Lit and Comp Lit - the perfect candidate, because it's not m

[MyshkinLit]

I do not want to work in an office. I realized this two months into my post-graduation full-time job. I decided graduate school would be a great alternative. I always loved to read, write essays, and engage in discussion on literary theory. My lit professors loved my writing. So I applied, and since then I have only been rejected. I am "waiting" to hear from more than half the schools to which I applied, but I am as certain as I can be that I have not been accepted.

Because I will not hear anything constructive from these grad schools (that take our money and return a three-line rejection email), I wanted to know from YOU, the accepted, the rejected, and the waitlisted: who is the perfect candidate? Who do you have to be? I do not mean for you to explain this "who" to me, but really, do the same five people get into the top programs and the rest of us wait and see, hoping, crossing our fingers someone saw something "special" about us, something that not ALL the program would see? Or is it in the application approach--should we email professors and make ourselves visible to the admissions committees in more ways than just our electronic applications? I did not email ONE professor and I imagine now that this only hurt my chances.

I am deeply disappointed that I will not be going to graduate school next year, but I hope to one day apply with confidence and knowing the right steps to take, at least to increase those already-slim chances. I am a good (literary) writer with pretty good scores and a decent GPA. My dossier is my strong suit. Otherwise, I have nothing: no sucking up, no "contact", connections, published articles, years spent abroad, Masters, etc. And I feel like the worst candidate, like a joke to these universities who accept hundreds of amazing applications.

What do you suggest I do for the coming years? I appreciate your feedback. I also appreciate this entire forum, which has reminded me I am not alone. None of us deserve desk jobs, or to be pushed aside, back into mediocrity. Isn't there a way to be great outside of academia, and aren't we the ones to make that happen?

Thanks again,

-Prince M.

[lyonessrampant]

I'm not sure I have a lot of answers for you. Believe me, I wish I did. I was accepted to Notre Dame in 2007 applying directly from my BA--not a *great* school but certainly not a bad one. However, I wanted to be at a top-10 school and my SO didn't get into law school there, so I took an MA offer at UChicago and am applying this year. I don't know for certain that I'm 0-5. . . but I'm pretty sure (see my sig line to see where I applied). Anyway, I figured that I should be able to go from Notre Dame to a top 20 school after an MA from a prestigious university. I'm a strong writer, have been accepted to 3 conferences in my focus areas (Renaissance and medieval lit), and have high test scores (700 V, 650 Q, 6 AW and 680 Subject). Friends of mine with similar GPA/test stats have gotten into some really awesome places, but I didn't, so something isn't clicking. I went through devestation, desperation, despondency, etc. and now I'm trying to figure out what I can do next year. I'm going to give it one more shot. Based on some advice from UC profs, I figure that next year is going to be as competitive as this year. So, first step, apply to LOTS of school (I'm thinking maybe 10-15 next year) and apply to diverse programs. Next, I'm going to retake at least the GRE to boost those scores and maybe the subject test (though that was about the worst experience of my life and I want to be okay with being above 92 percent). My UC profs said these scores were fine, good even and that these scores are more used to determine the first wave of rejections, sort of a standard you have to be above and then they don't matter, but Northwestern said that scores above 700 matter a lot, and I figure that as things get more competitive, maybe these objective criteria will be given added weight? Third step, apply to and present at more conferences. The one I've gone to so far put me in contact with some great profs at lots of programs, and this contact might help with the app process but is also useful in trying to figure "fit." Not to mention that conference participation boosts your CV. Fourth step, I'm going to submit 3-4 papers for publication. Who knows if that will work, but I think a publication or two would really make a difference. Fifth step, spend way more time on my apps. My SoPs this year included a paragraph about the people at the school whom I thought I'd like to work with, but next time around, I plan on including this (maybe expanding this section) and also tailoring my writing sample to each school to include reference to/dialog with some of the writing from those professors. Sixth, I only have reading knowledge of French, so I plan on taking a class in Latin to add to my CV. I need to learn it eventually and I figure it can't hurt.

