What's worse: getting rejected from your top school, or getting in but can't attend?

[90sNickelodeon]

This is an issue for many people, I'm sure.

Edited March 15, 2010 by 90sNickelodeon

[jon cocktoe]

I found out over 4 weeks ago that I've been accepted to my top choice, but I have yet to hear about funding, and of course if I don't get it, I can't go. Everyone keeps telling me that I'll hear 'soon' but that's been the case for at least 3 weeks so I'm starting to lose hope.

[herself the elf]

This is an issue for many people, I'm sure.

If you feel like you have to "settle" during your MA, you can still apply to go to your top school for your PhD.

1. It is the school where you get your PhD which is going to matter most in your career, and of course, 2. they pay you.

Best of luck in your decisions, and congratulations!

[johndiligent]

Getting in but being unable to attend. It's the so-close-yet-so-far thing. Like placing 4th in the Olympics.

[Medievalmaniac]

I'm living this one...I'm in at one of my top choices, but without funding. With two kids and a mortgage, and a spouse who is totally unwilling to do the student loan route, I therefore can't go. I wish they'd rejected me, then maybe I wouldn't hate myself for being financially strapped and blame myself for being incapable of seeing my dream to fruition.

I've deferred, and will try again next season.

[johndiligent]

Waitlisted: ??? What the hell are they DOING at Penn State, meditation? Reading tea leaves? Consulting crystals? Reading entrails?

Haha, too funny. Consulting the auspices, I imagine.

[APHI224]

I have a hard time understanding this I guess, if I got into a top school in my field without funding I would do everything in my power to go. Why can't people just take out loans? If it's really a great school then the assumption is that you'll be able to find well-paid employment after you graduate so you'll be able to pay off the loans. Certainly your employment options will be better if you attend the top school than if you settle for someplace less prestigious, isn't that part of the allure of the top school? I guess I feel like if you only get one life and one shot at it, why not go for the gold?

[NorthernStar]

I have a hard time understanding this I guess, if I got into a top school in my field without funding I would do everything in my power to go. Why can't people just take out loans? If it's really a great school then the assumption is that you'll be able to find well-paid employment after you graduate so you'll be able to pay off the loans. Certainly your employment options will be better if you attend the top school than if you settle for someplace less prestigious, isn't that part of the allure of the top school? I guess I feel like if you only get one life and one shot at it, why not go for the gold?

1. Because people have different life circumstances that make living off student loans for who knows how many years an impossibilty. Perhaps YOU might be able to pull it off, but others can't. I wouldn't.

2. Why would anyone go somewhere they are not wanted? accepted but not funded = meh, we're just not that into you.

3. There is no guarentee that anyone, even those graduating from "top schools", whatever that means, will be able to find a tenure track position, let alone able to pay off tremendous student loans accumulated over several years. The academic job market is not that promising. In fact, in this rate, it's may even be saturated in a few years.

[psycholinguist]

Oddly, based on my experiences last year of getting a top choice but not being able to attend, I found that situation much better than simply being rejected. I realise that my experience was pretty idiosyncratic, but I think I'd still rather get in somewhere and not be able to attend than be flat-out rejected.

I got into UCSD for a combined Ph.D. in linguistics and cognitive-science - the only such program offered anywhere, as far as I know. That was a great match for my interests, and I was thrilled; I promptly flew out to San Diego to visit. There, the department of linguistics was very upfront about the fact that since I am not an American citizen, they couldn't offer me either funding or the tuition-reduction that Americans get once they establish California-residency. However, just getting to meet the department was a lot of fun, and thanks to the fact that I had to be in California, that was the nicest spring-break I've ever had. (I even went up to L.A. at the end for a couple of days to see some friends.) The faculty-members did what they could for me (even trying to arrange for me to make money by teaching French, though that didn't work out either), and they were as sorry as I was that the funding-situation in California and in most of the UC schools in general didn't allow them to fund international grad-students. Going there would have meant a huge pile of bills, which I don't need, and getting either loans or a job in the U.S. would have been difficult at best for me. However, the department and I parted on good terms thanks to how welcoming they were and how hard they tried to find a way of getting some money for me, and I still have a thoroughly positive view of the department.

