All Applications are In

[Emerson]

As of fifteen minutes ago, all my PhD applications are in. Here, in no particular order, are my reflections on this round of graduate applications:

1. I utterly hate the GRE. Still. I took it for a third time this year, and while my verbal finally improved, my writing portion dropped (despite my feeling better about it this time around). I still cannon conceive of why US programs still put so much weight on a stupid test.
2. It is ridiculously hard to get UK schools to send transcripts to US schools. At my undergraduate program in the US, they sent any transcripts out same-day. At the two UK institutions I've done my master's degrees at, they took nearly six weeks. And I fear they missed the deadline for a school. Ugh.
3. I don't understand how schools expect an applicant to trim their writing sample--one of the most important parts of the application--to limits like 10 or 15 pages. I wish they would allow longer writing samples and just pick and choose portions to read. I had to cut a 45 page article down to 10 pages--in the end I just picked my favorite section (which was still over ten pages), trimmed it down, but still felt it felt incomplete without the larger framework and arch of the paper.
4. How the heck does UVirginia expect an applicant to fit a PhD proposal in 300 words? Is that even possible? (If you can't tell yet, I have a penchant for being verbose.)
5. I've learned that potential advisors are amazingly more helpful once you've met them in person. I met a few potential advisors while touring schools in June, and I've had very fruitful correspondences with them since then, including detailed helps and critiques on my application.

Is everyone else wrapping up their applications? What are your impressions going into the anxiety-riddled next two months?

[qbtacoma]

This was my first (and hopefully only) time I have applied to graduate school. My thoughts:

- The GRE is a racket, an expensive hoop that no professor I've spoken to thinks is valuable but which is still inexplicably required. I was recently at a conference where one of the keynote speakers, a law professor, said that the LSAT predicts nothing at all about a given student's performance in law school but correlates very highly with said student's grandparents' income. I suspect the GRE is exactly the same.

- Why the difference in fees? Why is it that Brown can process applications for $75 a pop but Columbia can't do it for less than $100? I suspect some places are using their prestige to take in more money, which sucks especially when programs that are just as prestigious and competitive (like Michigan or Wisconsin) can do it for less and with serious budget crises to boot.

- I wish I had not been so blundering when I first started contacting professors. Thank goodness for Grad Cafe! I've gotten such a good use out of it, and I really value how respectful and positive the users are here.

- On the other hand, I was surprised at some of the childishness and trolling I've seen on the Chronicle fora. I thought a site like that would be full of well-thought-out zingers and delightfully constructive criticism if any. Ha.

[BadgerHopeful]

This was my first (and hopefully only) time I have applied to graduate school. My thoughts:

- The GRE is a racket, an expensive hoop that no professor I've spoken to thinks is valuable but which is still inexplicably required. I was recently at a conference where one of the keynote speakers, a law professor, said that the LSAT predicts nothing at all about a given student's performance in law school but correlates very highly with said student's grandparents' income. I suspect the GRE is exactly the same.

- Why the difference in fees? Why is it that Brown can process applications for $75 a pop but Columbia can't do it for less than $100? I suspect some places are using their prestige to take in more money, which sucks especially when programs that are just as prestigious and competitive (like Michigan or Wisconsin) can do it for less and with serious budget crises to boot.

- I wish I had not been so blundering when I first started contacting professors. Thank goodness for Grad Cafe! I've gotten such a good use out of it, and I really value how respectful and positive the users are here.

- On the other hand, I was surprised at some of the childishness and trolling I've seen on the Chronicle fora. I thought a site like that would be full of well-thought-out zingers and delightfully constructive criticism if any. Ha.

Only someone pursuing a PhD in History (or English I suppose) would use the word "fora." Love it! Consider me a fan, qbtacoma.

[history_PhD]

I have to send in materials for one school tomorrow; then I have 1 application left!

[qbtacoma]

Consider me a fan, qbtacoma.

Why thank you!

[StrangeLight]

I still cannon conceive of why US programs still put so much weight on a stupid test.

really?

[natsteel]

I don't want to threadcrap but I agree with Emerson... it seems utterly ridiculous that 4 years of hard work can be offset, especially regarding funding, by a random 4-hour test. The thing that really bugs me about the GRE is the monopoly that ETS holds. In an ideal world, there would be 3 or 4 different companies offering graduate school entrance tests all accorded the same weight by the schools. But that, sadly, is merely a pipe dream.

