"Mid-tier" Schools? Thoughts on U of Iowa, U of Minnesota, U of Maryland, Vanderbilt, etc

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

I'm sure people have posted on some of these schools before, but I thought I'd have a place to have this discussion anyway. I'm just curious about the mid-tier schools (though I'm not sure what schools exactly fall under this category--I was thinking the schools that are ranked 30-50 ish). 

 

I'm trying to narrow my list of schools down and finding it hard. I'm focusing on fit and ranking as I'm pretty open to location, but now I'm starting to get curious about the location and how much the ranking actually matters once you get out of the top 20. 

 

I think I fit well with these schools, but don't really know much about them or their reputations (I have the rankings from US News, obvs). Anyone have any experience at these schools or have visited them? For Vanderbilt in particular I'm worried about it being in the South--thoughts on this? Does the school have a conservative slant? 

 

I guess I'm just looking for information that you can't find on their webpage. If anyone has experiences at these places or knows something informative about them that would be great to hear about. Sorry for vagueness! 

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

Oh, add U of Buffalo, SUNY to the list. 

 

And, if anyone has information about GRE scores needed to get in to any of these schools, that would be great (I know it can be listed on their webpages, but if people have personal experiences that would be better). 

[hashslinger]

I don't necessarily think you're correct to assume that these are "mid-tier" schools. Vanderbilt and Maryland are extremely competitive; I know less about Iowa and Minnesota, but I'm assuming that they are as well. And Buffalo is a top theory school. These schools turn away hundreds of people every year.

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

Right--that's why I said that I wasn't sure what qualified. What do you think qualifies a school as mid-tier? 

 

I'm just starting to wonder how much the rankings play a role in everything. For instance, does a school ranked in the 60s and 70s mean that you're much less likely to get a job?

[gatz]

Right--that's why I said that I wasn't sure what qualified. What do you think qualifies a school as mid-tier? 

 

I'm just starting to wonder how much the rankings play a role in everything. For instance, does a school ranked in the 60s and 70s mean that you're much less likely to get a job?

That particular issue has been pretty much discussed to death on here, I think. If you search around I'm sure you can read people rehashing the same arguments over and over again though...

All of the schools you listed will be difficult to get into, is my gut feeling. Apply if you feel like you have a real good reason to be there in order to build your career

[ἠφανισμένος]

For Vanderbilt in particular I'm worried about it being in the South--thoughts on this? Does the school have a conservative slant? 

 

Since you're asking this, I'm guessing you haven't lived in the south.  Keep in mind that Nashville is a city and Vanderbilt is a major research university.  It's mainstream academia -- nothing to worry about, whatever your worries might be.

[somethinbruin]

Right--that's why I said that I wasn't sure what qualified. What do you think qualifies a school as mid-tier? 

 

I'm just starting to wonder how much the rankings play a role in everything. For instance, does a school ranked in the 60s and 70s mean that you're much less likely to get a job?

 

I think it's incredibly hard to determine rankings, and even once they are set it's hard to extrapolate meaning from them. For example: Ohio State has a decent ranking at #26, but suppose much of that ranking rests on its work in narrative theory. So if you're a narrative theorist, then Ohio State is the place to be. But if you're interested in studying some other field that's not so strong at OSU, like (purely hypothetical here--not that familiar with the department) Milton or Spenser, then the ranking might be a pretty meaningless number in terms of your education. In the same vein, Purdue is one of the top places to study rhet comp in the country, but  you wouldn't know that by their #63 ranking by US News and World report (a rank they share with 14 other programs). That's why it is unfortunate that academics seem to rely so blindly on rank as an indicator of quality. Too many variables.

 

Of the schools you mention, I know that I wouldn't consider Maryland or Minnesota to be mid-tier. They consider themselves very much top-tier programs, and they are extremely competitive with their admissions. I was dissuaded from applying to Vanderbilt by an adviser who said the program is probably more selective than it has cause to be, whatever that means, but the city of Nashville is a vibrant, fun city. I would have no problem living there!

