Nothing but bad news... so now what?

[ForlornHope]

I have to say that my universal rejections this year were a bit of a surprise. Planning your entire life around whatever possibilities may occur only to find that none of your supposed scenarios panned out is a bit of a hit. I know that many have tried for several years to get that elusive acceptance, but I have personally reached my limit. I feel that it is time to sail for distant shores and leave academia behind.

 

For any others that are in the same boat: what are your plans now? I, for one, wonder what to do now with my unfortunate unemployability due to many years of "experience" lost in this pursuit. Language and writing skills do not translate well into potential careers as much as I would have hoped (as is evident to me from a few years of trying to find employment).

[Kleio_77]

I'm still in my undergrad but have a job as a technical writer for government. If I were not accepted into a program next fall, I was considering doing a graduate certificate in professional writing. I know technical writing does not sound very exciting, but it is a start and can open the door to many other writing positions. 

 

Sorry to hear about the outcome of your applications this year.  

[historygradhopeful]

I'm in the same boat as you are, ForlornHope.  This is actually my second time through applications.  The first time I applied out of undergrad (3.91 GPA) with honors degrees in History and Philosophy with Honor's Theses in both.  I had traveled abroad and spoke some of the language of my field (3 years training).  I applied to UVA, UNC, Duke, Michigan, and NYU and was rejected across the board without so much as a waitlist.  After that debacle I went overseas to teach English and study my language to fluency, then came back and completed a master's program at a low-ranked liberal arts university.  I still excelled in my field and graduated with a 4.00 GPA, had a portion of my Master's Thesis published, and added reading competency in another language related to my field.  With all of that combined, I also presented my research at a number of respected conferences and had good networking.  I scored a 165 on my GRE verbal and 5.5 on my writing.  I had recommendations from professors out of Columbia and Brown.  

 

After I graduated from my MA last summer, I applied to UVA, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Chicago.  In the meantime, I was awarded a teaching fellowship at the University I graduated from and my teaching reviews were among the best in the department (including longer-tenured professors).  I continued my research, talked with POI's at all the schools, and reported all of these achievements on my applications.  I was dropped in the first round of rejections in every. single. school. I applied to.  I wasn't so much as waitlisted at any of them, although Columbia had the gall to offer me an unfunded MA in East Asian Languages and Cultures that would have cost me ~200K over two years.  

 

I'm, frankly, devastated.  I love teaching and it has always been something that has filled me with joy.  I have always wanted to be a tenured professor and inspire students to get to new heights and, frankly, I think i'm damn good at the job.  However, it seems for some reason I just can't get my foot in the door.  As sad as it makes me, I'm toying with the idea of completely switching fields.  I may try and go into medicine so that I can actually get a job.  

 

So that's my story.  I did all the right things, I learned the languages, I excelled in my field, but apparently that wasn't enough?  I'm just about ready to throw my hands up and switch out of this profession entirely towards something that can support me without killing me emotionally.

[Bactrian]

I'm in the same boat as you are, ForlornHope.  This is actually my second time through applications.  The first time I applied out of undergrad (3.91 GPA) with honors degrees in History and Philosophy with Honor's Theses in both.  I had traveled abroad and spoke some of the language of my field (3 years training).  I applied to UVA, UNC, Duke, Michigan, and NYU and was rejected across the board without so much as a waitlist.  After that debacle I went overseas to teach English and study my language to fluency, then came back and completed a master's program at a low-ranked liberal arts university.  I still excelled in my field and graduated with a 4.00 GPA, had a portion of my Master's Thesis published, and added reading competency in another language related to my field.  With all of that combined, I also presented my research at a number of respected conferences and had good networking.  I scored a 165 on my GRE verbal and 5.5 on my writing.  I had recommendations from professors out of Columbia and Brown.  

