Plan B...

[Seanish]

Rejected by two of my better prospects for admission. My hope for the others is waning. Without anything specific to know what my shortcoming(s) is I'm guessing it is language study. I've had four semesters, all of which I went out of the way to get (two out of the country even). You would think that dedication would count more than the total time spent studied but I guess not. I don't know if I have any options for next cycle; the most logical way to boost my language skills would be to study abroad but bills and my girlfriend say otherwise. I'm beginning to the PhD ship has sailed for me.

[Riotbeard]

It's still early for results. As far as languages are concerned, unless you are in a SUPER-international field, they are by no means the be all, end all.

[StrangeLight]

every field that isn't the US requires languages... but that may not be what kept you out. we tend to act on this site like if everyone makes all the right moves (enough languages, a high enough GPA, good enough GRE scores, and "strong" written segments, whatever that means) then we'll all get in somewhere. but there's a lot more at play. how competitive is your field? i know someone who got denied across the board twice for british history, switched to eastern europe and suddenly had his pick of great programs. how small is your field? when schools only take 1 africanist, they all probably court the same 5-10 people, but more than 10 africanists apply in a given year.

looking back on my applications, my SOP and writing sample were atrocious. the schools i got into all had later deadlines, when i'd refined my SOP and writing sample a little more. even then, i'm surprised i got in. i really didn't know how to speak the language of academia, how to write what schools were looking for. there is a way to present an application that will definitely appeal to schools (not all, but some). but it's hard to know how to write that application without already being in grad school and gaining that experience.

i know that's not necessarily helpful, but if you are indeed shut out this year and apply again, really work on the written elements of your application. don't assume that it was languages or numbers that kept you away.

[Sparky]

To add more weight to the previous posters:

When you look at the people here who applied once, got shut out, and revamped their applications for a second or third successful round, the key changes are:

1. Better SOP

2. More careful choice of programs

3. Improved writing sample

4. Luck

This is not to discourage more language work--the more you do now, the easier time you'll have once you're in a program, trust me--but you have a decent foundation already. It's probably not what is garnering the rejections.

[SapperDaddy]

It may not even be that you had something wrong. In way too many cases, factors beyond your control, like departmental politics come into play. Also, each school evaluates students differently. What to one school may be a strong writing sample may be to another school a heaping pile of steaming crap. So much of this process is so subjective.

That said, it's looking like my plan b is going to be my way forward. Guess I can't really complain about a funded MBA.

[TMP]

Okay, I need to chime in being a third time applicant. And I'll take Sparky's points so you can see how they apply to me:

1) Better SOP

I had fairly decent SOP last year. The year before was definitely a walk of shame. I had so many influential experiences- personally and academically that shaped the way I approach history. I just couldn't figure out how to integrate them all. What I think what the SOP lacked was very, very specific departure points in my intellectual journey. One of my POIs who encouraged me to apply again for the third time gave me a very short list of questions that she ran in her head when she's reading SOPs for fellowship nominations and her own subfield. The way she phrased the questions were far better than what websites state what your SOP should cover. Her questions pushed me to think deeply about people who truly influenced me- historians, professors, mentors, etc- and why, and how their work/teaching changed the way I thought about history and explain specifically why. Her questions also sort of encourages a SOP that can zoom in and out, giving the reader a fuller sense of your overall understanding of your potential contributions.

2. More careful choice of program

Probably better to write a reflective essay or SOP before looking up programs. Compare my lists:

2010 (I was trying to focus myself as an Americanist)

Brandeis ®

NYU (WL)

Michigan ®

Emory ®

Indiana (WL)

2011 (When I picked up an European language)

American University (US History) (A w/o $)

Brandeis (History) ®

Brown (European history) ®

Indiana (European history) (WL)

Maryland (European history) (R but POI claimed A w/o $)

NYU (History) ®

Northwestern (European history) ®

Ohio State (History) ®

2012 (After I wrote my SOP, I realized that I really needed to be in programs that truly embrace transnational history)

Indiana (European history) ®

Maryland (Global Exchange/Transnational) (pending)

OSU (History with 2 minors that I could do to create a transnational program of study) (A w/ $)

Stanford (Transnational/Global field) ®

Wisconsin (US but department is changing to transnational with several new hires and 3 searches this year emphasizing transnational/diaspora) (A w/ $)

You have to be true to yourself in your SOP. You'll be a happier student when you find programs that fit YOU and where your research projects that can truly find a home. Hence why I'm having such a hard time deciding between Wisconsin with their restructuring and moving towards transnationalism and OSU which already has a broad, flexible curriculum and more historians for me to work with.

