Applying to Top-20 programs, or not?

[Brown_Bear]

Hello all,

I will be applying to Ph.D in English programs later this year and am trying to field out programs. I have like twenty to thirty left, and need to continue to define what I'm looking for.

In terms of the actual application, what should the distribution of school rankings be that I apply to? If I apply to 10-15, say, what kind of variety should I have in the ranking or perceived standing of the program? I don't want to get shutout, but also want to go to the best place possible. Any thoughts or suggestions? Does fit > ranking? And if so, to what degree?

[mandelbulb]

tbh, i think ranking should only matter in in the sense that the more well-known or well-regarded a program could help in the indefinite future, but there's really no absolute knowing and you can't really control that. apply to the programs with professors whose research interests align the most with your research interests. if you get into more than one program, worry about rankings then.

so tl;dr fit > ranking always

[fortschritt22]

Fit > ranking for sure. My biggest piece of advice is to not apply to top tier schools where the fit is a reach. I feel like I did that a little bit and it was probably a waste of time and money. Out of 13 PhD programs I think I applied to 8 "top 20" which was probably too high.For MAs my calculus was different- I was much less concerned about ranking and more concerned about funding at that point.

[ArcaMajora]

I somewhat struggled with this when deciding to apply to programs and I'll offer my two cents here. Older graduate students will definitely have more insight than I do, however. This is what I've gathered from reading countless amounts of Chronicle of Higher Ed, Grad Cafe threads, and scouring as many schools' placement and hiring records as possible, as well as trying to ascertain how big of a role prestige plays.

'Top 20' is a very vacuous and porous designation. You'll have your obvious ones, the Ivy League, Berkeley, UCLA, UVa, UMich, Stanford, etc, but it's beyond that is where reputation begins to become muddier and relative (especially once you start parsing out sub-fields). It's an undeniable designation however and it does help being in a program that's solidly 'top 20,' but I'd first prioritize what your research agenda is first and foremost and what your end goals are. Take for example someone that wants to become a tenured professor. If you are pining for an R1 tenure-track position after the doctorate, then being in one of the very top programs gives you the best and fighting chance to aid you in that endeavor. If you're aiming for teaching-intensive institutions, then you may want to prioritize programs that will focus more on teaching experience and also have good placement records into teaching institutions. However, I cannot stress this enough, a 'top 20' programs list outside of the usual suspects I can see looking vastly different from professor to professor and field to field. I recommend getting the consensus of the ones you know to see how programs possibly stack.

Try to prioritize both as much as possible, but with an eye towards finding programs where you will fit and thrive. Find departments that have solid placements but also an intellectual atmosphere, faculty, and graduate student composition that will help you earn the degree with flying colors. This is easier said than done because fit is very much a two-way street. We may think a program has a good and even hand on glove fit, but the admissions committee may think the opposite. You'll want to make sure that you find a graduate program first and foremost where you want to work with the faculty and where you will complement the department's strengths well. A top-tier program but with no intellectual compatibility with your interests is oil and water.

As far as prestige, I agree that it should not wholly dominate your graduate school list (though I completely understand why some take on that mindset). It's wise to keep in mind that having prestige is an undeniable premium currency in academia depending on your goals. The ideal mix is a well-regarded program with the best fit for your research interests as feasibly as possible.

Basically, formulate your goals and research agenda first and zero in on what you want from a department. Then research programs that fit your interests and research potential advisors within the program. See if you can figure out a way of how you can 'fit' in. Rigorously analyze the placement data (does OMG University place its students where you want to be placed? Who were their advisors? What do their CVs look like?) while taking it with a grain of salt (universities are known to fudge around with data, this is where your sleuthing comes in). If your goal is to be a university professor at an R1/R2 institution, then the prestige and standing of the doctoral program will matter. If your goal is to leverage your PhD for other means outside of the professorate and academia, fit, quality of life, and program satisfaction matters more.

