2015 Rejections

[lifealive]

 

That's why one of my biggest bugaboos about this process is the lack of transparency. I've been talking about it a lot around here lately, so I won't spend more time grinding that particular axe, but until there is transparency to the process (which would be aided by brief explanations of why an applicant wasn't selected -- it doesn't need to become a dialogue), then it's really just guesswork on our part.

 

I'd personally like to go a step further and advocate for a completely anonymous blind-review admissions process. No letterhead. No CV. Just your basic stats and your writing sample. It would be interesting to see if that kind of process would yield different results.

[Grizbert]

The problem with the "hard work/luck" narrative is that it obscures the fact that this line of work trades in privilege, and unfortunately this obsession with privilege is now compounded by the fact that academia has become a business. Programs are looking at candidates not just as potential grad students but as investments, and you want to invest your few resources in the students who will finish in as little time as possible and transition smoothly into jobs. It's basically all about "moving the risk off your books" now. So this has led programs to play it safe with graduate admissions.

 

As someone who has spent the past decade on the campus of an R1 as departmental staff, this rings 100% true. $0.02.

[onlycoffeeiscertain]

Just posting to say that my U Delaware decision ended up being a rejection   I've resigned myself to my plan B and I'm alright with that! I'm actually looking forward to the opportunities I will have by not pursuing a PhD. I just wish I had realized this before spending a good chunk of money. I'll just call it tuition  Bring on the rest of the rest of the 9 rejections I'm sure I have waiting for me!

 

Your positive outlook toward potential opportunities in your future is amazing. I was shut out of the 10 programs I applied to last year and when my first two decisions were both rejections, I was scrambling to come up with any kind of "Plan B" I could think of. The fact that you had one to begin with just goes to show how on top of things you are.

Regardless of how the rest of this application season goes, you do you. PhD or not, I'm sure you'll be doing great things in the future.

[1Q84]

I'd personally like to go a step further and advocate for a completely anonymous blind-review admissions process. No letterhead. No CV. Just your basic stats and your writing sample. It would be interesting to see if that kind of process would yield different results.

 

Anonymous LORs without institutional identifiers (though probably impossible to implement) would make an entire world of difference. 

Edited February 21, 2015 by 1Q84

[jhefflol]

Your positive outlook toward potential opportunities in your future is amazing. I was shut out of the 10 programs I applied to last year and when my first two decisions were both rejections, I was scrambling to come up with any kind of "Plan B" I could think of. The fact that you had one to begin with just goes to show how on top of things you are.

Regardless of how the rest of this application season goes, you do you. PhD or not, I'm sure you'll be doing great things in the future.

 

Thank you! Its encouraging that someone in my subfield was accepted to an amazing university the second time around. Congrats for that! I think that in this case my young age (and a number of other factors) worked against me, so I'm hoping that getting some life experience will help. 

[Uncanny Kenna]

So, can I just ask a question because I'm curious?

 

A lot of you who have suffered rejections ( ) have been offered MA positions instead. Most programs aren't taking PhDs right out of undergrad, partially because only about 1/4 of students who have pursued a PhD in English in the past have actually completed it. And I don't know if most undergrads would be prepared for the kind of work a PhD requires. Mother Mary on a Pogo Stick, I definitely wasn't prepared for my MA work when I finished undergrad. Is it possible that a lot of these rejections are happening because schools are trying to avoid offering highly competitive PhD positions to people who are less likely to complete the program (meaning, people who are coming with just an undergrad degree and are less likely to be prepared for PhD work)? The only places I've seen that will take someone with just an undergrad degree are programs that put you through a master's first, and then you feed into the PhD. Like UVA (but seriously, fuck UVA) and UConn and Harvard and whatnot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's fair in any way, and I'm sure many of you are super brilliant and could totally thrive in a PhD without an MA. I just wonder if maybe that's the reason so many of you have been rejected from so many programs you wanted? I've actually never even met someone (who isn't already a prof) that jumped right into a PhD. 

[Uncanny Kenna]

I'd personally like to go a step further and advocate for a completely anonymous blind-review admissions process. No letterhead. No CV. Just your basic stats and your writing sample. It would be interesting to see if that kind of process would yield different results.

