Grad Cafe = real world microcosm? Maybe not...

[bdon19]

For some reason I guess I usually assume that the Internet is a good place to gauge proportions. What I mean by this is that I'd kinda been thinking of Grad Cafe as a microcosm for the grad school applicant pool, but now I'm not so sure.

I was thinking about the relative popularity of subfields, and I don't think proportions here necessarily align to what we'll be seeing come application time. Medievalists seem to have a HUGE presence here, when I typically hear that they're one of the smallest in the applicant pool. Obviously I see a lot of c.20 specialists here, but the majority of those have very specialized interests in either specialized theory (post-colonial, gender, etc.) or interdisciplinary areas. Rhet/comp also seems to be really big on here. I know such areas are in vogue right now, but it feels as if, with the exception of Medieval lit, traditional literary studies are frequently absent on GradCafe. I don't know to what extent the same is true in the applicant pool, nor do I know whether my lack of interdisciplinary focus (except gender studies) will figure negatively into my application.

What do people active on GradCafe think? Is what we're seeing here an accurate representation of the pool that we'll be thrown into come December? Or am I going to have much more competition than GradCafe might make me believe?

(Ignore that last question. I'm not really serious.)

[bfat]

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the population on Grad Cafe is sort of the upper echelon of applicants. I mean, if you're here regularly, you must be pretty serious about your application. So that could potentially skew the proportions if, say, a majority of the people who are kind of "meh" about their applications are people who "really like Shakespeare" or something.

I've been talking to professors and PhD grad students about the whole "sub-field" thing, because I find it kind of frustrating. Most people have told me that it's really about marketability for jobs, and not so much necessarily what your actual work will look like as a grad student. I tend to take more of a thematic approach to literature and culture, rather than a historical period approach. Yet when my application season comes around (next year), I will nevertheless have to declare a time period. So there may also be people who are trying to squeeze themselves into a certain box for their applications, who may have a broader (and yet in some ways more specific) area of study in mind.

So yeah. I don't know if that answers your question, but that's my input.

[Two Espressos]

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the population on Grad Cafe is sort of the upper echelon of applicants. I mean, if you're here regularly, you must be pretty serious about your application. So that could potentially skew the proportions if, say, a majority of the people who are kind of "meh" about their applications are people who "really like Shakespeare" or something.

Hehe, I'd never thought about The Grad Cafe that way before! It does make sense though to note that the "population...is sort of the upper echelon of applicants."

At least, that's what I'd like to believe (I visit The Grad Cafe obsessively, lol).

[runonsentence]

I've been talking to professors and PhD grad students about the whole "sub-field" thing, because I find it kind of frustrating. Most people have told me that it's really about marketability for jobs, and not so much necessarily what your actual work will look like as a grad student. I tend to take more of a thematic approach to literature and culture, rather than a historical period approach. Yet when my application season comes around (next year), I will nevertheless have to declare a time period. So there may also be people who are trying to squeeze themselves into a certain box for their applications, who may have a broader (and yet in some ways more specific) area of study in mind.

I can definitely understand the frustration with subfields within literature--it's rather an outdated model to ask PhDs to land neatly within a square marked "contemporary American literature," for instance. If idle chatter is to be believed, I've heard that the trend is for more programs to move away from this model (we're working to do that in our program, I know).

[bdon19]

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the population on Grad Cafe is sort of the upper echelon of applicants. I mean, if you're here regularly, you must be pretty serious about your application. So that could potentially skew the proportions if, say, a majority of the people who are kind of "meh" about their applications are people who "really like Shakespeare" or something.

I've been talking to professors and PhD grad students about the whole "sub-field" thing, because I find it kind of frustrating. Most people have told me that it's really about marketability for jobs, and not so much necessarily what your actual work will look like as a grad student. I tend to take more of a thematic approach to literature and culture, rather than a historical period approach. Yet when my application season comes around (next year), I will nevertheless have to declare a time period. So there may also be people who are trying to squeeze themselves into a certain box for their applications, who may have a broader (and yet in some ways more specific) area of study in mind.

