Nightmares: Georgetown Arab studies

[wannabee]

Almost all of the "near perfect record" students that we took ended up being mindless robots

Ack! That certainly sounds grim.

But I think we are overlooking something in trying to determine why one person is admitted and another not, and that is the program's acceptance rate. Most of the doctoral programs to which I have applied only accept five to ten percent of applicants. At least that has been the case in the last two years. This is true of many funded PhD programs, especially in a field like political science. The state of the economy isn't helping in terms of the exploding number of applicants to many programs nor are cutbacks in public universities in many states. When you face statistics like these, it is easy to understand how someone can have perfect paper credentials and still not gain admission, even if they have written a decent SOP and presented a thoughful argument for a research match. Many faculty have noted that after they weed out obvious misfits from the hundreds of applicants they receive, they are still left with 60-75 strong applications. After that, other factors play a part--departmental priorities and politics, balancing an admission pool, whether one department emphasizes X in terms of qualifying credentials and another wants to see more Y, plus just plain luck. In some fields, interviews also factor in, but that is not true for the areas in which I am applying (with one exception).

My personal experience has been that things aren't quite as capricious when you apply to MA programs, which often have a slightly better acceptance rate....the 25% at Georgetown, for example. My credentials are far from perfect but they are strong. Last year, I applied for three masters and a one-year intensive language program overseas and had excellent choices. This year, I am quaking in my boots and hoping to be accepted somewhere (anywhere) with a funded PhD program that has a specialist in the Middle East! My credentials haven't changed--in fact they are slightly improved. The time and effort I put into my applications definitely hasn't changed. What has changed is that the programs I am applying to accept less than 10% of applicants. If I am rejected everywhere, which is definitely possible, I honestly don't think it will be because my paper credentials are "too good" (in any case, they aren't! ) or that I did sloppy essays, but because of a number of imponderables over which I have very limited control.

Edited January 26, 2011 by cami215

[cherubie]

Yeap, I definitely agree with cami. Of course, when you have (hypothetically) 5 spots, and 100 applicants pretty much identical, it's a crapshot. My fiance's brother was part of a hiring committee for a very prestigious finance firm (sorry, I didn't study business so I don't even know what the department is called), and he literally threw papers up in the air and the one that landed next to him was the one who got a second look. I don't think grad schools are the same, of course (or at least I hope not!).

I honestly didn't mean to say that perfect record means you're bad. Of course not. I meant that a perfect record often makes me take a second look at the student's OTHER aspects. Obviously, I'm not going to reject an applicant simply because he/she has a 4.0, but it doesn't guarantee a shoe-in either. Additionally, I meant MOST perfect students (not all) can't seem to function without instructions (literally, they sit there and wait for someone to come over even for the slightest issue). This does not mean that if you're straight-A that it automatically makes you so. Of course, someone who is able to make A's AND have internships AND volunteer AND isn't some kind of anti-social psycho is a very very strong applicant.

Lastly, the whole politics thing definitely makes sense. I've seen it even in my lab. It's unfair, but meeh what can you do. When we're professors, we'd have to go through the same thing lol.

Edited January 26, 2011 by cherubie

[katemiddleton]

I wonder what kind of politics could possibly be at play when assessing MA candidates? I understand the politics is complex for the PhD admits, but does anybody know what they look like when applying for a terminal MA?

Alex

[wannabee]

I wonder what kind of politics could possibly be at play when assessing MA candidates? I understand the politics is complex for the PhD admits, but does anybody know what they look like when applying for a terminal MA?

Alex

I would guess that admission for the MA involves relatively little "departmental politics". I'm not even saying that it affects each and every PhD admission but it is more likely to factor in to those situations, since a greater commitment is being made. There is more hanging in the balance.

[doobiebrothers]

In terms of MA vs. PhD, what do you guys think is better (specifically for near or middle eastern studies): accepting admissions into a PhD program from a school that is not very highly ranked, but is very highly ranked in the sub-field of Middle Eastern History, or accepting an MA from an Ivy, completing it and then trying to get into an Ivy for a PhD?

[katemiddleton]

hey guys! Just wanted to thank all of you for your help and advice, and let you know that I've been fully funded into the Georgetown Arab Studies program. Congratulations to everyone on their success, and once again, thank you for your reassurances during what was a difficult time!