Safety Schools?

[mrfuga0]

As a veteran of this process (this is time #4 for PhD applications and I FINALLY got in to a great school), I'm curious how people view the term "safety school". I've seen more than a few board posts that list only really top tier schools (Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkley, UCLA, etc.) and results posts that say things like "Got rejected from Stanford, my safety school!"

Maybe I'm naive, but I was always of the opinion that a safety school is a school that you can get into no matter what, not a top twenty name-check school. Perhaps I'm carrying over an old-school idea from undergraduate education (I HAVE been doing a lot of higher ed research at work this month ...) wherein you always apply to one school that you wouldn't necessarily WANT to go to, but you WOULD go to, because, really, what's the alternate if you don't get in to an undergraduate institution? Be an unemployed 18 year old who still lives at home?

So, the question on the table is: Has the term "safety school" changed when it is applied to graduate school? Does it still mean a school you KNOW you will get into because it is lowly and not worthy of your love? Or does it simply mean a school that is not your #1 choice? In that case, is there a better term for this idea than "safety school"?

[booksareneat]

Personally, I laugh when I hear anyone talk about a safety school. For example, someone recently put up that Loyola Chicago was their safety school. Loyola is only giving funding to 6 people this year and if they are anything like other grad schools, those positions will be divvied up between specializations. So, if you're a modernist, they're only letting in one or two modernists. I don't see how anyone can feel so confident that they are the number one modernist applying for a program, even if that program is a tier or two beneath Yale.

I feel confident about a few schools I applied to, but I certainly don't think they are a "safe" bet. That's why I don't think there is anything such as a safety school--sure, you might be well-qualified to be there, but that doesn't really equate to automatic acceptance.

[hadunc]

As far as I know, I don't think the idea of a safety school has changed much. They still tend to be lower-ranked schools with less prestige. I don't know how anyone could consider Stanford a "safety", unless there is some grad program at Stanford that is absolutely crap, which is hard to imagine. But you do have to remember that not all prestigious universities are equal in their grad programs. I'm pretty sure the ivies are all-around solid, but schools that are ranked in the top 20 or 50 may have great English programs, for example, but have only third rate Computer Science departments. Every school is different. But I think the fundamental definition of a "safety school" is one that you apply to because you feel you would be very likely to be accepted but is definitely not a top choice for various reasons.

[Yellow#5]

I think it's so common to consider humanities as "non-serious" that many people, even aspiring PhDs in the area, can't believe that anyone at all serious would ever apply to "their" program.

That is the reaction I got from many friends and collegues when I mentioned I was quitting my 'good job' to get a PhD in literature. The surprising thing is MANY people seem to want to give their heart and soul to this area. Can't figure out why we can't all get together and elevate the prestige of the discipline a little bit in the scholarly world.

[hadunc]

I think it's so common to consider humanities as "non-serious" that many people, even aspiring PhDs in the area, can't believe that anyone at all serious would ever apply to "their" program.

That is the reaction I got from many friends and collegues when I mentioned I was quitting my 'good job' to get a PhD in literature. The surprising thing is MANY people seem to want to give their heart and soul to this area. Can't figure out why we can't all get together and elevate the prestige of the discipline a little bit in the scholarly world.

Yes, I totally agree. I get the exact same reaction, even from my peers within my department. The whole "what's the point?" argument drives me insane. See, it's called "humanities" for a reason, because it is the study of the things that make us human! How could our discipline not be held in the highest regard by society? Not to get too political here, but I blame capitalism for the general lack of respect for the humanities and intellectual pursuits.

[Yellow#5]

I really wish people with that attitude would leave the field, so it could stop being true, even to the slightest degree, that all English departments do is vent their own self-loathing.

Sadly, few other professions readily except self-loathers. Neo-con punditry is the only other profession that comes to mind.