If I'd received a rejection-letter, I would have resented it and scowled at the stupid department for not accepting me. And not had a very pleasant vacation, either. I mean, I would have gotten over it, but it wouldn't've been a better outcome.

[APHI224]

1. Because people have different life circumstances that make living off student loans for who knows how many years an impossibilty. Perhaps YOU might be able to pull it off, but others can't. I wouldn't.

2. Why would anyone go somewhere they are not wanted? accepted but not funded = meh, we're just not that into you.

3. There is no guarentee that anyone, even those graduating from "top schools", whatever that means, will be able to find a tenure track position, let alone able to pay off tremendous student loans accumulated over several years. The academic job market is not that promising. In fact, in this rate, it's may even be saturated in a few years.

OK, I understand this but I don't agree that if a school doesn't fund you it means they don't really want you. If they didn't want you, they'd offer the spot to someone else, that just doesn't make sense. Also, why do you automatically assume that everyone getting a PhD wants to go into academia? Is there some unwritten rule that that is the only option or the only career in which someone would pursue a PhD? Last time I checked, there are plenty of other well-paying fields that people need a PhD to pursue. I was just saying I think you should try to follow your dreams, sometimes you only get these chances once.

[NorthernStar]

OK, I understand this but I don't agree that if a school doesn't fund you it means they don't really want you. If they didn't want you, they'd offer the spot to someone else, that just doesn't make sense. Also, why do you automatically assume that everyone getting a PhD wants to go into academia? Is there some unwritten rule that that is the only option or the only career in which someone would pursue a PhD? Last time I checked, there are plenty of other well-paying fields that people need a PhD to pursue. I was just saying I think you should try to follow your dreams, sometimes you only get these chances once.

It makes perfect sense. Would you accept a job if your prospective employer told you they just can't afford to pay you (but expect you to come in every day for 5-6 years and do the work)? I don't think so. That would be exploitation. PhD is like a job, and it's customary to pay students. If a department don't care enough about its admits to offer them funding, even at subsistence level - they just don't want you that bad. They signal you that they find you valueable, but if you go elsewhere... fine by them.

Follow your dream is a nice slogan, and it worked when I was 10. But in the real world, people have real issues, including financial situations, family obligations and so on, and one has to be realistic. Not every dream can be realized, and we should not be expected to break our backs and live in poverty for it.

[cinehomme]

Getting rejected from one's top choice after having been interviewed (in a humanities field ) is pretty brutal as well.

[90sNickelodeon]

If you feel like you have to "settle" during your MA, you can still apply to go to your top school for your PhD.

1. It is the school where you get your PhD which is going to matter most in your career, and of course, 2. they pay you.

Best of luck in your decisions, and congratulations!

Thanks! Neither a borrower nor a lender be, I suppose.

[APHI224]

It makes perfect sense. Would you accept a job if your prospective employer told you they just can't afford to pay you (but expect you to come in every day for 5-6 years and do the work)? I don't think so. That would be exploitation. PhD is like a job, and it's customary to pay students. If a department don't care enough about its admits to offer them funding, even at subsistence level - they just don't want you that bad.

I guess I just really disagree with this, I think the analogy is skewed. Obtaining a PhD does require the same level of work (even more so) than a job, but when you are working a traditional job you do not come out of it after a certain number of years with a higher level degree of education. I don't think there is any shame or disgrace in paying for your degree, we all did it for undergraduate. I think maybe then this point of view is thinking of a PhD more along the lines of an apprenticeship? I just never saw it that way. I always thought I would be paying for it just the same as I paid for my undergraduate because it is a valuable degree that carries with you your entire life. It is NOT the same as working a regular job without pay, it just isn't.

