libraries are good for some things, and not so good for most others. Please factor in library resources (specific to your field) in your decision - it would be VERY annoying to get most of your books via inter-library loans.

Third, I would like to point out that most students, esp. in History programs, change their minds about their specific projects after they get to school. In part due to evolution of projects, but sometimes because you meet a new (and different) faculty who changes the way you think, and suddenly you realize that you didn't want to be say an early moderninst anymore, but actually say a East Asianist. This may sound absurd, but I have met people who have made similar radical changes. Most good departments would be able to handle such a change. Your funding would continue, and the department would be as *strong* in that field as well. Please factor that in your decision as well!

Best of Luck!

[StrangeLight]

oh, i was being completely sarcastic with my statement. that's why i put it rudely.

i also don't agree at all with your first paragraph. how can you know that ivy league profs put more effort into placing their students if you're not at a non-ivy league school as well? you're guessing at something that you, or anyone else, could never actually know. it is unknowable, so it's a very bizarre declaration to make.

Edited March 2, 2010 by StrangeLight

[ChibaCityBlues]

oh, i was being completely sarcastic with my statement. that's why i put it rudely.

i also don't agree at all with your first paragraph. how can you know that ivy league profs put more effort into placing their students if you're not at a non-ivy league school as well? you're guessing at something that you, or anyone else, could never actually know. it is unknowable, so it's a very bizarre declaration to make.

No need to get touchy. We all know that for professional reasons it is hugely beneficial to get a degree from an Ivy. We also all know that much of the prestige assigned to Ivies is the product of some bizarre momentum carried forward from a bygone era when venerable professors of history claimed to spew historical truths. For those of us who have done an MA or who are currently doing doctoral work, how many times have you been disappointed at the prospect of reading another uninteresting, unsophisticated monograph from some Harvard or Yale professor? How many times have you gone to a conference and heard the Ivy graduate student deliver a paper that sounded like it was 20 years dated? The profession is what it is, which unfortunately means some people are positioned in such a way that they can feel good about themselves for little reason.

[Boogs]

I must say that strangely enough, I would agree with some parts of this statement, although I would phrase it differently, and it would (hopefully) be a more accurate representation of the truth. First, I was here last year, and got into a good school. I am revisiting to see if I could help. I go to an ivy league school, and I would agree that the faculty and the department takes immense pains to ensure that their students get placed into tenure track jobs in good schools. To rephrase StrangeLight's statement more precisely (and with less prejudice, I think), more faculty in Ivy League schools are more likely to watch out for their students than at other schools. HOWEVER - they also *have* to do that to keep their reputation up, and not solely out of the goodness of their hearts. Further, this does not mean that other faculty elsewhere would not do that. Baseline: make sure that your you *really* get along with your adviser. Not just in terms of fields etc - but as a personal connection. I am friends with my adviser. well, almost.

The second "truth" about a good school (not only Ivy L ones) is a good library. Most university libraries are good for some things, and not so good for most others. Please factor in library resources (specific to your field) in your decision - it would be VERY annoying to get most of your books via inter-library loans.

Third, I would like to point out that most students, esp. in History programs, change their minds about their specific projects after they get to school. In part due to evolution of projects, but sometimes because you meet a new (and different) faculty who changes the way you think, and suddenly you realize that you didn't want to be say an early moderninst anymore, but actually say a East Asianist. This may sound absurd, but I have met people who have made similar radical changes. Most good departments would be able to handle such a change. Your funding would continue, and the department would be as *strong* in that field as well. Please factor that in your decision as well!

Best of Luck!

I'm gonna toss in my two cents. Let me start by saying that I've no baseless ill will toward the Ivies or their inhabitants, thought I don't think that will prevent me being tarred as such. poorest_ear, you're speaking in such generalities that it's difficult to understand what basis you're using to back your argument. Not to mention the several contradictions you're argument's suffering from in the first place.

I'm just going to focus on the Ivy League professors are more "committed" to getting their students placed. Which is it? Do the professors cynically promote their students to solely to "keep their reputations up"? Or is this commitment somehow impacted by how you get along with your advisor? Based on your logic wouldn't a professor at a "less prestigious" institution have even more professional motivation to place their students in great jobs so they can boost their reputation? It seems to me that no matter where you end up it's a crap shoot. How many people get into the ivies and end up leaving the program due to an "incompatibility" or "fit" with their advisor? Yes, the ivies have more institutional resources which translate to more opportunities for their students but by no means is there a correlation between resources and scholarly commitment to the training and promotion of graduate students. Hell, there is a history professor at Yale who balances his checkbook at his students dissertation defenses. I'm willing this person isn't too worried about keeping his reputation up via the careers of his students. You have to actually get a Phd from an ivy in order to cash in on its status.