[mentalyoga]

I had that mentality going into this process, but now that I feel as though I've been run through the shredder (and still waiting on 3 probable rejections), I'm beginning to rethink what a "safety" school is at this level of education. With undergrad, I knew my chances with the schools I applied to--and I was spot-on. With my first two decisions this year, a waitlist and a rejection, I sort of feel as though the rug was swept out from under me--and I'm now quite well-aware that grad school is a whole 'nother ball park. I realize now that I'd probably have made decisions quite differently had I been more realistic about the process, and the idea of a 'safety' school seems almost arrogant to me. I suppose sometimes you need a good swift slap in the face to shift your outlook--and while I haven't given up hope, I'm thinking about this whole thing in a very different way now. If I end up in the re-application pool for next year, I'm positive I'll be doing things a bit differently.

[mrfuga0]

I was specifically thinking of the Loyola poster, although I didn't want to call them out. Since someone else did, I'll be happy to elaborate! I was struck by how silly it seemed to consider a top ranked school that only takes 6 admits a year "a safety". It's great to be academically confident (all this research I'm doing suggests a correlation between academic confidence and persistence rates, so there's something there), but it's another thing to consider yourself so good that you only apply to places that take 1% (!) of their applicants. And then to assume that you will definitely get in. It seems very bizarre to me.

That said, I've applied a couple times to schools that are totally out of my reach (UCLA, WashU, BU and NYU only in one memorable year). I guess after going through the process so many times with disappointing results several of those times, I'm curious why anyone would consider themselves in the top 1% of all applicants without batting an eyelash. I'm STILL stunned that I got accepted anywhere, never mind at a well-ranked school that fits all my needs.

Maybe I'm just old. The folly of youth and all that?

[DEClarke85]

I felt that Texas Tech would be a safety school for me. In fact, despite whatever their ranking may be, I felt the Ph.D. program in English and I would be such a strong fit that I wouldn't be rejected. This was compounded with the notion that since I was already a Texas resident and graduate student at another Texas institution that I would be admitted more easily because I would be cheaper to fund (i.e. no need to cover out-of-state tuition, plus I would be familiar with the Texas State Law that does not allow tuition to be waived).

However, I learned, with my rejection, that the notion of safety schools as far a graduate programs are concerned is total bull s**t.

I think it is healthy to feel that you are a strong applicant; however, I feel that there is no need to assume you will be admitted no mater what (unless that school specifically asks you to apply).

[booksareneat]

Right and I didn't want to be rude calling out that Loyola poster. I've had years of rejection to prepare my mind for where I am. I applied to Loyola thinking that I should get in and would be surprised if I didn't, BUT nothing surprises me anymore. Once I heard just how picky they had to be this year, I realized that if I had gotten in directly (not the waitlist) then I would be really surprised.

[latetothegame]

I don't feel like any of the schools I've applied to are actually safety schools, even though a couple of them aren't highly regarded. The number of funded spots at any program is so limited it would be absurd to think of any school as a safe bet. Of course, if I had a B.A. from Harvard or WashU combined with the scores, grades, and letters I do have, I might be singing a different tune...

[Comfect]

I'm of the opinion that while there are no safeties (a clean sweep rejection is never impossible, because of how much of a crapshoot this process is) there are relative safety schools - that is, "I am a lot more likely to get in here." That's not much comfort though, when they start rejecting you too...

[engguy]

I have a story I like to tell, and I feel I've told it a million times, but it seemed relevant here:

My friend applied to 18 schools last year. Among them, as per the typical advice, were a number of "reaches," mixed in with some midlevels, and what you'd call safeties. He was flat-out rejected by 15 of them. Made no difference what the ranking was. Got unfunded offers from two schools so low-ranked they probably aren't even listed. Out of the blue, was also wait-listed at a very prestigious private U.

As Apr 15 approached, though I tried as gently as possible to talk him out of it, he was fully prepared to attend one of the lowly schools and pay for it out of his own pocket. Finally, private U came through with a very sweet deal and he gratefully snapped it up in a heartbeat.

I do think there are "blue chip" prospects who can afford to regard some pretty good schools as "safeties," though especially this year, some of them might be in for a surprise. But these are kids coming out of the best of the best undergrad institutions with high academic pedigrees. For the rest of us, there's good fit, the luck of the draw, karma, and killer writing samples. :mrgreen:

[guenevere01]

Right. One school that I thought for SURE I would be in to (i'll let you guess which one), because of how well several people in the department's interests meshed with mine, coupled with the fact that one of my recommenders is "good friends" with the head of the adcom, hasn't contacted me at all even though it seems that they've called all their admitted people already. Not that I'm unhappy with my results so far, I'm just kind of shocked at how it's turned out. Fickle fortune!