So, that's my current plan. I hope/pray it works out. If it doesn't, I'm done and off to law school. Anyway, I hope some of this helps. Good luck!

[Emilee]

MyshkinLit, I'm wondering the same thing you are. I carefully chose the schools I applied to, making sure I matched with at least one (if not two) faculty and I fit in the GRE range. I am currently completing a Masters, have a near perfect GPA, an year and half internship under my belt and will be presenting at a conference this month. Yet, I did not get interviews from half the schools I applied to and have yet to receive any offers of admission from the other half. I felt like I put my best foot foward and received nothing. I sure would like to know who the ideal candidate is. I felt I really connected with one of the professors at a school I am currently waitlisted at. What made the person who is now enjoying the acceptance more special than me? I also regret not contacting the professors more. I am not the suck up type, but I cannot help thinking that if I had sent a couple of emails I might have gotten an acceptance. Good advice lyonessrampant , but I do not know if I can do this again next year.

For those who have received an acceptance, please share your secrets.

[fortiesgirl]

I wanted to start off by stating that I am in the same boat as all of you. I keep wondering to myself what sets certain candidates apart from others. I am still waiting to hear from several of the schools to which I applied. I did receive two rejections from two Ivy Leagues and those were pretty much expected. I did, however, want to address one aspect that was mentioned in two posts.

I contacted and met with numerous faculty at the institutions where I submitted applications. And I don't view this at all as "sucking up." I see it as quite the contrary. I've already been to grad school and earned a Master's. I know what a good fit feels like and when something doesn't feel right. Let me tell you--you don't want a bad fit for the next seven to ten years of your life in a doctoral program. Believe me when I say that grad school is hard enough. It is in your best interest to speak with, and if you're lucky, meet with, as many professors in your field as you can during the admissions process as you can because, why waste your time and money submitting an application to a school when you know offhand that the fit isn't right for you? That's the way I see it. I met with three faculty members at one school in particular. I did not get in, but at least I know (or hope) that they carefully weighed that decision. It also happens to be one of the most competitive programs in my field, so I wasn't too broken up about it. I am still waiting to hear from another school where I met with four professors. I know that school is a perfect fit for me. I paid that $75 fee with confidence knowing that it wasn't a waste, at least from my end. I can't even count how many professors I contacted and became acquainted with during the admissions process. You see, the profiles on the websites only tell you a part of the story and research history of these people. In my field, it might say "historian of Modern France," but to me that means a wide array of different things. In my view, it is in my best interest to contact that individual personally and find out their specific interests so that I can write an intelligent personal statement and find the perfect fit for me. It's not really about "sounding good" so that you can get in--committees can see right through that. You want to find a good fit. When it's there, it's there. It may turn out that we may or may not have the same interests in common, at which point (s)he may direct me to someone else. It's really not about "sucking up." It's really about finding people in your field and being genuinely interested in working with them and demonstrating that interest. Most of them are very friendly and will return your message. Some of them won't--and you probably want to steer clear of them anyway.

[lotf629]

Hi OP,

I'll offer my perspective, at least, and maybe other people can chime in or correct me. FWIW, I was accepted at one-and-a-half Ivies: I got in to one English program and was bumped to an interdisciplinary program at a second school (I don't know for sure that the interdisciplinary program is not as selective as the English program, but I'd guess so; still, hurray for fully funded offers at exciting places). I was rejected at Harvard and at Yale; I didn't apply to the others. There are certainly people who frequent (or lurk) on these boards that were much more successful than I've been at this process, so I'm not trying to put myself forward as the expert candidate (or, God help me, the "perfect candidate"). I think that as far as the "perfect candidate," well, it's kind of like that line from Good Will Hunting, if you will forgive me: "You're not perfect, sport, and let me save you the suspense: this girl you've met, she's not perfect either. But the question is whether or not you're perfect for each other." The burden is on you to prove "fit." I guess the info I'm about to provide will be enough to out me if anybody happens to know me/meet me in real life, but what the hell.