 

People put a lot of stock in rank, but the reality is that not much separates programs 20-100. The top ten schools by reputation are clear (although not clear indicators of success on the job market--particularly since some Ivy league schools don't give GTAs much opportunity to teach their own classes, and a lot of smaller universities look for that teaching experience when they're hiring) but after those top programs it gets really tight. Success at that point depends largely on the work that you do as a scholar and the materials you send with your application. 

 

In the end, I think you're much better off looking for the right fit as I don't think much can be gleaned/learned from trying to parse the rankings too much. Any admissions process will be a crapshoot, so look where you think you will do best or look for places where the research and opportunities excite you.

 

And Gatz is right. I've seen several discussions here and elsewhere of how ranking affect post-graduate employment. What I've taken from these discussions is this: If you want to teach at one of the Top 10 programs (longshot) then realistically you probably need to go to an Ivy. Outside of that, it's a toss up. Going to a more prestigious school may be one thing that moves your CV to the top of the pile, but an interesting/new research focus or an innovative teaching portfolio is just as likely to grab someone's attention. And even then, once your CV gets you an interview, you've got to ace the faculty interview, meeting with administrators and students, and provide a strong teaching performance/research talk. There are too many moving parts to really gauge how important rankings are for 98% of the jobs that come on the market.

 

Which leads me to my final point (I promise): When you've got GTA offers and you're trying to decide where you ultimately go for your PhD, make sure you ask about professionalization programs and what sort of prep the program does/offers to get you ready for the job market. It's important and easily overlooked. 

[Seeking]

Personally, I am against this culture of selecting candidates by the school they went to, instead of the kind of research they did or the teaching/publication/conference papers track record they have.

 

But unfortunately, it is very true that when you go for the interview, almost always you will be topped by an applicant from the T-20 group.

 

To get a sense of the list of schools that are successfully producing teaching faculty, look at the faculty profiles of about 50 schools in your discipline from the top rank to the lowest rank. You'll see how many times a selective group of schools get repeated on the faculty profile pages. This is true even of the lowest ranked schools - you'll be surprised to see how many Ivy-PhDs teach at these low-ranked schools.

 

Apply to these schools from where the faculty is coming and you should do fine.

 

This is in fact my main argument against the culture of selecting candidates by the ranking of their Graduate school - if the same group of faculty is teaching at all these schools, then how is their teaching quality lower or higher? But the problem is that we are trapped in this vicious circle and it's very difficult to break this circle. So, at this stage you have to play by their rules. When you become chair of a selection committee, you can make a difference.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Seeking

[antigone56]

I agree that Maryland is pretty "up there."  

 

I'm applying there anyway, though, because I think it's a good fit for me.

 

Also, while I agree that all schools are hard to get into, I'd say that observing my own friends, acquaintances, classmates (the vast majority of whom are the types to go to graduate school), more of them are in 3rd and 4th tier schools than 1st and 2nd tier schools.  So while I can appreciate all the talk about how it's a crapshoot and that your chances are no better at school rank # 81 than school rank # 20, from what I can see, in general, your chances are better at mid-tier schools where you fit than top schools where you fit if you consider yourself kind of average (not a "star" applicant, but not a half-bad one either).  This doesn't mean there aren't exceptions or that variables we can't know or predict (because we don't have the skinny on the departments or what's going on in them in terms of needs/changes/philosophy) don't come into play that mean unexpected acceptances by top schools and unexpected rejections by really low-ranked ones.  But in general, based on where I see people going and assuming they applied to some top schools themselves, they go to mid-tier schools.  

 

And I do get that any given school isn't just simply # whatever; they have strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others, and their "rank" could, technically, be five or six different numbers, depending.  It remains, still, that if you look at where people are going, more of them go to mid-tier schools than "high rank" ones.

