Most of my programs are top-20, risk of getting shut out?

[thecat00]

I am an applicant in this year's cycle and my list of schools is growing smaller. I have taken the advice of some and tried to find the best fits for my research interests. In doing this, I have found that I have almost ten schools that I like and are in the top twenty of a usnews ranking. Based on people's experiences, I wanted to determine if this would be a bad approach. Should someone like myself reduce how many top programs I apply to in order to "increase" my chances of getting in somewhere? Or are admissions so low that it doesn't really matter about ranking.

I do not want to be shut out if possible. I would like to go somewhere. It just so happens that a lot of the top ranked places could support my interests well. What should I do? Should I increase the total number of places I apply? Is it usual to have such a high density of top twenties in a final application list? I need some advice anywhich way someone can help.

[Rootbound]

Couple things:

1) While higher ranked schools are indeed more competitive, the whole admissions process is, on some level, a bit of a crapshoot. Your application may not succeed based on things you could not possibly know--the professor you named in your personal statement might be taking a job elsewhere, or they might not want to take on more students. They may have just admitted a bunch of people with the same interests as you, and are looking to diversify. Or, and this is how so many people end up on waitlists, they just have to draw the line somewhere. That said, I would encourage you to apply to some programs outside the top 20. There are a lot of amazing programs that aren't highly ranked, and thus are hard to find. Spending a little time digging through recent articles in your field, and looking up their author's department, can be a useful way to broaden your scope. The rankings are somewhat useless as a measure of the department's quality, they really only indicate its "prestige." I can guarantee that there are excellent programs outside the top 20 that share your research interests. 
 

2) I was shut out the first time I applied. I had applied exclusively to top 20 programs. The next year, I broadened my search and applied to a much greater variety--however, the only programs that accepted me were in the top 20. Make of that what you will, it's the mystery of the admissions process. However, you should in some small way prepare to be shut out. It's unfortunately a real possibility. Not only is it a huge pain logistically, but it can be very difficult emotionally as well, or at least it was for me. I wish I had made some small contingency plan, so that I wouldn't have immediately felt lost and directionless on top of the very unpleasant feeling of being shut out. If you really really really cannot be shut out (and there are certainly legitimate reasons why that could be the case!), I would encourage you to apply to some funded MA programs as well as broadening your scope for PhD programs. Unfortunately, the admissions process is not solely based on merit, and there are just things about it you won't be able to control. I really don't mean this to be overly pessimistic, and getting shut out is totally something you can learn from as well, as cheesy as that sounds. But especially if you only apply to very highly ranked programs, its something you should be a little prepared for. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Rootbound

[Warelin]

14 hours ago, thecat00 said:

 It just so happens that a lot of the top ranked places could support my interests well.

I think it's also important to realize that your definition of "fit" is likely to differ from any college's definition of fit. Schools in the top 20 often have a bigger faculty which makes it easier to fit as if anyone can fit in. However, numbers alone does not mean that the school has strengths within that particular area or are even interested in growing that particular field. It's possible that the department as a whole is leaning towards building a different area of strength.

I'd encourage you to think about not only the strengths of the schools but about the culture as a whole. Are most graduate students living with roommates? Is there public transportation available? How far do graduate students live from the university? Is the area rural or urban? If it's a college town, are you comfortable with the summers being silent? You're committing 5+ years to living wherever you wind up. Is the stipend enough to not have to take on additional loans? Are you comfortable with the teaching requirements? Are there external or internal opportunities for growth? Studies have shown that depression is a very common reason why people drop out of Ph.D. program.

I think it's also important to mention that there are a number of very fine universities outside the top 20 that might have better placements than those in the USNew's top 20. I think it's also important to remember that the top 20 might have an easier time placing its graduates in R1 Universities, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to teach at an R1 school if you don't graduate from a R1 school. I know of several people who have gotten tenure-track positions at "elite" schools including Columbia who did not graduate from a top 20 program, but rather a school ranked somewhere between 30-50. I also know that they took advantage of what the school offered and took any opportunities presented to them even if they didn't always succeed in winning every competition. Ultimately, I think schools (both admissions-wise and jobs-wise) are looking for applicants that fit their culture and fill in whatever area they're interested in.

