Any other fourth-timers out there?

[fredngeorge]

Or anyone who got in after four (or more...) tries?

I'm feeling a little bit like I've played this game before, and, while I'm not ready to quit yet, it would be nice to hear from anyone else who's either still playing or who has a success story to brighten my gloomy-November-weekend-application-marathon.

Also, I'd appreciate any thoughts on the following question that's been nagging me: at which point do I cease to look like a person who has an admirable amount of perseverance and begin looking a bit delusional, like I just don't know when to call it a day? After five tries? Six? (god, I hope it's not three.....)

[emmm]

Well, what are you during differently each time you apply? If you're not making yourself a better applicant each time,that sounds somewhat delusional and perhaps it is time to call it a day. If you're continuing to try to strengthen your application, that's a different story - and shows admirable perserverance.

[lyonessrampant]

Hey OP!

I technically applied three times. I got accepted at Notre Dame my first time applying and then to U of Chicago's MA program and then not again until my third time, when I had quite a few 20-50 USNWR range programs. I took the program I liked the most with the best overall funding, and I'm happy where I'm at. I share this only to say that sometimes things don't work our the first (or second. . or more) time(s). However, if you're improving your application each time, your odds will get better. Make sure to apply broadly and be thinking about your career trajectory. If you're applying to and eventually end up at a school not in top 20, 30, 40, even 50, that isn't the end of the world, BUT you need to be aware of the job stats. . they're dismal, to say the least. This means thinking about whehter you'd be willing to work at a community college or a prep school once you finish your Ph.D. This doesn't mean you won't get a TT job, but the odds aren't good. . .knowing all that and still deciding to apply isn't a sign of delusion, in my opinion. It means you want what you want and you're willing to do what it takes to get it. Check out the Chronicle of Higher Ed for those stats. Also, keep heart, this round may yield a top 10 offer, and then you likely (though not guaranteed) won't have to worry about the post-degree job prospects as much! Best of luck to you!

[Timshel]

Hey Lyoness, How can you check out those stats on the Chronicle?

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

FnG,

Its hard to say whether you are being delusional or not without knowing some of your credentials:

What are your Undergrad/Grad degrees?

From Where?

GPAs?

GREs?

Relevant work/life history?

Academic accomplishments (honors/awards, presentations, publications etc...)?

Strong LORs?

Have you identified faculty at each school you would mesh with in your personal statements?

I'm not suggesting you divulge these- or that they define you as a student or person- but admission is many respects a numbers game, where the first thing adcomms look for is a disqualifier, such as less than awesome verbal GRE score...

So the more you can reveal about what your app looks like and what the relative strengths and weaknesses are, the more we can weigh in on the persistence delusional question.

[lyonessrampant]

Hmm. . . do you have alumni status with your undergrad uni (or current status)? Most schools have Chronicle of Higher Ed subscriptions. I think you should be able to access most links on this page without a subscription: http://chronicle.com/article/Almanac-2011-Profession/128455/?m-nav A rough summary: less than 50% of people entering Ph.D. programs finish with the degree and, if I recall correctly, about 10-20% of those (optimistically) get TT jobs at 4-year universities.

[asleepawake]

Well, I think it may be delusional, as others suggested, if you're doing the same thing when you apply that you have been doing. You need to restructure your materials and adjust your list of schools. Everybody always says there is no such thing as a safety school in grad school, but this simply means that there is no way to guarantee admittance, even for very strong applications. It does not mean that some schools aren't easier to get into than others. Let's not pretend that a school that takes 1% of applicants is at all similar to a school that takes half. Are you willing to go anywhere? Have you tried even these schools and not gotten in? Do you think GPA, test scores, or other numbers are keeping you entirely out of the running? Have you had honest and helpful peers/mentors look over your writing sample and statement of purpose?

Edited November 20, 2011 by asleepawake

[Sigaba]

Given the fact that this BB has a robust search feature and the fact that fredngeorge has but eight posts, some of the questions being asked could be easily answered with a little initiative.

My $0.02.

[asleepawake]

Given the fact that this BB has a robust search feature and the fact that fredngeorge has but eight posts, some of the questions being asked could be easily answered with a little initiative.

My $0.02.

You and your crazy logic.

I did check out the OP's others posts but all that answers for me is that the OP might be willing to relocate.

