Why do you think you were successful?

[WannaBeEast]

As a non-traditional student, I know that my credentials as a scholar lag behind some of my traditional peers. I went to my undergrad institution because it was close to home, rather than for its academic merits. This isn't to say that my university or the faculty sucked, just that it is by no means a top tier school. Studying abroad on a Fulbright was never an option for me since I have five children and a husband who was away from home on business trips 127 days in 2011 alone. However, I have worked tremendously hard. I had a 4.0 in my undergrad, presented a paper at a Phi Alpha Theta conference, completed a Senior thesis, and graduated from the Honors College. My advisor told my family at my graduation that I was the best student she'd ever had and urged me to apply to graduate school, but moving was not an option at the time (thanks to the economy, selling our home and changing jobs wasn't going to happen). I went ahead and applied to the MA program at my undergrad institution and was accepted with full funding. My thesis work tackled a tremendously difficult area and my graduate GPA was a 3.967. My verbal and writing scores for my GRE were in the 95th percentile. I was fortunate to get funding to do research at the Connecticut State Archives and NARA outside of D.C. Going into this application cycle, I felt like I had demonstrated my ability to succeed academically, even if I didn't attend a prestigious school or receive recognition in more prestigious ways.

The economy was still awful when I earned my MA in 2008. Entering a PhD program was only possible if I was willing to leave my family behind. I was the only graduate student in my class that found work after graduation, albeit not in my academic field, so I've been fortunate in that respect. Two others got into PhD programs in Canada and Michigan. Leading up to last fall, I felt the timing was good, so I applied to ten schools. Most were a good fit, some less so. I ran my list of schools and my application materials by a couple of faculty members who are graduates of top tier universities themselves. Both felt I had a good shot. I did not know prior to the deadlines that it was standard practice to contact POIs about your interests, so that was mistake number one. So I applied. And have received nothing but rejections, with only three schools left. I don't think I'm going anywhere this fall.

In this competitive environment when so many are going to graduate school due to an abysmal job market, it's not enought to be smart. To those of you who have been sucessful, would you please share why you think you were? My son will enter his senior year of high school in 2013, so I won't apply in 2012, but fall of 2013 will be great timing to apply again. I'd like to hear what others have done so that over the next year and a half I can do what I can do to improve my chances in the next go round. And please share your stats and whether you think they had any relevance. Thanks!

Edited February 29, 2012 by WannaBeEast

[MediaMom]

Good "stats" (grades, GRE, etc.) are important and things like research experience, work experience, publications are helpful. But so much of this process is about timing and fit. A department can look at your application and say, "She's clearly smart and capable and has a great academic record, BUT, her research interests just don't line up with any of the faculty members here, and there's no one here who can advise her." And so, no matter how smart or capable you may be, you get rejected. On the other hand, that same department probably admitted people with "lesser" stats than yours, simply because they wanted to work in areas that the faculty found interesting.

One thing I did in applying was to research faculty very closely, and to look up and read articles written by the faculty members whose work most closely resembled my own interests. In my SOPs, I identified these faculty members by name and mentioned the titles of their articles and other projects of theirs I'd researched, and talked about why I thought their work was so fascinating and why I thought my own interests tied into that work. I wanted to prove to them that I wasn't only "good on paper" (sure, my grades are good and I think my GRE scores were decent) but that I could really significantly contribute to the work being done in THEIR department.

Also, don't buy into this crap that an SOP has to be "a few paragraphs long" or one page. Mine was 12 or 13 pages in total. If you've got stuff to say that can sell you, say it. Academics are nothing if not long-winded. They like to see that you can write (and write, and write, and write...).

Good luck!

[marXian]

WannaBeEast, thanks for sharing your story. I too feel as though I came from a somewhat non-traditional background. I went to community college, then a state school. I screwed around for the first 3 years of college and didn't actually figure out that I was good at writing until my senior year. I had been a film major for the first 2 1/2 years, then switched to creative writing, then decided I wanted to be an English teacher. I went through the credentialing process and during that time decided I wanted to get an MA before going on to the job market. I went to another second tier state school for that (although an exceptional teaching institution) and during that time decided I wanted to go into academia and do interdisciplinary work, which, I felt, required another MA. So now I'm finishing seminary.

My undergrad GPA is low (3.17), but I have a high graduate GPA in the same field (3.89) and a decent GPA for my second MA (3.7). My GRE scores were modest, but by no means outstanding (V 161; Q 154; AW 5.0). A month ago, I was accepted at Northwestern with full funding and a stipend for 5 years, and I think it was a combination of factors.