 

I know a person at UT, one at U Chicago, one at OSU, and one at Berkeley.  The rest of the people I went to school with and of whom I have any knowledge of where they're doing their PhDs, and I'd estimate that number to be in the 30s and 40s, are at University of Oregon and University of Nevada type of schools.  Thus, I think mid-tier schools are a better bet in general.  I'm not sure why people can't just acknowledge this.  Doing so doesn't somehow undermine your understanding of the complexity and unpredictability of admissions.  it is just a generalization that one shouldn't ignore.

[ProfLorax]

I am at Maryland, and I chose Maryland over a top-20 school. I would do it again! Why? In addition to great funding, resources, faculty, and job placement, I just felt like I belong here. I haven't looked back. Of course, being in rhet/comp, I have a different relationship to the rankings (none), so it was an easy choice to make. In terms of specific admissions numbers, last year, Maryland accepted nine students out of 200 applicants. Eight of the nine accepted Maryland's offer, and they decided to not move to the wait list. 

 

Ranking matters, sure, but I don't think the difference between #20 and #32 matters significantly. If you want to see how graduates fare on the job market, google the names of recent graduates and see where they have ended up. That is a stronger indicator of a program's job placement power than the ranking alone. 

[Seeking]

Rankings for different disciplines differ significantly.

 

For rhetoric and composition, Oregon and Maryland are very much part of the group of schools that send out successful Graduates who land a faculty position.

 

One has to see the faculty profiles in one's own discipline to see where they got their PhDs from. 

[Bennett]

Hi BunnyWantsAPhD. It might be helpful to have some idea of your research interests in order to advise you on these various schools/programs.

[danieleWrites]

The way rankings are determined isn't that difficult. The school itself is ranked with three factors that are given equal share. The first factor is GRE score of admitted students. The second factor is a number assigned by a survey where administration from other schools rank the school (no one ranks their own). The third varies from program to program, but generally is a numerical value based on the jobs or earnings of program graduates in the first year after graduation.

So. You're essentially looking at schools ranked by the collective ability to take the GRE, opinions of administrators in other schools, and monetary value of the degree. This skews Ivy League not because Ivies are necessarily "better" but because prestige skews every level of the ranking methodology. If everyone wants to get into Super Fabbo U, they can pick whoever they want and they'll get the higher GRE scorers, for example.

The way rankings are useful to an individual really is where things get difficult. The information is there and its valuable, but how does it apply to an individual situation? I see a lot of posts here about mid-tier schools, and I'm getting the opinion that people apply to mid-tier because they don't feel good enough for the top-tier and they don't feel the bottom-tier has anything to offer. Never mind that the entire tier system is pretty much predicated on the ability of students to take the GRE (which really only measures an individual's ability to take the GRE).

A better question isn't what we think of the schools you're looking at, but whether or not these schools are doing work in the field you're interested in. Don't reject top-tier schools, either. After all, they can't tell you yes if you don't give them the opportunity. Picking a school is a research-laden endeavor and there are no real short cuts to it, despite what US News & World Report would have you believe.

[champagne]

As far as the issue of living in the south goes, I wouldn't worry about that much, especially with Vanderbilt. There was a discussion on this last year, I believe, and while we receive constant reminders of the severe lag in our social atmosphere (racist sorority recruitment at the University of Alabama, riots at the University of Mississippi), the media makes these sentiments appear to be much more prevalent than they actually are. You're more likely to encounter a liberal, progressive, Allie, women's rights activist on Vanderbilt's (and other prestigious southern research institutions') campus than you are a second amendment redneck that doesn't have the first clue how Reagan's economical policies have led to a much harder life for him.

 

I've lived in the south my entire life, and I love it in a very complicated way. The proliferation of knowledge and the study of why the south is the way it is is one of my main reasons for going to graduate school. It's okay to do that here. There are a few feathers that could stand to be ruffled.

 

I said this in the last thread that this came up, but it bears repeating: We wear shoes most of the time, and we use the restroom indoors. I promise!

[NowMoreSerious]

I know this has been said before, but my best advice, having applied to 16 schools last year, is to apply to as many schools that are a good fit for your interests as you can afford.