The thing I found strange about the entire application process is the utter mysteriousness of so many its aspects from vague application instructions to the seemingly dozens of unwritten rules (regarding contacting professors and the like) that applicants are expected to uncover themselves. That, I suspect, is why The Grad Cafe has proven so useful to so many of us. And that is especially down to those who have already gone through the process successfully but return to the forum to help the inevitably clueless newbies.

Best of luck to all those applying!!!

[StrangeLight]

the GRE, as much as i absolutely hated it, has a few genuinely useful functions.

but first, no one looks at or cares about the AW score. so don't sweat it. adcoms get to know your writing firsthand by reading your SOP and your writing sample. they don't care one little bit about the GRE writing section, i promise.

the GRE provides the only way to compare students across disciplines. GPAs vary with fields and everyone has "strong" LORs. when schools are trying to hand out university-wide fellowships, they lean heavily on the GRE. and guess what? when you apply for the mellon dissertation writing fellowships that so many universities offer, you'll have to submit your GRE scores again. until they find a better way to quantitatively compare an english PhD with a sociology PhD, some sort of horrible, evil standardized testing will have to be used.

also, the GRE represents a hoop through which prospective applicants must jump. it is the first of many hoops you will encounter in your academic career. dare i say a four-hour test may be one of the least painful stupid, pointless things you will be asked to do as a student, a TA, an adjunct, or a professor. the GRE is really a test of how willing you are to jump and how good you are at jumping. most schools realize this. just because they realize that the GRE doesn't really test your writing ability, that doesn't mean the GRE doesn't tell them anything about you. there actually is a high correlation between GRE scores and success in graduate school. here's something that has nothing to do with your research, but you have to do it anyway, and you have to do it well. sounds like comps.

the GRE verbal section does test, to some degree, your language ability. you'll note that the people who really struggle to break 500V also really struggle with grammar and comprehension. the sesquipedalian people who break 700V sometimes use those big words correctly. i think there are huge problems with standardized testing in general, so i am not singing the praises of the GRE here, but when adcoms see that a student took the test three or four times just to break 600 on the verbal, it tells them something. what that something is, i don't actually know.

look. it seems like everyone goes to a "top LAC" or a "public ivy" and they've all got 3.8 GPAs. adcoms need to weed through that somehow. most of the weeding is done based on the SOP, the writing sample, your LORs (especially if they've actually heard of your LOR writers), your fit with the program, and whether your potential advisor is interested in you or not. maybe, with all those other factors, they throw your GRE score in there too, but i'd be shocked if it is ever a deciding factor between two candidates when there is less than a 100-point spread between them. sure, all other things being equal, the kid with 720V will probably get in over 520V, and why not? he jumped higher.

[natsteel]

most of the weeding is done based on the SOP, the writing sample, your LORs (especially if they've actually heard of your LOR writers), your fit with the program, and whether your potential advisor is interested in you or not. maybe, with all those other factors, they throw your GRE score in there too, but i'd be shocked if it is ever a deciding factor between two candidates when there is less than a 100-point spread between them. sure, all other things being equal, the kid with 720V will probably get in over 520V, and why not? he jumped higher.

Exactly what my mentor told me the other day...

[Emerson]

Strangelight: You're right, of course. I recognize that there has to be some form of entry-level hoop to weed out certain applicants, especially with today's world where there are ridiculous amounts of applications. And I do recognize that adcomms don't place too much emphasis on the scores. I liked the explanation that several department chairs told me this last year: if you get over 600V, then you are in the discussion.

I'm just personally bitter against the test because I underachieved on my first two attempts (gulp--a 570V). Applying to grad schools last year, I was accepted to every program that didn't ask for GRE scores (3 in total, including Cambridge), and rejected by every program that did. I know it's simplistic to assume that my GRE scores were the only thing that kept me out of certain schools--there could have been a problem to fit, a stronger competition at other schools, or a myriad of other factors--but, for ego reasons, I like to say the GRE was the thorn in my side. It helps my self-esteem.

Fortunately, I have much better GRE scores this year, so hopefully I'll have better results. But, on the other hand, I won't have that crutch anymore if I strike out...