How many reaches vs. non-reaches do you have?

[Catria]

It is obvious that there are schools that are easier to get into than others, given a research area. However, are you the sort of applicant that had a top-heavy list?

 

This dinosaur of a recommender advised me that, if one is applying to 10-12 schools (two depts at one school count as two schools here) one should have 5-6 reaches and 5-6 non-reaches (he also claims that there is no such thing as a safety, perhaps correctly though) and the most critical, as well as those that require careful consideration, are the non-reaches. Perhaps he gave that advice to me because the last student he wrote recs for at US schools was shut out and had a top-heavy list (in his defense, that particular student was unable to register for the physics GRE on time).

 

Anyhow, how many reaches did you apply to? How many non-reaches?

[maelia8]

To be honest, in my field if you don't get into a top-ten school, your chances of getting a tenure-track position in the future go down considerably, so I only applied to "reach" schools knowing that getting into a "non-reach" would not be worth it in the long run. I applied to only 6 schools total, and all of them were among the top ten in PhD rankings for my field. 

[TakeruK]

I applied to 8 schools. I would say 6 out of 8 of them were "reach" schools and two were "safety" (sure that I would get in) schools. One safety school was a Canadian school (in case I changed my mind about moving to the US) and the other was a US school that was in the top 10 for my field but not generally considered a top 10 school (it was also a contingency plan in case I needed to go to grad school near family). I chose my safety schools mostly for practical reasons in case something came up that required me to be either in Canada or near family but still wanted to go to grad school.

 

I was prepared for the outcome where I would be rejected everywhere because the statement "I would rather go to any grad school than no grad program at all" does not describe how I felt. In honesty, if I had only gotten into the safety schools, I probably would have also strongly considered my other plan, which would not have involved grad school at all!

 

Like maelia, my list was also top heavy because I feel that grad school is such a big gamble (i.e. a large investment of my time and potential earnings) for limited opportunities. My goal is not necessarily tenure track position so my reasoning was not exactly the same as maelia's, but I also agree that I felt going to a "non-reach" school would not be worth it for me in the long run. So, I made all of my US school selections as programs that were better than the best Canadian school I could get into. 7 out of 8 programs were in the top 10 for my field (the only one that wasn't in the top 10 was the Canadian safety school). 

 

When I apply to jobs post-PhD, I plan on using the same strategy (aiming high and have a backup plan). I would rather quit academia than work at a postdoc position that does not meet my goals/desires. 

[Catria]

It's easier to second-guess a non-reach than a reach...

 

Then again, how important is balance in an application list depends on the field, and often subfield within a field.

[ashiepoo72]

I think the best way to approach this is to carefully choose programs that suit your research interests. My list ranges in ranking, with the bulk of programs ranked above 30, but I chose each program deliberately after extensive research and communication with grad students and POIs. I'd be happy at any program on my list, and I know that my research interests fit several scholars in at each school. I am one of those who wants an academic career, but I also love my field and if I don't end up getting a TT position I won't regret having the opportunity to spend years studying history, engaging with like-minded individuals and completing a dissertation. Maelia is correct that not getting a PhD at a top program diminishes chances at a TT position in a more highly ranked program (in history, I would argue it's the "top tier," so above rank 25, but the top ten increases your chance even more).

I know that there are reach schools, but I feel like if you concentrate on fit in choosing where you apply, then none of the programs you apply to should be reach schools for you. Some may be more competitive due to prestige and other factors, but if your research fits the department and you're a strong applicant (meet and exceed the min requirements) none should be a "reach." If I was applying to a program that had one scholar in my field who was nearing retirement and was lower ranked, I'd feel more like that was a reach school than a top 10 program where the department has several scholars studying things related to my interests.

[VulpesZerda]

Reading this thread made me realize that none of the psych programs I'm applying to even break the top 25. Oops. I selected based on 2+ faculty fit, and location factored in a bit. I should go back and add a top program just to give myself the chance. Funny thing is, many top ones are in the location I need, but none of them have a match. Then there are lots of programs ranked 30-60 with amazing matches for me. TT isn't my true goal, so maybe it'll be okay. End of rambling.

[bsharpe269]

I am applying completely based on fit, not rank. I do hope to get a TT position after graduating but in my field it is really important that I come out of one of the top labs in the country. The rank of the school itself (or department) is faily meaningless. I am applying to 10 schools and all of them are known for focusing on my subfield and all have very respected professors in my research area. Each school has at least 3 PIs who would be a great research fit.