Hmmm, I never really thought about this either, that Grad Cafe might consist mainly of the "upper eschelon" of applicants? Do you really think that's true? I'm really having such a difficult time figuring where I might stand in terms of other applicants. I mean, I feel fairly prepared at this point and feel confident that by December I'll be as prepared as I possibly can be, but it's so hard to tell! I almost (and you will never ever hear me say this except in my moments of panic, such as what I'm undergoing currently) wish there WAS a way to quantify ourselves. But maybe I don't.

Does anyone have any idea if there's anywhere on the web that has examples of successful writing samples? Same thing with SoPs? I know I've seen a couple of SoPs, but I don't even really know how to search for these things. Sample writing sample = fail. (And yes, I did nearly attempt to google this.) Or is there anyone on here who was successful in the admissions game who might be willing to share, via pm of course, a writing sample/SoP. I totally understand if nobody does, but I'm having one of those caffeine-induced, everyone-in-my-house-is-asleep-except-for-me-so-I'm-on-grad-cafe freakouts.

[runonsentence]

I'm happy to share my SoP and writing sample via PM. Though I'm not sure if it will be helpful since I was finishing my MA when I wrote them and I'm in a different subfield. But let me know if you'd like to see them.

[rainy_day]

I know a lot of people who are serious about their applications, but less interested in social networking, so they don't come to grad cafe. There are also a lot more people reading these forums than commenting on them, so I think it's hard to gauge. Either way, I think we're a self selected group here, and therefor can't be considered a microcosm of applicants as a whole.

[ivyhopeful]

I think the grad cafe probably represents two extremes more than it represents the actual pool of applicants in the real world. two types of people probably come here: the top students who obsess over minor things like "poor me I didn't get a perfect 1600 hundred on the gre" and low performing students who are terrified they won't get in anywhere.

[bfat]

It seems to me that the students in the Humanities forum (esp. English/Lit/Rhet) are very type-A and hard-working, but English majors are also generally (duh) more prolific in writing and responding. There are definitely some "oh sh*t, I'll never get in anywhere, please validate my existence!" posts in some of the general forum pages, but I don't really see those as much in here.

People are applying to grad school all willy-nilly these days, though. I think that of the whole applicant pool, the maybe 500 students that apply to a top program, probably 75% are just glance-and-toss applications. But I'd say, based on the stats and communicative abilities of the people on these boards, most of them probably fall within that "I'll give it a closer look" 25%, even if they get rejections.

... but I could be wrong. That's just my impression, having worked in a grad admissions office and seen some of the truly awful applications that come in.

[rising_star]

I know a lot of people who are serious about their applications, but less interested in social networking, so they don't come to grad cafe. There are also a lot more people reading these forums than commenting on them, so I think it's hard to gauge. Either way, I think we're a self selected group here, and therefor can't be considered a microcosm of applicants as a whole.

It's also worth noting that many more people view and/or post to the Results Survey than use the forums. The forums definitely do *not* represent all of the applicants applying, but I doubt any online community does.

[lyonessrampant]

I would be willing to share my SOP and part of my writing sample via PM if the person contacting me promised to protect my intellectual property rights and such. . .(I have related publishing concerns here). Anyway, I trust you all and think that a lot of grad cafe folks are a bit more motivated than the average Joe/Jane Schmo. For reference (this is kind of lame, I know, but rankings and such do matter a bit): I was accepted to, in no particular order, UMN, Notre Dame, UTA, U of O, U of Kansas, U of Utah, U of W (oddly since not an acceptance the year I applied but the next. . if you're interested PM me) and MA at U of Chicago. Anyway, I mention these schools ONLY because if you're applying the same places I might be able to give you insight to the people there (if you're early modern/medieval). Best of luck to all applicants!!!