Good Enough?

[Coindinista]

Hello all...

 

It seems there's always an abundance of people on the forums with top programs in their sights, whether the program is legitimately great or the schools offer a brand recognition, but hardly ever anyone targeting Direction State University--though undoubtedly, far more folks (not necessarily from the boards) end up in those programs. I'm just curious about what made you feel confident enough to wager money and time that could be put to use at a more generally accessible program.  Is it general overconfidence? Is it a sense of security in the quality of your undergraduate institution? A slew of publications?  Peaked interest at conferences? Solid contacts in the program at the goal institution? Top 10% GRE scores and near perfect GPA? A stern belief in the fit of said program?  I think it's interesting, not in any sort of pejorative way, but to perhaps shine some critical light on our choices and ambition.

[Legal Sociologist]

When I applied to law schools, I noticed that a lot of forums in THAT field also had the same inclination. It seems that people who go to online communities have (or at least state a) preference for more competitive programs. 

 

You raise a good point though, where are the applicants (for any program) who aren't going for the gold (so to speak)?

[fuzzylogician]

You raise a good point though, where are the applicants (for any program) who aren't going for the gold (so to speak)?

 

People usually prefer to present themselves in a positive light. I don't think it's all that surprising that people post their high scores or success stories but not their lower scores or failures. This won't stop as you go on in academia: as far as you will know, you may be the only one to ever get rejected from a conference or to have a paper receive a desk rejection from a journal, or to submit something to a lower ranked journal/conference. No one wants to admit to it happening to them. Do you think it means it doesn't happen, or just that people are much happier talking about the good things that have happened to them?

[high_hopes]

I am aiming high because I think that I will have better chances on the job market if my PhD is from a high-ranking institution.

[TakeruK]

Another factor to consider is that the people in online communities like this one are definitely not a representative sample of the actual population of graduate students that exist! If you look at the posters from my field (and even counting those tangentially related to my field), it would look like there are like 20 graduate students that study planets. In reality, there are probably like 1000 or so of us in the United States. It's extremely dangerous to extrapolate from just 2% of the population!

 

To answer your question though, (not in your field, but I think my answer still applies), I only applied to programs that fit my long term life/career goals, and brand recognition is part of these goals. I did apply to some schools that only had "brand recognition" within my field (i.e. a non-academic wouldn't recognize the school the same way they might recognize the name "Harvard"), but when making my final decisions, I did consider brand-name-to-non-academics as a factor.

 

This is because I know my long term goal is to work in my hometown and I personally care more about living near my family than I do about working in academia. Therefore, it was important to me to go to a program where a potential employer will recognize my PhD school name, even if that employer is not an academic.

 

Secondly, I still intend to apply to academic jobs in my hometown's geographical area, and it is hard enough to get an academic job, even without geographic constraints. Therefore, if I am at a school with a ton of resources, I will be more likely to produce good research, and this will make me much more competitive for jobs in the future. 

 

Thirdly, location is very important to me and my spouse. We want to live in metropolitan areas with a lot of diversity, access to ethnic foods, a place where people don't look at my spouse and I funny for being together, a place where my spouse can find work, and a place without harsh winters. This also rules out a lot of "Direction State Universities". 

 

And finally, we were moving from Canada to the US for school. The best US schools are better than the best Canadian schools, but our top schools are generally better than lower ranked "Direction State" schools. So, if we were going to go through the hassle of moving to another country, dealing with immigration issues, getting proper work authorization for spouse, etc., we would only apply to US schools that provide something the best Canadian school could not provide.

 

So all of this added up to me applying to a lot of highly competitive programs. Our plan was that if I did not get into one of these programs, I would not even go into grad school at all. We did not want to spend the next 10 years of our life (PhD+postdocs) in programs/places that didn't make us happy, with little pay, with little return on investment of our time. Our backup plan if I did not get into a PhD program that we felt was worth our time, we would just move back to our hometown and find other work to do. Science is my passion, sure, but I have other passions that are also important. 

 

Currently, this will be our approach for the post-PhD job market as well. Prior to applying, my spouse and I will sit down and decide on some minimum criteria for quality of job and I'll apply to positions that match those requirements. Although this opinion might change in 2 years, our current position is that we would still rather not have any postdoc position at all than to work as a postdoc in a position we did not feel suited our long term goals. 

