2019 Applicants

[Warelin]

@pdh12: Congratulations on your acceptance.

[mandelbulb]

congrats @pdh12!

[havemybloodchild]

19 minutes ago, pdh12 said:

tfw u butt dial an unknown number the person hears some weird orgy shiz n then says Hey u accepted to santa cruuuuuiz WTF?!?!?!?!?! 

Congrats!!!

[pdh12]

omg thanks y'all! this is seriously just the beginning for this thread, and i sense in a Big Way. Even just from our quippy posts I can tell it's a room full o genius.

n then the funny sobering comes...cuz..i wonder if the funding makes it a struggle at UCSC after all...info to come, apparently

edit: side-note just to say, this feels extra crazy because none of my family has ever graduated high school.

Edited January 24, 2019 by pdh12

[havemybloodchild]

1 hour ago, pdh12 said:

 

edit: side-note just to say, this feels extra crazy because none of my family has ever graduated high school.

My dad graduated high school not ever having learned to read, so I feel like I can kind of relate. It’s amazing and humbling to realize the privilege and joy of an education, especially when you’ve seen the challenges that come from not having that privilege. 

[Musmatatus]

@pdh12 huge congrats!!!

[j.alicea]

@pdh12 congratulations! Maybe we will be cohortmates! UCSC is my top choice, i am enthralled with the work their faculty is doing as far as hemispheric approaches to American lit. goes, plus I heard from a professor that graduated two years ago (now on track for tenured position) that Angela Davis teaches a course every couple of years!!! I am also worried about funding and costs of living... we wil just have to see

[dilby]

This is unrelated to anything but I googled Madison's English dept today and I could not stop laughing when I saw that this was Google's suggested photo

[pdh12]

ran out of reacts but @dilby hahahahahaha couldn't've invented funnier

[pdh12]

@j.alicea Oooo!!!!!! All of that is so exciting!!! Yea, what scared me most about the impending funds news was how extremely nice the email and call were...like...too nice, right? and the email says they know how much funding will play a factor in my decision...breath batedddddd

[santraash]

Hey! Also a lurker, finally decided to join the conversation. If only to talk to someone in the same boat as me. It has become increasingly difficult for me to do anything else. Anyway, I just wanted to revive this earlier discussion on the thread regarding the importance of interviews. Someone had posted about it being necessary if and only if the adcom people seek clarifications on your profile etc. I mean, why do all the interview programs never mention it on their websites? I mean, why would you want to keep it out? I understand the bias angle that seeps in once you let a face to face interaction decide qualifiability. However, if you're protecting yourselves, you're also going against some basic principles of transparency in the admission process in the first place! I don't know. It just seems unfair to be thrown into this purgatorial abyss where you don't even know what to make of these developments! An implied rejection is just as heartbreaking if not worse. With Chicago taking it upon itself to make it even more ambiguous, all my angst is getting channelled into this rage against the helplessness of it all. I remember this post from last season(?) where someone got accepted to Columbia and mentioned how surprised she was since she didn't get an interview! Really? What do we make of this? Do interviews imply a shortlist of sorts? Any clarity on this would be highly appreciated. 

[FiguresIII]

Damn I just realized that I mention one of the profs who's interviewing me at Chicago in a footnote in my sample, and what's more, that I take issue with their entire argument in the work I cite. HMMM this is about to be interesting.

[arbie]

1 hour ago, FiguresIII said:

Damn I just realized that I mention one of the profs who's interviewing me at Chicago in a footnote in my sample, and what's more, that I take issue with their entire argument in the work I cite. HMMM this is about to be interesting.

I had a professor who that happened to, but on the interview panel to work at a university. They had published an article critiquing one of their field’s cornerstone theorists, who happened to be on the panel. They said the person acknowledged it and was just like, “thanks for the engagement.” And they still got the job in the end. In this process my profs have been reminding me that not everyone in departments agree nor do they all like each other. But I think your having deeply engaged with the work of a faculty member there, even in disagreement, will ultimately show you know your field. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by arbie

[arbie]

Ughhh the waiting game...

Implied rejection for me from Wisconsin, and not high hopes for Duke.

Anyone applied to Carnegie Mellon? Past data shows they should be in contact soon. 

@WildeThing What date did you project to hear from Vanderbilt?

Been super anxious about schools meant to make decisions this and next week, but not sure if that’ll be better than waiting in silence in the lull before February decisions. 

[WildeThing]

I have January 30th. Could be sooner or later, but it was based on the results page.

[effietheant]

9 minutes ago, arbie said:

Anyone applied to Carnegie Mellon? Past data shows they should be in contact soon. 

I applied to Carnegie Mellon and I'm getting so anxious! I keep checking the website even though my gut tells me we won't hear anything from them this week. 

[arbie]

10 minutes ago, effietheant said:

I applied to Carnegie Mellon and I'm getting so anxious! I keep checking the website even though my gut tells me we won't hear anything from them this week. 