14 hours ago, Rootbound said:

. The rankings are somewhat useless as a measure of the department's quality, they really only indicate its "prestige."

I think the USNews does a better job of measuring a college's 'prestige' for undergraduates because they consider a wide-range of factors. However, the criteria they use for programs at the graduate level are incredibly different.  More information can be found here: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/social-sciences-and-humanities-schools-methodology

"The questionnaires asked respondents to rate the academic quality of the programs at other institutions on a 5-point scale: outstanding (5), strong (4), good (3), adequate (2) or marginal (1). Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know."

Scores for each school were determined by computing a trimmed mean – eliminating the two highest and two lowest responses – of the ratings of all respondents who rated that school; average scores were then sorted in descending order.

These are the number of schools with doctoral programs surveyed in fall 2016: economics (138); English (155); history (151); political science (120); psychology (255); and sociology (118). And these were the response rates: economics (23 percent), English (14 percent), history (15 percent), political science (24 percent), psychology (14 percent) and sociology (33 percent)."

14 percent of English programs determined the rankings of 155 programs. What do you think the odds are that all 14 programs are paying attention to every school? What do you think the odds are of the 14 percent paying attention to placement rates, student happiness and all opportunities being provided to students are at the 155 programs?

 

[Cryss]

1 hour ago, Warelin said:

Are you comfortable with the teaching requirements?

Thanks for this. I know I read them all when I was looking at schools, but definitely did not double check and really think on it for the schools I have decided to apply to.

 

15 hours ago, Rootbound said:

I wish I had made some small contingency plan

I can't imagine the level of disappointment at being shut out, but I wholly agree with this. My husband and I have a contingency plan that also excites me, so much so that even though I would feel like a failure at being shut out, I know I would be happy to go through with our back up plan. 

 

1 hour ago, Warelin said:

Schools in the top 20 often have a bigger faculty which makes it easier to fit as if anyone can fit in

I'm also gonna add that I think the top schools also have the funds and the presumed prestige to draw multiple big names to their department, which could easily convince us prospective students that those schools are strong in our sub-field and therefore the fit is right, but this may not be the case at all. Harvard, for example, has Homi Bhabha and Jamaica Kincaid but that does not automatically mean they have a strong postcolonial slant or Caribbean literature slant. Many times, these "superstars" may either be close to retirement, not taking students, or are Emeritus faculty. 

[Sigaba]

4 minutes ago, Cryss said:

I'm also gonna add that I think the top schools also have the funds and the presumed prestige to draw multiple big names to their department, which could easily convince us prospective students that those schools are strong in our sub-field and therefore the fit is right, but this may not be the case at all. Harvard, for example, has Homi Bhabha and Jamaica Kincaid but that does not automatically mean they have a strong postcolonial slant or Caribbean literature slant. Many times, these "superstars" may either be close to retirement, not taking students, or are Emeritus faculty. 

 

1 hour ago, Warelin said:

I think it's also important to realize that your definition of "fit" is likely to differ from any college's definition of fit.

To reiterate, does "fit" mean the same thing to applicants as it does to admissions committees?

 

[onerepublic96]

I've nothing to offer, but just sneaking in here bc I'm finalising my list of schools too and finding that they're nearly all top-20s. So thankful for this thread and all the insight. 

OP, I guess we just have to keep our fingers crossed ??

[trytostay]

On 10/9/2019 at 1:05 PM, Sigaba said:

To reiterate, does "fit" mean the same thing to applicants as it does to admissions committees?

No, I personally would say that schools and applicants do not have the same idea of "fit." Applicants are picking based on more than academic interests, including where they want to live, the type of people they want to socialize with, the type of environment they want to work in, the type of career they want to have afterwards, how much the program can pay them... For the committees, it's purely academic, but also random as hell. Decisions aren't made on who is the "smartest" or "best," but rather who's on the committee that year, who took too many students last year, who hasn't taken students in awhile... The applicants aren't aware of these arbitrary factors, so all applicants can do is present the most accurate depiction of who they are as a student and hope that there's a need in the program for a student like them.

Edited October 10, 2019 by trytostay