And especially now with the economy being so bad, so many departments don't have the money they used to (or would like to have) but still want to take on students. Personally I'd rather get accepted and have to pay my own way because it means that YES they DO want you, but maybe they are dealing with money problems of their own and just can't finance everyone they'd like to. It's not about whether or not they CARE, that is a childish emotional label that I doubt the admission committees or the departments think about. Why are you attending graduate school at all? For most people it's about getting a higher degree so that you will be more qualified and be able to fetch a higher salary in the job market. I completely understand if someone just cannot afford not to go without funding, but if they can make it work I don't think their ego should stop them because they think they "weren't good enough" for funding. If you stop yourself from going for that reason you're only hurting yourself because you won't have the degree you need, or maybe you'll have it but it will be from a lesser school thus giving yourself less opportunity when you graduate. I think you are just personalizing it too much, which is easy to do because this whole process really hits us all in a personal way. We put so much of ourselves into our applications and when you don't get funding you can feel like they don't "care" but I don't think that is the case. Go ahead and yell at me or send me negative comments but I just don't think that is an accurate analogy.

[rising_star]

I guess I just really disagree with this, I think the analogy is skewed. Obtaining a PhD does require the same level of work (even more so) than a job, but when you are working a traditional job you do not come out of it after a certain number of years with a higher level degree of education. I don't think there is any shame or disgrace in paying for your degree, we all did it for undergraduate. I think maybe then this point of view is thinking of a PhD more along the lines of an apprenticeship? I just never saw it that way. I always thought I would be paying for it just the same as I paid for my undergraduate because it is a valuable degree that carries with you your entire life. It is NOT the same as working a regular job without pay, it just isn't.

I don't think it's quite the same as an apprenticeship, particularly if you're taking out loans to do it. Typically apprentices earn some money, otherwise no one could ever afford to do it. More to the point, when you work a traditional job for 6 years, you earn more money after 6 years than you would in your first year. While pursuing a graduate degree may afford you higher education, it does not guarantee that you would be making more money than you would if you hadn't spent those 6 years toiling away for debt. First year out of college I had friends that earned $60K salary, $10K signing bonus, $30K year end bonus. That's $100K!! What did I make? Less than $16K. I have made less money in my four years of graduate school than they earned in salary their first year. Now can you imagine what those numbers would look like if I paid for my degree? Each year, they'd be at least +$60K and I would be -$20K or so. How many years will it take for you to catch up?

Or, more to the point, do you really want to pay for 10 years of education in addition to the K-12 education given to you by the government? And, if so, why? For the record, I haven't paid for any of my degrees (BA and MA earned, PhD in progress) and wouldn't. Graduate degrees are only valuable if you plan to pursue particular careers that require them, like being a librarian or licensed psychologist.

And especially now with the economy being so bad, so many departments don't have the money they used to (or would like to have) but still want to take on students. Personally I'd rather get accepted and have to pay my own way because it means that YES they DO want you, but maybe they are dealing with money problems of their own and just can't finance everyone they'd like to. It's not about whether or not they CARE, that is a childish emotional label that I doubt the admission committees or the departments think about. Why are you attending graduate school at all?

I'll agree with you that lots of departments can't fund students like they used to and that it may not mean they don't want you. But, at least in my past and current departments, if they don't offer you funding, they are not expecting you to attend and, in fact, will be surprised if you do. If the department doesn't care about its students, that's an entirely different problem and I would be wholly uncomfortable attending. Graduate school is about caring. Your advisor has to care about you enough to support you, advise you, help you network, etc. I'm not talking about caring on a personal level (my advisor doesn't give a damn about my personal life [or that of any of his other students for that matter] and I'm absolutely fine with that), I'm talking about caring about your development as a graduate student, your professional career, and your future. So, I think you're wrong when you say that caring is "a childish emotional label that I doubt ... the departments think about". If you've applied to a school where that is the case, I strongly suggest you don't attend.

For most people it's about getting a higher degree so that you will be more qualified and be able to fetch a higher salary in the job market. I completely understand if someone just cannot afford not to go without funding, but if they can make it work I don't think their ego should stop them because they think they "weren't good enough" for funding. If you stop yourself from going for that reason you're only hurting yourself because you won't have the degree you need, or maybe you'll have it but it will be from a lesser school thus giving yourself less opportunity when you graduate. I think you are just personalizing it too much, which is easy to do because this whole process really hits us all in a personal way. We put so much of ourselves into our applications and when you don't get funding you can feel like they don't "care" but I don't think that is the case. Go ahead and yell at me or send me negative comments but I just don't think that is an accurate analogy.