 

After I graduated from my MA last summer, I applied to UVA, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Chicago.  In the meantime, I was awarded a teaching fellowship at the University I graduated from and my teaching reviews were among the best in the department (including longer-tenured professors).  I continued my research, talked with POI's at all the schools, and reported all of these achievements on my applications.  I was dropped in the first round of rejections in every. single. school. I applied to.  I wasn't so much as waitlisted at any of them, although Columbia had the gall to offer me an unfunded MA in East Asian Languages and Cultures that would have cost me ~200K over two years.  

 

I'm, frankly, devastated.  I love teaching and it has always been something that has filled me with joy.  I have always wanted to be a tenured professor and inspire students to get to new heights and, frankly, I think i'm damn good at the job.  However, it seems for some reason I just can't get my foot in the door.  As sad as it makes me, I'm toying with the idea of completely switching fields.  I may try and go into medicine so that I can actually get a job.  

 

So that's my story.  I did all the right things, I learned the languages, I excelled in my field, but apparently that wasn't enough?  I'm just about ready to throw my hands up and switch out of this profession entirely towards something that can support me without killing me emotionally.

 

I've mentioned this before on these forums, but if you decide make another run try taking a long look at your statement of purpose. The interests you express and the project you pitch are what really grab a committee's attention. You need to walk a fine line where you demonstrate that you have thought deeply about your field, enough to form a feasible and interesting project, while also not coming across as intellectually rigid (they want to be able to teach you). The letters and the tests and the impressive CV are all there to convince the committee that you are able to do what you say it is you want to do. But the project you articulate is what really sets you apart from the other applicants.

[chtodelat]

I'm in the same boat as you are, ForlornHope.  This is actually my second time through applications.  The first time I applied out of undergrad (3.91 GPA) with honors degrees in History and Philosophy with Honor's Theses in both.  I had traveled abroad and spoke some of the language of my field (3 years training).  I applied to UVA, UNC, Duke, Michigan, and NYU and was rejected across the board without so much as a waitlist.  After that debacle I went overseas to teach English and study my language to fluency, then came back and completed a master's program at a low-ranked liberal arts university.  I still excelled in my field and graduated with a 4.00 GPA, had a portion of my Master's Thesis published, and added reading competency in another language related to my field.  With all of that combined, I also presented my research at a number of respected conferences and had good networking.  I scored a 165 on my GRE verbal and 5.5 on my writing.  I had recommendations from professors out of Columbia and Brown.  

 

After I graduated from my MA last summer, I applied to UVA, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Chicago.  In the meantime, I was awarded a teaching fellowship at the University I graduated from and my teaching reviews were among the best in the department (including longer-tenured professors).  I continued my research, talked with POI's at all the schools, and reported all of these achievements on my applications.  I was dropped in the first round of rejections in every. single. school. I applied to.  I wasn't so much as waitlisted at any of them, although Columbia had the gall to offer me an unfunded MA in East Asian Languages and Cultures that would have cost me ~200K over two years.  

 

I'm, frankly, devastated.  I love teaching and it has always been something that has filled me with joy.  I have always wanted to be a tenured professor and inspire students to get to new heights and, frankly, I think i'm damn good at the job.  However, it seems for some reason I just can't get my foot in the door.  As sad as it makes me, I'm toying with the idea of completely switching fields.  I may try and go into medicine so that I can actually get a job.  

 

So that's my story.  I did all the right things, I learned the languages, I excelled in my field, but apparently that wasn't enough?  I'm just about ready to throw my hands up and switch out of this profession entirely towards something that can support me without killing me emotionally.

 

This is exactly the sort of arbitrarity that baffles me so much about the application process. So many of the factors that help one gain acceptance are down to the idiosyncrasies of the departments to which one is applying at the exact time that the admissions committee receives the application. Add to that the notion that a writing sample of (by European standards at least) miniscule size and an SOP where one can essentially have 500-1500 words of BS as a barometer for acceptance to a PHD is nonsense. 