I have my fingers crossed we hear something tomorrow based on when they contacted last year, but next week could also happen—it’s so much worse waiting when it feels closer!

[FiguresIII]

26 minutes ago, arbie said:

I had a professor who that happened to, but on the interview panel to work at a university. They had published an article critiquing one of their field’s cornerstone theorists, who happened to be on the panel. They said the person acknowledged it and was just like, “thanks for the engagement.” And they still got the job in the end. In this process my profs have been reminding me that not everyone in departments agree nor do they all like each other. But I think your having deeply engaged with the work of a faculty member there, even in disagreement, will ultimately show you know your field. 

That's reassuring, thanks!

I think they'll be nice about it, maybe it's something that made me stand out. I do engage with the argument in depth. In any case the interview should mostly be about future work, so i don't expect it'll be a big deal.

[effietheant]

2 hours ago, arbie said:

I have my fingers crossed we hear something tomorrow based on when they contacted last year, but next week could also happen—it’s so much worse waiting when it feels closer!

Oh god, I didn't even know when they contacted last year... Honestly, I kind of wish these things still worked the "old-fashioned" way with a letter in your mailbox. That way, you're just waiting for the mail to arrive once a day, not constantly refreshing a website or inbox! 

[placeinspace]

8 minutes ago, effietheant said:

Oh god, I didn't even know when they contacted last year... Honestly, I kind of wish these things still worked the "old-fashioned" way with a letter in your mailbox. That way, you're just waiting for the mail to arrive once a day, not constantly refreshing a website or inbox! 

University of Toronto does this but it just means I'm waiting for a sad rejection letter to surprise me in my mailbox one day ?

[effietheant]

3 minutes ago, placeinspace said:

University of Toronto does this but it just means I'm waiting for a sad rejection letter to surprise me in my mailbox one day ?

Oh wait, is that right? I have a friend that applied to University of Toronto and I don't think he knows this! Thanks for sharing! 

[placeinspace]

@effietheant Yes, at least according to the results page for the past couple of years!

[thismortalcoil]

6 hours ago, santraash said:

Hey! Also a lurker, finally decided to join the conversation. If only to talk to someone in the same boat as me. It has become increasingly difficult for me to do anything else. Anyway, I just wanted to revive this earlier discussion on the thread regarding the importance of interviews. Someone had posted about it being necessary if and only if the adcom people seek clarifications on your profile etc. I mean, why do all the interview programs never mention it on their websites? I mean, why would you want to keep it out? I understand the bias angle that seeps in once you let a face to face interaction decide qualifiability. However, if you're protecting yourselves, you're also going against some basic principles of transparency in the admission process in the first place! I don't know. It just seems unfair to be thrown into this purgatorial abyss where you don't even know what to make of these developments! An implied rejection is just as heartbreaking if not worse. With Chicago taking it upon itself to make it even more ambiguous, all my angst is getting channelled into this rage against the helplessness of it all. I remember this post from last season(?) where someone got accepted to Columbia and mentioned how surprised she was since she didn't get an interview! Really? What do we make of this? Do interviews imply a shortlist of sorts? Any clarity on this would be highly appreciated. 

Longtime lurker, just making an account to reply to this. A professor of mine was supervised by Berlant, and this professor told me Chicago would not interview candidates they were certain they wished to accept; doing so, after all, would be a waste of resources. She said that the candidates who are interviewed are candidates which the university is "on the fence" about—candidates with, say, a lower GPA or GRE, but an interesting SOP. (Or vice versa.) Hence why, on another forum, an individual who called Chicago said something along the lines of "interviews don't indicate application standing. They're for extra questions about projects."

This is all to say: the candidates that the University of Chicago accepts are not always the candidates that are asked to interview, or who receive interviews. So, don't fret if you have not received an interview; if you have, good luck. Rejections are rejections only when they're finalized. 

[santraash]

1 minute ago, jonnyboy said:

Longtime lurker, just making an account to reply to this. A professor of mine was supervised by Berlant, and this professor told me Chicago would not interview candidates they were certain they wished to accept; doing so, after all, would be a waste of resources. She said that the candidates who are interviewed are candidates which the university is "on the fence" about—candidates with, say, a lower GPA or GRE, but an interesting SOP. (Or vice versa.) Hence why, on another forum, an individual who called Chicago said something along the lines of "interviews don't indicate application standing. They're for extra questions about projects."

This is all to say: the candidates that the University of Chicago accepts are not always the candidates that are asked to interview, or who receive interviews. So, don't fret if you have not received an interview; if you have, good luck. Rejections are rejections only when they're finalized. 

oh. okay. thanks.

[placeinspace]

@jonnyboy Thank you for your super useful insight! Though I don't know if I can handle this extremely high level of delusional hope so early in the morning...