Here are my stats: undergrad GPA 3.0 (no, that isn't a typo), undergrad GPA in major (including easy-A creative writing courses) 3.71, MA GPA (MA in tangentially related field) 3.87. Test scores: 800 V, 750 M, 770 Lit Subject Test. So, right off the bat, you can see that I wasn't a "perfect" candidate: my undergrad GPA sucks, although I had a very good story to explain my performance. It wasn't the test scores that compensated for the grades, although they certainly helped in demonstrating that I could do the work. IMO, my letters, writing sample, and SOP made the difference.

To make another gratuitous film reference, I was the "Rudy" of Ivy league admissions. After (failing out of) undergrad, I still wanted to go on and get a Ph.D. and teach, so I squeaked in to a not-terribly-selective MA program, not in English but in a related field, at an Ivy league school, and I cross-registered for a bunch of graduate seminars in the English and Comp Lit departments. I worked ridiculously hard for two years (I had absolutely no work/life balance whatever, didn't date, gained weight, the whole nine yards...not that I recommend this extreme) and went to absurd lengths to impress the English and Comp Lit faculty at said Ivy league school. When I applied, I had four strong and specific academic letters from very well-known people (all tenured profs at said Ivy league school who had worked with me at the grad level already).

As far as what those letters actually looked like: I don't know for sure because I didn't see them, but I've been kind of startled by how much info about them I've been able to gather from the comments that recruiters have made. What's really startling to me is just how specific the letters apparently were about my original research: the people who wrote for me apparently went into great detail about the methodology that interested me, about the arguments I had made in the past, and about the research questions I would be likely to explore in the future. Getting some of them paraphrased (or in one case actually quoted) back to me felt as if I was reading a journal review of my own scholarship: "In X work, lotf considers X and Y issue in the light of Z and argues for..."

My writing sample was a seminar paper from said graduate courses that I had been told would be publishable if I polished it up. It was the best thing I had written in my life: not the most original, but certainly the most finished and mature. After I had gotten an A on it from a notoriously critical grader, I spent another 50-70 hours making it beautiful. A truly outstanding writing sample in the Harvard or Yale pool is a published or publishable research article that clearly draws from the approach favored by the faculty at that school (again, I was rejected from these schools; then again, my sample wasn't an article yet and is still not finished as such). If you're applying in a subfield where languages are at all important, your writing sample should demonstrate if at all possible that you can do original research in those languages. In the best of cases, the writing sample credibly cites people whom you could be working with at the program in a natural and unforced way. It's also best if the writing sample clearly reinforces the SOP and vice versa.

IMO, most people don't give nearly enough thought to how their application will work as a whole. The perfect application is quite narrow in focus: it demonstrates a clear grasp of a specific methodology and a commitment to a specific set of issues that are important to the people on the committee at the schools to which you are applying. Ideally, for instance, your SOP would say "I am interested in exploring Y topic from the standpoint of underwater basketweaving technologies," knowing that underwater basketweaving technologies were the current obsession of the people at your Ivy League school of choice. Then, in the best of all possible worlds, you would include a publishable writing sample that drew on the work of those Ivy League people, citing them by name and demonstrating how your own work might grow from their work in the future. Ideally, all of your letters would also specifically discuss not only your charm, grace, and natural intelligence but also your original ideas about underwater basketweaving and how they would fit in to the approach of said Ivy league school. (Some recommenders, the best ones, will customize their letters for your top choice schools, just as you are customizing your SOPs. You should prepare them to do this by giving them a brief summary of your sense of "fit" with each of your top programs.) You would also demonstrate a mastery of relevant reading and research skills important to your subfield.