 

I am also fluent in the language which pertains to my studies. I have lived in the country for two years now as well. I have a first class honours degree from a top british uni. I also have two masters degrees from a british university and one from an institution in the region I am studying. I am published (academically and as a journalist) with pieces related to the region I wish to study. Add to that I have been a teaching assistant and delivered lectures at a university here in the region based on my MA thesis. 

 

What more can I do, I really don't know. I guess I will just have to learn how to BS better the next time in my SOP. That was a bit of a rant, but overall very cathartic.

[ashiepoo72]

I'm sorry to see you guys going through this. I have to stress two things that will help you get accepted. Focus on fit, not on program prestige, and cast a wide net. If what you love is teaching, it shouldn't matter if you go to a well-ranked program that's outside of the top 10. No matter what, you're competing with hundreds of other people with perfect scores, publications and multitude of accomplishments--I truly believe what sets applicants apart is thoughtfully choosing programs that fit their interests and showing that in the SOP. Casting a wider net is the advice given me by my LOR writers and mentors (Harvard and Columbia and Stanford grads, no less). Look at stuff like placement rates at programs that go beyond the school rank.

If this is what you love, I hope you don't give up.

[dr. t]

an SOP where one can essentially have 500-1500 words of BS as a barometer for acceptance... I will just have to learn how to BS better the next time in my SOP.

 

Rant or not, this is probably not a healthy or productive way to approach a SoP.

 

Focus on fit, not on program prestige, and cast a wide net. If what you love is teaching, it shouldn't matter if you go to a well-ranked program that's outside of the top 10... Casting a wider net is the advice given me by my LOR writers and mentors (Harvard and Columbia and Stanford grads, no less). Look at stuff like placement rates at programs that go beyond the school rank.

 

I have to disagree with this, even if it is advice I received from one of my professors; he has not been on the market for three decades. Find the professors who interest you, whose work excites and inspires you, and who are close to your interests either in methodology or subject (or both). I would be surprised if this number is higher than 5. At the same time, recognize that prestige does matter. Do not tell yourself the lie that if you go is more important than where you go. If you find yourself saying, "It's OK, this is not for the job, this is because I want to do this," stop and evaluate that impulse. For some people, it might be true. For the majority, I suspect, it's a way to internally justify a bad decision. And if you "just want to teach" then you don't need or want a PhD.

 

Have a stopping point. Set it early, and stick to it. When I first started, I allowed myself three cycles, and then I would try to do something else. Do not become so focused on this one goal that you lose sight of everything else.

 

As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, to do graduate work you need a critical and analytic mind. If you've found this forum, I assume you have one. Don't forget to use it on yourself every once in a while. 

Edited March 3, 2015 by telkanuru

[nerdguy]

Why not a middle ground? Find good fits at multiple levels of prestige. Top ten, top 25, other moderately well ranked programs as well. Unless you pigeon hole yourself, you probably could find people to work with in various places. And as much as adcoms are looking for specificity, they also want people with open minds.

 

But let's face it though, the level of sophistication - I'm not saying unnecessary complication - but yes the level of the work in your writing sample and the level of the project you propose is all important at getting you in. The LORs and the CV, GPA, GRE, etc. are there to prove you are not bullshitting right? A big name might be important, but we can't all get those. Focus on the core of the whole thing - the things that show your writing and ideas.

 

Yes in the end prestige might count, and I think we will all need to join hands to fight for the rights of adjuncts - the lot they are being handed is garbage - but we aren't there yet. We are just trying to get in to a program that will pay us to sharpen our skills and minds and eventually produce a dissertation.

[dr. t]

FWIW, this scientific paper suggests that the top 30 or so schools satisfy the "prestige requirement" in history. According to the study, they are (in order): Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Princeton, Stanford, UChicago, Columbia, Brandeis, JHU, UPenn, UWis-Mad, UMich, UCLA, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, UCDavis, URochester, NYU, UCSD, Duke, UMinn-Minn, Rutgers, UNC-CH, UVirginia, USC, UWashington, MIT, UT-Austin, Emory.