[fredngeorge]

Hello, all! I'm sorry if my post read as a "Please evaluate my chances post." I certainly didn't intend it that way, and I'm definitely to a point where I truly believe that even the near-perfect application (definitely not suggesting that mine is anywhere close), even when submitted to the "right" schools with the "right" fit, still has an extremely unpredictable chance of acceptance. There are too many uncontrollable factors at play (timing, luck, mood of people reviewing your app on any given day, how many other similar candidates applied to that program that year, etc.). Definitely huge parts of this process are under our control; many other just aren't.

To answer the question posed by several of you, I absolutely have tried to change/better my application between app cycles. For the curious, I've broken it down below:

Attempt #1:

During my first application season, I was applying with my B.A. in English from a medium-sized (not-at-all prestigious) state school. My gpa overall/major was 3.77/3.84 (magna cum laude). I had one (small/undergrad-university-published) academic paper published, had presented at one undergraduate conference, was a member of a national honors society (Alpha Chi), and had been invited to take one graduate class (Critical Theory) during the course of my undergrad study by a professor who encouraged me to apply to grad school. I had two great letters of recommendation and one (I found out later) half-assed letter. My GRE scores were 610/88% (Verbal), 670/64% (Quant), and 5.5/92% (Analytical). My GRE Subject score was 580/62%. My writing sample was an award-winning paper. My Personal Statement could have been better but wasn't awful thanks to some very helpful advice from two advisors. I applied to eight programs (nine if you include my undergrad university, which I don't because, so long as you have a B average from them as an undergrad they required no application materials whatsoever -- simply the go-ahead from the grad advisor and proof that you took the GRE - no minimum score). The eight programs that I applied to were the result of a lengthy research project I embarked upon to find universities that fit my research interests. I did not limit myself by location at all, and I applied to no ivy-leagues (some programs were more competitive than others, but I would say that I was fairly realistic -- I didn't go by rankings at all but rather almost solely by research interests). I applied to half M.A. programs and half Ph.D. programs. I was accepted to one M.A. program but chose to stay at my undergrad university because, there, I could get my M.A. while my husband concurrently got his M.S. This decision may have been the limiting factor in my future attempts, but what's done is done, and I've been encouraged that it hasn't significantly altered my chances for admittance (both by my advisors and by graduate programs to which I've applied). I contacted schools to find info on why I hadn't been accepted (not many replied), and the common thread seemed to be that I had a "distinctly undergraduate" application -- that I had not developed the skills (yet) that they were looking for. The general idea seemed to be, "Get your M.A., and then come see us again."

Attempt #2:

I applied as I was finishing my M.A. at my undergrad institution. I graduated with a 3.97 gpa. I also completed two years of French (something I hadn't had time to do as an undergrad). I retook the GRE: 710/98% (Verbal), 720/75% (Quant), 5.5/92% (Analytical), and 660/87% (Subject). I submitted a different writing sample, one that included more of a theoretical framework (while my undergrad paper was well-researched, I hadn't yet taken a course in theory, so it was largely analytical). I again researched grad programs and this time widened my search to include more schools (about as many as I could justify fit with and was also financially able to swing). This time I applied to twelve Ph.D. programs (again no serious "reach" schools), armed (I hoped) with a significantly stronger application (after all, I'd "fixed" the one flaw that was pointed out the time before, right? ) This time around, I was rejected from every school to which I applied. I contacted schools to find out what hurt my application this time (again, not many replied). Two programs said I easily made it through two rounds of application review but that my writing sample was less-than-stellar (not enough recent scholarship and sometimes clunky syntax -- you may have noticed, and this is especially true in my academic writing, that I have a tendency towards long and winding sentences. ). A third program replied that I had had several strong supporters on the grad committee, and had they been able to admit another student that year, I would likely have been a top consideration -- they just didn't have enough funding for their typical number of acceptances. Okay, then.

Attempt #3:

I had decided to take a year off because my husband had just started a Ph.D. program, we had just relocated, and we weren't sure we could take the financial burden of yet another round of applications. I was working in retail, and at the last minute, decided I couldn't take it anymore. I decided to apply to one school (Mistake? Yes. ). I had applied to this school before, it is in close proximity to where I am now, they had been fairly positive about my application the last time around, and I figured I had time to tweak the parts of my application that needed it. I spoke with two professors (one in my field and the grad student advisor) on campus at length about my previous application and my new, much-improved writing sample (no clunkiness this time as far as I know -- the professor that I spoke to in my field said of one page "I wish I had written that"). I was waitlisted, then rejected. When I inquired about anything I could do to strengthen my application in the meantime, I was told that my application was good and basically just to submit a good application again next time. (so helpful....)