 

It would be nice to see that process at work, but leaving out the CV removes all of the awards, conferences, publications, and teaching experience an applicant has. Granted, having those things doesn't necessarily make you better for a program than someone else, but when you're pursuing a PhD, it's expected that you'll be presenting original work at conferences, publishing journal articles, and teaching. So I don't know if just the basic stats and the writing sample would really cut it for looking at an applicant comprehensively. I think a big part of the problem is that too many places are focused on GRE scores and subject test scores, when it's been proven literally hundreds of times that quantitative data (like a test score) is less useful than is qualitative data (like a writing sample in understanding a person's academic strengths and weaknesses. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's fair in any way, and I'm sure many of you are super brilliant and could totally thrive in a PhD without an MA. I just wonder if maybe that's the reason so many of you have been rejected from so many programs you wanted? I've actually never even met someone (who isn't already a prof) that jumped right into a PhD. 

 

It's a good question, and one I'm glad you've brought up.

 

There are definitely people on GC (both past and present) who have gone straight from B.A. to Ph.D. I spent a lot of time last year reading about how a lot of programs actually prefer candidates with only a B.A. But having paid close attention to the acceptances over the past month, I think it's safe to say that you're probably right: most programs don't seem to take candidates straight out of undergrad. I don't know why this was such a big surprise for me to learn, since it seems to make a lot of sense. Nevertheless, that's part of why I have become not just "accepting" of the M.A. offer I received, but am actually excited about it. For me personally, age is a factor (and I figured it could have been a factor in my favor when going from B.A. to Ph.D.), but as a lot of people on here have pointed out, it is a great opportunity to get the lay of the land of graduate studies, and essentially prove your merit on that level. It worries the hell out of me that it puts me back to the age of 37 before I start applying for Ph.D. programs again (meaning 42 at the youngest to graduate), but I've committed to this path. I may find out that, having pursued an M.A., I'll be happy to take that and explore other options.

 

But getting back to your original point, it really is an important lesson to learn. The problem is that since some folks do get accepted to Ph.D. straight from undergrad, that means it is possible, and since a lot of undergraduates who have availed themselves very well in their B.A. programs have no reason to think that they can't make an equivalent leap, it's hard for them to feel dissuaded from that possibility.

 

I have a friend who is a couple of years older than me and is just finishing up her Ph.D. in a different field. She was stunned when I informed her that so many people I know have applied to Ph.D. programs straight from undergrad. She honestly hadn't even heard of that happening (and she actually has a B.A. in English from a dozen years or so ago). While there are going to be many exceptions, as evidenced by the number of folks here on GC making that leap, I firmly believe that it's relatively rare, and that a lot of misinformation has been spread (probably inadvertently) about the chances.

 

Perfect GRE scores, perfect GPAs, great UG institutions, excellent LORs, unique and interesting SOPs and WSs will always turn heads, but for those of us with a blend of those things, it's probably best to go the M.A. route first.

 

Just my opinion after spending a lot of money and carefully observing the process.

[empress-marmot]

Perfect GRE scores, perfect GPAs, great UG institutions, excellent LORs, unique and interesting SOPs and WSs will always turn heads, but for those of us with a blend of those things, it's probably best to go the M.A. route first.

 

Just my opinion after spending a lot of money and carefully observing the process.

 

Ugh, I know. While I am not giving up hope on my four remaining silent schools, I'm definitely seeing a BA-MA-PhD trend on GradCafe, now and in previous years. While some stellar people may be able to jump straight into a PhD program, I would advise undergraduate applicants to apply to MAs first. One program head I chatted with prior to my application season actually tried to dissuade me from applying to the PhD. 

 

"We'll be able to take two PhD students in your field this year, and you would be competing with students who already have MAs."

 

It's irritating to find this out after applying to five PhD programs (and being rejected from two so far), but I have realized that I really don't know as much about my field as the MAs here. I have never even written a paper longer than ten pages (and the ten pagers were sophomore year, when I went through my sexuality-in-literature phase. Definitely never letting anyone read those). 

