I got in nowhere

[Sparky]

The reasons for choosing between two people may be arbitrary (they liked someone's font more than another's)

I have a sudden burning desire to tell all other history and religion applicants to submit their writing samples in Curlz MT.

[LateAntique]

I have a sudden burning desire to tell all other history and religion applicants to submit their writing samples in Curlz MT.

I started a service where I told Classics majors I'd translate their SoP into perfect Latin for them. Then I just typed in a bunch of swear words and threats in Latin and sent it off. I hope it works.

[Roll Right]

Alright, I applied to like 6 PhD programs. My GRE sucked, so I didn't get into any. I was a great undergrad, magna and all that. Man don't worry. Heres what to do:

Apply to a masters program. This is the traditional way of proving yourself to PhD programs through hard work and strong grades. I know that Penn State UNI Park didn't take any recent undergrad graduates for their sociology phd program last year. It's also based on the economy. I ended up at a masters in the south, and shit, I'm happy. PhD next stop. Don't lose hope!

[LateAntique]

Alright, I applied to like 6 PhD programs. My GRE sucked, so I didn't get into any. I was a great undergrad, magna and all that. Man don't worry. Heres what to do:

Apply to a masters program. This is the traditional way of proving yourself to PhD programs through hard work and strong grades. I know that Penn State UNI Park didn't take any recent undergrad graduates for their sociology phd program last year. It's also based on the economy. I ended up at a masters in the south, and shit, I'm happy. PhD next stop. Don't lose hope!

Mind sharing your GRE score?

[socialcomm]

Alright, I applied to like 6 PhD programs. My GRE sucked, so I didn't get into any. I was a great undergrad, magna and all that. Man don't worry. Heres what to do:

Apply to a masters program. This is the traditional way of proving yourself to PhD programs through hard work and strong grades. I know that Penn State UNI Park didn't take any recent undergrad graduates for their sociology phd program last year. It's also based on the economy. I ended up at a masters in the south, and shit, I'm happy. PhD next stop. Don't lose hope!

While this works for those who don't have masters yet, for those who already have one (or in my case two) masters this is a harder pill to swallow. Really? A THIRD terminal masters? Augh.

[coyabean]

I don't know...a prof from my program told me that in the adcom for admits to the American Lit part of the Lit phds, they make lists of ten who are about equal, and at some point they get to the middle list and just kind of....pick. As he kept reminding me as I hyperventilated through application season, the adcoms aren't losing any sleep over this. So if you don't get in anywhere, there's not necessarily anything you could have done better (or maybe there was a LOT you could have done better...who knows?). Aaaaaand now I'm depressing myself.

Beginning to feel like Elle Woods had the right idea. LOL

[captiv8ed]

If you get rejected everywhere, it basically means you either had a bad admissions strategy (like the guy who only applies to MIT) and/or miscalculated your competitiveness. It can happen to anyone, so try to learn from the experience and try again next year...

When programs are choosing 5% of the applicants, I would think there are going to be quite a few who are well qualified and matched that still don't get in.

Also, as far as competitiveness, it is tricky because in saturated markets, you have to look at the other side of graduate school, and that is getting a job.In certain fields, you need to apply as highly competitive as you can if you want a job in the field after graduation.

[twocosmicfish]

When programs are choosing 5% of the applicants, I would think there are going to be quite a few who are well qualified and matched that still don't get in.

Also, as far as competitiveness, it is tricky because in saturated markets, you have to look at the other side of graduate school, and that is getting a job.In certain fields, you need to apply as highly competitive as you can if you want a job in the field after graduation.

"Well-qualified and matched" misses a few points - first, that the ones who really WERE well qualified and matched got in, and second, that the criteria are often very difficult to discern. There might be very few things really discriminating between the top 25% of candidates at top schools, so it really comes down to little things that you might never be able to figure out pre-app.

Also, my point was that a good strategy includes some reach, probable, and safety schools. If you get in nowhere, it essentially means that either you applied to too few schools to handle the quirks of the adcoms (the little things above) or that your safety schools were actually reach schools.

On the competitiveness thing, it is just a factor of life, and you need to balance your passion against your chances and make some contigency plans. The problem is that people get so sold on the "I'm going to be an astronaut" dream that they don't plan for motion-sickness. Make alternate plans, whether it is a lesser PhD and a low-paying low-security teaching job, or perhaps skipping the PhD and going to a company or government.