Anyway. I apologize for the essay here. I just thought that my own experience (so different from what I think a lot of people expect) might shed some light on the question being asked by the OP. I think that the magic words are "original research," or at least "capacity for original research," and that if you can nail that part, your numbers may not matter. I hope that this post helps somebody somewhere and I apologize for its length.

[LOLhedgefunds]

I think "lotf629"s post is excellent. I would second all of that. This is coming from the perspective of someone (i.e., me) who did not get in to the Ivy League schools to which he or she applied.

My additional advice or suggestions based on my own experience: I was rejected from Ivy schools, probably because I applied to comp lit programs with only one foreign language (and with mediocre grades in that language - probably around a 3.5 GPA in 300 and 400 level classes), as well as a lack of attention to the criteria mentioned by the above poster. I got in to 2 decent state schools with very good fellowships, and am on the waitlist at a top-10 non-Ivy program (for English). I attribute that success (which I would call limited but I realize in the grand scheme of things I should be grateful for) to strong recommendations from moderately well known faculty, a good writing sample, and a high GPA/high honors. While I didn't make an elaborate effort to show how my background fits with the programs to which I applied, I think that the programs which accepted me are closest in orientation to my undergrad work.

My impression, from speaking to those who got in to or currently attend such programs, is that for Ivy schools you really need to have connections with faculty. Usually you get these by having already attended an Ivy league institution, where your professors know other professors at other Ivy league institutions. Most important of all is the extreme attention to tailoring your writing sample to the faculty's interests - which among other things, demonstrates your understanding of the program and thus your 'genuine' interest in being in that specific program - as mentioned by the above poster.

Hi OP,

I'll offer my perspective, at least, and maybe other people can chime in or correct me. FWIW, I was accepted at one-and-a-half Ivies: I got in to one English program and was bumped to an interdisciplinary program at a second school (I don't know for sure that the interdisciplinary program is not as selective as the English program, but I'd guess so; still, hurray for fully funded offers at exciting places). I was rejected at Harvard and at Yale; I didn't apply to the others. There are certainly people who frequent (or lurk) on these boards that were much more successful than I've been at this process, so I'm not trying to put myself forward as the expert candidate (or, God help me, the "perfect candidate"). I think that as far as the "perfect candidate," well, it's kind of like that line from Good Will Hunting, if you will forgive me: "You're not perfect, sport, and let me save you the suspense: this girl you've met, she's not perfect either. But the question is whether or not you're perfect for each other." The burden is on you to prove "fit." I guess the info I'm about to provide will be enough to out me if anybody happens to know me/meet me in real life, but what the hell.

Here are my stats: undergrad GPA 3.0 (no, that isn't a typo), undergrad GPA in major (including easy-A creative writing courses) 3.71, MA GPA (MA in tangentially related field) 3.87. Test scores: 800 V, 750 M, 770 Lit Subject Test. So, right off the bat, you can see that I wasn't a "perfect" candidate: my undergrad GPA sucks, although I had a very good story to explain my performance. It wasn't the test scores that compensated for the grades, although they certainly helped in demonstrating that I could do the work. IMO, my letters, writing sample, and SOP made the difference.

To make another gratuitous film reference, I was the "Rudy" of Ivy league admissions. After (failing out of) undergrad, I still wanted to go on and get a Ph.D. and teach, so I squeaked in to a not-terribly-selective MA program, not in English but in a related field, at an Ivy league school, and I cross-registered for a bunch of graduate seminars in the English and Comp Lit departments. I worked ridiculously hard for two years (I had absolutely no work/life balance whatever, didn't date, gained weight, the whole nine yards...not that I recommend this extreme) and went to absurd lengths to impress the English and Comp Lit faculty at said Ivy league school. When I applied, I had four strong and specific academic letters from very well-known people (all tenured profs at said Ivy league school who had worked with me at the grad level already).