[Coindinista]

Taker, I don't believe at any point I said, "I'm going to use these forums as a random sample of all grad students" nor was there any implication of scientific use, though I totally appreciate your caution.  In your response though, I never saw an indication of why you thought you were qualified, only the motivation supporting the path you took.  What made you feel like you were not throwing your application fees away?

 

I think we all have motivations as to why we would prefer the prestigious program or institution, but I'm curious why we might think that we're qualified for those programs.  Obviously, we must if we apply, otherwise we could all just pocket those fees for a rainy day.

[Legal Sociologist]

How many sociology grad students are there? I imagine that there are literally hundreds of programs, all with at least 10-20 students. There are probably thousands of people pursuing a Masters or Ph.D in sociology right now. 

 

In my observation though, most people just attend a local university and commute from home. This goes for undergrad and grad actually. 

[TakeruK]

Taker, I don't believe at any point I said, "I'm going to use these forums as a random sample of all grad students" nor was there any implication of scientific use, though I totally appreciate your caution.  In your response though, I never saw an indication of why you thought you were qualified, only the motivation supporting the path you took.  What made you feel like you were not throwing your application fees away?

 

I think we all have motivations as to why we would prefer the prestigious program or institution, but I'm curious why we might think that we're qualified for those programs.  Obviously, we must if we apply, otherwise we could all just pocket those fees for a rainy day.

 

True, I didn't mean to imply that you were going to extrapolate, but just suggesting a reason for your observation that people online seem to all be applying to top schools. Sorry for the confusion.

 

And I guess I also misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking our motivations for not applying to "Direction State University" instead of the riskier, more competitive programs. Sorry about that too! To answer your actual question about why I felt confident enough to apply to such programs, the primary reason is from extensive discussions with my mentors and advisors.

 

In Canada, we have to do a Masters first and then go to a PhD program in my field. I actually had no idea whether or not I would be qualified at all when I was in my last year of undergraduate work. I was doing research with my honours thesis advisor and talked to him a lot about grad school. I am the first person in my family to go to college so I didn't know anything about academia (didn't even know that grad school is generally funded etc.). When I started talking to him about actual schools and I mentioned that I am not sure if I would be able to get into my top choices in Canada so I would probably want to apply to almost all of them etc. etc., he stopped me and told me that he was sure I can get into any astronomy grad program in Canada so I should only apply to places that interest me. And he was eventually right, but I think having someone I respected and looked up to telling me that I can do it made a huge difference in my self-confidence.

 

Prior to that conversation, I didn't have much confidence in my abilities. I took the Physics Subject GRE and scored around 40th percentile, which is good (hey, being average out of the subset of people who want to do grad school is not that bad) but it's not what I thought was "top student" material. I had also applied to summer research awards in the past and was not successful. My university also recognizes the top students in the program with special honours, and that was something I never achieved either. So, I had always evaluated myself as a "good" student, and that there exist "top students" out there much more qualified than me! But I guess it turned out my perception was skewed.

 

So then, 2 years later, when applying to PhD programs, I had a lot more confidence in myself to set such high goals that I outlined in the post above. I again talked to both my undergrad mentor and my Masters supervisors and went over my list of schools with them, getting their advice. I also felt more confident at this point, since over the past two years, I won fellowships that were the Canadian equivalent to the NSF grad research fellow program. I did retake the Physics GRE and my score went to 50th percentile, but now I know that I should not let that score make me feel bad. And finally, I reached out to many profs before I started applying to ask them questions about their research interests and they all responded very positively and encouraged me to apply (although they might just say this to everyone?).

 

I would say the most important part was having my mentor tell me that I could do it. And the smaller successes along the way helped reinforce the idea that I did belong to the group of people that might one day work at these top institutions.

 

Finally, I did not view the money spent on applications as a wager. Instead, I felt it was an investment. If I got into one program, although grad stipends aren't super competitive, they are enough to offset the application costs after one year, and the additional career opportunities is worth it. If I didn't get into any program, then I would end up working in a different field that would pay more than a grad stipend, so I'll also be able to recover the losses and I think it would have been worth it to know that I tried my best to follow that career path.

[fuzzylogician]

I think we all have motivations as to why we would prefer the prestigious program or institution, but I'm curious why we might think that we're qualified for those programs.  Obviously, we must if we apply, otherwise we could all just pocket those fees for a rainy day.