 

The programs are all interdisciplinary so there aren't ranking lists like there might be for history or math or something. By looking at related areas though, the rankings would probably look something like:

top 10: 2           Between 10-20: 2           Between 20-30: 3             Between 30-50: 3

 

My interest in the programs is unrelated to their ranking and completely related to the research coming out of the programs. I have 4 schools in mind that are tied as my top choices right now (visiting will probably change this) and 2 of the programs are in the 20-30 category and 2 are in 30-50.

[trogdorburninator]

I'm not sure what rankings (or whose) since they are very field (and specialty) dependent, but I am not applying to any schools that would be considered "safety" both because I, like maelia8, am in a field where the TT market is abysmal. Additionally, I want to work where there are cross-disciplinary opportunities and strengths, so when you start asking for quality in lots of different areas, plus access to certain populations for research, plus I don't have the funding to apply to 10 (or 8, or even 6) programs.....

just 4 great programs, and if I bust, at least I bust big. 

[TakeruK]

I agree with everyone else that you should apply for fit, not rank!

 

In my case and I suspect many others, higher ranked schools are probably going to be a better fit for me. For example, my research interest involves using giant telescopes that are very expensive and it's the schools that have the money to buy out a large chunk of time on these telescopes for their students and faculty. The schools with this type of resources generally will spend them on other things too and it's pretty clear from the ranking list that size of endowment is positively correlated with ranking!

 

So after creating my top list based on fit, it turns out that most of them end up being in the top 10. When I wrote my advice above about aiming higher, I don't mean to just aim for the top 10 ranked schools! What I meant was to find the best fit for your career goals (and don't underestimate the power of money available for you) and then do not rule out any great research match/fit just because of rank / perceived difficulty. (**Note: in some cases, school "brand power" is important to your career goals. For example, if you are looking to work outside of academia and you just need a degree to attest to your qualifications [your dissertation quality might not matter], then the brand name of the University might be more important than the rank/reputation of that department in your field).

 

I think a lot of people are risk-adverse so if for example, we find 20 schools that would be a good research fit for us, with 10 in the "top tier" (i.e. "reach") and 10 in a lower tier ("non-reach"), and we only wanted to apply to say 12 schools, we might pick mostly from the "non-reach" pool. If you do this, you might end up with mostly acceptances. My advice is that once you determine what schools are a good match, don't be afraid to stack your list more heavily towards the "reach" schools (e.g. 8 reach schools and 4 non-reach).

 

You might end up only with a few acceptances, but the total number of acceptances is not as important as the quality of fit of the acceptances. You can only attend one school! i.e. It's far better to get 3 reach acceptances than 8 non-reach acceptances.

[Catria]

But can having more acceptances give you more leverage to negotiate better offers from a department?

[TakeruK]

But can having more acceptances give you more leverage to negotiate better offers from a department?

 

I don't think offers from other schools are very useful for leverage in negotiating because there are so many differences. For example, if you tried to use a non-reach offer to negotiate with a higher ranked school, they are not going to be moved--they'll argue that their degree will have more value etc. Also, it's hard to compare dollar values from places with vastly different cost of living. 

 

But even if you could do this, having e.g. a larger number of non-reach acceptances is not going to give you leverage for a reach school. I guess if you only got into your non-reach schools, you can leverage them against each other. The ideal case is to get into multiple reach schools and leverage them against each other. To get more reach acceptances, you need to apply to more reach schools.

[Mr. Impatiently Waiting]

Honestly, I feel like all but one of my schools is a reach. Keeping my fingers crossed though. 

[MathCat]

I applied to 8 schools in total. 2 of them are reaches (top 5), and I was rejected at one with the other still pending. They were the only schools that I wanted to apply to in the top 10. 2 more were top 10-20 US schools, depending on who you ask, and great fits (got into both! The choice will likely be between these two). One more US school I applied to for location which is ranked about top 50 and a worse fit than any other school I applied to. I don't think I should have applied here. I also applied to 3 Canadian schools, all of which fall in the top 25-ish bracket internationally, and top 5 in Canada. They are pretty good fits, but I will probably go to the US. When I say good fit, I do not only mean academically. Location and community/culture matter a lot to me as well.

