Do I re-apply to PhDs next year?

[AClarke]

So I've gotten my final rejection letters today and now I'm wondering - should I plan on re-applying next year or is there minimal chance of being admitted given that I haven't been successful this year?

I have been accepted to CUNY but have no offer of funding (I can still hope in the next 2 weeks that something will come through, but the office has been pretty vague about it - only saying they'll tell me before April 15).

If I don't get funding at CUNY I really can't feasibly attend. So, this begs the questions - should I go for all this again next year at the same places?

[J.Snow]

If you really want a PhD I would say go for it! Perhaps there are other schools you can apply to as well? Also, you may want to take some time and reflect upon why you weren't as successful as you might have been. But there are PLENTY of stories on here about people who struck out their first application season, reapplied, and got in to fantastic, good-fitting programs. Best of luck!

[fullofpink]

Yes - if these schools fit your interests the best then definitely apply again. Remember, Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Columbia/CUNY get well over 200 applications each and elimination processes are usually brutal.

I notice that you applied to only top tier schools - is this intentional or do these schools absolutely fit your interests best? I only mention this because if you are listing the schools you are applying to in your applications, an adcom might look at it and wonder why your range of interests in the field is so broad (lacking focus), or if your only intent is to get into a top tier school. It *may* read to an adcom that you are more naive than learned about the process - not that this absolutely applies, but it might be a thought. I've always wondered about it and would love to know others opinions.

[AClarke]

If you really want a PhD I would say go for it! Perhaps there are other schools you can apply to as well? Also, you may want to take some time and reflect upon why you weren't as successful as you might have been. But there are PLENTY of stories on here about people who struck out their first application season, reapplied, and got in to fantastic, good-fitting programs. Best of luck!

Hey thanks for the response and the well wishes - I am comforted by the number of second time applicants I see on here. I've gotten a lot of ideas from here on how to possibly make my application better... but I wish I could somehow know what it was exactly that put me in the rejects pile.

[JosephineB]

What do you want to do with your PhD?

If you want to teach, I am sure you realize how dismal the job market is, and how it gets even worse if you have to geographically restrict your job search. What would you do if your only job offer was in Wyoming? If you are not willing to live *anywhere* your chances of actually putting your PhD to use via university/museum employment go from being low to almost non-existent.

I really think you are doing yourself a disservice by only applying to ultra-top-tier schools. I would venture to say that there are probably at least 3-5 more schools that meet your criteria of east coast and highly ranked but have more realistic chances of admission. Everyone wants to go to a top program, but statistically the odds of that happening are not good at all. I can't blame you, because personally I know that if I don't get into a top 10ish PhD program I will most likely not pursue a career in academia.

Do you have a mentor who you can have a serious conversation with this about? I get a few red flags from reading your posts, and I worry that you might not fully understand the realities of what you are getting yourself into.

If this is offensive or unhelpful to you, please feel free to disregard my advice! This is a faceless internet message board, and I only know about 1/1000th of what is going on in your life and your decision to pursue a PhD.

[losemygrip]

Do not re-apply to the same schools unless something significantly changes in your record. Don't do it. It won't help. You CAN get an M.A., and then re-apply.

I would pick a different set of schools for next time.

Josephine Beuys: going to a top grad school does not guarantee a career in academe, nor does attending another program ruin your chances. The school I attended for my PhD was much lower ranked then than it is now, for example (I'm quite proud of the reputation they've gotten). In fact, it HELPED my chances in academe because I got a TON of teaching experience there, way more than my later colleagues from Harvard, who couldn't even retrieve a jammed slide from a projector. (Yes, this was the old days.) I was told that my teaching record was a huge plus when I applied for jobs.

The other thing is--the so-called top schools are usually not all that much better than the next tier in reality.

[fullofpink]

I assumed that the top schools are not so much better quality wise - the only difference I see is that they might have the big name people in art history teaching there. And that it gets you entrance into the club of top name schools. If you look at Columbia's faculty, for example, a large number of them got their BA, MA and PhD all from Columbia as well! Crazy...

Yeah, that's totally not the approach to attempt when applying to grad school.