 

I knew before I applied that I wanted to have a career in academia. That's a hard enough goal to obtain even when you are on paper stellar and come with all the bells and whistles, and I think it's exponentially more difficult when you don't. I ended up attending one of the top schools in my field, and it happens to also have excellent name recognition as well. My second choice school is also top ranked, but doesn't have nearly as good brand recognition. The reason I chose my school had something to do with that but more to do with other factors like geography and how I felt I connected with people at my school. At the end of the day, the most important thing is your research, but your advisor's reputation and school's reputation also matter. A better school can give you better resources and better support for your research. These things are all related--there is a reason why top schools consistently produce strong students. They can choose from the best, these people study with other excellent students, and they have access to excellent mentors. I wanted to be part of that, or I didn't think it was worth my time and effort. I didn't want a PhD just for the sake of having one, but as a means to an end. I also know that if a job in academia doesn't work out for me, I have other opportunities in industry because of the degree I have obtained and the reputation of the school that granted it to me. Honestly, I had no idea that I would be as successful as I was during my application cycle. But if I wasn't good enough to attend a top school, I probably wouldn't have the career I wanted and so it's no use even getting started. I aimed high because that's where my goals are. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the application fees and not worry about it; I have to say, I considered it an investment, not a gamble. If things hadn't worked out, I guess I would have needed to rethink how much I wanted the education and career path and decide whether it's worth it to try again. I am very lucky not to have had to go through that.

[Coindinista]

Awesome response, TakeruK! Thanks very much.  And that all makes sense.  I agree the application process is an investment, but no matter how we slice it, it is still an ante that goes to the house whether we get accepted, funded, or rejected.  I think the only thing that can offset that, is to feel in control in some aspect--and the only aspect we can be in control of is the presentation of self as the sort of qualified candidate that the program is seeking. That's the only aspect that makes it a game of both skill AND chance.

[Coindinista]

Fuzzy, so are you saying that you did come with those bells and whistles, or did not? Again, we all tend to gravitate back toward the schools we choose and why we chose them, but not so much why we knew they might choose us. Could you elaborate on that aspect?

[Legal Sociologist]

I think the only way you win with app fees is if you apply to only one program, get in AND get funded. 

[fuzzylogician]

Fuzzy, so are you saying that you did come with those bells and whistles, or did not? Again, we all tend to gravitate back toward the schools we choose and why we chose them, but not so much why we knew they might choose us. Could you elaborate on that aspect?

 

I attended a program that has a reputation for sending off good students to grad schools in the US. I won't tell you which one to preserve some privacy, but I am willing to bet you a large sum of money that you have either never heard of this university, or in case you have, you have absolutely no idea how it ranks. Lets say it has about 0 brand name recognition outside my country, though it's a good school locally. To put things in perspective, though, there is probably one student from my BA program accepted for a PhD at a good school in the US every other year or so. Not a lot, and I only knew one such person in person before I started my PhD. After I graduated with my BA, I won a scholarship to attend university in another country that has an important linguistics research institute near it. I was able to take classes with reputable professors there and eventually got a job there as a research assistant. I got (they tell me) very nice letters of recommendation from people there. I had to go back home for personal reasons after a year and applied from back home. I actually never completed my MA, and I also didn't have anyone advising me about where to apply. I chose schools based on extensive research. Basically, I read the website of every school that has a linguistics program in the US, and looked through each relevant professor's website. I spent months on my statements. Again, I had no idea at the time how well I would fare. I was extremely anxious and could not in 100 years have predicted how well things turned out. I chose the schools I applied to based on what I thought was the best fit at the time and where I thought I would have the best chance to have an education that would support my goals. The consideration was simple. First, it had to be a place that funds its students, because otherwise there is no point in going. Second, it has to be a place that has good job placement, because again there is no point in spending 5 years on a degree only to fail to get a job then. Third, it has to be a place with a good match for my interests and that has lots of growth opportunities. As it turned out, those schools are the top ones, so that's where I applied. 

[TakeruK]

I think the only way you win with app fees is if you apply to only one program, get in AND get funded. 

 

I felt like I "won" in the sense that I got to visit 3 schools/places without paying anything out of pocket. The total value of money reimbursed to me was about equal to the money I spent on all my applications (not just the places I visited). And the trips were worth doing because they were 1) fun, 2) I had friends already enrolled in 2 out of those 3 places so I got to see them too, 3) I learned a lot about other people's research and resources available at each school (good to know for future job prospects) and finally 4) actually seeing the schools made the choice a lot easier and I felt much more confident that I was picking the right school in the end

 

But as fuzzy said, I definitely was lucky that I was able to pay the fees upfront. Canada's low tuition rates helped me save money for such an "investment"! I can't know for sure, but I would guess that if I could not afford to just pay the fees, I would feel the whole process was a lot more like a gamble than a "wise" investment.