[polyfractal]

I've never understood the point of a safety school for grad school. If you don't get into the programs that you want to get into, you shouldn't settle and accept lesser schools. Just work for a year or two, get some experience, better recs and maybe a few publications, then reapply.

Granted, this is for the sciences. Humanities are a much different ballgame I'm sure.

[twocosmicfish]

I've never understood the point of a safety school for grad school. If you don't get into the programs that you want to get into, you shouldn't settle and accept lesser schools. Just work for a year or two, get some experience, better recs and maybe a few publications, then reapply.

Granted, this is for the sciences. Humanities are a much different ballgame I'm sure.

The point of a safety school (to me) should be that you cannot accurately know your own competitiveness and should therefore pick a range of schools. You pick superior schools because you might be more attractive than you thought, or might just fit a particular spot well. You pick lesser schools because there just might be 200 people in your specialty who all have a 4.0 gpa, 1600 gre, and 5 major pubs.

"Settling" should not come into it - if you have a good reason to believe that you really were competitive (for example, waitlists instead of denials) then it may be worthwhile to try again in a while. But if you apply at ten schools and only the "bottom" two are even a little bit interested, then you are not settling, you are coming to grips with your actual competitiveness.

Of course, you should NEVER go to a school where you do not feel you can be happy and successful, and if your lingering resentment will cause you to fail at that safety school then you should not go.

[LateAntique]

I'd be 100% happy attending any of the places to which I'm applying, though some are less prestigious than others.

[whereiscarmen]

I also don't mind if I go to my safety school. Ironically, it is the best fit for me overall out of all my schools in terms of what I am looking for in a school.

[sebastiaan]

I feel the same way. I would be happy to go to any of the schools that I applied to. People should not go to schools that they don´t want to, but if your plan B is $7/h, then....

[polyfractal]

I feel the same way. I would be happy to go to any of the schools that I applied to. People should not go to schools that they don´t want to, but if your plan B is $7/h, then....

My point is that your plan B should be "Go get relevant work experience to make you more competitive". Since I'm a science applicant, the Plan B would be "go work as a research tech where you can publish, get on publications, get great recs and reapply in two years". If two years means you get into a much better program (which sets you up for a much better career) then it is worth it in my opinion.

[dzk]

Considering neuroscience, for example... each institution graduates far, far more students and hires far, far, more post-docs than they hire new faculty. You will be need to be among the very best to get a good job in academia, if that is your goal. This doesn't just mean being the best on paper... but in every aspect, which training under a world-renowned advisor will certainly help.

So... does it make more sense to spend five (or more) years doing your PhD at a weak program, or spend two years improving your application to go to a spectacular one? I think it's pretty clear.

Sure, you can offset that gap by getting into the weaker program and publishing like a madman, but if someone isn't getting in anywhere good on this round, I'd question whether they actually have what it takes to excel and match the top students at the top schools without the same resources. Think long-term.

[johndiligent]

I've never understood the point of a safety school for grad school. If you don't get into the programs that you want to get into, you shouldn't settle and accept lesser schools. Just work for a year or two, get some experience, better recs and maybe a few publications, then reapply.

Granted, this is for the sciences. Humanities are a much different ballgame I'm sure.

You're right that humanities make this a much different game. For some fields, there's relatively nowhere you can go to get work experience that will significantly improve your application and you can only find work that's tangentially related, in the sense that it may provide you with sellable skills, like teaching or project management.

Chances are you wouldn't work with anyone that you could ask for recs, so that leaves you with the same people, unless you return to school.

And publications in humanities are difficult. We don't publish like they do in the social sciences and sciences since we don't publish the results of experiments or studies so much. Instead, humanities publications are usually the product of years of solitary research, reading and contemplation. They are very rarely co-authored and since the potential impact of a humanities pub is often difficult to discern, 90% of whether you get published is decided based on your name, where you got your highest degree, and where you're teaching now. If you don't have a name, don't have a higher degree, and aren't teaching, you're probably not going to get many publications.