[dimanche0829]

While I do agree that you should take a reflective step back to consider why you may not have been successful this round, I disagree with the advice that you shouldn't reapply to the same schools. There are so many factors that go into a rejection, and not all of them have to do entirely with the candidate. You may have been rejected from a school because your POI is going on hiatus, or your spot was already filled with the allowed number of students, or any number of other reasons beyond your control. DO take the next few months to improve your application as much as possible: re-visit your writing sample and personal statement; keep active in your field; expand your knowledge base; most importantly, make sure that the schools you are applying to will be a solid fit for what you want to study. Going to a top-notch school means nothing if it isn't a top-notch school for your field of study. And don't be afraid to throw in a few lesser-ranked but still-solid schools. Hope this helps.

Edited April 1, 2012 by dimanche0829

[AClarke]

While I do agree that you should take a reflective step back to consider why you may not have been successful this round, I disagree with the advice that you shouldn't reapply to the same schools. There are so many factors that go into a rejection, and not all of them have to do entirely with the candidate. You may have been rejected from a school because your POI is going on hiatus, or your spot was already filled with the allowed number of students, or any number of other reasons beyond your control. DO take the next few months to improve your application as much as possible: re-visit your writing sample and personal statement; keep active in your field; expand your knowledge base; most importantly, make sure that the schools you are applying to will be a solid fit for what you want to study. Going to a top-notch school means nothing if it isn't a top-notch school for your field of study. And don't be afraid to throw in a few lesser-ranked but still-solid schools. Hope this helps.

Cheers for the advice - I think you're right... I'm going to look again at my writing sample and personal statement. I just assumed it was best to send everyone my MA dissertation but now I'm thinking it might be better to send different samples to different people (maybe it was obvious I should have done that, but I didn't). :)

[fullofpink]

I just assumed it was best to send everyone my MA dissertation but now I'm thinking it might be better to send different samples to different people (maybe it was obvious I should have done that, but I didn't). :)

As someone with a MA who - I suppose - wrote a thesis in their field on a topic they would like to continue studying, I feel like adcoms will wonder why you didn't send a portion of your thesis. However, if you have papers that are more in tune with the program you are applying for, just make sure that the paper is stellar.

It may not be so simple as a reexamining of your application materials - it could be your professional duties. Are you presenting at conferences or symposia? Have you published? Have you won any scholarships at your university or research grants? Many people in MA programs and those with the MA degree will already have this kind of competitive background. And adcoms can spot someone who is investing in themselves a mile away - overall, I would say (especially with a MA), that your professional activities will be just as important if not moreso than tweaking a writing sample and tightening up a SOP.

Edit: I wanted to add this consideration: have you worked in your field? Teaching/researching/museum or gallery work? Is it significant? I'm only asking because if you look at Harvard's past acceptances (they post bios every year), these kids come from somewhat non-traditional backgrounds (as in, Got a BA, then went to MA, and now is in PhD). However, the majority have worked in their field, most at a major museum, many of them have graduated from an Ivy league university, and there are those who don't even have a significant background in art history. Something to consider.

[Also, you don't need to explain to me (or anyone) on a public forum what you have and have not done. I just wanted to inform you, so don't feel pressured to describe your activities.]

Edited April 2, 2012 by fullofpink

[losemygrip]

I'll reiterate: even if you apply to the same schools, do not do so unless you are bringing something significantly new to the table. Just a new essay or writing sample won't hack it. You need additional experience, or significantly increased GRE scores, or far more glowing references--something like that. Preferably all of those. Otherwise, it's likely to be, "We had this same application last year and rejected him/her--why is s/he wasting our time again?" rather than, "Gosh, look how much this person has accomplished since s/he last applied--we could use someone with this dedication."

If you're going to wait and do something to add to your application between now and then, feel free to re-apply to the same schools. If you're just going to submit based on the same record, try different schools.

[losemygrip]

Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.

[J.Snow]

Do not re-apply to the same schools unless something significantly changes in your record. Don't do it. It won't help. You CAN get an M.A., and then re-apply.

I would pick a different set of schools for next time.

I respectfully disagree. Completely.