As far as what those letters actually looked like: I don't know for sure because I didn't see them, but I've been kind of startled by how much info about them I've been able to gather from the comments that recruiters have made. What's really startling to me is just how specific the letters apparently were about my original research: the people who wrote for me apparently went into great detail about the methodology that interested me, about the arguments I had made in the past, and about the research questions I would be likely to explore in the future. Getting some of them paraphrased (or in one case actually quoted) back to me felt as if I was reading a journal review of my own scholarship: "In X work, lotf considers X and Y issue in the light of Z and argues for..."

My writing sample was a seminar paper from said graduate courses that I had been told would be publishable if I polished it up. It was the best thing I had written in my life: not the most original, but certainly the most finished and mature. After I had gotten an A on it from a notoriously critical grader, I spent another 50-70 hours making it beautiful. A truly outstanding writing sample in the Harvard or Yale pool is a published or publishable research article that clearly draws from the approach favored by the faculty at that school (again, I was rejected from these schools; then again, my sample wasn't an article yet and is still not finished as such). If you're applying in a subfield where languages are at all important, your writing sample should demonstrate if at all possible that you can do original research in those languages. In the best of cases, the writing sample credibly cites people whom you could be working with at the program in a natural and unforced way. It's also best if the writing sample clearly reinforces the SOP and vice versa.

IMO, most people don't give nearly enough thought to how their application will work as a whole. The perfect application is quite narrow in focus: it demonstrates a clear grasp of a specific methodology and a commitment to a specific set of issues that are important to the people on the committee at the schools to which you are applying. Ideally, for instance, your SOP would say "I am interested in exploring Y topic from the standpoint of underwater basketweaving technologies," knowing that underwater basketweaving technologies were the current obsession of the people at your Ivy League school of choice. Then, in the best of all possible worlds, you would include a publishable writing sample that drew on the work of those Ivy League people, citing them by name and demonstrating how your own work might grow from their work in the future. Ideally, all of your letters would also specifically discuss not only your charm, grace, and natural intelligence but also your original ideas about underwater basketweaving and how they would fit in to the approach of said Ivy league school. (Some recommenders, the best ones, will customize their letters for your top choice schools, just as you are customizing your SOPs. You should prepare them to do this by giving them a brief summary of your sense of "fit" with each of your top programs.) You would also demonstrate a mastery of relevant reading and research skills important to your subfield.

Anyway. I apologize for the essay here. I just thought that my own experience (so different from what I think a lot of people expect) might shed some light on the question being asked by the OP. I think that the magic words are "original research," or at least "capacity for original research," and that if you can nail that part, your numbers may not matter. I hope that this post helps somebody somewhere and I apologize for its length.

[lyonessrampant]

Hey lotf and LOLhedgefunds,

THank you both so much for sharing! I posted my grand plan for a final try at reaplication to make myself a better candidate above, and I'm glad to see that a lot of your advice about the writing sample and SoP both match suspicions I have regarding the reason for this year's rejections and my plans for making them better next year. It still isn't easy to take a (probable) rejection from a school where I have 20% points higher on the Subjectand 10% higher on verbal and higher GPA. . . but I think that really shows how important a tailored SoP and writing sample are.

A question on LoRs: Mine this year were from 3 of my MA profs who are also all well known in their fields. They didn't send me the letters and said they all wrote very strong letters. However, given that these profs also said I'd be able to get into the type of programs I applied to easily, I feel like there's definitely something very wrong with my application. It may be the SoP/writing sample thing mentioned above, but I'm freaking out it may be a letter too. . . Would you recommend asking them all again? One of my BA letter writers has stayed in close contact with me, even going to and also presenting at one of the conferences I presented at this year. He also read the paper that I'm presenting a version of at another conference. I know he'd tailor a letter to each school for me, and he would spend the most time on the letter and be (I'm guessing) the most flattering recommender. My undergrad is a tiny liberal arts school pretty well known in the Northwest but not at all known outside it (except for our football team). So, do you all think I should definitely use one letter from him and 2-3 of my MA prof letters? Thanks for the advice!