I'm going to refer again to the numbers I posted above. Starting assistant professor salaries in my discipline are $55-65K/year. That's what my friends were earning straight out of undergrad! So no, getting a higher degree does not necessarily mean one can fetch a higher salary in the job market. If we're talking the US federal GS pay scale, then sure, each additional degree means you make more money. But that is not universally the case, particularly not for those seeking positions in the academy.

APHI224, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this funding thing. There are plenty of smart professors out there who have publicly and repeatedly said that you should not go to graduate school without funding, especially in the humanities. Maybe you should look them up in the Chronicle of Higher Education? It may help you understand the common wisdom repeated around here.

[APHI224]

APHI224, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about this funding thing. There are plenty of smart professors out there who have publicly and repeatedly said that you should not go to graduate school without funding, especially in the humanities. Maybe you should look them up in the Chronicle of Higher Education? It may help you understand the common wisdom repeated around here.

Actually quite the opposite, I feel like people who would refuse to go to school if it wasn't funded have a chip on their shoulder. They seem to interpret it personally like the school didn't feel they were good enough to offer them funding. I was just unfamiliar with the whole funding aspect before I started to apply and was surprised to find out it was such a big issue. Like I said, I completely understand that some people's financial situation would make it impossible for them to attend without funding and that can be the deciding factor. Personally I would never feel uncared for if I had to pay for my degree, it's not like the advisors give preferential treatment to those who are funded, do they? All I'm saying is that if I got an offer to attend a top school in my field without funding, I would do everything in my power to go because it would give me the best chance of getting a good job (in academia or not) after I graduate. I wouldn't feel insulted that they didn't offer me any funding and refuse to go there if I could make it work.

[rising_star]

Personally I would never feel uncared for if I had to pay for my degree, it's not like the advisors give preferential treatment to those who are funded, do they?

Actually, in many disciplines, the advisors do give preferential treatment to those who are funded, particularly in the sciences where they are literally funding you to work in their lab...

All I'm saying is that if I got an offer to attend a top school in my field without funding, I would do everything in my power to go because it would give me the best chance of getting a good job (in academia or not) after I graduate. I wouldn't feel insulted that they didn't offer me any funding and refuse to go there if I could make it work.

Honestly, attending the top school in your field may not mean you get a good job. There's a bunch of posts here about that sort of thing. While a name-brand school can help, it may not be enough to help you get a good job, particularly if you're in massive debt from grad school.

I'm wondering, APHI224, if the difference is that you're in a more professionally oriented discipline? For example, MLS and MSW programs typically don't offer full funding to students.

[NorthernStar]

I'm sorry, but claiming that PhD students should expect to pay for their education sounds extremely classist and elitist to me. Why should someone who is bright and talented be deprived of the opportunity to "follow their dream", as you put it, not to mention a certain degree of social mobility, simply because they can't afford the pleasure of paying top dollars for 5-6 years?? Is higher education a privilege reserved for the well to do, upper classes only?

(BTW, I think education is general should be free and accessible to all, not just grad school, but that's besides the point)

Also, as for me, I have never sought material gain, nor do I seek one now. In other words, I'm not in it for the money / higher salary bracket. I loathe the extreme materialism and its concomitant consumerism, and I am capable (and aspire) to earn what I truly NEED. I'm in it for the thrill of research and for sharing my findings / analysis with my peers.