Yes, consider what you can do to improve, but if your heart is set on a school, then go for it. Perhaps include some other options if you are hell-bent on getting into ANY program next year, but PhD apps have less to do with your qualifications and more to do with fit (as dimanche0829 mentioned). No adcom is going to automatically reject your application or laugh at you for being persistent and showing them that you are serious about their program by reapplying.

[AClarke]

Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.

I did a taught MA in the UK - they always referred to my end paper as a dissertation there. Did a google search just to be sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis#United_Kingdom

[runaway]

Oh, and be sure not to refer in your application to you "M.A. dissertation." It's an M.A. thesis, and a Ph.D. dissertation.

They're switched in the UK.

[JosephineB]

I respectfully disagree. Completely.

Yes, consider what you can do to improve, but if your heart is set on a school, then go for it. Perhaps include some other options if you are hell-bent on getting into ANY program next year, but PhD apps have less to do with your qualifications and more to do with fit (as dimanche0829 mentioned). No adcom is going to automatically reject your application or laugh at you for being persistent and showing them that you are serious about their program by reapplying.

I respectfully completely disagree with your advice. I think that having your "heart set" on a school should not be enough of a reason to continue to pursue something that might be unrealistic. I don't even mean this just in OP's case. I think there are many practical considerations that need to be made when applying to graduate school that vastly outweigh feeling or intuition.

I think that

[arthistoryvoe2]

I'll reiterate: even if you apply to the same schools, do not do so unless you are bringing something significantly new to the table. Just a new essay or writing sample won't hack it. You need additional experience, or significantly increased GRE scores, or far more glowing references--something like that. Preferably all of those. Otherwise, it's likely to be, "We had this same application last year and rejected him/her--why is s/he wasting our time again?" rather than, "Gosh, look how much this person has accomplished since s/he last applied--we could use someone with this dedication."

If you're going to wait and do something to add to your application between now and then, feel free to re-apply to the same schools. If you're just going to submit based on the same record, try different schools.

I really disagree with this statement, if it's a department that's actually a good match. The personal statement and writing sample can really make all the difference and an application really may not have gotten much attention at all the first time around, so it might not even be recognized as a repeat. One calculation schools make is "how likely is this person to want to come here, given the other choices they are likely to have?" and the personal statement can make all the difference in that .Or, an institution may have a new faculty member, or someone coming back from leave, whose interests are more in tune with yours, so an application that was rejected in the first round one year will in the next be sent to that person. Etc. If you can, seek advice on your application from someone who is familiar with graduate admissions processes at top PhD-granting institutions (and I would say, agreeing with some of the above, top really means top 20 or so), even if in a different field or subfield.

[ArtHistoryandMuseum]

They're switched in the UK.

Indeed. I have an English master's degree and my end of term paper was "dissertation". As an American, and when in the United States, I will absolutely use the word "dissertation" for my MA work, but will qualify the research as a "master's dissertation", or note roughly how many pages the paper was, as I do not want to imply I wrote a three hundred page book!

There are academics in the US who are uninformed unfortunately of the title difference in the UK... and there are hard-nosed academics in the US who reject the usage of dissertation for a MA level. There are others in the states, who push for using "thesis" when in the US. For instance, I had an Art History college professor encourage me strongly to use "thesis" when discussing the work with American academics.

Personally. I do not think MA dissertation v. MA thesis are interchangeable, like UK "chips" and US "fries" (where you use the appropriate word of the country). You use what word the degree-granting university considers the work as.

[Swagato]

As someone with an MA who is likely going to be shut out this year and is going to reapply next year, I'm going to disagree with some of the advice in here. I have been fortunate enough to secure my MA from one of the top departments in my field, and I have the backing of field-leading recommendations. Most of my reapplications will be to the same places. However, my reasoning is that I have the numerical criteria required to get through several rounds of cuts to perhaps the final few. This time around, that is where (based on feedback) I have fallen out of consideration. My main weaknesses are a rickety SOP and, perhaps, an MA thesis excerpt that can do with more fine-tuning.

Publications and conferences are neither expected nor demanded at this stage. Am I working on trying to get both under my belt? Yes, because I have a year to make the attempt, and it is the least I can do. However, I firmly believe what I have been told by most senior faculty: quality over quantity. And the simple fact is that a pre-PhD student is not likely to present at the major conferences in the field. Or to publish in the leading journals. Is there (probably) going to be one in your cohort who has done either, or both? I assume so. But also know that it is not the norm. Thus, my take is: if you get the chance to present or publish, take it (bearing in mind the venue). If not, don't sweat it.