That's not to say that a humanities student should leap at safety schools just for the sake of the acceptance, since the law of descending prestige is just going to compound the problem once the student graduates. It's just that the student has to improve hir competitiveness in a different way:

- signing up for graduate classes as a non-matriculating student, if possible

- completing a post-baccalaureate or summer study programme

- doing more undergraduate coursework directly related to your intended graduate study

- completing a master's before applying for the PhD

- getting a job that involves transferable, CV-building skills or opportunities

- getting older (seriously! For some people, getting a year or two older is all they needed to do to take their application out of the reject pile.)

The crap part is that most of these are going to require yet another financial investment.

[coyabean]

You're right that humanities make this a much different game. For some fields, there's relatively nowhere you can go to get work experience that will significantly improve your application and you can only find work that's tangentially related, in the sense that it may provide you with sellable skills, like teaching or project management.

Chances are you wouldn't work with anyone that you could ask for recs, so that leaves you with the same people, unless you return to school.

And publications in humanities are difficult. We don't publish like they do in the social sciences and sciences since we don't publish the results of experiments or studies so much. Instead, humanities publications are usually the product of years of solitary research, reading and contemplation. They are very rarely co-authored and since the potential impact of a humanities pub is often difficult to discern, 90% of whether you get published is decided based on your name, where you got your highest degree, and where you're teaching now. If you don't have a name, don't have a higher degree, and aren't teaching, you're probably not going to get many publications.

That's not to say that a humanities student should leap at safety schools just for the sake of the acceptance, since the law of descending prestige is just going to compound the problem once the student graduates. It's just that the student has to improve hir competitiveness in a different way:

- signing up for graduate classes as a non-matriculating student, if possible

- completing a post-baccalaureate or summer study programme

- doing more undergraduate coursework directly related to your intended graduate study

- completing a master's before applying for the PhD

- getting a job that involves transferable, CV-building skills or opportunities

- getting older (seriously! For some people, getting a year or two older is all they needed to do to take their application out of the reject pile.)

The crap part is that most of these are going to require yet another financial investment.

This is what I wanted to say but better. There is almost nothing I could do, at this point, to be a better candidate. I have work experience, relevent academic contacts and letters, publishable papers, etc. For humanities/SS folks being affiliated with a University is extremely important. There is little to be done in the private sector that could be seen as an application boost. What am I going to do? Write a treastise on higher education and government relations reform at my apartment with no access to data, technology or mentors? So, I rather resent the idea that if I were to not get in anywhere this year that there is something left for me to do that I have not already done. Not that it could not be true of alot of people, but one's experience is not a universal sample. The skill set for humanities and SS is just different than those for the life sciences. Presumably one need only be able to read, think critically and write. Unfortunately those are skills that are considered universal, thus increasing the pool of applicants. You don't need a background in anthro, for instance, to be considered for an anthro phd. That is not the case for biochemistry or what have you. There is a smaller pool of qualified candidates for the life sciences and private sector work that can be tangentially related to your academic goals. Those opportunities are not there for humanities/SS.

[peppermint.beatnik]

This is what I wanted to say but better. There is almost nothing I could do, at this point, to be a better candidate. I have work experience, relevent academic contacts and letters, publishable papers, etc. For humanities/SS folks being affiliated with a University is extremely important. There is little to be done in the private sector that could be seen as an application boost. What am I going to do? Write a treastise on higher education and government relations reform at my apartment with no access to data, technology or mentors? So, I rather resent the idea that if I were to not get in anywhere this year that there is something left for me to do that I have not already done. Not that it could not be true of alot of people, but one's experience is not a universal sample. The skill set for humanities and SS is just different than those for the life sciences. Presumably one need only be able to read, think critically and write. Unfortunately those are skills that are considered universal, thus increasing the pool of applicants. You don't need a background in anthro, for instance, to be considered for an anthro phd. That is not the case for biochemistry or what have you. There is a smaller pool of qualified candidates for the life sciences and private sector work that can be tangentially related to your academic goals. Those opportunities are not there for humanities/SS.

There is maybe one thing you can do-try to be a better "sell" (I hate that word). You can work on presenting yourself in a better way. If you don't get in, contact the programs and try and find out why.

I was 0/4 last year. I do think it had more to do with the economy than anything else. I only applied to US schools. As an international student, it was definitely a mistake.