If I knew then what I know now...

[creacher]

I like this tread but do you have any major advise for a freshman? specifically?

[Sigaba]

I like this tread but do you have any major advise for a freshman? specifically?

creacher--

Establish relationships with professors and graduate students as soon as possible (that is, while you are an underclassperson) and develop those relationships throughout your time as an undergraduate. That is, go to office hours regularly, take to heart the guidance professors and graduate students offer, and consider the advantages of taking multiple courses from the same person.

Here's why. A number of threads on this BB testify to the difficulties aspiring graduate students face when they get ready to apply and realize they are going to have difficulties getting enough strong LoRs.

Also, as an undergraduate, you have a lot of opportunities to have fun. I recommend that you seize these moments in your life and enjoy yourself. At the same time, keep in mind that somewhere 'out there," someone is studying/working her tail off so she can get into the same programs you would like to attend. So, every now and then, before deciding to go to a social event rather than study, ask yourself "Is this party really necessary?"

[eco_env]

I realize now that I was completely unprepared to apply when I did- my research interests were very unfocused. I've been reading papers in ecology for ages to try to develop a specific interest, but it wasn't until the summer before I started grad school, with the pressure of having to write an NSF fellowship application, that I started narrowing down my broad interests into a specific set of experiment ideas and reading about the overarching theory related to those experiments. At this point, it's about 3-4 months since I settled on a theme and context for my research and I'm still finding new papers (new to me, but at least several years old) I need to read. I think with the library I've developed over the past few months I would have been able to make much more informed decisions about where to apply and would have done a better job of convincing POI's that I'm a good fit. If you can write a good NSF research proposal, your interests are probably focused enough. But it's too late for me to test that hypothesis, so I don't know if I'm right. (This is why I fantasize about applying to grad school again- because I think I could do a much better job now)

[kar9291]

@Starmaker.... idk if I completely agree with the leadership comment, because if you learned something out of it that proves relevant to a research situation, then it could prove worthy on an application. A personal example, I was a RA in my dorm for 3 years and it taught me immensely about communication, working on a team, and conflict management: all extremely valuable qualities in an applicant for a job or grad school. I've worked on a staff of 13 people for the past three years, so I would have to say I would know a little more about working toward a common goal/delegation/communication than an applicant who answers "Well I worked on this group project once..." to their experience about working on a team. Just saying, if you could use that leadership experience and show what you learned from it to prove to be relevant to the situation, it could prove beneficial.

[antikantian]

I'm not sure if I have a lot of advice, but I'm currently in my 5th year, taking a break from dissertating on a Saturday afternoon by trying to put together some words of encouragement.

First, don't take the GRE when you have the flu. I did this and my GRE verbal was 500, math only slightly better. My next attempt was in the 99th percentile. This just means, DON'T PUSH THE GRE TO THE LAST MINUTE. You'll never know when that super-virus will hit you.

Make sure you love whatever field you're going into, and don't expect graduate school to be some intellectual paradise - it's not. I went through a year or so where I absolutely hated what I was doing and questioned my choices. If this happens, just stick with it. I've since rediscovered my passion for scholarship, and I feel like my work has improved as a result of this brief hatred of my profession.

Talk to professors about grad school. Don't go into applications completely through your own research without talking to people in the profession. I was completely underprepared during the application process. This is especially true of the humanities. There is a lot of interdisciplinary work going on, so maybe check to see if other departments have interests in your potential research areas. I'm in an analytic philosophy department, but I know literature, political theory, and english all have professors who are interested in topics that are broadly (or narrowly), philosophical.

[molec]

Great thread.

1. Adding to the advice to talk to professors about programs and process - seek advice from junior faculty that you respect and whose work aligns with your interests, in addition to any senior/famous faculty. They'll have a better idea of what the application/job/disciplinary landscape looks like now. Not to suggest that senior faculty are out of touch, but the junior faculty will have had more recent experience with the nuts-and-bolts and the admissions and job market side of things are pretty different now than when your 60-year-old super famous advisor was in your shoes. I recall having the department chair suggest one program as a safe school because they had a larger cohort-size than a lot of others. Turns out, a lot had changed and when I got accepted there I found out that they had a cohort of 4-6 and making it, numbers-wise, one of the most competitive programs in my field at the time. I mean, it worked out, but yowza.