 

Some adjusting for your specific subfield is, of course, appropriate.

 

Such a list is not proscriptive, but it serves as a useful guide. If you find yourself reaching outside it, that should trigger a self-examination at the very least.

Edited March 3, 2015 by telkanuru

[SunshineLolipops]

telkanuru: I agree with the top 30 approach in that it seems to combine prestige (for future employment) with potential for admission. In ufact,that was the model I used this cycle. Sometimes it just doesn't work out, and you have to reassess your own effort (as I'm having to do now).

[ForlornHope]

Do not tell yourself the lie that if you go is more important than where you go. If you find yourself saying, "It's OK, this is not for the job, this is because I want to do this," stop and evaluate that impulse. For some people, it might be true. For the majority, I suspect, it's a way to internally justify a bad decision. And if you "just want to teach" then you don't need or want a PhD.

 

This has been my view of the entire situation. Along with the thoughts of my LOR writers, I was not interested in spending 6-7 years of my life working toward meager prospects of a truly rewarding career. At this point, my thoughts turn to the legal field, since many of the skills would seem to translate fairly well. My own self-examination leaves a torn picture: I still am ardently wishing to enter this field, but practicality is always an issue. I did not intend to apply to any program under the top-30 (with Boston College being an exception due to its MA possibility since I do not have one, yet).

 

My overall hopes were to be involved in a profession where prestige and accomplishments are limited only by one's ambition. I was not interested in spending several years working for less than minimum wage after completed a PhD at a lower-ranked school. As brutal as it sounds, I do not have the patience for such trials and have no interest in being taken advantage of in such a way as academia tends to do in the current job market.

 

Historygradhopeful, my best wishes go out to you in all your endeavors.

[historygradhopeful]

Rant or not, this is probably not a healthy or productive way to approach a SoP.

 

 

I have to disagree with this, even if it is advice I received from one of my professors; he has not been on the market for three decades. Find the professors who interest you, whose work excites and inspires you, and who are close to your interests either in methodology or subject (or both). I would be surprised if this number is higher than 5. At the same time, recognize that prestige does matter. Do not tell yourself the lie that if you go is more important than where you go. If you find yourself saying, "It's OK, this is not for the job, this is because I want to do this," stop and evaluate that impulse. For some people, it might be true. For the majority, I suspect, it's a way to internally justify a bad decision. And if you "just want to teach" then you don't need or want a PhD.

 

Have a stopping point. Set it early, and stick to it. When I first started, I allowed myself three cycles, and then I would try to do something else. Do not become so focused on this one goal that you lose sight of everything else.

 

As I'm sure I don't need to tell you, to do graduate work you need a critical and analytic mind. If you've found this forum, I assume you have one. Don't forget to use it on yourself every once in a while. 

 

 

I have to agree with your analysis that prestige matters.  I read an article the other day (I KNEW I should have saved it) that was saying how more and more often the people who can land tenure track jobs are those from the top 10.  Shockingly, your chances of becoming gainfully employed drop off significantly in the 11-20 range as you're 3 times less likely to get a tenure-track post at those Universities.  The situation becomes even more bleak outside of the top twenty, as you're now competing for jobs with those people who came from the top 10/20 and have the connections and prestige to go with it.  In my case (specialized sub-field), it doesn't make sense to go at all unless I can get in to the top 10.

[historygradhopeful]

This has been my view of the entire situation. Along with the thoughts of my LOR writers, I was not interested in spending 6-7 years of my life working toward meager prospects of a truly rewarding career. At this point, my thoughts turn to the legal field, since many of the skills would seem to translate fairly well. My own self-examination leaves a torn picture: I still am ardently wishing to enter this field, but practicality is always an issue. I did not intend to apply to any program under the top-30 (with Boston College being an exception due to its MA possibility since I do not have one, yet).