Since then, I'd like to say that I've done TONS to strengthen my application, but that's not the reality. The reality is that the only things I can think of to strengthen my application at this point are to publish and/or attend conferences, both of which are extremely difficult (though certainly not impossible) to do when you're not in school (with library/journal access), you're working full-time (as a secretary's secretary -- not so fun! ), and have very little money. Additionally, the sense I've gotten from programs isn't that I have all that much to improve upon (Don't worry; I fully recognize that there's always something to improve upon -- see above), but rather that I need to time things better, tweak some minor issues, just keep on submitting good applications..... I've certainly made some mistakes along the way (some changeable, some not so much). So here I go again, not really sure if this will work out any better than the times before.

Anyway, that's my story. I didn't necessarily mean to post it, but it seemed that several of you were curious -- and at the very least, I hope that maybe my story will prove valuable to someone who's dealing with a first-time rejection (I know I sure could have used a been-there-made-it-through story after my first time, when I hadn't yet discovered this wonderful forum). I appreciate all the help and feedback, but I'd like to make sure you all don't think I was just posting so I could whine about myself. I remain hopeful, maybe blindly so (oh, well). I genuinely would appreciate a success story at this point -- or some commiseration if you're in the same boat (misery loves company). Also, if, after hearing my story, you're genuinely fed up with me and think grad programs will be too, I can take it -- I've got a pretty thick skin by now. And since telling someone to give up tends to be generally frowned upon among actual friends, I'd like to think I can count on the truth from some faceless/nameless/virtual ones.

[Timshel]

Okay, this is a total logistics question, but if you reapply to the same schools, do you have to resend them materials like transcripts? Just wondering (and preparing for the worst).

[fredngeorge]

Okay, this is a total logistics question, but if you reapply to the same schools, do you have to resend them materials like transcripts? Just wondering (and preparing for the worst).

Yes. It may vary for some programs, but pretty much every one I've applied to says, while they keep some stuff on file, unfortunately you have to resend everything (transcripts, GRE scores, etc.).

[cquin]

Okay, this is a total logistics question, but if you reapply to the same schools, do you have to resend them materials like transcripts? Just wondering (and preparing for the worst).

Depends. I'm reapplying to two schools I didn't get into last year, and one does not require resending any material at all, while the other wants me to resend EVERYTHING--meaning I have to pay for and resend my GRE scores to this particular school. ETS wins again.

[ecritdansleau]

Hello, all! I'm sorry if my post read as a "Please evaluate my chances post." I certainly didn't intend it that way, and I'm definitely to a point where I truly believe that even the near-perfect application (definitely not suggesting that mine is anywhere close), even when submitted to the "right" schools with the "right" fit, still has an extremely unpredictable chance of acceptance. There are too many uncontrollable factors at play (timing, luck, mood of people reviewing your app on any given day, how many other similar candidates applied to that program that year, etc.). Definitely huge parts of this process are under our control; many other just aren't.

To answer the question posed by several of you, I absolutely have tried to change/better my application between app cycles. For the curious, I've broken it down below:

Attempt #1:

During my first application season, I was applying with my B.A. in English from a medium-sized (not-at-all prestigious) state school. My gpa overall/major was 3.77/3.84 (magna cum laude). I had one (small/undergrad-university-published) academic paper published, had presented at one undergraduate conference, was a member of a national honors society (Alpha Chi), and had been invited to take one graduate class (Critical Theory) during the course of my undergrad study by a professor who encouraged me to apply to grad school. I had two great letters of recommendation and one (I found out later) half-assed letter. My GRE scores were 610/88% (Verbal), 670/64% (Quant), and 5.5/92% (Analytical). My GRE Subject score was 580/62%. My writing sample was an award-winning paper. My Personal Statement could have been better but wasn't awful thanks to some very helpful advice from two advisors. I applied to eight programs (nine if you include my undergrad university, which I don't because, so long as you have a B average from them as an undergrad they required no application materials whatsoever -- simply the go-ahead from the grad advisor and proof that you took the GRE - no minimum score). The eight programs that I applied to were the result of a lengthy research project I embarked upon to find universities that fit my research interests. I did not limit myself by location at all, and I applied to no ivy-leagues (some programs were more competitive than others, but I would say that I was fairly realistic -- I didn't go by rankings at all but rather almost solely by research interests). I applied to half M.A. programs and half Ph.D. programs. I was accepted to one M.A. program but chose to stay at my undergrad university because, there, I could get my M.A. while my husband concurrently got his M.S. This decision may have been the limiting factor in my future attempts, but what's done is done, and I've been encouraged that it hasn't significantly altered my chances for admittance (both by my advisors and by graduate programs to which I've applied). I contacted schools to find info on why I hadn't been accepted (not many replied), and the common thread seemed to be that I had a "distinctly undergraduate" application -- that I had not developed the skills (yet) that they were looking for. The general idea seemed to be, "Get your M.A., and then come see us again."

