Remember the request for final transcript?

[teyocoyani]

Okay...so after rushing to send my final transcript to my last PhD program (I've been rejected by 6 programs...not sure why...10 years working experience, 4.0 gpa, MPH, solid GRE, etc., etc.), I've developed a nice relationship with the the program coordinator who keeps informing me that the committee hasn't made a decision yet...WHY NOT?!!? It's weird because after receiving a nice flow of steady rejections, I pretty much was coming to terms with the fact that a PhD was not in my near future. However, the past two weeks have been pretty hard and I'm trying to move on...but it's difficult...

any advice?

p.s. they've already sent out their rejections and acceptances in late February...

[Minnesotan]

They probably have an unofficial waitlist, where you have been placed until closer to April 15. No news is good news!

[StarvingStudentYeah]

I'm a bit confused as to your situation so I'll paraphrase to be sure we're on the same page.

You applied to multiple PhD programs and have been rejected by most, perhaps all but one? Thus, you are very anxiously awaiting the last one and are taking it as a bad sign that they haven't told you yes yet?

If this is the case I wouldn't get too stressed yet. As the other poster said, you are almost surely on their waitlist - which is not a bad place to be as most programs have ~75-80 of their offers choose to attend elsewhere. Regardless, you're not rejected until you're notified. Lots of people get into only one program, so don't analyze too deeply at this point.

Secondly, don't write of ever being a doctoral candidate just because you were shut out your first season applying - this happens to many good candidates. It's possible to be rejected outright one year, change very little, and get accepted with funding the next year. Too many variables to make any blanket assumptions in this game.

With a admittance type GPA, solid GREs, and 10 years of work experience you should have the background + for PhD work. This means that your problem is likely one or more of the following issues:

1: You applied to the wrong programs. You can't just apply to the programs you LIKE, the fit has to be superior - you to them, and them to you. There needs to be a professor whose research interests are VERY similar to yours.

2: You didn't apply to the right range of schools. Generally, it is advised to apply to schools based on a heirarchy. Say you are doing 9 apps - ~3 should be to elite schools, ~3 should be middle of the road, and ~3 should be safeties. This is a general rule, and should be applied on some level if you want to maximize your chances of acceptance. If you would never go to a safety school, then you'll need to fix your metrics and accept that PhD may not happen. In this case, remember rating and prestige have VERY little, if ANYTHING to do with the experience of students in that program. It's usually based on some formula that is from an administrators point of view. Academics know that reputation, prestige, and rankings are more or less arbitrary. Grads from the 39th ranked program frequently outperform Harvard PhDs once they are all in the professional world. That is just a fact.

3. If you did apply to schools you are a good match for, and you applied to a good range your problem is either LOR or SOP. Most likely it's the SOP. In your case you need to tell a story - and it needs to make rational sense. The story needs to be about why you are applying after such a long academic hiatus. IE, what SPECIFICALLY lead you back to school, and how their program can help you achieve whatever that was, and how your attaining this is beneficial to someone or some thing outside of yourself. Finally, if your 10 years out of academia are not filled with work experience DIRECTLY related to your field you need to have explained how it DID relate, and what specifically about it was beneficial to a person proposing to go into this new field or sub-field. IMO, if you did not do this, and do it well this is the most likely reason for your issues at this point.

4. Another possibility, (though somewhat less likely, IMO) is that your LORs were sub-par or contained inappropriate content for your field. LORs can be quite hard with that much time out of academia I'm sure unless the position you held had you in close contact to academics.

If a PhD is truly what you want, do not give up. In almost all circumstances you can get there. It may take some extra research and effort on your part, but if you really want it almost all deficiencies can be overcome.

[teyocoyani]

Thanks for both of your responses. I completely agree with the advice you've given. I've often wondered if perhaps my LOR's weren't the best they could be(although I was a graduate research assistant to two of the professors and have extremely good relationships with both of them so this is pretty slim). In terms of my professional experience, it was directly in the field to which I have applied. I held senior executive positions that included research and data and I worked directly with major universities in the San Francisco Bay Area on many of these projects. Basically my SOP spoke to this but I did recently complete my masters (as a way to demonstrate that I could successfully complete graduate level work after 10 years out of undergrad).

I've often wondered if programs get a little leery by 'older' students...and by leery I mean, confused by, not sure of, etc. etc...thoughts?