 

My overall hopes were to be involved in a profession where prestige and accomplishments are limited only by one's ambition. I was not interested in spending several years working for less than minimum wage after completed a PhD at a lower-ranked school. As brutal as it sounds, I do not have the patience for such trials and have no interest in being taken advantage of in such a way as academia tends to do in the current job market.

 

Historygradhopeful, my best wishes go out to you in all your endeavors.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the kind words.  I hope you can find something fruitful in your searches as well.  Your sentiments are mostly the same as my own; I love this career and what I do now, but is it worth sacrificing another 5-7 years of my life for a Ph.D. from a lower ranked University to work adjunct positions?  I have a colleague at the school I work now who got her Ph.D. from the University of Florida and has published several papers and has a book deal.  She is an adjunct who makes >15,000$ a year, with no benefits and security.  She's been in the business for almost 7 years now.  I don't want that kind of life, and it is a damn shame in my opinion.

[ForlornHope]

In the end, money is still incredibly important. If your goal is to write and publish, there are ways to do that without working for a university. If your wish is to be an amazing teacher, universities would love to have you as a lecturer. 

 

Quite frankly, my wife is not really interested in me going through this whole process! She is just about to finish a PhD, herself, and the pressure is incredibly overwhelming. In particular (and of course this does not apply to every adviser or program), the feeling of being such a disposable asset to her department has been a terrible experience. This is in engineering, however, and my naive hope for everyone entering humanities is that the professors there have a bit more heart. I imagine it is the case, at least judging by the personality and sentiments that this forum has shown of those wanting to enter the field.

 

To those who made it, best of luck. To those who did not, all the same.

[Henry Hudson]

I have to say that my universal rejections this year were a bit of a surprise. Planning your entire life around whatever possibilities may occur only to find that none of your supposed scenarios panned out is a bit of a hit. I know that many have tried for several years to get that elusive acceptance, but I have personally reached my limit. I feel that it is time to sail for distant shores and leave academia behind.

 

For any others that are in the same boat: what are your plans now? I, for one, wonder what to do now with my unfortunate unemployability due to many years of "experience" lost in this pursuit. Language and writing skills do not translate well into potential careers as much as I would have hoped (as is evident to me from a few years of trying to find employment).

 

I was in that position last year, but decided I had set my sights too high (only applied to three top-tier schools). I sent out four apps this time; if I do not get in anywhere, I am done. 

 

Not getting into the first round of acceptances this year was discouraging, especially for Rutgers (as their rarely seems to be a second round). Onl one actual rejection thus far, but I am not particularly optimistic at all right now. In prior years, I would get into all but one of my choices. Now I cannot seem to get into any. I guess leaving one PhD program has been the kiss of death for me. 

 

This will be it for me, win or lose. 

[turnings]

I think it should be noted that publishing for the sake of publishing is often a mistake. As an undergraduate it was suggested to me by a professor that I publish an essay I'd written. My adviser recommended against this. Why? Because the prestige of where you publish matters. Nobody really cares that you've published a paper in a minor regional journal. Now I'm not saying you should never publish unless it's the AHR. I am simply emphasizing that you should not expect a couple of publications to make a big difference in the admissions process. As everyone else has said, the writing sample and statement of purpose are the alpha and the omega.

[ashiepoo72]

Program prestige is also heavily dependent on subfield. If you want to study African history and aren't taking MSU seriously, for example, you've not done your homework. As good historians should, make sure and do your research. Know your subfield, and it'll help you choose the right programs.

[dr. t]

Program prestige is also heavily dependent on subfield. If you want to study African history and aren't taking MSU seriously, for example, you've not done your homework. As good historians should, make sure and do your research. Know your subfield, and it'll help you choose the right programs.

 

Program prestige is moderately dependent on your subfield. The general prestige of the institution always comes into it.