 

Now, I know that future undergrads reading this are going to be just like me--I totally ignored the advice of my professors, who told me to apply to an MA program first. However, an undergraduate application needs to be ridiculously stellar, outshining even the applicants with MAs. You have to show that you're worth it--and that can be difficult, because no matter how worth it you are, funding an applicant with an MA is less risky. 

 

I applied to the MA program at a university in my hometown with some misgivings. It has a good program in Rhet/Comp, and I matched research interests with a bunch of professors. The only issue is that I can still run into people I went to kindergarten with at Walmart. At the time, I considered it "Plan J." However, yesterday they awarded me a fellowship, and the DGS wrote to me that the adcomm and "the entire faculty, really" are excited to meet me. It's so wonderful to feel wanted.

 

Plus, now I have a year to make myself look awesome for an adcomm. Is anyone else heading to an MA program instead of the originally-expected PhD? Do you want to be my academic workout buddy?

Edited February 21, 2015 by empress-marmot

[ProfLorax]

As someone who was shutout with only a BA and had a successful round with an MA, I have some thoughts on this. Looking back, I was an awful applicant coming straight out of undergrad. Like many folks here, I was an exceptional UG student, but I didn't realize that being a great student and writer does not necessarily equal being a great applicant. I thought my SOP was focused; it was not. I thought my WS was original; it was not. Neither of these deficits were emblematic of my abilities. I just didn't know what was needed for grad school applications, and most importantly, I really didn't know what I wanted to study (though, I thought I did!).

After my MA, I was a much better candidate. I had original research interests that were both focused and varied. One of my POIs mentioned how, though I had three distinct interests, I demonstrated how they intersect in my statement. I articulated the kind of scholar-teacher I wanted to be using the vocabulary of our field. I lucked into writing an original WS in one of my MA seminars. My numbers? Pretty much the same. But my packaging of myself and knowledge of the field? So much more improved.

I think what we don't stress enough in successful applications is the performative aspect. I had to learn what the academy wanted from its graduate students, then find a way to be authentic to myself while performing the ideal grad school applicant. It's a tricky balance, and for me, one that required a ton of awareness of me as a person, scholar, and teacher as well as of the field I wanted to join. Earning an MA was critical in achieving that balance.

[CarolineNC]

As someone who was shutout with only a BA and had a successful round with an MA, I have some thoughts on this. Looking back, I was an awful applicant coming straight out of undergrad. Like many folks here, I was an exceptional UG student, but I didn't realize that being a great student and writer does not necessarily equal being a great applicant. I thought my SOP was focused; it was not. I thought my WS was original; it was not. Neither of these deficits were emblematic of my abilities. I just didn't know what was needed for grad school applications, and most importantly, I really didn't know what I wanted to study (though, I thought I did!).

After my MA, I was a much better candidate. I had original research interests that were both focused and varied. One of my POIs mentioned how, though I had three distinct interests, I demonstrated how they intersect in my statement. I articulated the kind of scholar-teacher I wanted to be using the vocabulary of our field. I lucked into writing an original WS in one of my MA seminars. My numbers? Pretty much the same. But my packaging of myself and knowledge of the field? So much more improved.

I think what we don't stress enough in successful applications is the performative aspect. I had to learn what the academy wanted from its graduate students, then find a way to be authentic to myself while performing the ideal grad school applicant. It's a tricky balance, and for me, one that required a ton of awareness of me as a person, scholar, and teacher as well as of the field I wanted to join. Earning an MA was critical in achieving that balance.

this this and this!!!! well put!

[kurayamino]

The only thing I can add is from my own personal experience, which is coming straight from BA to PhD. When I realized this was the path I wanted to take I originally expected to apply to MA programs, likely at the same school I was already attending. I had no idea how any of this stuff worked. But, in talking with my advisers, I was told it would behoove me to try and get into some summer research programs to show that I could do the work. I ended up going to two summer research programs where I produced two different 20 page papers and also took a graduate seminar where I produced another 20 page paper. I think, in my case, the ability to research went a long way to show that I was capable of doing work at a higher level because my checkered undergrad history certainly didn't do that at all. I do think that to go from BA to PhD you'll have to do a lot of work outside of the BA to indicate your capabilities. Independent studies, honors thesis, summer research, etc.