Edited July 14, 2019 by ArcaMajora

[WildeThing]

To answer your first question, it is generally a good idea to apply to a variety of schools. Admissions rates are so low, and criteria can be so nebulous, that even the most confident student should consider applying beyond the very top schools. The top schools, beyond the possibility of harsher selection criteria, receive more applications. With that in mind, you want to give yourself the best odds. Beyond making your application the best it can be and applying to places with good fit (more on that in a sec), you can do so by ensuring that you are being considered within different selection pools. Different candidates will apply to different schools depending on different factors, so you want to apply to a variety of schools. Someone applying to Harvard is more likely to also apply to Yale than to Arizona State. Applying to schools with different rank is one way, but you can also consider geography, school type (private, public, liberal arts, research-heavy, etc.) and other factors when making that determination.

The ultimate determination should be fit, though. Applying without good fit is unlikely to be successful, no matter the prestige of the institution. Fit might not be self-evident, but it should be a goal, definitely. I would examine fit first and then determine which schools are left. You might have to decide between a school with great fit that is very prestigious and another that is less prestigious but you also have slightly lesser fit. In some cases those might balance out and you might be more successful with the latter, in others it will not, and the former will be better. You should endeavor to maximize your chances whichever way is possible.

That was about admissions probability management, but I assume your second questions is about the worth of being a student in a program where you have good fit as opposed to one where the rank is higher (worth in terms of future career prospects and the like). That, again, is hard to say. You might find it easier and find yourself better supported at a place with better fit (keeping in mind that you will form a thesis committee 2-3 years after you're admitted, at which point your fit in the department might change). Those factors could help you on the job market. This is without considering the fact that you might have better fit because a specialist in your field is there, despite the rank being low. For instance, Florida State is not usually considered as prestigious as Harvard but if you're interested in working on Samuel Beckett they might be a better choice because some very respected scholars work there whereas Harvard does not have a dedicated Beckettian (to my knowledge). Also rank is vague and relative and all that stuff. That said, 'rank' is definitely a factor for hiring committees, whether directly or indirectly. Having a PhD from Harvard looks better than one from Florida State, generally. The academic job market in our field is rough and research suggests that graduates from programs in a lower tier very rarely find jobs in higher tiers. The more prestigious the program you get into, the more options you ostensibly have in the future.

This is all very relative and you have a lot of agency in making the best of (or totally scuffing) the opportunities you have at any institution, but all in all, if it were possible, the aim is to go to the most prestigious program in which you have good fit, or maybe the other way around, it's hard to say.

[Warelin]

14 hours ago, WildeThing said:

Having a PhD from Harvard looks better than one from Florida State, generally. The academic job market in our field is rough and research suggests that graduates from programs in a lower tier very rarely find jobs in higher tiers. The more prestigious the program you get into, the more options you ostensibly have in the future... For instance, Florida State is not usually considered as prestigious as Harvard but if you're interested in working on Samuel Beckett they might be a better choice because some very respected scholars work there whereas Harvard does not have a dedicated Beckettian (to my knowledge).

I'd like to elaborate a bit more on @WildeThing's post here.

I think there are a few things to consider here. There isn't a single degree that could guarantee you that you'd be considered equally at all schools. Some teaching-focused schools are hesitant to hire ivy-league grads because they're concerned that the individual might leave them when a research-focused position opens up. They're also concerned that ivy-league grads and other top10/top20 schools may not have enough teaching experience or may not want to be in an environment that focuses on teaching. A school in the top 20 may not rank as highly in certain disciplines. Notre Dame, Rochester, and George Washington University are known widely for their early modern program. WUSTL is very strong in (Post)Modernism, Drama Studies (modern), Gender and Sexuality Studies and is expanding in Transatlantic and Transnational. Tufts has traditionally been strong in Gender Theory. Pittsburgh has a really strong Film concentration in English. Rice is strong in Gender and Sexuality, Medical Humanities, Postcolonial and Ecocritism.  None of these are top 20 programs, but have built a strong concentration in the listed that likely rival schools that are considered to be in the top 20.  However, if the goal is to teach at a R1 school, it is much easier to accomplish from a top 20 program. But there are also post-docs that might help you accomplish your goal. I've had friends who have gotten a degree from ivy leagues schools who still had to complete postdocs before landing in a TT position. I have friends who have graduated from schools ranked in the 30s who have landed tenure track jobs at ivy-league schools.