Edited March 17, 2010 by NorthernStar

[APHI224]

Well as you can see from my profile I am in a social science. I do not want to go into social work, I am going to be attending a regular MA program in the fall. It is not funded but I don't take that personally and I do not consider it a deal-breaker, I knew I would be paying for it and I don't have a problem with that. I don't think many people are funded for the sort of thing I am going for and that's OK. I'm sure the difference with me is that I will not actually be paying for any of this myself, my parents are footing the bill, so go ahead and flame me for that. I am not sure if I even want a PhD at this point, I only want to go into some kind of research so I may not need one. I'm not looking for a really prestigious position, I just know that in order to get a decent-paying job that I could live off of I will need a higher degree than a BA in my field. Maybe in a year and a half when I'm done with my MA I might consider going on for a PhD and be concerned with funding. My only point was that I think we all try to go to the best place possible within our circumstances and it would really be heartbreaking to get into your top choice but not be able to attend because of no funding. I would try to avoid this heartbreak by going anyway, but I understand that isn't always possible for everyone.

I really hope that in my program (and in other people's as well) that someone would never be looked down upon or degraded by their department or other people for attending somewhere they did not receive funding from, that is just terrible.

Edited March 17, 2010 by APHI224

[grammercie]

*shrug* we're all in this for different reasons with different tolerances for paying our own way. Endowments were hit hard and at the same time there was a surge in applicants. The schools don't have to pay more to get good students, and there won't be any incentive for them to return funding to previous levels until the number of applicants drops.

Top schools that offer great stipends weren't the best fit for my studies, at least not where I could geographically attend. I have some partial funding and will work for the rest. I'm in it because I'm dying a little each day I don't read and write about the things that inspire me. Whatever on the job afterwards--who knows what the world will be like in 5 years?

[Postbib Yeshuist]

APHI224, I'm going to dispense with the pleasantries that so many others have offered you here and say flat out that you do not get it. Of course, you're only at the Master's level, so that's to be expected. If I can get over how angry I am at your naive and condescending responses, I'll reply with the "why" later.

[APHI224]

APHI224, I'm going to dispense with the pleasantries that so many others have offered you here and say flat out that you do not get it. Of course, you're only at the Master's level, so that's to be expected. If I can get over how angry I am at your naive and condescending responses, I'll reply with the "why" later.

Well I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was simply offering a different point of view. I meant it to be positive in that I think people should try to go to the best place possible if they get in. "You're only at the Master's level" sounds pretty mean and condescending. You seem to think you're better than me because you're at the PhD level (or so I can assume). So even if you do get over it I'm really not interested in what someone with that attitude has to say, so save it.

I guess I got my answer as to if Master's programs or unfunded acceptances were looked down upon. How sad.

[Medievalmaniac]

APH1224...I understand your viewpoint, because I held it ten years ago.

I didn't know anything about academia. Non of my grandparents ever attended college, and my great-grandparents on my mom's side didn't even finish high school - Iowa farm families. My dad was a career soldier who had a BA earned part time via the GI Bill; eventually when I was in high school he earned an MBA also. Mom was a stay-at-home mom who went back and got a real estate license when we were ten or so. My parents thought it was a really big deal that we had a full encyclopedia set in the house. There was no talk of higher education beyond the bachelor's degree. Everyone was delighted when I got into college at all.

I received little counseling and support as an undergraduate - my parents thought that since I transferred from Longwood and was graduated at William and Mary I was set, and none of us knew about academic advising, etc or knew to ask (this was pre-internet). I worked my way through, took out student loans and course overloads, and graduated with 138 credits and about $8,000 in debt. My first job in teaching high school right out of college netted me $24,500 a year - which equated to about 926.00 after taxes. A MONTH. With rent at $735, my salary barely made ends meet, and trying to pay off student loans was an impossibility, even married with two salaries. Credit card debt ensued, and deferred loans racked up interest.

I decided to go back to get my Master's. Teachers with MAs get a little more money. I had no idea that you could or should be paid to do upper level graduate work. I did one year of an unfunded master's degree at American University - which was the only program that would take me with my lower undergraduate GPA.

Ten years later, I am still carrying a substantial amount of the credit card debt I racked up trying to live off of a beginning teacher's salary the first two years and part-time teaching during my year and a half in DC. I am also forty thousand in the hole for student loans, thanks to deferrals and a steep tuition price at AU that, in hindsight, I never should have paid.