[Mattie Roh]

I don't know.  I got accepted to two top 12 English programs at the age of 34, (35 when I began coursework).  And further, I was applying from an unranked state school that does not even offer Ph.Ds.  

 

That's encouraging! I also would have been 35 by the time I started a program, had I gotten in this year.

 

I actually didn't mean to bring up the subject of ageism (though I know that's a thing). It was more of a lament: "Should I bother trying for a third time or is this a sign that my work just isn't hot enough?" Also, "Oh my god, can I even fathom working at this awful job for another year!?"

 

Especially because I've already earned my master's (albeit at a small state school), I feel like my rejections may be a sign to pack it in -- my focus/quality of my work isn't going to change much in the interim. 

 

Nice to know that I'm not alone, Grizbert and WT!

[Grizbert]

That's encouraging! I also would have been 35 by the time I started a program, had I gotten in this year.

 

I actually didn't mean to bring up the subject of ageism (though I know that's a thing). It was more of a lament: "Should I bother trying for a third time or is this a sign that my work just isn't hot enough?" Also, "Oh my god, can I even fathom working at this awful job for another year!?"

 

Especially because I've already earned my master's (albeit at a small state school), I feel like my rejections may be a sign to pack it in -- my focus/quality of my work isn't going to change much in the interim. 

 

Nice to know that I'm not alone, Grizbert and WT!

 

Yep. I am at this point, too.

 

I really want to work as a tenure-track research archivist in a university hybrid library-archives-museum setting. Many of these positions have a dual appointment in an English department. A PhD isn't absolutely necessary otherwise, and I already have a subject MA, so I should be good. This was my last shot at trying for a PhD. Not to imply that I have applied before; I hadn't. But I had been thinking about it for 15 years. And more and more of these types of jobs want PhDs, plus I would genuinely enjoy continuing my research at a deeper level in an English department. I guess I'll have to stick to continuing ed in the form of MOOCs, staff course benefits, and Rare Book School. Not too shabby.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Grizbert

[ComeBackZinc]

1. "Hey, Prof So-and-So's last advisee is graduating this May. We need a couple more people studying Prof So-and-So's field, Queer Cyborg Novels of the Long 17th Century. Pull a couple out of the pile."

 

2. "Hey, Prof So-and-So? This is your old advisee, Associate Prof Such-and-Such. I've got this kid graduating from our BA at the end of the year. She's a great student, super smart, hardworking. And remember how we hired one of your advisees two years ago, and I was on the committee, and I threw my weight around? Yeah, anyway, look out for her app. Thanks!"

[zanmato4794]

It's a good question, and one I'm glad you've brought up.

 

There are definitely people on GC (both past and present) who have gone straight from B.A. to Ph.D. I spent a lot of time last year reading about how a lot of programs actually prefer candidates with only a B.A. But having paid close attention to the acceptances over the past month, I think it's safe to say that you're probably right: most programs don't seem to take candidates straight out of undergrad. I don't know why this was such a big surprise for me to learn, since it seems to make a lot of sense. Nevertheless, that's part of why I have become not just "accepting" of the M.A. offer I received, but am actually excited about it. For me personally, age is a factor (and I figured it could have been a factor in my favor when going from B.A. to Ph.D.), but as a lot of people on here have pointed out, it is a great opportunity to get the lay of the land of graduate studies, and essentially prove your merit on that level. It worries the hell out of me that it puts me back to the age of 37 before I start applying for Ph.D. programs again (meaning 42 at the youngest to graduate), but I've committed to this path. I may find out that, having pursued an M.A., I'll be happy to take that and explore other options.

 

But getting back to your original point, it really is an important lesson to learn. The problem is that since some folks do get accepted to Ph.D. straight from undergrad, that means it is possible, and since a lot of undergraduates who have availed themselves very well in their B.A. programs have no reason to think that they can't make an equivalent leap, it's hard for them to feel dissuaded from that possibility.

