What exactly made you a successful applicant?

[ComeBackZinc]

I don't necessarily disagree with what Phil Sparrow said. But I want to stress that "good enough" or "excellent"  shouldn't suggest that there is a continuum of quality to excellence. There isn't! What is an excellent  paper for one reader in one department in one context will be a merely adequate writing sample in a different context. I totally agree that fit is a really important criterion. But when people discuss fit, they tend to write about it as if it is a property that can be accurately assessed from outside of the whims of a particular situation at a particular time. I don't think that's true. I think that you can do your level best to make your applications fit particular departments. But I don't think that you can ever make your application fit. Nor can you know how closely you match what they are looking for when you're engaged in the process.

 

And that's the most essential thing to say in this whole process: you are not in control of your own success. You can do a lot of things to help yourself; you can be more strategic or less; you can maximize or minimize your chances within a particular situation. But you don't control whether or not you get in. You just don't. And part of the problem with a board like this is that people who have gotten into competitive programs are both those who will be taken most seriously, having already "won," and those who have the most incentive to act as if entry into these programs is a straightforward assessment of your value as a student-- and that "value" is even a meaningful concept in this context.

 

The truth is, much or most of this process will always be unknowable to applicants, and success will always be (to one degree or another) out of their hands. That's not comforting, but it's true.

[Phil Sparrow]

I don't necessarily disagree with what Phil Sparrow said. But I want to stress that "good enough" or "excellent"  shouldn't suggest that there is a continuum of quality to excellence. There isn't! What is an excellent  paper for one reader in one department in one context will be a merely adequate writing sample in a different context. I totally agree that fit is a really important criterion. But when people discuss fit, they tend to write about it as if it is a property that can be accurately assessed from outside of the whims of a particular situation at a particular time. I don't think that's true. I think that you can do your level best to make your applications fit particular departments. But I don't think that you can ever make your application fit. Nor can you know how closely you match what they are looking for when you're engaged in the process.

 

And that's the most essential thing to say in this whole process: you are not in control of your own success. You can do a lot of things to help yourself; you can be more strategic or less; you can maximize or minimize your chances within a particular situation. But you don't control whether or not you get in. You just don't. And part of the problem with a board like this is that people who have gotten into competitive programs are both those who will be taken most seriously, having already "won," and those who have the most incentive to act as if entry into these programs is a straightforward assessment of your value as a student-- and that "value" is even a meaningful concept in this context.

 

The truth is, much or most of this process will always be unknowable to applicants, and success will always be (to one degree or another) out of their hands. That's not comforting, but it's true.

 

This is a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to convey. 

[jrockford27]

I suppose I qualify as a successful candidate?  I applied to ten, was waitlisted at two, accepted at two, and offered a partially funded masters at one.

 

I mentioned specific professors in each of my personal statements, as that was critical for establishing fit.  Since I'm in what's probably a bit of a niche subfield within English, it was important for me to point out that I wasn't coming totally out of left field applying to these programs (though in the case of a couple, I sure was, don't know what I was thinking with that Emory app).  

 

I have no idea what was best about my application.  I'd say that my most enticing acceptance comes from a school that is very big on theory and popular media, and my writing sample is well, big on theory and popular media.  Likewise, my two wait lists come from schools where I was able to find professors who matched up with my research interests almost perfectly.  I mentioned those profs by name in my statement, as well as what work of theirs I'd read (I went out of my way to make sure I'd read articles by any POIs), and how it related to my past and proposed work.  

 

Actually the way I narrowed my list was by making sure each department had at least two professors that I could articulate a plausible connection with in one or two sentences without reaching (though in some cases, I still reached, again, Emory).  This involved many long hours going to the university library to read book chapters, articles, excerpts, etc.

 

Maybe what made me a successful candidate was simply program selection.  I was probably more careful about selecting my schools to apply to than I was with my actual applications!  There has been much debate over the importance of fit, I lean to the side of "fit is super important."  I mean, at the end of the day it all pretty much boils down to whether they "like" you or not, which is another way of saying "fit."