Believe me, at the end of the season, the results might look much different than you might have expected. I didn't get into several schools that were "lower ranked" than the schools I did get into.

There are many variables that figure into where you get accepted.

For instance, at one school I was given insider information that I was among their top three choices for all applicants. At another school ranked like 30 places below that school, I wasn't even waitlisted. Both, I thought, were good fits.

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

I leave for one day and there's so much to respond to! Thanks everyone for taking the time to help me think through all of this. Sorry for taking up time/space if this has already been covered to death on here. I guess I'm just looking for this magical answer to how to get into a program and there really just isn't one.

 

To those that gave me information about the south--thanks for correcting my assumptions. Good to know more information about the south; I've just never visited anywhere there except for Florida, so I don't have a decent perspective (except for what you see in the media). 

 

To Bennet: my interests are the Victorian era (Dickens in particular) and gender studies (masculinity to be more specific). I want to branch out to the long 19th century so I can see the cultural, national shifts in constructions of gender. This is a pretty vague idea of what I'm studying, I know, so let me know if you want more info. 

 

I am still curious about what makes a school a "mid-tier" school then if the schools ranked in the 30-50s are part of the top tier. It seems like everyone has their own idea of what is in the middle for them, so it's hard to define, which is okay. I'm going to follow everyone's advice and just focus on fit and put out the best application that I can. 

[hashslinger]

I think it's incredibly hard to determine rankings, and even once they are set it's hard to extrapolate meaning from them. For example: Ohio State has a decent ranking at #26, but suppose much of that ranking rests on its work in narrative theory. So if you're a narrative theorist, then Ohio State is the place to be. But if you're interested in studying some other field that's not so strong at OSU, like (purely hypothetical here--not that familiar with the department) Milton or Spenser, then the ranking might be a pretty meaningless number in terms of your education. In the same vein, Purdue is one of the top places to study rhet comp in the country, but  you wouldn't know that by their #63 ranking by US News and World report (a rank they share with 14 other programs). That's why it is unfortunate that academics seem to rely so blindly on rank as an indicator of quality. Too many variables.

 

I think this is assessment holds some truth, but I don't quite agree with all the information here. First of all, you're correct to assume that rhet/comp programs are something separate altogether. USNWR is based mostly on "reputation" of literature programs, and my impression is that those rankings don't have much relevance to rhet/comp at all. For rhet/comp I'd consult faculty members and throw the USNWR away. Same goes for creative writing PhDs.

 

However, for literature, as dubious and fictional as the rankings are, I'd still recommend attending the best-ranked program you can possibly get into. The better-ranked programs are indeed good schools and generally have strong programs and well-developed faculty in just about everything. Obviously there are exceptions, but I still think you'd be better off attending #20 or #25 to study children's literature rather than #90 because you think it has some corner on children's literature. (The good programs will give you the skills you need to study almost any area anyway.) Why? "Successful" (i.e. well-ranked) programs are in the business of perpetuating their own success. They are successful partly because they appear successful, and at the end of the day, the perception of your program's success is a major currency on the job market.

 

It's wrong to assume that the #20 program is the same on the job market as the #100. I'm not disputing that people in the 100s can be great scholars, but whether or not the national job market recognizes this is a different story.  The PhD from Bowling Green State is not going to get the same traction in the same jobs as the PhD from Northwestern. They two PhDs aren't going to even move in the same job market circles. This doesn't mean that the Bowling Green PhD won't get a job at all--they might be competitive for a different type of job (perhaps more regional or local), and they might be very successful at getting those jobs, while the Northwestern PhD might be less successful in a more national job market. And just as the Bowling Green PhD might be shut out of consideration for MLA jobs, the Northwestern PhD might be considered "not right" for generalist jobs at community colleges and smaller schools. But in any case, the two PhDs won't be perceived in the same way. There are indeed a lot of factors on the job market--but above all, there are different job markets.