 

I have a friend who is a couple of years older than me and is just finishing up her Ph.D. in a different field. She was stunned when I informed her that so many people I know have applied to Ph.D. programs straight from undergrad. She honestly hadn't even heard of that happening (and she actually has a B.A. in English from a dozen years or so ago). While there are going to be many exceptions, as evidenced by the number of folks here on GC making that leap, I firmly believe that it's relatively rare, and that a lot of misinformation has been spread (probably inadvertently) about the chances.

 

Perfect GRE scores, perfect GPAs, great UG institutions, excellent LORs, unique and interesting SOPs and WSs will always turn heads, but for those of us with a blend of those things, it's probably best to go the M.A. route first.

 

Just my opinion after spending a lot of money and carefully observing the process.

 

A few things:

 

1) I find myself wondering if B.A. to PhD is becoming less common as it becomes harder for students working their way through college to have the time to study since working your way through college requires more hours of work every year (and by working your way, I actually just mean having money to live off of if mommy and daddy aren't footing the bill--keeping up with tuition while enrolled at a university without loans is nearly out of the question for most students).

 

2) I also think the field is being made more competitive by students taking gap years, which is potentially in turn making gap years more popular and almost necessary as candidates keep doing things to beef up their numbers and CVs. I took my sweet time applying to both M.A. and PhD programs, and I think it helped me.

 

Basically I think we're seeing a process unfold, not uniformly and with definitely exceptions, but I do think I see the age of the average PhD candidate potentially ticking up for economic and competitive reasons.

 

Also, to make you perhaps feel better: there were many extremely happy 40+ PhD candidates where I did my M.A. One of them was getting her PhD in creative writing, and from what I could tell, it felt like she basically had a career (she started publishing like crazy during the program) and it seemed like taking classes was just something she did for fun and writing her dissertation was just another project among many she was doing. Perhaps you will be able to streamline your professional self with your student self as a PhD candidate so that it doesn't feel too bad to be a student. Also: I don't know how you feel about doing your PhD at UMD, but I bet if you stuck around there for it, they might pop you out in four years since you'd have taken many of the classes.

Edited February 21, 2015 by zanmato4794

[obrial42]

Great discussion about ageism as well as the lack of transparency in this application process. Thanks to all for your insight. I'm 35, and I'll be 36 when I officially start my PhD program in the fall. I certainly hope that my age will not prevent me from getting a good job -- I've never really thought about it. I see my age as an asset, not as a liability. If a university doesn't want to hire me because of my age, they will be missing out on a real catch! 

 

Also, I was rejected from UMass today too. I expected it, but like you all have mentioned, I would have loved to know why OSU and UMass rejected me. I hate the form rejection letter. 

[kurayamino]

A few things:

 

1) I find myself wondering if B.A. to PhD is becoming less common as it becomes harder for students working their way through college to have the time to study since working your way through college requires more hours of work every year (and by working your way, I actually just mean having money to live off of if mommy and daddy aren't footing the bill--keeping up with tuition while enrolled at a university without loans is nearly out of the question for most students).

 

2) I also think the field is being made more competitive by students taking gap years, which is potentially in turn making gap years more popular and almost necessary as candidates keep doing things to beef up their numbers and CVs. I took my sweet time applying to both M.A. and PhD programs, and I think it helped me.

 

Basically I think we're seeing a process unfold, not uniformly and with definitely exceptions, but I do think I see the age of the average PhD candidate potentially ticking up for economic and competitive reasons.

 

Also, to make you perhaps feel better: there were many extremely happy 40+ PhD candidates where I did my M.A. One of them was getting her PhD in creative writing, and from what I could tell, it felt like she basically had a career (she started publishing like crazy during the program) and it seemed like taking classes was just something she did for fun and writing her dissertation was just another project among many she was doing. Perhaps you will be able to streamline your professional self with your student self as a PhD candidate so that it doesn't feel too bad to be a student. Also: I don't know how you feel about doing your PhD at UMD, but I bet if you stuck around there for it, they might pop you out in four years since you'd have taken many of the classes.

 

That's part of the problem indeed. There's hardly any wealth diversity in academia and it takes either fantastic resources from grade school -> right high school -> great BA -> fantastic Phd or an enormous amount of effort to overcome the socioeconomic gap. That's why the GRE is such a useless tool because the only thing I think it accurately tells you is how well you can take the GRE and how much you could afford to pay to prep for it. It tells you absolutely nothing else.