My focus through this year will be to establish meaningful relations with POIs (beyond what I had done before), step back from the immediate after-effects of my application outcomes, take a hard survey of the field, reorient my interests, read like hell, interact with scholars (students and faculty), and frame a viable PhD project. Then, I will work on transforming this into an effective SOP--this means not an essay that "states what I will be doing as a PhD student" because 90% of the time your project changes once you're in. Rather, it'll be an essay that demonstrates that I "speak the language;" that I can frame an interesting problem, consider it in serious fashion, and outline ways of engaging with it. Aside from that, I'll be shoring up my language requirements and, possibly, reworking my MA thesis.

This is what I have so far. I'm sure the plan of action will evolve as we go. But do not be afraid of reapplying to the same place as before, on the condition that you can (reasonably) accurately identify the weaknesses in your present application.

[losemygrip]

Well, I can see I'm outnumbered here. But let me ask this: are any of you who are arguing that it's just fine to re-apply to all the same schools, that you probably just barely missed being accepted, that it's just a matter of "fit" or a better essay--are any of you actually people who have successfully re-applied with only some tweaking of your essay? If so, that would be good information to provide. If not, do you personally know people who did this? On what basis are you making this argument? Not to pull rank, but after all, I kind of AM the grizzled old veteran in these parts.

The idea of addressing weaknesses in your application I agree with. The idea that this can be something as simple as a re-written statement, I do not. Or that magically, in re-applying the second year, you're going to be JUST what they were looking for, whereas in the first year, you were not (i.e., the argument about "fit").

Or, an institution may have a new faculty member, or someone coming back from leave, whose interests are more in tune with yours, so an application that was rejected in the first round one year will in the next be sent to that person.

This, I don't disagree with, EXCEPT this likely won't happen in one year. If you re-apply in two or three years and there have been such changes, then maybe.

My focus through this year will be to establish meaningful relations with POIs (beyond what I had done before), step back from the immediate after-effects of my application outcomes, take a hard survey of the field, reorient my interests, read like hell, interact with scholars (students and faculty), and frame a viable PhD project. Then, I will work on transforming this into an effective SOP--this means not an essay that "states what I will be doing as a PhD student" because 90% of the time your project changes once you're in. Rather, it'll be an essay that demonstrates that I "speak the language;" that I can frame an interesting problem, consider it in serious fashion, and outline ways of engaging with it. Aside from that, I'll be shoring up my language requirements and, possibly, reworking my MA thesis.

By all means, do. My argument is that the more you change up your application and your qualifications, the more viable you are in re-applying. It needs to be something significant. And it sounds as if you have gotten some very specific feedback on your application from the very school to which you want to re-apply, so that's somewhat of a different situation as well. Did they suggest that you re-apply?

However, there's another sort of problem in this immediate re-application thinking. While your application may improve, you'll be going up against a different group of applicants. They may be less interesting than last year's--but they might be MORE attractive to the committee. You might have fared better with your new app against your original crowd, but will you against this new crowd? The committee WILL know you're re-applying, unless you were someone who initially got knocked out of consideration very early on. You're already becoming "old hat." You risk being seen as silly or desperate unless there are significant changes.

But I would like to hear from anybody with firsthand experience in successfully reapplying the next year by only changing their essay and/or writing sample (Because let's face it--that's about the only changeable part of your application that doesn't entail the kind of significant factors that I'm talking about.)

[J.Snow]

I respectfully completely disagree with your advice. I think that having your "heart set" on a school should not be enough of a reason to continue to pursue something that might be unrealistic. I don't even mean this just in OP's case. I think there are many practical considerations that need to be made when applying to graduate school that vastly outweigh feeling or intuition.