3. Improving Writing Sample

Be critical. Read journal articles and note the form and language. Dive deeper in the primary sources if you can. Give it to anyone who has a PhD, even if they're not in your field. They'll know a good piece of work from bad. I had like 5-6 readers go through my writing sample (which was basically a journal article for revision/resubmission)

4. Luck

Yes. This was definitely the prime year for OSU and Wisconsin to take in someone for my field. Doing the PhD admissions is a lot like playing the Russian roulette. You just have to get the numbers lined up right. In the fall when people are freaking out about applications, I usually remind that nobody knows for sure what the executive admissions committee wants. That committee has the responsibility of building a diverse cohort but to a certain extent. Ideally a cohort should have a balanced mix of fields but that's not the case because the committee has to look at the program overall as well. What does the program need? What kind of perspectives can new students bring in? I had a good friend who was told by Michigan that they loved her application but just didn't need another labor historian because they had taken a bunch the year before. For your field- early American- I think either 2010 or 2011 was a big year. So 2012 wasn't going to be quite favorable.You need to count on the program graduating a bunch of early Americanists that they need to replenish that stock for the next year's cohort. So when you talk to POIs, see if you can tease out recent PhDs- what field were most of them in?

I would not get discouraged. Just keep playing the lottery if the PhD is what you truly want. There is now a backlog of repeated applicants because of all these budget cuts, making admissions so much more competitive. People DO get in eventually.

[StrangeLight]

regarding the more careful choice of program, this is huge.

my DGS is speaking at an event with undergrads who are thinking about applying to grad school. his strongest piece of advice for them is NOT to think about where you want to do your PhD, but WHO you want to do it with. look for the professors whose work you'd like to emulate, who ask the kinds of questions that matter to you, who think about history the way you do. then find out where they work and if they're at a school with a grad program and they train people in your field (which, sadly, isn't always the case), apply there.

the number of times i've seen (over the past 3 years) people explain on this board that they "knew" they'd get rejected from X ivy league "because they don't really have anyone that does what i want to do," i scream at my computer THEN WHY DID YOU APPLY THERE?!?!!?!?!!!?!!??!!?! however fancy the school sounds to the non-academic touchstones in your life, getting a job is about the reputation of your advisor, his past advisees, and your program's strength in your subfield. if it was about the name of the school more than anything, then there wouldn't be so many ivy leaguers at community colleges (not that there's anything bad about working at a community college, but somehow i don't think that's what the harvardprincetonyale grad had in mind when he began his PhD so many years ago). there also wouldn't be a few ivy league programs in particular with 50% placement rates on the tenure-track if it was all about the rep of the institution.

look for the best places to do the work you want to do. look for the professors you want to work with, whose work you know. i mean, shit, i remember applying to one school because they had "the best" latin americanist program, and i didn't know the work of a single person on the faculty. after getting more acquainted with it, i'm glad i didn't end up there, because ultimately they don't do the type of work i want to do (in my region/time period... there are some people i'm totally on board with but there'd be no reason for us to work together, unfortunately). also, be realistic about the culture of the department. you may love one prof's work, but if they're the only person in your subfield, and out of 200 students there are only 4 that work in your entire field, the odds of them taking you in a given year are slim.

let your bookshelf guide you. the books you love will ultimately lead you to the programs you should be in. i really believe that.

[Seanish]

Thanks for the advice and perspective. I still have a few yet to be determined so we'll see. If those don't work out I can start planning for next round.

[CageFree]

Okay, I need to chime in being a third time applicant. And I'll take Sparky's points so you can see how they apply to me:

1. Better SOP

3. Improving Writing Sample

4. Luck

I would not get discouraged. Just keep playing the lottery if the PhD is what you truly want. There is now a backlog of repeated applicants because of all these budget cuts, making admissions so much more competitive. People DO get in eventually.

All of this. I was working on my materials for a month and a half after I turned in the first applications. I was going crazy by Dec. 1st... I'm a teacher, I coach an academic team and we were in the middle of competitions, and I was doing a lot of the planning for my June wedding. By mid-December things calmed down so I had the time to work on my writing sample and SOP. To be honest, I am not surprised Brown and Wisconsin (Dec. 1) rejected me because the work I turned into Pitt and Davis (Jan. 15) was FAR superior. I'm kind of embarrassed now by what Brown and Wisconsin saw. :/

I also think luck plays a part. Absolutely.

Edited February 27, 2012 by teachgrad