[LOLhedgefunds]

I think you should ask your recommenders what's up. If they were telling you you were going to get in to these programs, they are not lying about having written you strong recommendations (unless they are trying to mess with you).

I think it really comes down to have a focused, well-tailored research plan which is backed up by a focused, tailored and well-edited writing sample. I'm surprised that you've had such bad luck given what you've said - it sounds like you are much more focused than I am (I wasn't even planning on applying this year, but panicked when the job market tanked (LOL!)). See if you can get advisors/recommenders to read and comment on your SOP.

[Spritely]

I do not want to work in an office. I realized this two months into my post-graduation full-time job. I decided graduate school would be a great alternative.... None of us deserve desk jobs, or to be pushed aside, back into mediocrity. Isn't there a way to be great outside of academia, and aren't we the ones to make that happen?

I completely feel for you. After my master's I thought I would have a reasonably good chance of being hired at least adjunct to teach English at a community college or arts school. I live in a relatively large metropolitan city with a lot of local colleges and universities, and several junior faculty and adjunct positions are posted throughout the year. I quickly realized that I was not very competitive for these positions without a PhD, or without some major publications and a few more years of teaching experience. But how am I supposed to get teaching experience and a few more publications when I'm working full time in an office? I have stuck it out for three years at my current job (not the worst job in the world, but not the most producitve or fulfilling), and I have fully dedicated myself to going back for my PhD.

Based on some advice from UC profs, I figure that next year is going to be as competitive as this year. So, first step, apply to LOTS of school (I'm thinking maybe 10-15 next year) and apply to diverse programs.

I learned my lesson last year when I got into a fairly well respected school but did not have funding, and was therefore forced to stay at my job, growing even more frustrated with my situation. Although it was another year without being back in school, it improved my focus for the applications. Despite how it may seem on here or from personal experiences, I think a lot of people do not go back to school the first year they apply. Some wait for better offers the next year, and those of us who weren't really given viable offers in the first round redouble our efforts and apply again the next year. The quote above is exactly what I did: I went from 8 applications last year to 14 this year. I researched a broad range of schools and applied to several lower tier schools.

It's worthwile applying to one or two Ivies, especially if you are highly qualified and think you stand a great chance. But when most schools are accepting between 3-7% of applicants, not even everyone who is highly qualified will have a sliver of a chance at the Ivies. I can't speak to anyone else's career aspirations or even their PhD program preference, but I really agree with the posts that urge people to consider applying to a range of schools, from one or two Ivies (give yourself a chance, at least--stranger things have happened) to top 25 public universities, to some lower tier schools. Some applicants would never go to lower tier schools that don't match their ideal plan for graduate research and future job prospects. On the other hand, I know that I would be happy teaching at a small arts college or, to start, a community college, and so accepting a funded offer to go back for my PhD at a lower tier school is completely acceptable if those are the only offers I get this year (we'll see what my remaining five schools and two waitlists have to say in the coming weeks). While my GPA is excellent and I have a Master's from a top 20 school, my test scores are not anywhere near as impressive as the other posters, and my letters of support are from faculty who are not as well known nationally. I have presented at a conference but do not have any reseach publications. I know that I realistically stand no chance of getting into an Ivy PhD program, and as you can see, I tried to be very realistic and pragmatic about my list of schools this year. Even if I am rejected from my remaining schools, I have two acceptable offers to choose from, which will get me out of the office and back on the path to a PhD and teaching.

Another apology for a long post, but it seems like everyone on here either applied to and was accepted at top tier schools, or applied to and was rejected by top tier schools. I see very few posters who are applying to lower tier schools where they would be much more likely to be admitted should the top tier schools deny them admission.