I want my PhD, and I am passionate, enthusiastic and dedicated to my work. I teach 6 courses a term, 5 terms a year, at a year-round boarding school. I have written the curriculum myself and crafted each of these classes from scratch. I have publications, conference presentations, am a member of several professional organizations, and conduct myself as an academic professional. I therefore fully expect to be paid for what I bring to the table as such. My work and publication record is certainly comparable to that of many entering assistant professors in my field. As a PhD student, not only will I be working on my own research projects and writing, but I will also be expected to work on the projects of professors in my field as a research assistant and also to teach undergrad courses. And I WANT TO!!! I'm DYING to!!! But, for an academic, this is professional work, and nobody should work as a professional in an unpaid capacity - certainly, the professors are being paid for it!

In my case, with two small children, a mortgage, and a mountain of debt from my earlier attempts, I cannot do it unpaid. And had I known then what I know now, I would not have this debt, or at least not this much. So - I was accepted, but without funding, to a school of my dreams. I don't have a choice here - I cannot pay my own way through 5 years of a doctoral program, and I cannot uproot my family to take a chance that after a year there might be funding. If I don't get some assistance financially, then I simply cannot go, at least not right now. When I applied, I checked a little box on the applications: "Do you wish to be considered for funding?" And when I checked that, I very clearly told the schools in question what my expectations were on my end - then it was up to them to determine whether or not I would meet their needs. Apparently, this year I didn't. Maybe, next year, I will. (I hope).

I do think, in many cases, funding your own MA is OK - and even necessary, these days. But if you are going into the humanities or the sciences, unless you are independently wealthy, funding your own degree is out of the question; furthermore, being asked to fund your own PhD is essentially the department's way of saying "You know, we really like you, but we're not 100% sure about you". They didn't reject you outright, but it's essentially up to you to prove to them they didn't make a mistake; whereas being funded is their way of throwing their support behind you. Or, at least, this is my understanding of it.

[NorthernStar]

Well I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was simply offering a different point of view. I meant it to be positive in that I think people should try to go to the best place possible if they get in. "You're only at the Master's level" sounds pretty mean and condescending. You seem to think you're better than me because you're at the PhD level (or so I can assume). So even if you do get over it I'm really not interested in what someone with that attitude has to say, so save it.

I guess I got my answer as to if Master's programs or unfunded acceptances were looked down upon. How sad.

APHI224,

I don't think you should take offense and read any of it as a statement that a PhD student (or applicant) is "better" than you. I think the intent was just like Medievalmaniac said (I think), that since many (most?) MA programs are unfunded (not to mention shorter), you're more comfortable with the idea of not being funded, which is different than PhD, which tend to be funded, and take much longer to complete.

[Slarti]

APHI224 [...] you're more comfortable with the idea of not being funded, which is different than PhD, which tend to be funded, and take much longer to complete.

Exactly. APHI, I feel like the points you were making make sense from the perspective of a master's student. It's not that master's students are inferior in any way, it's just that they're looking for different things. A master's program is much shorter so it is easier to support yourself without funding and it is not usually expected to be funded. In addition, the large majority of PhD students want to work in academia, and after they obtain a PhD they won't really be earning much more than if they get a job straight out of undergrad (so much more true in the Sciences/Engineering). On the other hand, a MA or MS can account for a significant pay increase in industry. I realize a PhD will too in the same type of job, but the large majority of PhD students are not aiming towards those kinds of jobs. I agree with what you said earlier about the apprenticeship. In many ways that is what I believe a PhD program will be like: after the first year or two, I will be doing research and teaching just like the professors and I will be trained to develop those skills so that eventually I can also teach others. Apprenticeships traditionally involved the support of whoever was training you, at least in terms of room, board, and other essentials, and while most PhD stipends are more than enough to live off of, the poverty line is 11,616 so they're not that much more than what you need to live off of. Also, if you have well over 100k in loans from undergrad (as many of my friends do), paying for your PhD for 6 or 7 years is just not feasible.

Edit: I'm saying this from a Science/Engineering perspective where jobs are mainly industry vs. academia. I know almost nothing about pay in Social Science or Art fields.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Slarti