[irishcoffee]

a cup of coffee- I think I went through the same thing when applying the last time around. My recommenders were very optimistic and seemed truly shocked when all but one (the "safety" MA program) rejected me. I'm not certain that it all comes down to "fit," though...who knows what goes on in those adcom meetings! It's a mystery, one that will only be solved one day when all of us on these boards become tenured profs on the adcom ourselves!

And, hi, btw. I've been lurking around here for a few weeks now, decided it was finally time to say hello.

[lyonessrampant]

Hi! Nice to "see" a new face I have had a very similar experience this year. My MA profs didn't even suggest applying to any schools below Northwestern. . . and that was my first rejection! When I asked them if I could get into these schools, they assured me I'd have my pick. Well, the combination of the economy and the fickle whims of the mysterious adcom have conspired against me this year. What I considered a pretty certain shot (Northwestern) was the first reject and no good news yet. I have learned my lesson about "safety" schools for sure and will apply to, like, 15 schools next year and all over the place. Frickin' fit. . . what does that mean?!

[booksareneat]

This all makes me think that our professors know even less than we do. I plan on writing a book about this process and it will be a best-seller, there will be lines out the door of desperate, clever kids praying for some illumination on this rat race.

[lyonessrampant]

I'd buy it! I just am baffled by this whole process. . .

[bae_dal]

Yeah, I have had a similar experience. My professors were all baffled as to why I would decide to apply to nine schools, which is, the the grand scheme of things, not a big number. They were sure that I would be a shoe-in and needed not to apply to so many. Well, as many of us can attest, this year has turned out less than rosey. I have had three outright rejections so far, two other schools emailed me and are considering me for a MA in lieu of the PhD, I am more than sure I am implicitly rejected from three of the six schools I applied to. So yeah...less than rosey.

[Sibilance7]

It's very likely that your professors do know little about this process, since the latest any of them will have applied to grad schools is about 5-7 years ago. If the professors you talked to about going to grad school are older and more distinguished, it would have been a very different game when they applied.

[thepoorstockinger]

I think the main thing from talking to people I know applying to programs (including English PhDs) is that a lot of people have heard all the talk about how bad the job market in the humanities is and how important having a top flight PhD is to landing a tenure track position that they're not even bothering to apply to programs they don't think will land them a TT position. A lot of people would rather go through the application process again next year or not get in at all rather than going to a program that they think will give them poor job options after they're done their degree.

[lyonessrampant]

FUCK! Something messed up and deleted my response! Anyway, there's more to life than just being in. I'm going to turn down another offer (from a top 20 school nonetheless) so that I can hopefully be at a dream school, but next year I'm applying to like 15 schools and have a choice. I'm tired of all this bullshit. Until we have a guarantee of admittance, there's no reason to do much of anything. So good luck to those of you that seemed to fit. Goddamn high scores and what I've been told are awesome SoPs and writing samples because apparantly I don't seem to fit. I don't quite know what the hell that means, but oh well! Good luck to those of you that got in. My "safety" school rejected me first, though I grant that it wasn't a safety. It was just a school where I had as high if not higher scores and averages on tests etc, but fuck, I can't even type a coherent post without my typewriter skipping so apparantly I'm as messed up as my apps. Good luck to everyone else and I hope next year works out better for me.

[lyonessrampant]

Sorry to vent/rant guys. . . had a bit too much to drink and decided to get on here. For future reference, just like it can be a bad idea to text in a slightly inebriated state, it is a bad idea to post

[Yellow#5]

Let it out, bro. That's what the gradcafe is for. :wink:

If it helps at all, I haven't heard one positive thing either, but I count myself lucky just to have dreams.

[lyonessrampant]

"Perchance to dream. . . " I'd agree that it is better to aim high. Thanks