2. Related to that, I agree with all the comments of there-are-no-safe-schools, but not only because of fit-above-all. That's true, and there's all manner of things that can go awry in this sometimes absurd process that makes a safe school a poor bet, but the more important thing is - why do you want a safe school? Is it just a program that you think will take you? Would you want to go there? Do you think you can do strong work there? Because if the answer to those questions is "no" or even "not sure," it's not a safe school, it's an emotional death-trap. This is probably not true for all fields and certainly if the degree is geared to land a higher pay-grade job outside of academia and you just need the paper, by all means. But otherwise, especially for a PhD, it's an enormous commitment and the thing you will have to show for it is the work you're able to do. So if the safe school is somewhere you'd like to go anyway but maybe accepts more people than other programs, okay. But if it's just a school that you think you can get into because you just really think you need to start a degree? No one really needs to start a PhD. Apply to where you want to go, where you think you can do good work, and if you don't get into those places, think about it seriously and maybe apply again. But don't apply somewhere just because you think you can get in and you want a degree. That's like trading in your career for a little security the application process. While it might not feel like it, the hard part comes AFTER that.

3. I'm a big proponent of "real world experience" before grad school (PhD). Even if you think you KNOW that the academy is what you're built for. It doesn't hurt to check. Take a breather, think it through, think about whether you want a PhD because this work is the work you want to do more than any other, or because you just don't like other work. Both are valid, but it's a good thing to know going in and might save you a few really inopportune moments of crisis and self-doubt when things get tough. It'll also give you some skills that might be handy - time management skills, PEOPLE management skills. Because being a grad student can feel a lot like regression or some serious stunting in terms of people/professional skills. And a lot of academics can behave like children and a lot of programs can be very political. It can be a pretty independent sort of enterprise, which often encourages a lot of strong personalities. I won't hurt to have some good people skills going in, especially in a client-services type field where you have to make sure various levels of egos are pleased while not compromising the integrity of the work you produce.

[BDav]

[isobel_a]

I would just add the following: Be yourself in your SOP. Sure, you can read advice about what to do and follow it. But, you can also be yourself. When I applied to MA programs, I actually told the school that they were my top choice in my SOP. I also added some other things (like how else I would be involved as a student beyond the department) to my SOP. Guess what? They admitted with a fellowship. So, it's not always about doing what everyone on the internet says.

This is excellent advice. If I had known before applying which school was my first choice, I would've done this. I'm leaning one way, but I'm still not 100% sure yet.

Reading through the threads here, my advice would be, in order of importance;

1) Get real-world experience before applying. Preferably more than two years, preferably in client-facing or management positions. You will be head and shoulders above a lot of other applicants in the eyes of many potential PIs if you do, because you will already know how to speak to a group, how to communicate professionally, how to think on your feet. This will make the transition into a grad program about 50% easier, since professionalism is half the battle in grad school.

2) Consider fit!!! I'm seeing a surprising number of posters on gradcafe and other fora who are applying to 8, 10, and even 15 programs. I worked at a major research university, and I can tell you: if you are applying to more than 10 grad programs, you are going to be seen as someone who has no real clue what a grad program is, or why you want to go through with such a life-altering undertaking. In any given subfield, there are going to be at most 10 or 12 people doing the sort of research you want to do. Assuming, of course, that you know what sort of research you want to do. If you can't narrow down your interests from something as broad as "Cell and Molecular Bio" to something less broad like "X Cell Signaling Pathway in Y Model Organism, and its Relevance to Z Medical Problem", you're going to be viewed as unfocused, immature, and unprepared for the rigors of grad school. There shouldn't be many more that 10 people working on your chosen pathway in your organism for Z reason. If there are, you may want to consider another research interest.

[bellefast]

2) Consider fit!!! I'm seeing a surprising number of posters on gradcafe and other fora who are applying to 8, 10, and even 15 programs. I worked at a major research university, and I can tell you: if you are applying to more than 10 grad programs, you are going to be seen as someone who has no real clue what a grad program is

That is not necessarily true for all fields. Many people do that to maximize there chances. It is no different then someone only applying to a few. And reasons why some people apply to several are because many people are good in certain fields, there is not only 'one' distinguished person in that field, people would be honored to work with those people, and many schools can have a strong fit for a person depending on the field, most likely, the humanities.

Edited January 4, 2012 by bellefast

[gellert]

^ This. In clinical psychology, for example, you'll be called out for applying to 10 programs because, with the lowest acceptance rates of any grad discipline, 10 clinical programs is far too few. Best not to make sweeping generalizations when giving advice.