[StrangeLight]

No need to get touchy. We all know that for professional reasons it is hugely beneficial to get a degree from an Ivy. We also all know that much of the prestige assigned to Ivies is the product of some bizarre momentum carried forward from a bygone era when venerable professors of history claimed to spew historical truths. For those of us who have done an MA or who are currently doing doctoral work, how many times have you been disappointed at the prospect of reading another uninteresting, unsophisticated monograph from some Harvard or Yale professor? How many times have you gone to a conference and heard the Ivy graduate student deliver a paper that sounded like it was 20 years dated? The profession is what it is, which unfortunately means some people are positioned in such a way that they can feel good about themselves for little reason.

i'm not being touchy. i'm just responding to something ridiculous.

but saying something like "professors at ivy leagues work harder to get their students placed" is based on zero data. it's like saying, "all professors got their nicknames from their advisors when they were in graduate school." that is not knowable. there's no way to prove that ivy league professors do OR don't work harder to place their students. i just find it weird to declare unknowable things, any unknowable thing, as plain fact.

i have friends at ivy leagues who are bright and doing challenging work. for my subfield, michigan is lightyears better than brown or harvard or upenn, but i don't mean to suggest people at ivies are incapable of doing interesting or innovative work. i just really take issue with the idea that the ivies are the only place you can do ]any work.

and as for the OP's concerns about going to temple vs. trying again next year... his or her application may not be significantly different next year, but the odds of getting into an ivy league school will be about the same, or possibly worse. look at temple's placement rates for your subfield. if they're strong (tenure-track jobs at schools you've actually heard of), then go for it. and if temple's placement rate for your subfield is dismal (adjuncting, community colleges you've never heard of, etc.) then don't go. but one would think that you would only apply to schools you would be happy to attend.

[dflanagan]

I must say that strangely enough, I would agree with some parts of this statement, although I would phrase it differently, and it would (hopefully) be a more accurate representation of the truth. First, I was here last year, and got into a good school. I am revisiting to see if I could help. I go to an ivy league school, and I would agree that the faculty and the department takes immense pains to ensure that their students get placed into tenure track jobs in good schools. To rephrase StrangeLight's statement more precisely (and with less prejudice, I think), more faculty in Ivy League schools are more likely to watch out for their students than at other schools. HOWEVER - they also *have* to do that to keep their reputation up, and not solely out of the goodness of their hearts. Further, this does not mean that other faculty elsewhere would not do that. Baseline: make sure that your you *really* get along with your adviser. Not just in terms of fields etc - but as a personal connection. I am friends with my adviser. well, almost.

The second "truth" about a good school (not only Ivy L ones) is a good library. Most university libraries are good for some things, and not so good for most others. Please factor in library resources (specific to your field) in your decision - it would be VERY annoying to get most of your books via inter-library loans.

Third, I would like to point out that most students, esp. in History programs, change their minds about their specific projects after they get to school. In part due to evolution of projects, but sometimes because you meet a new (and different) faculty who changes the way you think, and suddenly you realize that you didn't want to be say an early moderninst anymore, but actually say a East Asianist. This may sound absurd, but I have met people who have made similar radical changes. Most good departments would be able to handle such a change. Your funding would continue, and the department would be as *strong* in that field as well. Please factor that in your decision as well!

Best of Luck!

As a Brandeis admit myself, I would argue that a small program like the one at Brandeis allows for more productive adviser-student relationships, not less. My situation is a bit different than yours in two ways. My advisor at Brandeis would be one of the scholars whose work is most like mine in the entire country, Paul Jankowski. However, if you're applying in U.S. history you must know that the U.S. program at Brandeis has an especially strong faculty and reputation. If your fit is not so good, though, I understand your hesitancy. Coming from a top undergraduate college, I've had pressure on me to go to a top ten school as well, but in this economy with cohorts cut in half even the former naysayers amongst my faculty advisors have expressed relief and pride at my admittance. Brandeis' ranking is at least partially due to the program's small size, and the fact that it is not comprehensive (can only train people effectively in U.S. and modern European history). However, its phds teach at top universities (as evidenced by Prof. Hartog) and the program seems to be well respected despite its "rank" assigned to it by a third-rate news magazine.

My verdict would be to attend Brandeis if your faculty fit is strong. As David Engerman said to me recently, they would need two to three times as many faculty to have a comprehensive program, and so they can really only train scholars in their areas of strength. Honestly assess whether your area is one of them, and if it is then I honestly think you can do really well with a degree from there. Not to mention the funding is good, the teaching load is light, and the location is tough to beat. In my area, modern France, I would pick Brandeis over my likely other option, Emory, any day. This is because the faculty fit for me is better, and although Emory's rank is higher (28th) its placements are mainly at tiny colleges in Georgia which is not where I want to end up (rather be at a tiny college in New England). It's a personal decision, and a tough one at that. Best of luck to you! What's your other option? Maybe I'll see you in the fall! But don't go if you really don't want to. And remember, there are only five of us accepted with fellowship this year. Five. In all disciplines. That's an accomplishment. Don't think about where you didn't get in, that's water under the bridge. Become the best historian you can be! corny... but true.