Grain of salt: I really have no credibility on this topic, considering I am now applying for the first time myself!

But upon reading your post, it seems as if you really researched your schools and applied widely the first time, but on the latest attempt (when your application was presumably much more competitive qualitatively), you didn't apply to as many programs...I'm not sure of your situation, but if one is really specific about geographic location, this can make it immensely more difficult to apply. Many applicants apply to the same clusters of locations, so applying to programs spread out across the country can put you in different applicant pools (and increase the likelihood that you might be--forgive my metaphor!--the relatively big fish in the pool rather than a smaller fish in a big pool). Honestly, I wouldn't even count your third try as such because applying to one program could almost be considered statistically irrelevant. You shouldn't sweat that one.

In this way, this round of apps is the first one in which you can really make something of the advice from the second time around--like the bit about syntax/sentences. I could be wrong, but this sounds like the kind of criticism that could really be the kiss of death because "odd" or clunky writing obscures your own research products (and, how can a program expect you to teach writing if you haven't established your own excellence in that skill?)--luckily for you, though, it's definitely something you could actually fix (which you've probably already implemented in your writing sample for this round).

Edited November 21, 2011 by ecritdansleau

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

FnG- Sounds like you (and your app) definitely have the goods- I say keep trying for as long as you have the $$ for another round of apps and still have the dream for a PhD.

Your tale is a bit discouraging though. I see lots of similarities between your credentials and my own- but I remain optimistic. I cant believe that 700+/700+ and Magna Cum Laude wont get you in somewhere...

I liked this thread A LOT more when I could just assume that I had better grades n scores than you and that mass rejection could NEVER happen to me...looks like its gonna be a lot longer of a 3-4 months than I thought it would be...

[Grunty DaGnome]

OP, for what it's worth, I don't think you're a 4th timer --except at the schools where you've actually applied 4 times. I agree with ADMITedly. You've got the goods. Funding has been tight for the past few years. Don't get discouraged! It will be a great story some day when you're world famous

[lolopixie]

How old were the sources that they said were too old?

[fredngeorge]

Thanks to everyone for the encouraging responses!

How old were the sources that they said were too old?

I used five articles in my paper from the following years: 1951, 1960, 1961, 1997, 2002. The reason there are so few is that my paper was more theory-heavy than research-heavy (I included no less than five primary theory texts ). Apparently, the shortage of sources wasn't a problem, but I was discouraged from ever including any source that was older than 20 years old unless it was either absolutely crucial to an understanding of the current scholarship or there hadn't been much written since. I'm absolutely certain, however, that this standard varies (at least to some degree) with each program and with each individual reader. In the case of my paper, I cited the older articles because, while much has been written on this particular author recently, much of it centers around one particular theoretical approach, and I was attempting to resurrect a different approach that I saw as abandoned too soon -- this in itself may have been too much of a gamble for a writing sample ("Why is she bringing this approach back? I thought we got rid of it in the 60s!"). While I was saying something original, the research and the approach that I used dated me a bit too much (at least according to the feedback that I got -- again, only 2 out of 12 schools).

My current writing sample is structured completely differently from this second one, with 10 articles cited (from 1984, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008) and 4 consulted (from 1977, 1985, 1997, and 2005) -- still 3 primary theory texts. On this paper, the only reason that I even have any articles from prior to 1990 is that one my my primary texts has received almost no critical attention in the last 2 decades. After the other paper, I was worried even this might be risky, but after meeting with a few POIs and discussing it, it seems the large amount of recent scholarship on the two other works I discuss makes up for the fact that I'm resurrecting a poem many scholars seem to have lost interest in. (I hope!!)