I think that

I guess my advice was misinterpreted, I **do** think that feeling has a lot to do with applications, but agree that there are many other factors (including funding, research, personal interactions...). However, I applied to my current school for both my masters and PhD and just "had a feeling" about both. It was the right program for me. However, it was not the right program for everyone, and that "feeling", needs to be interpreted carefully. It is hard to tell other students to not shoot high in their goals and I would never want to tell someone that they were out of reach. I've seen a lot of postings on here where people say that they aren't qualified enough and it is disheartening. So I guess my words are from a place of kindness and excitement for anyone who thinks they have a shot; because if you think you do, you do. Don't just apply to your top school next year, but do reapply. Who knows what will happen, or who your cohort will be. Hopefully it'll be full of positive people!

[Swagato]

Well, I can only offer my perspective (with the best knowledge), and the perspectives of several of the current PhD students both at my MA institution and elsewhere. As always, mileages vary.

If not, do you personally know people who did this? On what basis are you making this argument?

I did my MA at UChicago's MAPH, which is widely considered a 'feeder' program for top-level PhDs in the humanities. You probably already know the debate going on around that program, but I shan't engage with that since I'm only concerned with my experience and that of my peers, which was an extremely positive one and has ended very successfully for the majority of them. While at Chicago, my interactions with not only the program staff and faculty, but also many current students, indicated that this sort of re-trial is far more common than we likely think. I met more than two current students (in different departments of the humanities), who eerily mirror my own position today (namely that they were dropped almost entirely on the basis of a non-viable SOP). A year later? Both were in.

Likewise, I've communicated with others via email who have similar experiences to share.

The idea that this can be something as simple as a re-written statement, I do not. Or that magically, in re-applying the second year, you're going to be JUST what they were looking for, whereas in the first year, you were not (i.e., the argument about "fit").

I can't agree to this, frankly. Your SOP is far and away the most important part of your application. Based on the feedback and information I've collected this year, I am very convinced that the two things that can get a person in above all else are the SOP and the writing sample. Especially at UChicago, where faculty were quite open about the fact that they weigh the SOP and writing sample more heavily than anything else. Other places indicated similar sentiments. Assuming that you have your numbers in order and strong recommendations (which, let's face it, are things all the more viable candidates will share), what sets you apart? What gives them an insight into you as a scholar and a person? Your SOP and writing sample. To change either of these radically changes your application.

I know of people who were rejected simply because the department didn't have space for a specialist in their proposed area that year. A year or two later, they did. Or, their first application proposed immature interests/interests in an area the department wasn't looking to grow in, etc. Next time around, with appropriate changes, due to a much better fit, everything clicked.

I'm not saying you *will* get in a second time. But I am saying that reworking your SOP (and if necessary your writing sample) change your application more than you claim.

While your application may improve, you'll be going up against a different group of applicants. They may be less interesting than last year's--but they might be MORE attractive to the committee. You might have fared better with your new app against your original crowd, but will you against this new crowd? The committee WILL know you're re-applying, unless you were someone who initially got knocked out of consideration very early on. You're already becoming "old hat." You risk being seen as silly or desperate unless there are significant changes.

You certainly are taking a chance when you go up another year. And of course one aspect of that chance is the risk that next year's cohort will be super-charged and you will be knocked out early on. But that is a chance we all have to take. Certainly the committee knows you're reapplying (though I am not sure how many professors actually remember details--and this is your chance to gain an edge by creating and cultivating a POI relationship). You're not becoming stale because you are a 2nd or 3rd year re-applicant. This forum alone has people who got in on their 2nd or 3rd try. For me, next year will technically be my 2nd try after earning my MA. I definitely don't see that (based on what I've learned) as risking becoming a stale applicant. You only fester if you don't adapt, mature, and evolve your research + research interests. One big thing in favour of reapplicants--if faculty indeed compare old files, which they do at Yale, for example--is that they can clearly trace the intellectual evolution of an applicant. If it is for the better, this can even work in your favour.

Risking being silly? One of the most distinguished professors at UChicago still maintains that he faces dismissive attitudes and scoffing from certain parts, because his area and work is considered a waste of time and silly by these people. In academia, you cannot go far with such a thin skin. If out of all the concerns you should be focussed on, you're wondering whether someone thinks you're silly or not, let's just say that priorities need to be re-assigned. A sincerely refashioned and killer research proposal, whether it is on the first try or the fourth, is still a research proposal that works--because it interests the committee enough to get you in. That's what counts.