[Noodles]

I agree with many of the previous replies. You should focus on fit in terms of research interests, interpersonal relationships, placements, and funding. If either of your acceptances meets those requirements I recommend that you accept the offer because you have already done what is necessary to improve your profile. However, if you will be doing something further to improve your chances next year (e.g., applying to more programs or some type of work experience) then maybe you should wait until next year. If not, you're gambling that "next year will be different" and relying on other applicants to gain admission (i.e., it's about who they are and what they did rather than who you are and what you did).

Granted, more spots may open in an area of a department or more funding could be available, but there is also a chance that next year you will be worse off. If you decide to apply again next year don't apply to any programs you aren't willing to attend because you'll face a similar dilemma.

Fit, placements, and funding are what matter most. Prestige is only relevant if it translates to a better placement in your field of study. Better to teach at Harvard than to have gone there. Who are the top junior faculty in your field and how did they get there?

[StrangeLight]

Who are the top junior faculty in your field and how did they get there?

this. this is how you figure out where to apply.

oh, and the student of one particularly famous faculty member at my school now has three tenure-track job offers to choose from, the latest being a top-20 overall history program. that is due in large part to his talent and hard work over many, many years, but it's also due to his affiliation with his big-name advisor.

when you tell someone in your subfield, "my advisor is X," you want them to say "that's amazing," not "who?" if the lower-ranked school has a heavyweight advisor, take it. you would rather have your family and friends say "where's that?" when you mention your school than a historian in your field say "who's that?" when you mention your advisor.

Edited March 3, 2010 by StrangeLight

[Kai210]

I agree with boogs, StrangeLight, Noodles, dflanagan and Goober. I see no reason for you to turn down the offers you have received this year in lieu of applying next year. First, next year does not even exist. To be certain, I am not insinuating some apocalyptic turmoil for the world. Besides, next year will be 2011, not 2012 . But I am suggesting that you do not know how the next application season will look. You could face stiffer competition for what amounts to be a limited number of spaces. We could also see even more budget cuts than we have this year, which may narrow the acceptance pools. We do not know, and while I would hate to quell your ambitions, I think that one should almost view getting into an "Ivy" the same as winning the lottery. If it happens, great! But if not, keep in mind that there are more individuals in the world like you than not.

But that does not mean all is lost. As others have reasoned, you do not have to go to an Ivy in order to get a solid placement. There's empirical evidence to support that claim. That is different from the claim that professors at Ivy institutions work harder to get their students solid placement than professors at other institutions. Furthermore, take a look at faculty at the top institutions. While you're sure to find faculty members whose CVs are littered with Ivy degrees, you're also sure to find a fair of amount of individuals who never even touched foot on an Ivy campus until they came to teach there. Thus, unless your goal is to rely upon the prestige of the institution, and not your own research, applying next year makes absolutely no sense.

Two other thoughts in the final analysis. Let me preface these thoughts by saying that I am not attempting to be callous or rude here. First, why apply to a school if you have no intentions of going there? I think it is more than presumptuous on the part of the individual who chooses an institution as a safe school while believing in their heart they won't ever have to pay deference to that option. Yale was my top choice, but I did not discount Ohio State or Michigan. I did not see them as lesser schools simply because they were not Ivies. And if I did not feel that either were a legitimate option for me, and, more specifically, the research I want to conduct, then I would not have applied to those institutions. You only end up wasting available spots for students who are dying to attend those institutions. If I am not mistaken, RockEater has been begging Brandeis admits to decline their offer if they have been accepted into their top schools. I think you ought to consider those students who are really wanting to go to the non-Ivies that you would be spitting on if you choose to reapply, which says that those schools are just not good enough. Oh, and by the way, you do realize those schools have professors from Ivy institutions. Ultimately, you could end up with a placement out of an Ivy at a place that you felt was not good enough while that school might send one of its students to an Ivy. Oh, the irony. Second, and this is sort of close to my first point--it comes off as ungrateful when you have been accepted into multiple institutions and are weighing the options of not going versus choosing to reapply to some Ivies while there are many QUALIFIED students who did not get in anywhere. Again, something to think about. Be mindful, this is not an attempt to launch a salvo at you. But I think context is important and should be considered when trying to determine the best way to move forward.

[C-Money]

I'll add to the chorus recommending against trying again next year. Given the glacial effect that the economy seems to have on admissions, things may be even more difficult a year from now, and it doesn't sound like you would really be doing much to improve your application in the mean time.

Banking on getting into Yale is probably unrealistic, no matter who you are. Maybe you are not ivy material (hardly the end of the world). I would accept an offer of admission this time around or think of something else to do with your life.

[limeinthecoconut]

I'd just like to add that if the current trend of reduced acceptances/increased number of applicants continues, statistically, your chances are getting worse. Last year was a shock, that saw drastic reductions in number of offers. This year didn't improve the situation, contrary to optimists' beliefs that the number of acceptances will go up.