Applying to a new Ph.D. program after dismissal

[SinisterMatt]

I was recently dismissed from a Ph.D. program in history shortly after taking comprehensive exams. Long story short: due to a communication problem and a misunderstanding of what was expected from some follow up work I was asked to complete, it was deemed unacceptable by 3 of the 5 members of the committee, and I was booted from the program. On my departure, I received an offer from the Ph.D. adviser for him to write a very positive letter of recommendation on my behalf to any other program that I applied to (he was one of the three who voted for dismissal). I've received a similar offer from one of the other 2 who did not vote for dismissal as well.

So now I'm considering applying to several universities in the state to start over again. I fully admit that I am at least partly to blame for the situation I find myself in. My concern is with getting accepted to these programs, two of which are more highly ranked than the previous university I attended. The dismissal is certainly a big red flag to admission committees, even if I have positive letters from certain committee members. Is it even worth it to apply to other programs? How would that hamper my ability to secure funding?

I'd welcome any advice anyone could give. Thank you in advance!

[TMP]

Is there a way to appeal or get a second shot at the exams?

[SinisterMatt]

I have thought about appealing directly to the Graduate School, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. If the committee's decision is overturned, I would still have to work with some of the committee, including two of the three who voted for dismissal, on my dissertation. It's a small department, and there's only a handful of people that I could use to form a committee for the project that I wanted to do. I don't think it would be a good environment for having to work with these people after essentially accusing them of poor judgment and of violating procedure.

As for retaking the exam again, the department doesn't want to do that because they don't want to set the "precedent" of allowing that kind of thing in the future. I personally think that's a bunch of malarkey, as I can think of one example where the department has granted an exception to another student, hence violating "precedent," but I digress.

[modern]

The worst thing you could do would be not to try.

[StrangeLight]

if the department is telling you they won't let you retake the exam because they don't want to set that precedent, but they have done just that in the past, it's a sign that they're not interested in keeping you on as a student. unfortunately, grad programs are not fair and they play favourites. they bend and break the rules for students they like and enforce the rules for students they don't want to keep in their program. this also suggests that their LORs to other history programs will not be as positive as you'll need them to be. you would probably have better luck in different fields, like public policy or education.

Edited September 25, 2011 by StrangeLight

[runonsentence]

Do you feel comfortable having a candid conversation with your advisor (and later, with other committee members potentially writing your LoRs)? If s/he has already volunteered to write a "positive" letter, it seems as though s/he would be open to a discussion in which you ask these very questions. I think it'd be very reasonable to ask how/why your advisor would be able to positively recommend you for another program, given your history.

As to your chances for funding, I think that the sort of advice often offered here on the boards to first-time applicants is also applicable: it might be worth it to check with the DGS of potential programs.

But I do agree that you'll never really know the answers for sure unless you apply. So I think you should take some time to really think about how badly you want your PhD. For instance, let's say that we on the board (or your advisor) told you that your chances for funding were limited, and you decided not to apply. Would you always regret taking a chance on it? I know that if it was me, I probably would. While $80 isn't insignificant for a grad student, it's also not much in the grand scheme of things when we're talking about your future.

[TMP]

I agree with some of the points. Before you even think about applications, talk to the people. Try to talk to every single committee member to see exactly what was the issue. Try to approach it with "What now" attitude, not "why" because the latter will only put them on defense. Say "I really want to do my PhD, what can I do now to make that happen?"

Perhaps you need to skip out on this cycle to reevaluate things a bit. This just happened and it must be a huge emotional blow. I can't imagine doing my applications under this kind of stress.

Remember that going to another program would mean more coursework. Do you really want to do it?

[Sigaba]

I agree with the previous posts that recommend you have discussions with members of your committee. Before you have any conversations, I recommend that you first sit down and have a very long conversation with yourself.

Ask yourself brutal questions and reply with the utmost candor. As written, your posts suggest some potential questions.

• Why were you not prepared to pass your qualifying exams?
  
  • Are you simply "at least partly to blame" or were there steps you did not take that were the difference between passing and failing?
    

  [*]Why did you accuse anyone of anything?

  [*]Why doesn't your department want to go to bat for you when it has done so for other students?

  [*]Did you exhibit behaviors in this experience that you have in the past? (That is, is this set back indicative of a broader pattern.)

Again, be as hard on yourself when you're answering the questions as you can endure. Look at yourself unflinchingly, without offering any excuses. And then take ownership and responsibility for what you see. From these, and other questions, consider developing a "lessons learned" list that you can refer to down the line. To be clear, this exercise should not be about self flagellation, but about self discovery.

The reason why I'm suggesting a brutal self-appraisal is so that if/when you talk to members of your committee, you'll be prepared to take their comments to heart then and there--without denial or evasion--even if some of their statements may be tough to hear.