Less than Stellar UGPA?

[Schillel]

Has anyone successfully gotten into a History PhD program with anything other than a 3.8-4.0? I started undergrad as a business major and then had a pretty serious illness for a year, and ended up with a 3.4. My last semesters I had a 4.0 in history, and I also have an MA in history with a 3.8. I realize that no one can say "yes, you'll be admitted" and that there are other factors, but is their anyone else on this forum who has been successful after a similar experience? Anyone who offers their stats has very impressive ones, and it's a little intimidating.

[Cornell07]

Well, I had a 3.6 overall and a 3.9 for my last 4 semesters, but I didn't get in anywhere this year. So, read into that what you will. The MA with a 3.8 should be a good bump, though.

[gracieh]

I had a 3.2 undergrad gpa and I wasn't a History major from a small liberal arts college. I do have a 3.8 in a Master's program that tangentially related to History, Africana Studies. I'm starting a History PhD this Fall. From my experience, and what I've heard from both professors and doctoral candidates, although the GPA is important, the personal statement, recommendations, and "fit" within the department are all very important factors. History departments don't want to waste time with students with stellar GPAs, but have no direction with regards to the type of research that they want to do. Also, if there is no faculty member that can support and guide you for 5-6 years, this will have an effect on your admission.

[Minnesotan]

Well, I had a 3.6 overall and a 3.9 for my last 4 semesters, but I didn't get in anywhere this year. So, read into that what you will. The MA with a 3.8 should be a good bump, though.

The thing is, Cornell, with the exception of Boston, you only applied to prestigious universities that get hundreds of applications each year from people with perfect pedigrees.

My suggestion to the OP is to apply not only to dream/reach schools, but also to some good top 50'ish schools, as well as a backup or two in the top 100. People have this idiotic idea about prestige in graduate school, as if it means anything; this is not undergrad, where a Harvard acceptance is all that meaningful. You're going to get a rigorous education from an American "research 1," no matter which one it is. Apply to programs that work on various levels: prestige (if you must), location, financial support, advising, and especially program fit.

[rising_star]

What Minnesotan said. If you'd like, I'll give some advice on how to pick schools. Make a list of all the things you're looking for: faculty (you want 2-3 in each dept plus some in other depts), funding, atmosphere in the dept, quality of life, location, etc. So you look at department websites (cast your net widely) and if it doesn't have 2-3 faculty whose interests align with yours, scratch it off the list automatically. It doesn't matter if it's Harvard because you probably won't get in if they don't have enough faculty to support your potential dissertation. I'm serious. Scratch it off the list. It doesn't matter if "lesser" schools make the cut, they may very well have the top advisor in your field. (Note: this is where checking recent publications in your area of interest is key. The up and coming guy is probably better than the guy who is about to be emeritus.) Then look at whatever your next priorities are. Again, scratch schools off that don't make the cut.

FWIW, I think you'll be fine with your MA. Make sure you get great letters of recommendation from that, that your writing sample is fantastic, and that you have a focused statement of purpose.

[luvalicious]

My (liberal arts college) undergrad GPA was 3.34, and I left my (public university) MA program with a 3.81. I picked the schools I wanted to apply to for a PhD based off of a rubric of things that were important to me (similar to rising_star's and Minnesotan's) and I paid absolutely no attention to any of the ranking, GPA/GRE scores, or other factors that tend to turn people away from applying to certain programs. I got in everywhere I applied (all very good schools rank-wise, which was only marginally important to me despite how things worked out) even though I was hardly coming from stellar schools, and I believe this is because I was a good scholastic fit with each program, I had professors behind me who believed in me, and I demonstrated both my commitment and my capabilities in every part of the application. I know this is really answering more than you asked so,

short answer: yes

[Cornell07]

The thing is, Cornell, with the exception of Boston, you only applied to prestigious universities that get hundreds of applications each year from people with perfect pedigrees.