Edited January 4, 2012 by gellert

[isobel_a]

Yes, I'm talking specifically about biomedical fields, since that's what I'm familiar with.

Clinical psychology is an unusually competitive field. But the point still stands. I'd always err on the side of applying to fewer programs rather than more. Of course, it's a balancing act, no matter how focused you are; how far can I spread the risk before I look like someone who hasn't even researched the programs? It's another one of those judgment calls we're all called upon to make, but it's something I'd be very careful about. The more prestigious the program, the more they are going to view people who cast an extremely wide net with suspicion. International students often make this mistake, thinking it will help them, when it actually does considerable damage to their application.

[isobel_a]

Addendum:

Believe it or not, schools can tell when you're a "prestige hound", and they'll consider weeding you out. For example [hypothetically, of course- I have no familiarity with the following field]: if you want to study marine biology, it's going to raise a few eyebrows if you apply to a dozen (mostly landlocked) Ivy League universities and honorary Ivies. Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Emory, MIT, WashU, Brown, and Cornell are all excellent schools, and some may even have top-notch marine biology research going on, but most marine biologists are going to wonder *why* you're applying to grad school in the first place, if all you care about is the name brand of the school with little regard to research fit. You're in for a world of disappointment if you're getting a PhD mostly for the prestige of it. If you're primarily motivated by a desire to impress people, you're better off going to professional school. And you probably won't make it to quals.

[BDav]

Do people realize that when they ask you what other schools you are applying to, it is optional? You don't have to say. They have no way of knowing where or how many applications you are sending out unless you tell them.

[gellert]

On 1/4/2012 at 3:26 AM, isobel_a said:

Addendum:

Believe it or not, schools can tell when you're a "prestige hound", and they'll consider weeding you out. For example [hypothetically, of course- I have no familiarity with the following field]: if you want to study marine biology, it's going to raise a few eyebrows if you apply to a dozen (mostly landlocked) Ivy League universities and honorary Ivies. Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Emory, MIT, WashU, Brown, and Cornell are all excellent schools, and some may even have top-notch marine biology research going on, but most marine biologists are going to wonder *why* you're applying to grad school in the first place, if all you care about is the name brand of the school with little regard to research fit. You're in for a world of disappointment if you're getting a PhD mostly for the prestige of it. If you're primarily motivated by a desire to impress people, you're better off going to professional school. And you probably won't make it to quals.

I still respectfully disagree. If someone is applying to those schools for the reasons you enumerated, yes, that would be a very bad idea. But if someone is applying in, say, particle physics and is interested in studying X particle under Y conditions, and it just so happens (I have no idea if it does or not) that the majority of people interested in studying X under Y are located at those schools. (Which does tend to happen frequently, at least in my own field -- there are certain topics that are 'hot' and complex, which are not being studied at the lower-tier universities which prefer to focus their energies on more "manageable" subjects.) Therefore, if our applicant is interested in X under Y and realizes that the prestige of her university will affect her ability to later attain a TT job, she may choose to apply only to the top n schools in her field. Not JUST because of prestige, but because that's where she has the best fit -- that's where people are studying what she's interested in. Prestige is a minor factor that only comes into play in her perception insofar as it affects her ability to get a TT job eventually.

Sure, she might not get in to these n schools, but she can then take time off and improve her application until she can.

tl;dr Fit >>>>> prestige in terms of importance. However, sometimes the two are correlated.

While these questions are optional, I feel you can answer them in such a way that will help your application. When I personally answered mine, I held two ideas in my mind:

1) Answer with schools of a similar tier (because I didn't want schools thinking they were my only reach or my only safety, and

2) Answer with schools that had the most similar research focus and theoretical foundation. For example, if applying to school B, and POI B went to grad school at C and collaborates frequently with D (both schools to which I'm applying), to answer that question I might list C and D for school B's application.

Just my personal approach to it, and the main thing I'm trying to emphasize by this is that there are a lot of different ways answers to that question could be perceived. When answering, it's best to decide how things are viewed in your own field and the sort of message you think it is most appropriate to transmit, and respond accordingly.

[R Deckard]

Addendum:

Believe it or not, schools can tell when you're a "prestige hound", and they'll consider weeding you out.

Ad-com:

"He's a really well-qualified applicant, but he's only applying to prestigious schools. Let's reject him for being too ambitious."

/High Fives!

[rising_star]

Ad-com:

"He's a really well-qualified applicant, but he's only applying to prestigious schools. Let's reject him for being too ambitious."