I can only hope that the next wave of professors/academics/advisers are in better positions to change they systematic wealth bias. But hey, if you look around this forum alone, it seems like there quite a few of us who are interested and passionate about doing just that.

[angel_kaye13]

Thank you! Its encouraging that someone in my subfield was accepted to an amazing university the second time around. Congrats for that! I think that in this case my young age (and a number of other factors) worked against me, so I'm hoping that getting some life experience will help. 

Jhefflol, I also wanted to second what onlycoffeeiscertain said: I was REALLY encouraged by your demeanor and outlook. Frankly, I don't have any doubt that some good news is pending, but...a lot of people lose sight on here. Rational people give me a little more hope. ;-) Thanks for that. :-) (Again, I would have "liked" what you said, but apparently I'm out of up-votes???)

Edited February 21, 2015 by angel_kaye13

[__________________________]

That's why the GRE is such a useless tool because the only thing I think it accurately tells you is how well you can take the GRE and how much you could afford to pay to prep for it. It tells you absolutely nothing else.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your point, and also think the GRE is scammy, useless horse shit, I disagree that it only tells how much money you had for prepping. Yes, its expensive, but I didn't spend a dime on preparation -- I literally just skimmed some stuff from a library book and took a couple practice tests. Yes, I could have worked more on it if I wasn't working a couple jobs and taking classes, but I also definitely could have made more time for myself and gotten better scores if I had planned ahead better. I think plenty of people do well on it without paying for classes -- they just plan ahead and study a bunch. You can get all the prep materials you could ever need for free online or from the library.

But yeah, privilege affects this business like any other, unfortunately.

[fancypants09]

If I may chime in about the necessities of MA in pursuing a PhD...my impression is that there is a pedagogical divide on this issue. I took a convoluted route but essentially am going from BA to a PhD (the JD may help with certain aspects of my research later on but doesn't "count" in the same way as a humanities MA). Some POIs expressed concern that I didn't have a MA in the humanities, even though the programs at their schools grant master's in passing to PhD students after completion of coursework; others told me that the lack of MA didn't matter because I had other skills to offset the lack of literary training (proficiency in languages, since I am in non-English national lit and plan on doing quite a bit of comparative work) and that they would guide me through the coursework and any other background knowledge necessary for me to do well. Those concerned with me having/not having the MA were worried about whether I was more than a burnt-out attorney/literary-studies dilettante who could hold her own amongst others who had BAs and MAs in English or other literary studies (my BA is a joint humanities and social science degree but decidedly not literature), and whether I could pass the candidacy exams on time. This did put extreme pressure on me to produce the best writing sample that I could under the circumstances (I had to write one from scratch since I hadn't written a literary analysis since the last time I had such a course in college). My one acceptance thus far came from the school/program with the POI who specifically told me not to worry about not having the MA. I've said it elsewhere before but my admissions results underscored for me the importance of talking to POIs beforehand to get a feel for their take on this and other issues, all important in determining that elusive fit. Regardless of what we make of the admissions process, many highly qualified candidates are rejected not because they aren't smart/worthy/hard-working but because they don't "fit" as well as others do.

Edited February 21, 2015 by fancypants09

[goldfinch1880]

To those of you following along with BAs...don't be discouraged! It is possible! I think the real take-away here is to look at the tangible qualities of what you DID getting your BA. So far I've gotten into 2 PhD programs straight from my BA after two years in the "real world." I completed my BA at a small, liberal arts college with no famous faculty members, and I finished in 3 years instead of 4, which meant I was very focused the whole time (and I took the hardest classes I could, since I knew I was fitting them into 3 years). I also wrote an honors thesis that I set aside to use as a writing sample in the event I wanted to return to academia (which I did). I had no conferences, published papers, etc.

 

All of this to say....sometimes people understandably don't know what they want to do until a couple of years into undergrad, which means grades and class choices can lack a certain focus, which can be remedied by a focused MA program. Also, I highly recommend preparing an air-tight writing sample, rather than just repurposing an essay or two. Again, I think it was the focus of my undergrad, and the opportunity to write a rigorous, interdepartmental honors thesis, that really gave me a sense of who I was as a scholar. but if you didn't have that opportunity (and there's nothing wrong with that), an MA to hone your skills and give you a focused edge could be a real help.  