 

In some cases, however, the rankings provide a less clear-cut answer. Is Emory really better than Boston U? Should you go to Buffalo or UMass-Amherst? At that point you're really splitting hairs, and that's when you need to look to things like faculty interests, grad student placement, funding opportunities, etc. While Princeton and Harvard are safe bets for getting a job, it really is more a toss-up at most of the other solid, recognized, but less "name-brand" programs. That's where things get really tricky, and where your performance while in grad school (i.e. publication) matters most.

Edited October 24, 2013 by hashslinger

[Katia_chan]

I'm going to put something out here that a lot of people are probably going to disagree with, but it was said by a very well-respected professor of mine, and it could stand to be repeated.

 

"Once you have a PHD, no matter what it's in or where it's from, you *have* a PHD.  You can reinvent yourself once you have it."

 

Now, that may not ring true if the school has an actively bad reputation.  If 90% of faculty in academia see that name and wrinkle their noses, yeah, you might be in trouble.  But as long as it's a place that produces decent research, you are going to be fine.  Yes, at one or two interviews you might lose out to the guy who has Harvard on his CV.  But you could just as easily encounter a school where they don't think Harvard graduates get enough teaching experience, and they hate Harvard.  Do your best work, and it won't matter that you didn't attend a top 20 school.

 

...And something that may or may not be *completely* true, but if you apply to work somewhere where prestige is that important, and where they would overlook you just because you aren't Ivy, then you may not have wanted to work their anyway.

 

Just my two cents.  Do with it as you will.

[purpleperson]

The school where I did my M.A. in English ranks in the 90s for their PhD in Literature, but # 4 for their PhD in Creative Writing.  So yes, it varies.

 

A bunch of people who got their PhD from the school where I did my M.A. got jobs at universities.  Not fancy or well-known ones, though.  They are mostly in small towns at relatively unknown universities. 

[jrockford27]

I might be qualified to comment on your specific question.  I went to Minnesota for undergrad.  I was accepted to SUNY Buffalo and waitlisted at Vanderbilt (there were plenty of other results too, but those are the ones you asked about), and I currently attend a PhD program at a school ranked in the 30s by the USNEWS list.  Bare numbers.  My GRE was 164v/156q/6.0w and I had a 4.0 undergrad GPA.  

 

My first year, I applied mostly to "name" programs in the top 20, because I had my head up my ass.  Yes: If you go to Yale, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, etc., your job prospects improve.  Those are wonderful schools.  I didn't get into them.  I suspect I didn't get into them less because of the quality of my work, and more because what I was doing simply didn't fit.  I'm in a fairly niche field as far as English goes, and I was silly to try and make a case for those programs.  My second time around, I cast a wider net, and I found a lot of really delightful programs.  In fact, I found a program that I didn't even really know about my first time around, and realized it was perfect for me.  I got in there, and I'm exceedingly happy about it.  Every day I'm reminded why it was an awesome choice, even if we're y'know, in the 30s.  Pick programs you like, and once you get to where you are, you'll quickly forget about where you didn't get in and what your school is ranked.

 

I tend to think that if you do good work, you rise to the top.  So I don't sweat the ranking too much.  Prestige helps, no doubt, but it's not everything.  There are profs in my program from non-Ivy schools, and it's a school where anyone would be happy to get a tenure track position, I think.  Though, at this point, I'm sure anyone would be happy to get a tenure track position anywhere!

Edited October 26, 2013 by jrockford27

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

Thanks for the input jrockford27. I definitely can see how once you're in a program you'll worry less--I can definitely anticipate feeling that way. At this point I just want to get into a top 50 program. Though I'm exceedingly doubting my abilities to do so since I only have a 3.7 undergrad GPA, 3.9 MA GPA and a 158 verbal (it's really the GRE that's making me worry). Only time will tell I guess. 

[Swagato]

Your GPAs are perfectly fine. The GRE could be better, but I would focus far more on more weighty things: statement of purpose, writing sample, and letters. 

[negarey]

Oh, add U of Buffalo, SUNY to the list. 