 

After some thought, I would phrase my point thus: We want to spend our lives in the study of a small part of history. This is our goal, and a PhD is the means to it, and not the final achievement. When applying to and choosing programs, keep yourself centered on the actual target and be sure you do not substitute the intermediate step for it.

[ashiepoo72]

We can argue over semantics, but in certain cases it is heavily dependent on subfield. When a program like MSU, ordinarily ranked in the 50s, is ranked in the top 5 for African history, that's a huge difference. That WILL affect your career prospects.

All I'm really suggesting here is that people know their subfield. Don't apply to places that are not strong in the field you want to work.

[ForlornHope]

In addition, I would imagine that knowing you will be working with a well-published and renowned professor might weigh your decision. My favorite authors don't necessarily come from Harvard and Cambridge.

 

Though, it seems I have started a thread for 2016 applicants' assistance.

Edited March 3, 2015 by ForlornHope

[a.rev]

I'm 99% sure I've struck out this year. When I talked to my adviser he gave me the same advice he gives when people ask about publishing, that if I wasn't getting rejected I wasn't aiming high enough. Next year I plan to cast a wider net. As I explained to him, I only applied to my top choices this time around for a handful of reasons. Number one is that I wanted to go through the process and learn from it, if I was accepted it would be great but I didn't want to apply to programs that I knew I could get in to without testing the waters. Next year I'll likely switch up a few of the schools but apply to at least 8. I also utilized the CIC app fee waiver so it wasn't like I was dropping $300 just to apply.

I have to agree with Telkanuru, a recent report (like last week I think) showed that the number of TT jobs in history tend to go to graduates from just a handful of schools. As much as we don't want to admit it, where you go matters. Where this gets tricky is when it comes down to specialty. I'm going to use my specialty as an example since I know a little more about it. Unless you're joining a school that already has several Africanists, chances are most people are not going to know MSU is in the top 5 of African programs. They're just going to know you went to MSU, where you've published, what awards/grants you've gotten, and what your research is. (Obviously this is the case for most small-mid size state schools, where I assume most of us will probably get jobs. At least in the beginning.) Something my professor suggested to me is to apply to well known schools with lesser known African programs, Johns Hopkins is an example. They are probably not getting as many applicants for your specialty so they're willing to take a chance (maybe not in the case of JH but other schools.) Now, if you go to a top program in your specialty you will have a built in network and more funding. However, the downside is that you have a lot of competition for money and that your professors may not have as much time to devote to you as a student. Typically they are very high performing and might be overseeing multiple dissertations, one of the people I wanted to work with had 7 they were advising. That's not including just being on the committee.

There are pros and cons to both situations, just make sure to look at both sides and weigh them accordingly. At the end of the day it's what you think is best for you.

On the otherhand, I had another professor suggest I look into what programs are just now trying to sink money into an African specialty. They'll be more forgiving with languages, more willing to throw money at you, and less competition. He did exactly that and it's worked great for him. He recieved his PhD just a few years ago, has a TT position, published several articles, has one book coming out next year and another in the works. Part of this is that he's brilliant but also that he was in a position where the school wanted to cultivate leaders in his specialty so they put a lot of time and effort into those students. He and almost every one of his cohorts have actually surpassed many of those who went to more prestigious universities in his field.

As for my plans, I've applied for a Middle Eastern studies grant to spend six weeks conducting research in North Africa this summer. If I get it, I'll try to get in contact with an NGO or at least an English language school (ideally in Tangier). I plan to stay stateside until next December to get my ducks in a row (but also sinking more time into my thesis and defending) and then will hopefully live in Morocco for 6 months teaching English or working at an NGO. I'm not going to pretend that my application was perfect but not having lived in the country I want to study was a glaring flaw. As my professor put it, schools don't want to put 2-4 years into a student only to have them visit the country for the first time and leave the program because they can't handle living there. Anyway, I spent about one day being sad and then immediately started asking how can I better myself, how can I become a better applicant. I think this is key, don't give up, don't wallow in self-pity, and don't question your abilities. There are so many reasons you didn't get in this year and most of them have nothing to do with your intellectual abilities or quality as a student.