It might also be important to note that the majority of schools that are hiring are not R1 schools but rather teaching-focused institutions. These institutions are more likely to care about your teaching ability and record, but it's important to not disregard original research.

I'm not sure more options is necessarily correct here, but I think there is a difference in the types of positions that are most readily available to you upon graduation based upon the connections you have access to. Lastly, I also want to note that a school accepts you because they believe in you. Sometimes, even the brightest students fail due to unforeseen circumstances or not feeling supported enough. An acceptance from any school doesn't mean anything if you can't graduate from it.

[indoorfireworks]

On this subject, how much of a difference does name recognition of previous institutions make? I have a bachelor's and MFA from an R1 in the south that's pretty low on the USN rankings, but I have some good things going for my application, including two scholarly publications. Is it worth it to apply to top 30 schools if I didn't graduate from one in that tier? 

EDIT: I'm definitely applying to the upper-tier schools because the respective faculties align with my interests, not out of a sense of prestige. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by indoorfireworks

[northwestnative]

1 hour ago, indoorfireworks said:

On this subject, how much of a difference does name recognition of previous institutions make? I have a bachelor's and MFA from an R1 in the south that's pretty low on the USN rankings, but I have some good things going for my application, including two scholarly publications. Is it worth it to apply to top 30 schools if I didn't graduate from one in that tier? 

EDIT: I'm definitely applying to the upper-tier schools because the respective faculties align with my interests, not out of a sense of prestige. 

Given what I've seen and what I've been told by professors and other students, not nearly as much as you might fear. My understanding is that the most advantageous thing about degrees from significant schools is that your letter writers might carry some name recognition. Of course, a top-tier R1 or Ivy/Ivy-adjacent won't hurt.

For what it's worth, my BA is from a tiny, tiny PLBC and my MA is from a good, funded program but not a school with particular renown.

It shouldn't, by any means, stop you from applying to certain places.

[Indecisive Poet]

13 hours ago, indoorfireworks said:

On this subject, how much of a difference does name recognition of previous institutions make? I have a bachelor's and MFA from an R1 in the south that's pretty low on the USN rankings, but I have some good things going for my application, including two scholarly publications. Is it worth it to apply to top 30 schools if I didn't graduate from one in that tier? 

EDIT: I'm definitely applying to the upper-tier schools because the respective faculties align with my interests, not out of a sense of prestige. 

You can get a sense of this by looking through graduate student profiles online at the programs you're interested in. Granted, there's no way of knowing what the rest of these students' applications were like, but I've found that loads of students at every program I'm interested in (all top 50, with many in the top 20) are from undergraduate and MA institutions with very little name recognition or prestige. Some of these institutions I've never even heard of.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Indecisive Poet

[WildeThing]

13 hours ago, indoorfireworks said:

On this subject, how much of a difference does name recognition of previous institutions make? I have a bachelor's and MFA from an R1 in the south that's pretty low on the USN rankings, but I have some good things going for my application, including two scholarly publications. Is it worth it to apply to top 30 schools if I didn't graduate from one in that tier? 

EDIT: I'm definitely applying to the upper-tier schools because the respective faculties align with my interests, not out of a sense of prestige. 

Personally I think prestige of previous institutions is very important, though not wholly determinant. I say this as someone who went through the process twice coming from unranked, unknown universities. I know most people disagree with this, but I think that coming from a great uni makes you a safer bet. Great candidates will get in no matter where they come from, but there are great candidates from many backgrounds. That said, there is nothing you can do to change this and it doesn't mean you won't get in to places, all you can (whether from Harvard or Unknown University) is to make your application the best it can be and maximize your chances by choosing the most appropriate schools to apply to. Sometimes this means applying to lesser ranked schools, others it means restricting where you apply based on fit (and really, it's a combination of these and other factors).

Don't be discouraged if you come from an unknown university, but do be realistic about your chances.

[indoorfireworks]

@northwestnative @WildeThing @Indecisive Poet

This all seems very helpful, thanks!