[lyonessrampant]

One of my recommenders did read my SoP and said it was exactly what adcoms would want to see. . . or not. I'm guessing by process of elimination that maybe my writing sample is the issue? Well, the sample is from my MA thesis, which my advisor said was one of the few theses he'd worked with that made an actual contribution to the field, but he didn't read the cutting I used as a sample. Maybe in the process of cutting it, something was lost? I think I'm going to use a shorter seminar paper and another class paper I wrote to make writing samples from next year. Both relate to my research interests but showcase different parts in action (one uses a lot more critical theory than the other for example). I'm thinking that I should pick depending upon the specific interests of the school I'm applying to and maybe get more feedback on it before I submit my app.

You're right, I think, that they wouldn't say they wrote strong letters and then sabotage my apps. I had good personal relationships with all of them and have been in contact with two of them through this process, so I think I'm just paranoid and desperate right now

Spritely, you make some good points. I'm glad to hear that you've got 2 guaranteed options this year and maybe more! I'll be sure to apply to a much broader range of programs next year. My ego has had such a beating this year (a good thing I'm sure once I get a little further out) that I'm much more open to a variety of possibilities. Good luck!

[orinincandenza]

I'm finishing out my second year of apps with nothing but a waitlist to show for it, and I have become exasperated. Granted, I don't have an MA, and I turned down an offer for an MA program last year and applied to 9 PhD programs this year. Dumb move, it seems like now, but like lots of others, I was following the advice of professors I trusted. They encouraged me to apply at large, well-known state universities, as well as shooting for the stars and going for a couple Ivies. I think it's true that things have changed so much since they've applied that their expectations are now outdated and unrealistic. So I took this position teaching through Americorps specifically because it's a year-long program and I was convinced I'd be accepted and starting a program this fall. Now there's a good chance I'm (excuse me) totally fucked.

Anyway, I'm grasping for something constructive here, and I think everything you guys are saying is spot-on. Unless I get this acceptance I'm hoping for, I'll begin the whole stupid process over again only with way, way different schools. I know they're out there -- great programs that we're all missing but that would be perfect for us -- and I guess it's just a matter of finding them. And, of course, spending all that money their application fees. Ugh. I'm off to class to try and shake this off. Good luck Myshkin, and to everybody else as well.

[jasper.milvain]

Postby MyshkinLit

[lyonessrampant]

I think jaspar has some good points. I presented at my first large conference last month and it was AWESOME! I absolutely loved the experience, met a lot of profs and Ph.D. students, and not only made "contacts" but got a lot of useful info about what studying at a certain school is like. Besides, you're hanging out with a bunch of dorks like you I've found this forum comforting because we all share a lot in common. Conferences are sort of like that but without the edge of neurotic obsession that can also understandably tinge this forum.

[katanianQ]

Adding my 2 cents....

I have an M.Phil from a UK 'ivy', 3 years as an assistant professor, one conference presentation, chapter in a book, and a book coming out in a few months.. Phi Beta Kappa, great undergrad GPA, eh GRE scores..

I don't know what else I could have done; its all greek to me.

Except I freakin speak greek so I guess its all mandarin to me.

[greekdaph]

Lyoness, how recently have your recommenders gone through grad school themselves? Admissions keep getting more and more competitive (and that's not to even mention the current economy). I'm sure your professors aren't trying to pull the wool over your eyes; maybe they're just not cognizant of just how brutal the process really is these days? I've had professors tell me that they don't think they would have gotten into the institutions where they did their grad work if they were applying nowadays. And/or maybe your recommenders are just confident in your work--a confidence that you shouldn't lose no matter how difficult of a season it has been.

[lyonessrampant]

Thanks greekdaph. . . two are pretty young but still I think things changed dramatically even between last year and this year. For example, the school they teach at where I did my MA slashed their offers from 25 to 11 this year (and correspondingly, of course, their cohort). They couldn't have known that when advising me, so I think a lot of it just might be the timing. One of them told me that when I emailed him. . . I just have to stop feeling sorry for myself and work to be better next year.

[mteutsch]

I think I'm in the same situation this year, in regards to economic timing.