 

I set out with the intention of applying to 2-3 super reaches (top 5-7), 3-6 "somewhat of a reach but still a chance"s (top 10-30), and I identified one 'safety'/backup that also had a late deadline that I could apply to if it looked grim. I wanted to cast a reasonably wide net, to increase the chances of getting a good funding offer. Further research and reflection on what I wanted shrunk the list a bit. A couple of schools I applied to were still not the right choices, in retrospect.  A couple of schools admitted me with really bad funding offers - they are also in the places with the highest cost of living. So, I'm glad I applied to enough programs to have options in that department.

 

When I got many more acceptances than I expected, I did initially regret not applying to more reach schools. But the top 10 programs I did not apply to were poor fits for some reason or another - poor research interest fit, location, program structure, etc.. I got into two programs that I'm very excited about (with good placement histories!), so it worked out well.

Edited February 23, 2015 by MathCat

[MathCat]

I think a lot of people are risk-adverse so if for example, we find 20 schools that would be a good research fit for us, with 10 in the "top tier" (i.e. "reach") and 10 in a lower tier ("non-reach"), and we only wanted to apply to say 12 schools, we might pick mostly from the "non-reach" pool. If you do this, you might end up with mostly acceptances. My advice is that once you determine what schools are a good match, don't be afraid to stack your list more heavily towards the "reach" schools (e.g. 8 reach schools and 4 non-reach).

 

You might end up only with a few acceptances, but the total number of acceptances is not as important as the quality of fit of the acceptances. You can only attend one school! i.e. It's far better to get 3 reach acceptances than 8 non-reach acceptances.

I think this is very accurate. It's what I did, and it turned out as you said. I think my application was far more competitive than I had anticipated - despite being apparently shut out of my two reach schools, I got early offers from the rest. I had gone in feeling very pessimistic about my chances at the US programs, because I was constantly told by almost everyone (including by my letter writers, who apparently all wrote me strong letters) that it was very hard to get in as an international student. This in part made me apply to more Canadian schools, my "back up" option, and also made me pick less competitive US programs. But, as I said in my previous post, I think this actually turned out well for me. I don't think a tip-top program is the right environment for me for personal reasons, even though I now think I would have had a shot if I'd applied to more.

 

edit: almost all the programs I applied to are in the top 30 internationally. So, maybe all of them count as reaches. I'm not sure if the numbers people throw around for rankings are generally US-only rankings. If so, the top two offers I got are in the top 10-15 bracket, depending on which ranking you look at. But I think they are more supportive departments than the very top programs, which is hugely important for me. I don't know that I'd get through in a highly competitive place.

 

I think generally, if they are good fits, you should be top-heavy in your list, as TakeruK says. But you should not apply based on rank alone!

Edited February 23, 2015 by MathCat

[victorydance]

Only interested in going to top 20 departments, no exceptions. Whether these will be "reaches" is kind of subjective or not; the idea is to work your ass off making your application good enough through your undergrad and/or masters to make it so they aren't "reaches." 

[Catria]

I think this is very accurate. It's what I did, and it turned out as you said. I think my application was far more competitive than I had anticipated - despite being apparently shut out of my two reach schools, I got early offers from the rest. I had gone in feeling very pessimistic about my chances at the US programs, because I was constantly told by almost everyone (including by my letter writers, who apparently all wrote me strong letters) that it was very hard to get in as an international student. This in part made me apply to more Canadian schools, my "back up" option, and also made me pick less competitive US programs. But, as I said in my previous post, I think this actually turned out well for me. I don't think a tip-top program is the right environment for me for personal reasons, even though I now think I would have had a shot if I'd applied to more.

 

edit: almost all the programs I applied to are in the top 30 internationally. So, maybe all of them count as reaches. I'm not sure if the numbers people throw around for rankings are generally US-only rankings. If so, the top two offers I got are in the top 10-15 bracket, depending on which ranking you look at. But I think they are more supportive departments than the very top programs, which is hugely important for me. I don't know that I'd get through in a highly competitive place.

 

I think generally, if they are good fits, you should be top-heavy in your list, as TakeruK says. But you should not apply based on rank alone!

 

It's only really true of public schools (Berkeley, Michigan, Minnesota, UCLA, that sort of thing); privates are usually more lenient to internationals.