 

I'm a bit jealous of you people who have actually gotten emails from POIs talking about your applications.  Other than some, admittedly very nice, letters regarding funding, I really haven't heard much beyond the acceptance and invitation to the open house.  Heck, my other acceptance hasn't even emailed me about funding yet.

Edited March 11, 2013 by jrockford27

[antihumanist]

And to reply to Gwendolyn, I named AT LEAST 3 professors I wanted to work with at each program. If a program had less than 3 or 4 people I wanted to work with, then I couldn't see it being a fit for my interests. At most places I applied (ESPECIALLY AT OSU, where I was accepted), it was difficult to pick only 3-4 professors I could see as potential advisors.

 

ALSO - I am wondering if there might be some sort of a difference for applicants coming in with an MA versus those entering with a BA. With an MA, your research interests should be somewhat focused at this point, perhaps more so than those coming in with a BA. Perhaps with an MA it is more reasonable to point out specific faculty with whom you could see yourself working than it may be for those entering with a BA, who have more time to grow their research focus? Just food for thought.

 

While I totally agree with you, interesting counterpoint: every program except Irvine, I always mentioned 2~3 professors that I might see myself working with.  For Irvine, I only mentioned one professor in my SOP, and it's the one place I got in.  Of the others, I was 3-3 (waitlist/rejection).  So it's very bizarre - I had actually figured Irvine as a huge stretch/reach (since I only mentioned 1 prof in SOP) and ended up getting in.

[Stately Plump]

These are things I have learned about literary studies Ph.D. admissions, and I do believe they are accurate:

 

Fit really does matter, though it is mysterious and difficult to gauge from the applicant's perspective, and it can mean a number of different things.

 

I definitely agree here. I found out after being accepted that one of the people whom I mentioned in my SOP had published an article (actually, it was his first ever publication, as a graduate student in the early 80s) on a topic strikingly similar to my writing sample. He mentioned, when I met with him, that my writing sample struck a chord with him, and he didn't forget it. And when I mentioned him in my SOP, I had no idea that he had published that article, because I was familiar only with his more current research.

Additionally, my research interests are primarily non-dramatic Renaissance literature, and I have found out (again, only since starting) that the majority of Renaissance graduate students in my program are interested in drama. I don't know how this figured into my acceptance, but I can't help but think it played a role, as the admissions committee was (potentially) trying to diversify their cohort of Renaissance grad students. 

[Grev]

Borrowing Antihumanist as the example:

 

While I totally agree with you, interesting counterpoint: every program except Irvine, I always mentioned 2~3 professors that I might see myself working with.  For Irvine, I only mentioned one professor in my SOP, and it's the one place I got in.  Of the others, I was 3-3 (waitlist/rejection).  So it's very bizarre - I had actually figured Irvine as a huge stretch/reach (since I only mentioned 1 prof in SOP) and ended up getting in.

 

I wonder if there's a quantity/quality thing happening here? I mean, you need to be able to work with a department as a whole, but you only get one adviser.  What do you folks think- is it better to have a tight match with one faculty member, or a looser match with a few?  And does that change if your applying to an MA, or after having completed your MA?

[Gwendolyn]

I think properly establishing fit and naming professors is rarely, if ever, a negative thing. Sometimes people just don't get in. Space is limited. I think attributing failure to get into a program on establishing fit in a PS is a bit unreasonable.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Gwendolyn

[jazzyd]

I didn't include any fit paragraphs in my SOP beyond [insert name of University here] and I only regret that in the sense that I think it would have gotten me a more serious look at some places that rejected me. Which places? Who knows. And I don't presume to think the outcome might have been any different, only that my SOP might have resonated a bit more with adcoms had I exhibited a closer and more thorough understanding of their program.

 

On the other hand, I was certainly not shut out, which is enough to prove that a fit paragraph isn't a prerequisite for admission.

 

Fit seems more mysterious to me the more I speak with other prospective students at various programs. I've heard on more than one occasion that people got into programs they thought had the least fit and rejected from programs that seemed to fit perfectly. Part of me supposes that adcoms and faculty in general have a much better understanding of fit than applicants... though a more cynical part perhaps wonders if fit is really not fully understood by anybody, and/or comes down to wildly varying factors between programs. Realistically, it's a bit of both.