Northwestern was a school that I actually DIDN'T contact before applying. I had narrowed my list to 6 schools through contacting a bunch of POI's, but as I was applying (I would definitely recommend this), but I panicked and found four more to send applications to. I didn't have time to contact POI's at those schools since it was nearly Thanksgiving, so I felt like I was really just shooting in the dark. When my POI from NU called me, she told me that my writing sample was extremely strong and showed a lot of promise and that my letters of recommendation were excellent as well. In looking at the profiles of her current students (as well as others in the Religious Studies department), I can see that I am the only one who is doing what I want to do (biblical/philosophical hermeneutics). No one else is doing anything remotely related to that, but it's one of my POI's major interests. So the fit, I think in many cases, really can be the most important thing.

A professor at my seminary said that the SOP is also one of the most important pieces because so often she'll have some that come across the admissions committee table that either are so broad that the committee has no idea what faculty would take on the student or are so narrow and detailed that they feel like writing back, "Clearly, you have nothing to learn from us. Good luck with your dissertation!" That's a difficult balance to strike, but if you can do it, it can really help.

[maeisenb]

That is really an amazing story and I am in awe of what you have been able to accomplish. As someone who was rejected my first cycle as well, I understand how much it sucks to work so hard and then hear nothing good back in response. That being said, you hit the nail on the head when you said "it's not enough to be smart." It doesn't have as much to do with the job market as it does with the fact that everyone applying is really smart, has a great GPA (3.7+), and probably good GRE scores as well (math scores probably matter less in history, although something in the 95th percentile is certainly a great score). If you assume that 1 person from the top 300 schools in the country applies to history programs with similar stats, then the real problem of numbers begins to emerge, so now you're competing against 300 people who are all smart. That's the main thing I realized the first time around. It's not enough to be the smartest. So what makes the difference?

I would first off echo what some of the above posters have said about fit, since you have to choose your places carefully. Read your writing sample again and find the people whose work has most influenced you and then Google them to see where they work. Keep doing this until you have a rather large list of places and then begin to comb through what their most recent research was on to see if your interests match their new ideas moving forward. Contacting people is often a good idea, although as jdharrison pointed out, is not necessarily the most important thing. I would certainly suggest it next time you apply, but each place works differently and I've gotten rejected from places that I had great conversations with people and accepted at places where we only exchanged a few perfunctory emails.

Two other things I would definitely continued to work on:

1. Writing Sample- Each place as different page limit and stick to within that, but take your best piece of writing that is in your area that you want to work on and cut it down if necessary. A few people on the history forum suggested summarizing chapters you didn't definitely need (which I did) and then cutting down what you do have until you reach the limit (15, 20, 25 pages, etc.). Even if you did amazingly well on your sample - which I'm sure you did - you can continue to improve it until it's even more polished. Also, make sure it demonstrates whatever languages you have or need for your historical field. Plus it should show a firm grasp of the recent historiography in the field, so that you can jump right into discussions with a potential supervisor and a cohort.

2. SOP- As everyone notes, this is clearly the most important part of the entire package you put together. One of the most helpful things I found was a Poli Sci thread in which people post their SOPs after they got in and were rejected. I used the one for last year which had about 10-15 people and I know there is one this year that is steadily being built up as we speak. Read through those all at once so you get a feel of what an admissions committee does. It was amazing how quickly I realized that people who wrote about future plans and discussed theoretical ideas were far more interesting than those who simply listed their accomplishments. At some point you should mention some faculty members and why your idea makes sense with their fit. The best analogy someone used somewhere on this forum was making the glove fit perfectly. I disagree with MediaMom that you should write 12 or 13 pages, although the general consensus (here and after talking to current grad students) is that you should get roughly within the limits. So if it says 1000 words than 1100 or something is fine, but don't go on for 2500.

Anyway, those are just some general thoughts. As I see that you work in history, might I ask what field in particular? If you want, I'm happy to speak more through personal messages or read anything you send over for constructive criticism. After all this forum is all about helping others get in and I know I benefited greatly from what previous people have written, so I'm more than happy to help!

[MediaMom]

To clarify on my "12-page SOP"....

It was divided into sections. My first section was about 1 page long and was called "Personal Statement of Purpose." Here I briefly described my educational and professional backgrounds, my career goals, why I thought now was the right time in my life to pursue a PhD, and what I hoped that PhD could accomplish for me. My next section was titled "Research Interests." It was about a page and a half long and it gave a brief explanation of where my interests lie and then described several projects I have in mind that I would like to work on as a PhD student. The next section was called "Why XYZ University" and was specifically tailored for each school to which I applied. Here I talked about the reasons I liked this school's program--the courses that interested me, the faculty, etc. This is where I went into detail about specific faculty members' research as I discussed above. This section, too, was only about a page and a half.

The rest of my SOP was more like a series of addenda. I gave course descriptions of all of the classes I have taught within my discipline (I have several years of teaching experience as an adjunct) and included a sample syllabus I created for one of my classes. I wrote a brief summary of how my writing sample came about (it was a paper I presented at a conference and I wanted to discuss how it related to the work I was doing at the time).