 

I think schools are looking for a compact "package" and a focused scholar with a plan, so what seems like bias against BAs is really just the fact that some with a BA are less likely to have that scholarly identity and focus. Some can get that in undergrad, and some really benefit from an MA.

[unræd]

So, can I just ask a question because I'm curious?

 

A lot of you who have suffered rejections ( ) have been offered MA positions instead. Most programs aren't taking PhDs right out of undergrad, partially because only about 1/4 of students who have pursued a PhD in English in the past have actually completed it. And I don't know if most undergrads would be prepared for the kind of work a PhD requires. Mother Mary on a Pogo Stick, I definitely wasn't prepared for my MA work when I finished undergrad. Is it possible that a lot of these rejections are happening because schools are trying to avoid offering highly competitive PhD positions to people who are less likely to complete the program (meaning, people who are coming with just an undergrad degree and are less likely to be prepared for PhD work)? The only places I've seen that will take someone with just an undergrad degree are programs that put you through a master's first, and then you feed into the PhD. Like UVA (but seriously, fuck UVA) and UConn and Harvard and whatnot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that's fair in any way, and I'm sure many of you are super brilliant and could totally thrive in a PhD without an MA. I just wonder if maybe that's the reason so many of you have been rejected from so many programs you wanted? I've actually never even met someone (who isn't already a prof) that jumped right into a PhD. 

 

There are indeed plenty of places that still take people straight to PhD from BA, and even in programs that don't grant an "MA along the way"; I've been accepted to a few this cycle (as have plenty of other people in this year's GC cohort), and in the interview weekend I was just at, only two of the six candidates being interviewed for the spots in a PhD program had MAs. Both "people can go straight from undergrad to a phd program" and "MAs provide valuable training and professionalization" can be true at the same time. (And this is field dependent, too, right? I hear that in rhet/comp the MA first is much more the standard path, but I'm not in the field, so ProfLorax and comebackzinc would know better than I.)

 

I think it's hard to generalize about what makes an applicant successful, and while these discussions are interesting, I'm not sure how useful it is to extrapolate from personal experience to recommendation, to go from description to prescription. It's easy to say "I did this, and I was successful," and so it's tempting to slide from that to "this is what works," when it's really just "this is what worked for me, a sample of one." Pace fancypants, I didn't contact POIs; pace goldfinch, while I did work on it some over the summer, my writing sample was indeed just a reworked course paper, not a thesis at all (honors or otherwise). I don't bring up those examples because either was implying that those things are required; I just bring them up to show that there is really an awful lot of diversity in what people do in terms of what yields acceptances (and rejections). Unfortunately, that makes useful generalizations--at least ones that aren't so broad to be meaningless (i.e., "have a good writing sample!")--about the process so hard to come by.

 

ETA: Especially when those generalizations so obscure the parts of the process that really are out of an applicant's control, as a bunch of others have pointed out.

Edited February 22, 2015 by unræd

[greenmt]

This ^^ seems just right to me: useful to hear what others' experiences have been, useless to extrapolate generally.  It's easy to forget, because the process is often so faceless (for legal reasons, I would assume), that the people on admissions committees are people, with the virtues and foibles that people usually have.  Group dynamics are probably a factor: what decision will make everybody in the room reasonably comfortable, and allow Professor Bob and Professor Susie to get along next semester.  Maybe Program A already has a second-career student, while Program B already has a higher proportion of straight-outta-undergrad than it has historically.  

 

The above comment made me remember instances in which I've hired people for work: some people just stand out, and it can be hard to say why.  They're not always the people with the most relevant experience, or the shiniest, most polished cover letter, or the greatest enthusiasm.  They just seem to fit, and you feel they'll ease in and do well in the context you know well (but they don't), and get the job done and be reasonably pleasant to work with.  It's probably profoundly unfair to make choices like that essentially by guessing, but it happens in hiring, and I bet it happens a lot in admissions committee meetings, too.  

[saeidekarimi]

who applied for gender studies in UCLA?