[Anonymona]

I agree with many of the statements already posted, and would add that I don't think most applicants are "confident" when they apply. As you point out, the odds are against all of us. Hopeful might be a better word. I think most applicants know that despite the odds, they don't stand a chance of admission unless they submit an application.

 

Other thing I've been thinking about recently: Does applying to more schools necessarily increase one's chances of admission? I've been debating this with myself since the end of November. If an applicant has very specific interests, and applies to all of the schools that do similar research (let's say that number is seven...), does applying to other schools with a weak fit increase that applicant's chances of admission? (Spoiler: I thought not and decided to only apply to those seven schools, but I'm interested in what others think).

[TakeruK]

Up to a certain point, yes, I think applying to more schools increases your chances of admission. Especially when you are applying to mostly highly competitive schools. The reason for this, I think, is limited spaces.

 

For example, let's imagine a scenario where there are 10 "top schools" and they each take 5 students. So, in theory, if you are one of the top 50 students, then you should expect to get in! But let's say you are the 21st best student, and you only applied to 4 schools. It is possible that the students ranked 1-20 all decided to take all 5 spots in these 4 same schools, and you will be out of luck. But if you applied to 7 schools, there is no way that the 20 students ahead of you can take all 35 spots at these 7 schools. 

 

This is a very contrived scenario of course, but I think it illustrates the principle I am trying to demonstrate! 

 

But if you truly have super specific research interests then it might not be a good idea to apply to more schools and get into a program that does not match you. Although I would generally warn against having such specific research interests that only a few schools match you, because there is a little bit of room for you to expand/try something a little different in grad school too. In my field, students are generally encouraged to take on multiple interests and adjust their research focus to match changing conditions like the profs available, the jobs available etc. I find that it's much easier to change my research interest to fit my ideal supervisor or school than it is to change the supervisor/school to better fit me. 

 

I don't mean to say that I think you made a mistake applying to only 7 schools. You might have had experiences that made it clear to you that your super specific interests are the best for you. And in fact, I think 7 schools is plenty (I "only" applied to 8 myself). If you want a more quantitative answer, I think applying to fewer than 6 schools might decrease your chances of acceptance (for reasons mentioned above) but the "more schools, more chances to win" benefits start to taper off after 6 schools.....I'd say more than 12 would be past the point of diminishing returns! Obviously, I chose this range so that my "8" fits in it perfectly

[Legal Sociologist]

The biggest problem is that we don't have access to complete data regarding admissions. Outside of the few schools that release it, we don't know the admit rate for programs. If you're applying to 7 programs with a >50% acceptance then your odds are higher than the guy who applied to programs with <10% acceptance rates. The thing is though, we have no way of knowing which camp you'd fall in. We also don't know the popularity of certain subfields and the acceptance rates for those. If I have a super specific interest that is shared by one faculty member at the school then my odds of getting in may be higher. However, if I have an interest that while shared by a professor is common in the applicant pool, my odds decrease.

[fuzzylogician]

It's more complicated than that, even. You also don't know the schools' admissions policy. E.g. some schools admit students to work with particular professors or try to equalize per subfield, others (like my school) accept the very best regardless of subfield. You also don't know what the rest of the applicant pool looks like in your year, and that too plays a role. You might rank on top one year and towards the middle in another. You furthermore don't know if there are any considerations that aren't explicitly stated but are taken into account, like diversity, or that a particular professor lost his/her funding, or a million other things. There are political issues that could play in your favor or against you, like mentioning an interest in something that the school wants to invest in or conversely that they had a bad experience with, or stating a wish to work with someone who is leaving or was just denied tenure, etc. You play this game with partial knowledge.* 

 

* But there is really no point in agonizing over it. There are always more qualified applicants than positions and you cannot possibly know every consideration the adcom might have. Just do your best with what you can control and do your best to let go of the rest.

[Legal Sociologist]

That's the thing too, grad school admissions are more political than professional school admissions. The admitted pools are so small that professors may advocate for someone with subpar numbers because the APPLICANT is someone that they want to work with and because something stands out to them. In a professional program (JD/MPA/MD/MBA/etc.), you're admitting a large "class" without regard for how they fit into the culture of the program. 