[Minnesotan]

I don't know about that. Although I realize you would never know this, since I rarely act my age, I'm an older guy, too. I was worried when heading back to school that I would be seen as the odd man out, or as an "other" by my younger peers. Rarely did that happen as an undergrad. Moreover, since coming to grad school, I've found I'm still probably under the median age for the stage I'm at in my field, even though I took a few (erm... 7?) years off to make some bucks.

Lots of people have been returning to school later and later in life. I think the important thing is to demonstrate why this is a good idea for you, professionally and personally, and to assure the committee it isn't a backup plan you're falling back on because you're bored with your job, or having a mid-life crisis. Better to spring for the Vette, anyway. =)

[StarvingStudentYeah]

I've talked to several academics about this and the contrary seems to be more commonly true; they tend to prefer an older and more mature student over a younger one if everything else is equal.

The logic I have been provided here is that students with some real world experience are conceivably more mature and more self-aware which leads to being more aware of what they want out of career and life. A top gripe, particularly of PhD faculty and chair alike is students admitted to PhD programs who stop at the non-terminal M.A/M.S or at some other random point along the way. They are investing a lot in you, as opposed to someone else and they want you to complete the program and add to their line of research, prestige, etc - and most of them (rightly so I generally believe) that older students have a better sense of their interests and are less likely to decide one summer that they don't like Clinical Psychology so much after all, they actually want to work and have a family or whatever.

In the end, there will be exceptions to this trend as there are with all rules and trends. Keep going. There is a program waiting for you.

[santana]

I've talked to several academics about this and the contrary seems to be more commonly true; they tend to prefer an older and more mature student over a younger one if everything else is equal.

You gotta be kidding! Maybe mature like 26-27 as compared to 23 or 24. Surely not people over 35. Anybody over 35 going for graduate study in a field with many young applicants will face age discrimination. It won't be stated, in fact there might be a policy prohibiting such a discrimination but it will be there nonetheless in particular in sciences.

[engguy]

Have to disagree. But, hey, since you're a stats person, perhaps you could run some numbers on this and let us know...

Both myself and several friends of mine have had success getting really good offers from programs in our field (English), all at age 35+. Frankly I was worried about this, because I'd also heard the unsubstantiated rumors (unsubstantiated because, as you rightly point out, no one would ever admit it's the case). And I have no doubt that at some schools, in some disciplines, it might be true. But it is not endemic to the university system. I am, to quote Cat Power, living proof of that.

Now as for getting a job afterwards...

[santana]

Perhaps you are right in humanities, but in sciences I personally think age discrimination is fairly rampant. It is not expressed as such but there will be doubts about your "commitment," about your "goals," and stuff like that. You will have to have very, very good scores, research, or recommendations to overcome that. I have been in application process three times (have two graduate degrees) and never has been harder than the third time around. I could sense the reservations in interviews (I went to three). It could be there is also because of the previous degrees but I have little doubts that older person in sciences will have a problem in admission process.

[miketakena]

Perhaps you are right in humanities, but in sciences I personally think age discrimination is fairly rampant. It is not expressed as such but there will be doubts about your "commitment," about your "goals," and stuff like that.

I do not understand about commitment and goals... pls correct me if I am wrong

1. I thought matured students should have better defined commitments and goals - made up their minds and have a good strategy... The disdadvantage is that once you'd graduated .... it might be harder to get a tenured track faculty position...

2. what age, in your opinion, is discriminatory? Above 35? or above 30?

[santana]

Over 35 and I am talking about math/stats. I do not know about other fields to be honest. You can check ams.org data for statistics of people graduating with PhD after 40 (second annual surveys) and that is a very small number.

I know from personal experience that going to grad school for Math/Stats after the age of 35 is a challenge, and not in terms of brain/IQ. That stays rather flat throughout life. The challenge is the age discrimination and again it will not show as a straightforward one but rather in questioning of one's goals, intentions, commitment etc. They might well have experiences but it is a typical situation. The more elite school it is the more discrimination, in my view. Elite schools are simply not willing to take any risks, if they see anything questionable with your application you will be denied admission. They always have a plenty of others.

[teyocoyani]

Dear Friends...I heard from school...I got in with funding.

I'm in shock.

Best wishes to all...

[iamuberpro]

congratulations

[commoner]

Rock on!

[underdog]

This is wonderful news. Congrats!