My suggestion to the OP is to apply not only to dream/reach schools, but also to some good top 50'ish schools, as well as a backup or two in the top 100. People have this idiotic idea about prestige in graduate school, as if it means anything; this is not undergrad, where a Harvard acceptance is all that meaningful. You're going to get a rigorous education from an American "research 1," no matter which one it is. Apply to programs that work on various levels: prestige (if you must), location, financial support, advising, and especially program fit.

Ugh, I know! I feel somewhat silly now having really eatten up what my advisor told me. We sat down and he came up with a list of schools that he thought were good matches with my credentials and interests. I looked a little dismayed when all of the school were so competitive. He reassuringly said, "Oh, Cornell07, don't look so worried! Schools like Harvard and Yale are dying to get students like you. I'm sure you'll be fighting off programs with a stick." So, I pushed off my worries until early January when I realized that my advisor just may be a bit out of touch or a bit too encouraging and thus I sent off my app to BU.

The moral of the story: don't believe everything your advisor tells you. He have lived 100 years, won gobs of prizes, published a library of books, and served on ad-coms, but that doesn't mean he knows everything. Take his advise with a grain of salt and apply to a wide range of schools, no matter your credentials (within reason). He might not know, for example, as was the case this year, that because UPenn had far more Americanists enrole last year than expected, they took only about 2-3 this year (or so I was told).

[Schillel]

"Thanks!" to everyone who replied.

[Minnesotan]

Ugh, I know! I feel somewhat silly now having really eatten up what my advisor told me. We sat down and he came up with a list of schools that he thought were good matches with my credentials and interests. I looked a little dismayed when all of the school were so competitive. He reassuringly said, "Oh, Cornell07, don't look so worried! Schools like Harvard and Yale are dying to get students like you. I'm sure you'll be fighting off programs with a stick." So, I pushed off my worries until early January when I realized that my advisor just may be a bit out of touch or a bit too encouraging and thus I sent off my app to BU.

The moral of the story: don't believe everything your advisor tells you. He have lived 100 years, won gobs of prizes, published a library of books, and served on ad-coms, but that doesn't mean he knows everything. Take his advise with a grain of salt and apply to a wide range of schools, no matter your credentials (within reason). He might not know, for example, as was the case this year, that because UPenn had far more Americanists enrole last year than expected, they took only about 2-3 this year (or so I was told).

It's funny: the advice I got from my advisors was helpful or not based entirely on what their strengths were. The big name, highly prolific "superman" professor gave me the best advice about SoPs and writing samples. The new professor, a few years out of grad school, gave me the best advice about how to select schools, which schools have good working atmospheres, and what red flags to look out for in their promotional material/websites. The crusty old codger who is on his way out, well, he just wrote me a very enthusiastic LoR (although it took him five tries to figure out how to work the online recommendation forms).

Like my undergraduate history profs. repeated over and over, drilling it into my head, one has to evaluate one's sources, locate their strengths and weaknesses, and treat them accordingly. I think a lot of the older professors either A) did not have to deal with such stiff competition when they were moving up the ranks, or forgot what it was like to be a young upstart.

I've been reading Gregory Colon Semanza's book (which I highly recommend, by the way) about building a career in the Humanities, and it is amazing how much his guide, having been written by a professor only a few years out of graduate school, seems so much more pertinent than the others I have read before, which were mainly written by more established professors. Academia may change slowly, but it certainly does change from one decade to the next.

[anese]

It's funny: the advice I got from my advisors was helpful or not based entirely on what their strengths were. The big name, highly prolific "superman" professor gave me the best advice about SoPs and writing samples. The new professor, a few years out of grad school, gave me the best advice about how to select schools, which schools have good working atmospheres, and what red flags to look out for in their promotional material/websites. The crusty old codger who is on his way out, well, he just wrote me a very enthusiastic LoR (although it took him five tries to figure out how to work the online recommendation forms).

Like my undergraduate history profs. repeated over and over, drilling it into my head, one has to evaluate one's sources, locate their strengths and weaknesses, and treat them accordingly. I think a lot of the older professors either A) did not have to deal with such stiff competition when they were moving up the ranks, or forgot what it was like to be a young upstart.