 

And, if anyone has information about GRE scores needed to get in to any of these schools, that would be great (I know it can be listed on their webpages, but if people have personal experiences that would be better). 

 

 

I went to SUNY Buffalo for undergraduate and I'm applying there for my MA. In fact, it's the only master's program I'm applying to that doesn't provide funding and it is still my top choice. I'd go there for my PhD if I could. 

 

It is an incredible school and the campus is beautiful. Although it's not in the heart of the city, it IS in what is considered one of the safest areas in the nation. It's probably a thirty minute drive from Buffalo proper, and the atmosphere is just vibrant with knowledge. I know, I know, that can be said of nearly all colleges, but this department really just hums with innovation. 

 

I had the privilege of being convinced to pursue the honors program which showed me exactly why it is indeed a top theory school. Also, I took many classes with Professor Ablow, the professor of Victorian literature who manages to be incredibly encouraging and friendly while maintaining a very rigorous course of study. I can't recommend her or the school enough. 

 

Good luck with your applications!

[jrockford27]

Thanks for the input jrockford27. I definitely can see how once you're in a program you'll worry less--I can definitely anticipate feeling that way. At this point I just want to get into a top 50 program. Though I'm exceedingly doubting my abilities to do so since I only have a 3.7 undergrad GPA, 3.9 MA GPA and a 158 verbal (it's really the GRE that's making me worry). Only time will tell I guess. 

 

I guess I haven't asked around about it, but one of my professors, who has sat on the graduate admissions committee at Minnesota but is now at a different school, told me when I was applying that for him a 4.0 was outstanding, but that a "3.7 is enough".  

 

It's cliche because it's true: your personal statement and your writing sample are most important.  According to the survey, there were people with worse GPAs and GRE scores (some significantly so!) that got into schools that I applied to and was rejected from.  Likely, more people on the faculty just thought those people fit better.  Or, they already had several people similar to me in the program.  Or, who knows?  One thing I've learned being in and seeing how departments actually work for the first time is that there are all kinds of strange things that go into the selection process.  Two professors that I didn't even mention in my statement of purpose turned out to be the biggest supporters of my admission to the program I'm in now, I was told.   

Edited October 29, 2013 by jrockford27

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

Your GPAs are perfectly fine. The GRE could be better, but I would focus far more on more weighty things: statement of purpose, writing sample, and letters. 

 

Thanks. So, I'm an idiot and thought that most of the applications were due December 15th like they were last year, but it looks like most of them are due December 1st. So now I'm freaking out because I'm still in the drafting process of my SOP. Someone suggested that I wait another year, but I think I can get it done and still have time for people to review them  before I submit the applications. Am I just being overly optimistic? For my WS, I'm revising a chapter of my thesis. I know which schools I'm applying to and why. I just need to revise my SOPs from last year, fill out the online apps, and I scheduled to re-take the GRE on Nov 15th (which now I'm realizing that they scores are probably not even going to make it to most of the schools...sigh). Ugh. This process is so daunting. 

 

 

I went to SUNY Buffalo for undergraduate and I'm applying there for my MA. In fact, it's the only master's program I'm applying to that doesn't provide funding and it is still my top choice. I'd go there for my PhD if I could. 

 

It is an incredible school and the campus is beautiful. Although it's not in the heart of the city, it IS in what is considered one of the safest areas in the nation. It's probably a thirty minute drive from Buffalo proper, and the atmosphere is just vibrant with knowledge. I know, I know, that can be said of nearly all colleges, but this department really just hums with innovation. 

 

I had the privilege of being convinced to pursue the honors program which showed me exactly why it is indeed a top theory school. Also, I took many classes with Professor Ablow, the professor of Victorian literature who manages to be incredibly encouraging and friendly while maintaining a very rigorous course of study. I can't recommend her or the school enough. 

 

Good luck with your applications!

 

Thanks for sharing info about SUNY Buffalo! Glad to hear that it has a great environment. Any thoughts on how they weigh the GRE scores or anything?