/High Fives!

Actually, it's probably more like this.

Ad-com: "He's a really well-qualified applicant, but he's only applying to prestigious schools. Let's reject him because we're probably his safety school and he won't enroll even if we do admit him."

[R Deckard]

Actually, it's probably more like this.

Ad-com: "He's a really well-qualified applicant, but he's only applying to prestigious schools. Let's reject him because we're probably his safety school and he won't enroll even if we do admit him."

Who said anything about applying to back-up schools? Why would a "prestige hound" even bother?

[edost]

Someone can apply to a few schools that are a great fit, and a few more that are a looser fit (but still make sense for their research interest) to make sure they're accepted.

[gellert]

^ idk, I'm not interested in applying to schools just to be sure I get in.

The end goal for me is not "go to grad school," it's to study what I love and gain the knowledge, connections, and expertise I need to be successful in my field.

If I don't get in this cycle because I applied only to top schools that are perfect research fits, I'm okay with that. I'll take a year off, regroup and get more research experience/pubs, and try try again. At the end of the day, I'll be at a school I love, working with a POI I love, studying what I love, and I won't care if it took me more than one cycle to get there. Better than going to a "loose fit" and dropping out after a year because I'm miserable.

Edited January 5, 2012 by gellert

[Andsowego]

I think this thread is great! Such insightful, well thought-out advice. As someone who has been a student rep on the admissions committee for their university, I'd add the following common sense (or not so common sense) advice:

1) Learn how to edit! Spelling, grammar, context, everything. I'm shocked at the number of applications I've seen where a doctoral applicant has mixed up "their" and "they're" or used "it's" instead of "its" or used the (non-existent) word "alot." I honestly can't believe that someone would turn in an application without proper editing. It's painful for an admissions committee to read those kinds of errors. If you really aren't great with words, then enlist the help of someone who is!

2) Don't give a university any reason to automatically toss out your application. If they ask for three rec's, then send three not two. If they ask for original transcripts, then send originals not photocopies. If they ask you to contact potential supervisors well in advance, then don't e-mail someone the day before your application is due and think that this will be okay! Grad school entry is already competitive enough without you giving the admissions committee a reason to immediately toss you. They'll think one of two things: 1) that you can't read or follow directions; or 2) that you somehow think you're "above" the requirements.

3) Prioritize supervisory fit and the academic strength of the department over the level of prestige the school's name carries. I know many people will disagree with this, but in the end, if you and your supervisor are a bad match, your life will be hell and no amount of school-name-prestige will help you get published, or hired, or funded, or make you happy.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Andsowego

[pheonixx]

or used the (non-existent) word "alot."

Just in case you forget... http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

[Andsowego]

Just in case you forget... http://hyperboleanda...everything.html

I love that blog. So freakin' hilarious. Every time I see "alot" I think of that blog!

[che psyra psyra]

Just in case you forget... http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

Oh my God, I'm so happy.

[TropicalCharlie]

My two cents...

Maintain your LOR connections long after college. You may enter the work force and be there for a while before deciding that you want to pursue graduate school. Keep your potential LOR writers apprised of what you are up to in a few simple emails each year or a christmas card. Doing so will help you greatly when the time comes where their help is needed in your application process.

Don't base your decision on a school's prestige. Just because a school is well-known and established doesn't mean that it equates 'good fit.' Do your research, talk to professors and current grad students in the program you are interested in, as well as their colleagues at a different school. Most of the time, you can get a fairly good idea of the internal environment and use it in your pro's and con's list for each potential school.

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

If I knew then what I knew now, I would focus on the following:

1. Putting a lot more effort into the dissertation proposal. I discovered that my successful proposal was not only about what I wanted to research, but it was a test of how thoroughly I could do research. Putting a few solid months researching (and footnoting) a dissertation topic certainly pays off.

2. Making a SOP more distinctive of me as a student. I had a lot to offer as a student, and my SOP needed to reflect not only what my goals were but also that I was capable of achieving those goals. A good SOP should make one stand out from all the other candidates. It won't get you into a good school when everything else is lacking, but it can help to seal the deal.

3. Spending more time getting to know other professors in the department as well as the POI. These decisions are after all made by committees.

4. Focusing primarily on schools that are a good fit. Getting into a school where you are not a good fit just makes everyone's life miserable. You'll hate life and so will your profs. Better to go to a school where your contributions will be appreciated and where you will fit in with the academic culture.