It may seem like overkill and hey, who knows, maybe some of the professors who read it thought that it was. But I've got acceptances, so it ended up being worth my time!

[WannaBeEast]

Thank you for all of your comments. They are incredibly helpful. And since I have a year and a half until I can apply again, I have plenty of time to incorporate them.

Anyway, those are just some general thoughts. As I see that you work in history, might I ask what field in particular? If you want, I'm happy to speak more through personal messages or read anything you send over for constructive criticism. After all this forum is all about helping others get in and I know I benefited greatly from what previous people have written, so I'm more than happy to help!

I certainly wish I had found this forum prior to submitting my applications. I've learned a ton about the process that I couldn't through Google searches or off university websites. My primary field is U.S. Colonial History, although my Master's thesis incorporated a transatlantic approach, so I had to be well-versed in Reformation era religions. My subfields include American Religions, Women's Studies, and Family History. Be careful what you offer, I might take you up on it .

[Ameonna]

I think it's also worth mentioning that "fit" doesn't just mean in terms of research interests; it also means in terms of career goals. Many SOP prompts specifically ask for this, but even if they don't, the ability to clearly state why you are obtaining this degree and what you hope to accomplish with it is definitely important. It will allow the professors at that school to consider whether or not they can help you achieve the goals you've set out for yourself, and if they can, that definitely goes in your favor. Granted, your career goals may change over time, and that is expected, but the fact that you are thinking forward in terms of your degree demonstrates maturity and long-term planning. Also, the more arguments you can make for fit in terms of the particular school to which you're applying, the better!! Mention labs, facilities and resources that you think will help you in terms of your research. That will take research and time, but it'll be worth it.

Having said that, perseverance is key. Even if you do everything right and have a lot of talent and potential, you may still get rejected simply because so many others out there have done everything right and have talent and potential. Keep trying, keep editing/reworking your application, and keep hope alive! If this is the life you really want, it may take a few rounds, but it will happen.

[coonskee]

Honestly: I don't deserve to be going to the program I got into. I'll have had one year of research experience before starting - ages less than what most people here seem to have. My PI here further refused to write me a letter for an application to transfer (I'm currently an MSc student) - a very shitty situation indeed.

However. Because I wanted to transfer, I chose to apply to only one school - my top choice school, which is also my alma mater. I figured, if I didn't get in this time, I'd stick out the misery of the MSc program (I'm extremely unhappy here) and cast a wider net the following year. That probably helped because it showed how much I wanted that program.

I had really good letters of reference, and really non-traditional ones - two from former science profs (and I got a poor grade in one of the referees' classes; he still wrote me a glowing letter, which says something, I guess), and one from an English professor. I think that helped because, although the program for which I applied is Biology, it's an "Integrated" program, and the fact that I was an English/Bio major and did well at it shows that I like synthesizing various areas and making htem work together. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself I also highlighted that I write a lot about science (I have a blog); not sure that had anything to do with it. I had a decent GPA from CU (3.58), very good GRE and MCAT scores (I used to be premed, so I subbed my scores in that for a GRE subject test score)

Maybe it's the fact that I'm clearly a weird applicant, but I got an interview. The reason I think I got the acceptance: I rocked my interviews (read 3+ papers/faculty member with whom I was speaking, knew my stuff, was able to explain why I wanted to transfer and why CU was my top choice).

[anonyouknow]

I haven't heard back from many of my potential programs, but I can definitely say what worked for the acceptances so far!

This is my second round of applications, the first round I did no background checking on my POIs for each school and didn't even know if they were accepting students or not. There were some serious issues with my applications that round aside from that, but this round I was much wiser. I discovered 2 of my POIs at two schools were not accepting students and 1 was going on sabbatical for the year (I didn't end up applying to that school for a few reasons aside). If I hadn't checked, both those schools I did end up applying to (with different POIs) would have been out of the question as I would have tailored my apps totally differently.

I think my application was stronger this round mostly because I've definitely fleshed out my areas of interest. I was able to write informed SOPs which, I hope, showed understanding of the field and current directions and that I could develop my own unique ideas to start contributing right away. I didn't pigeonhole myself into one project or anything, but I think I was way too broad last time; it sounded like I would be happy working pretty much with anyone, anywhere, rather than looking at these specific programs for specific reasons.

Added to that- I was lucky!! It just so happens that my POI at one school thought my relocation story was interesting and wanted to talk to me before official interviews just to see how I got to where I am now. I was able to show how my research interests developed from my experiences living abroad and we had a good talk. Another POI just so happened to want to begin a project which matched incredibly closely with what I happened to set out in my research proposal, though I had no idea of this at the time. I think putting an interesting spin on my own experiences caught the eye of some people and at least got me a second look