 

Applying to grad school reminds me a lot of applying for a job. It's not enough to just be qualified, you have to also bring something to the table that the school can benefit from or that will enrich their product. 

[fuzzylogician]

Applying to grad school reminds me a lot of applying for a job. It's not enough to just be qualified, you have to also bring something to the table that the school can benefit from or that will enrich their product. 

 

Exactly. It's the same applying for an academic job after graduation, worse maybe. Normally every person on the short-list, and probably everyone on the long-list as well, could do an excellent job if given the position. The way short lists are created, though, can be very political and very mysterious, and the way that someone actually gets the job has a lot less to do with their qualifications and a lot more to do with the politics of the people making the decision. After a certain point, you can't use objective qualifications anymore because everyone you are considering is great, and you start to bring in the "intangibles."

 

*Sorry for the down-vote, I meant to up-vote you! I hope someone fixes that. 

[Legal Sociologist]

Exactly. It's the same applying for an academic job after graduation, worse maybe. Normally every person on the short-list, and probably everyone on the long-list as well, could do an excellent job if given the position. The way short lists are created, though, can be very political and very mysterious, and the way that someone actually gets the job has a lot less to do with their qualifications and a lot more to do with the politics of the people making the decision. After a certain point, you can't use objective qualifications anymore and you bring in the "intangibles."

 

*Sorry for the down-vote, I meant to up-vote you! I hope someone fixes that. 

 

That's why I imagine a lot of programs interview or at least heavily weigh the statement of purpose and recommendations. In a graduate program, you'll have a lot of contact with the faculty and after a couple of years will become almost a co-worker. I can see why faculty want to ensure that you'll fit into the culture of their program.

 

I like to contrast with law school where I literally could have gone all 3 years without ever going to office hours or engaging with a professor outside of class. Since professional programs rely more on "rankings" than anything else to get you through the door, they have to admit a certain numerical profile of applicants. There's no such pressure for grad schools because they're under no requirement to release the GRE/GPA makeup of their classes. In a way, this is better because it at least helps to ensure that you end up in an environment where YOU will feel comfortable but it of course makes the process chaotic and unpredictable.

[Coindinista]

Fit, GPA, GRE, publications, conferences, and previous experience are things that we can all control for in some way as individuals--but at the end of the day, you cannot control the quality of the applicant pool. I think the best that anyone can hope for is that his or her features allow for consideration of their application against the weight of the pool.  I guess that's essentially what I've been driving at--though its hard to answer honestly without sounding like a conceited jerk--what makes us think we stand out against our peers on a national level?

[Legal Sociologist]

I'm focusing on a program in my geographic area of preference that has my research interest so I'm not aiming that high so I can't really answer that.

[lyrehc]

Fit, GPA, GRE, publications, conferences, and previous experience are things that we can all control for in some way as individuals--but at the end of the day, you cannot control the quality of the applicant pool. I think the best that anyone can hope for is that his or her features allow for consideration of their application against the weight of the pool.  I guess that's essentially what I've been driving at--though its hard to answer honestly without sounding like a conceited jerk--what makes us think we stand out against our peers on a national level?

 

This is where the contacts you make with potential advisors goes a very long way. I only applied to one program. It was the program that made the most sense based upon where my research interests fell at the time I applied. I got in even though my GRE scores weren't spectacular. I'm sure my LOR played a role, but at first I was admitted without funding. I had a professor I wanted to work with, who was my sole reason for applying to my program, and we had been exchanging emails for several months prior to my admission to the program. I let him know that I really wanted to attend the university but that I would not go into debt for the doctorate and based on email and telephone interactions there is no doubt in my mind that he found me the assistantship I was offered. I wanted to work with him, but he also wanted to work with me, and he pulled strings to make sure that it would happen.

 

Ironically my research interests have shifted and I no longer am working with that professor, but I will always be grateful that he was willing to advocate for me. And I firmly believe that anyone who seriously wants the doctorate needs to find someone, somewhere, who will advocate on their behalf if necessary.

[Coindinista]

I agree with that, Lyre... The contacts I've made so far have truly enriched my research and focus.  At this point, I'm a little reluctant to ask for assistance in the whole admission process though.  It seems so "interested" to me--like the people that wait until application season to reach out to certain professors at certain programs.  It seems like the act telegraphs interest (as it probably should).  I'm of the mind, I guess, that those personal relationships and discussions should enrich thinking, stimulate creation, and target research which would hopefully translate into publications, conferences, and general personal growth.