I've been reading Gregory Colon Semanza's book (which I highly recommend, by the way) about building a career in the Humanities, and it is amazing how much his guide, having been written by a professor only a few years out of graduate school, seems so much more pertinent than the others I have read before, which were mainly written by more established professors. Academia may change slowly, but it certainly does change from one decade to the next.

I'm definitely going to give that a read--I feel very green right now, and I am! Not having yet entered into my program, and I feel like I need a bit more knowledge about the challenges facing me along the way to becoming a professor...

You know, I had similar experiences with my own professors, although it was the youngest one who recommended these stellar and prestigious universities, I think because she mentored me and had been accepted there herself, she didn't think I'd have any problem XD

[luvalicious]

I think alot of it depends on the type of relationship you have with your advisor, as well. In general we have a kind of strange relationship; genial but about 80% hands-off - my preference, as I think she'd prefer I'd let her in more (but it stems from my personality and her being on sabbatical at a critical time in my career and my feeling marrooned in the department. Different story though.). I didn't consult with her much on my choices or have her proof my writing samples/SOP, or get any real advice, but I did ask her what she thought of the schools I wanted to apply to. I got two different responses - first, something along the lines of maybe I'm aiming too high and then later, that I should be aiming a bit differently. After some back and forth I rejected all of her suggested alternatives or add-ons and stuck with my original ones. She wasn't insulted, and the good thing was that justifying my choices to her made me really zero in on what was important and strengthened my resolve that these programs were the right ones for me. Of course, when the acceptances started rolling in, she did jump on the "I knew it!" bandwagon despite her earlier skepticism.

I guess my advice is somewhere in the middle, then - listen to what they say, but don't follow blindly. Had I applied to where my advisor strongly suggested, I would have applied to the programs that she liked and I didn't. If I were not rejected (always a chance), I would have been less than happy to go into - and frankly unless I'm in it 100%, it's not worth it to me.

Then again, the way that I've approached applying for grad school appears profoundly different than most on these boards, so take what I say with a grain of salt too.

[skaforhire]

Even though this is a month out... I wanted to reassure you that you probably can get into a program somewhere... I did. I had a GPA 3.1 for my BA and a 3.8 for my MA, at the same crappy r4 school. (I went for free, and at that time money was more important than prestige). I also had a horrible verbal on my GRE... in fact I never raised it over 600 the three times I took it. The first year I applied places, I only sent out four apps. My adviser talked me up, and told me I will easily get in a couple places (one of which was his alma mata), and I had great LORs. Not to mention I was published, had presented at five conferences and had many extra curricular activities. I didn't get into any of the programs that i applied to that year. I didn't cast my net wide enough. It turns out I applied to one institution that recieved 500 aps for 13 slots, and no one was interested in my topic. Two of the others I probably did not have the reqs to get in on a solid foot, and if I had I was not going to get funding. At my Adviser's alma mata I had been in contact with the prof I wanted to work with, and he was interested. He apparently told my adviser later on that he had accepted me, but his department's politics caused him to be without a new student this year. So I sent to four, got rejected for various reasons and had to try the next year.

Going into this last application season, i prepped 15 different packets (overkill probably) ranging from top 20 to arguably some of the poorest (financially as i wont say any department is necessarily bad) and most neglected departments. I also made various contacts with professors, and found a few that really wanted to work with me. I raised my GRE up a little, but yet again it was under the benchmark of 600 on the verb. (My strengths are not vocab or standardized tests...) I got into four schools and had successfully received funding from one before i even sent out the last four applications, so in all I applied to eleven places got into four. I received full funding at two, wait listed full and partial funding at one, and the forth one was just so horribly managed in the process, I don't know if I got funding or what, I just kind of ignored them after a couple conversations with the graduate department. I ended up committing to a school which was in the middle of the spectrum, with a good albeit mostly regional placement rate, with a very good stipend for a history program, and working with an adviser who is dedicated, pursued me, and is well known in his field.

So I figured my situation was similar, so if the post is long. I think the moral is that there is a fit for everyone. My advice is if you are applying next fall, to try and get some conferences or publications under your belt. It shows that you are motivated to move into the academic world.