[TripWillis]

I totally admire your chutzpah. I don't know if I would/will have the stomach to go 4 times. One round of rejections is going to wreck my emotions enough as it is.

[Timshel]

I will apply as many times as it takes. It's the only thing I want to do.

[TripWillis]

I will apply as many times as it takes. It's the only thing I want to do.

It's certainly the only thing that (because of my limited educational background) I'm qualified to do besides... *shudder* hospitality....

And I'm not even that qualified to do it. Ugh okay time to stop thinking about waiting tables. I'm never going back! It's like 'Nam! I'm never goin' back, y'see??

[bdon19]

Apparently, the shortage of sources wasn't a problem, but I was discouraged from ever including any source that was older than 20 years old unless it was either absolutely crucial to an understanding of the current scholarship or there hadn't been much written since.

Blah. This. I've been told this innumerable times, and so I'd been going with the most recent stuff in my paper. Then my letter writers go around telling me to add this and that, all of which are books from the late 80s. These letter writers are killing me. I love them dearly, but they're slowly beating me down, bit by bit. ...Why am I getting this feeling that grad school will do the same?

[Timshel]

Be careful with your letter writers, though. While they mean well, it depends on how long they have been out of graduate school. All of mine have been teaching for 20+ years, and some of their advice was antiquated. In fact, all 3 of them only applied to one school each, and one of them asked me if they provided any stipends because she couldn't remember if they did or not. lol. Also, I think it depends on the school and program when discussing what types of "sources" to use.

[lolopixie]

Be careful with your letter writers, though. While they mean well, it depends on how long they have been out of graduate school. All of mine have been teaching for 20+ years, and some of their advice was antiquated. In fact, all 3 of them only applied to one school each, and one of them asked me if they provided any stipends because she couldn't remember if they did or not. lol. Also, I think it depends on the school and program when discussing what types of "sources" to use.

Applying to one school each? I want to live in this mystical, magical land.

[fredngeorge]

I totally admire your chutzpah. I don't know if I would/will have the stomach to go 4 times. One round of rejections is going to wreck my emotions enough as it is.

Thanks! Rejection sucks, and it's not as though it gets easier each time it happens.... BUT every time I think about what I'd be doing if I wasn't continuing to work towards the Ph.D. (i.e. what I'm doing now ), I get a second wind. It seems like your experience waiting tables could be used as the same kind of motivator With any luck, though, you'll get in this time around.

I will apply as many times as it takes. It's the only thing I want to do.

Most of the time I feel like this. But usually it's a result of assuring myself that this will only take one or two (maybe three) more tries. To be honest, if it took longer than that, I think I'd have to reevaluate how I define what I "want" to do.

Blah. This. I've been told this innumerable times, and so I'd been going with the most recent stuff in my paper. Then my letter writers go around telling me to add this and that, all of which are books from the late 80s. These letter writers are killing me. I love them dearly, but they're slowly beating me down, bit by bit. ...Why am I getting this feeling that grad school will do the same?

I do think it varies a great deal by program (and even specialization). Maybe it would be possible to try and get a sense of what's expected from your individual programs and/or POIs?

On another note, I definitely feel your frustration with letter writers. I've had the same advisor (among several other people) look at my SOP each year, and she continues to dissect the same sentences -- some of which were actually rewritten by her in a previous draft (To clarify, I don't ever actually submit writing with her word-for-word revisions, but when I send it back to her, it's word-for-word what she wrote....and she hates it.....). Not so helpful....

Also, I think it depends on the school and program when discussing what types of "sources" to use.

I wanted to respond to this because one of the schools you're applying to is the school that really emphasized the "no older than 20 years" thing to me. Like I stated above, it really may vary based upon specialization. However, since they don't exactly hand that info out to applicants, I figured it would be worth sharing. I've gotten the sense from several people in that department that they really like everything (theoretical approach, sources, ways of thinking, etc.) very, very new and have a tendency to look much less favorably on writing that appears, in any way, dated. I know, as a general rule, we all do our best to not appear dated and rather be on the cutting edge, but I've found that some programs (like this one) seem less forgiving than others on this point.

Edited November 29, 2011 by fredngeorge