[ellebe]

Oh man, guys. This. All of this stuff is twisting me up like crazy. 

 

I want to teach and write history more than anything else in the world. I get paid to write about eating, drinking, hotels and travel. It's fun, but it's not satisfying.

 

I bloody love the eureka moments when you're reading a text and an idea comes to you and you fill up a page with tangents before finally articulating that one really satisfying thing you're going to contribute to a discussion. And teaching. Those moments when a student really gets it and you want to jump up and down and fight back a few lame ass tears pricking the back of your eyes.

 

After a long, rocky job hunt, I can tell you this: if you're gonna fight for a job, make it the job of your dreams. I'm starting my new role next week and I feel heavy and tired and awful all the time. Without an acceptance to focus on, this next step just sucks. (I tend to get a little too intense about this stuff. I am aware.)

 

I fully intend to apply again next year because... well, what else can you do? The problem is, I don't know how to fix the things that might be holding me back. 

 

1) Undergrad GPA: started out mediocre, finished strong, balanced out to a meh GPA. (Friggin U of T and their science credit requirement...)

 

2) MA grades: really great essay marks all year, but those don't count towards your final. It's all exams and dissertation. I suck at exams and screwed up my dissertation. A very medium finish. 

 

3) My background's pretty all over the place. I'm kind of switching fields, too. My project carries on a post-war memory/identity theme I've based most of my academic choices around, but the US-specific context is new. Considering how competitive American history spots are... I'm probably not ideal.

 

4) The only language component of my project would potentially be French. I'm Canadian, I lived in Switzerland, I've had French clients. There are no French courses on my transcript because I already had a pretty solid working knowledge. 

 

5) GRE scores. I got a 168 verbal, the exact same as my first diagnostic score. A 152 quant, a hell of an improvement but maybe not enough. And the kicker: 4.0 on the essay component. Apparently my exam writing skills haven't improved. Not what a committee wants to see, right?

 

I don't know what to do at this point to make myself a more attractive candidate. I can't turn back time and fix the bumps in my past, only learn from them and come out stronger. And there are good points, too: teaching experience, an undergrad publication.

 

Maybe I should use a different writing sample, one that did well the first time around? I mean, should I be considering a second MA? And then how much further down the line does the PhD actually happen?

 

I'm stressing guys, sorry. It's just nice to put this out there to an audience that may actually have some answers. 

[Magellan1521]

In response to the discussion of institution or departmental prestige, here's a question that, I believe, we should all consider:  Does the institution/department hire its own graduates or does it hire from higher-ranked/more prestigious institutions?  

Edited March 4, 2015 by Magellan1521

[ForlornHope]

should I be considering a second MA?

 

That seems like a dangerous road to go down, Ellebe. Can anyone back me up that a second MA would be a waste of time and money?

 

From the sounds of it, your concrete areas for improvement come mostly from certified, reported things such as language credits and GRE. I had a similar flaw in that my Latin proficiency is not illustrated on my transcript, and my writing sample used mostly Norman French and Middle English. It is unfortunate, but such is the way of things. I imagine that the 4.0 writing score is the big killer. If you do plan to retest, remember to write in algorithms, rather than they way you are accustomed to.

[dr. t]

5) GRE scores. I got a 168 verbal, the exact same as my first diagnostic score. A 152 quant, a hell of an improvement but maybe not enough. And the kicker: 4.0 on the essay component. Apparently my exam writing skills haven't improved. Not what a committee wants to see, right?

 

I once asked the DGS at Notre Dame how they valued the writing component of the GRE, as I had gotten a 4.5 and wanted to know if I should retake. His response? "That's the bit that's out of six, right?" 

 

Told me everything I needed to know.